text:
Scott McClellan

Scott McClellan (born February 14, 1968) is the former White House Press Secretary (2003–06) for President George W. Bush, he was the 24th person to hold this post. He was also the author of a controversial No. 1 New York Times bestseller about the Bush administration titled What Happened. He replaced Ari Fleischer as press secretary in July 2003 and served until May 10, 2006. McClellan was the longest serving press secretary under George W. Bush.

He is now the Vice President for Communications at Seattle University.

Family
Born in Austin, Texas, McClellan is the youngest son of Carole Keeton, former Texas State Comptroller and former 2006 independent Texas gubernatorial candidate, and attorney Barr McClellan. McClellan's brother Mark headed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and was formerly Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration. McClellan is the grandson of the late W. Page Keeton, longtime Dean of the University of Texas School of Law and renowned expert in tort law. He married Jill Martinez in November 2003. They have three sons.

Career

McClellan graduated from Austin High School in 1986. He was a top-ranked tennis player there and served as student council president. He later graduated from The University of Texas at Austin, where he was president of Sigma Phi Epsilon and a member of the tennis team in his early college years, with a B.A. in 1991. He served as campaign manager for three of his mother's successful campaigns for statewide office. In addition, he worked on political grassroots efforts and was the Chief of Staff to a Texas State Senator.

Karen Hughes, then-Governor of Texas George W. Bush's communications director, hired McClellan to be Bush's deputy communications director. McClellan served as Bush's traveling press secretary during the 2000 presidential election. McClellan became White House Deputy Press Secretary in 2001. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, who stepped down as White House Press Secretary on July 15, 2003. McClellan announced his resignation as Press Secretary on April 19, 2006, and was replaced with Tony Snow.

Memoir and criticism of Bush administration
McClellan criticized the Bush administration in his 2008 memoir, What Happened. In the book, he accused Bush of "self-deception" and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather than making the best choices. McClellan stopped short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing that the administration was not "employing out-and-out deception" to make the case for war in 2002, though he did assert the administration relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" to sell the Iraq War. His book was also critical of the White House press corps for being too accepting of the administration's perspective on the war, and of Condoleezza Rice for being "too accommodating" and overly careful about protecting her own reputation.

In a Washington Post article on June 1, 2008, McClellan said of Bush: "I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."

Speaking frequently on the TV circuit, McClellan told Keith Olbermann in an interview on June 9, 2008, regarding the Iraq War planning: "I don't think there was a conspiracy theory there, some conspiracy to deliberately mislead. I don't want to imply a sinister intent. There might have been some individuals that knew more than others and tried to push things forward in a certain way, and that's something I can't speak to. I don't think that you had a bunch of people sitting around a room, planning and plotting in a sinister way. That's the point I make in the book. At the same time, whether or not it was sinister or not, it was very troubling that we went to war on this basis."

As a result of his assertions in his book, McClellan was invited to testify before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary. During the actual testimony McClellan said: "I do not think the president had any knowledge" (of the revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. agent); "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."

Response to criticisms
The Bush administration responded through Press Secretary Dana Perino, who said, "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."

Critics of McClellan's book included former White House staffers such as Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, Ari Fleischer and Mary Matalin. Fleischer and Matalin have claimed that McClellan had not shared similar doubts during his tenure in the White House, and that if he had held such doubts then he ought not to have replaced Fleischer as Press Secretary. McClellan has responded by stating that he, like many other Americans, was inclined to give the administration the "benefit of the doubt" on the necessity of the Iraq War, and did not fully appreciate the circumstances until after leaving the "White House bubble".

Bob Dole penned an excoriation of McClellan's book, writing, "Bottom line is that I have little respect for turncoats like McClellan who have it both ways. Some in public (and private) life have no shame when big bucks are involved. If their motive is 'good government,' O.K. but that's rarely the case." Dole likened the experience to a personal one, referring to a book, "Senator for Sale," written in 1995 by his ex-staffer, Stanley Hilton, who worked for him in 1979 and 1980. Dole's spokesperson, Nelson Warfield, responded to the book by characterizing it, in the Boston Globe, as "pure garbage," a "lame attempt at character assassination."

On May 28, 2008, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly presented a clip from an interview with Fleischer, who suggested that the book was heavily influenced by the publisher's editor. In a subsequent interview on The O'Reilly Factor days later, McClellan told O'Reilly that contention was not true. McClellan further testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee that Fleischer's assertion was false. McClellan stated on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann that "everything in the book is a clear reflection of my views and everything in the book is mine."

2008 election cycle
McClellan endorsed Barack Obama for president on CNN's D.L. Hughley Breaks the News aired on October 25, 2008. The endorsement was reported in the press two days earlier as the show had been taped prior to airing.

title: Scott McClellan


text:
Noise-cancelling headphones

Noise-cancelling headphones are headphones which suppress unwanted ambient sounds using active noise control. This is distinct from passive headphones which, if they reduce ambient sounds at all, use techniques such as soundproofing.

Noise cancellation makes it possible to listen to audio content without raising the volume excessively. In the aviation environment, noise-cancelling headphones increase the signal-to-noise ratio significantly more than passive noise attenuating headphones or no headphones, making hearing important information such as safety announcements easier. Noise-cancelling headphones can improve listening enough to completely offset the effect of a distracting concurrent activity.

Theory
To cancel the lower-frequency portions of the noise, noise-cancelling headphones use active noise control or ANC. A microphone captures the targeted ambient sounds, and a small amplifier generates sound waves that are exactly out of phase with the undesired sounds. When the sound pressure of the noise wave is high, the cancelling wave is low (and vice versa). The opposite sound waves collide and are eliminated or "cancelled" (destructive interference). Most noise-cancelling headsets in the consumer market generate the noise-cancelling waveform in real time with analogue technology. In contrast, other active noise and vibration control products use soft real-time digital processing. According to an experiment conducted to test how lightweight earphones reduced noise as compared to commercial headphones and earphones, lightweight headphones achieved better noise reduction than normal headphones. The experiment also supported that in-ear headphones worked better at reducing noise than outer-ear headphones.

Cancellation focuses on constant droning sounds like road noise and is less effective on short/sharp sounds like voices or breaking glass. It also is ineffective in eliminating higher frequency noises like the sound of spraying. Noise-cancelling headphones often combine sound isolation with ANC to maximize the sound reduction across the frequency spectrum. Noise cancellation can also be used without sound isolation to make wanted sounds (such as voices) easier to hear. Noise cancellation to eliminate ambient noise is never passive because of the circuitry required, so references to passive noise cancellation actually are referring to products featuring sound isolation.

To prevent higher-frequency noise from reaching the ear, most noise-cancelling headphones depend on sound isolation or soundproofing. Higher-frequency sound has a shorter wavelength, and cancelling this sound would require locating devices to detect and counteract it closer to the listener's eardrum than is currently technically feasible or would require digital algorithms that would complicate the headphone's electronics.

Noise-cancelling headphones specify the amount of noise they can cancel in terms of decibels. This number may be useful for comparing products but does not tell the whole story, as it does not specify noise reduction at various frequencies.

In aviation
By the 1950s, Dr. Lawrence Jerome Fogel created systems and submitted patents regarding active noise cancellation in the field of aviation. This system was designed to reduce noise for the pilots in the cockpit area and help make their communication easier and protect hearing. Fogel is considered to be the inventor of active noise cancellation, and he designed one of the first noise-cancelling headphones systems. Later on, Willard Meeker designed an active noise control model that was applied to circumaural earmuffs for advanced hearing protection. Noise-cancelling aviation headsets are now commonly available.

In 1989, Bose Corporation introduced its "Series I Aviation Headset" which became the first commercially available ANR headset. It included a noise-cancelling function and was powered either by NiCad batteries (with a claimed battery life of 8 hours) or by power from the aircraft. Series I aviation headsets are distinguished by the clear windows on the earcups or by noting that the on/off switch and volume control are located on the separate control module.

Several airlines provide noise-cancelling headphones in their business and first-class cabins. Bose started supplying American Airlines with noise-cancelling headphones in 1999 and started offering the "Quiet Comfort" line for the general consumer in 2000. Noise cancelling is particularly effective against aircraft engine noise.

As a sleeping aid
Noise-cancellation headphones have been used as sleeping aids as well. Both passive isolating and active noise-cancellation headphones or earplugs help to achieve a reduction of ambient sounds, which is particularly helpful for people suffering from insomnia or other sleeping disorders, for whom sounds such as cars honking and snoring impact their ability to sleep. For that reason, noise-cancelling sleep headphones and ear plugs are designed to cater to this segment of patients.

In hospitals
The use of noise-cancelling headphones for patients in intensive care units has been implemented to reduce the amount of noise exposure that they face while in a hospital environment. Active noise control technology is shown to have a relationship with sleep disturbance, delirium, and morbidity, therefore bringing up concerns about lowering the levels of noise for patients receiving care.

Health and safety
There is a general danger that listening to loud music in headphones can distract the listener and lead to injury and accidents. Noise-cancelling headphones add extra risk. Several countries and states have made it illegal to wear headphones while driving or cycling.

It is not uncommon to get a pressure-like feeling when using noise-cancelling headphones initially. This is caused by the lack of low-frequency sounds as being perceived as a pressure differential between the inner and outer ear.

Autism
A December 2016 study from the Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy found that noise-cancellation headphones helped children with autism spectrum disorder cope with behaviors related to hyper-reactivity and auditory stimuli.

Drawbacks
The active noise control requires power, usually supplied by a USB port or a battery that must occasionally be replaced or recharged. Without power, some models do not function as regular headphones. Any battery and additional electronics may increase the size and weight of the headphones compared to regular headphones. The noise-cancelling circuitry may reduce audio quality and add high-frequency hiss, although reducing the noise may result in higher perceived audio quality.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Noise-cancelling headphones


text:
Talk:Kowloon Walled City

Validating Information
"Also, as the Walled City was beginning to be torn down, a group of Japanese explorers took about a week to tour the empty walled city, making a sort of map and a cross section of the city"

Interesting bit of information with no online source to validate or confirm. Would someone mind posting a link to this reference? This statement just hangs there... Not saying to remove it, just support it.

 * Accidently found it http://web.archive.org/web/20020208225753/www.flex.co.jp/kowloon/story/index_e.html Now would someone mind adding the citation?

I agree with the first comment. Referring to this as "Kowloon" for the article is a bad idea... why not Walled City?

 * The first comment is here in the hope that a knowlegeable person will make the relevant changes in the article. olivier 13:47 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * OK, tried my first attempt to consolidate everything. Did it traditional inverted pyramid style -- try to give big picture first and go more specific. Feel free to clean up and clarify.  (Fuzheado)

This is a new comment and I'm not totally sure that this is the correct way to do this but oh well. The walled city was documented before it was torn down. A book was published entitled "City of Darkness, Life in Kowloon Walled City." It's available on Amazon.com and it runs around $85. It's expensive, but if you're interested in urban culture and architecture it's fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.97.102 (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Depictions in Popular Culture
I'm gonna get a screenshot of this as soon as I find the episode of where it's at, but if anyone can help me out on this - In Ghost In the Shell : SAC 2nd GiG, when Hideo Kuze talks about his revolution and a new society, there is a scene which is basically identical to this one >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KowloonWalledCityAlley2.jpg

In fact, I think that the whole refuge district concept is very similar to this. Rokasomee 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * got it. http://www.fileden.com/files/10493/combo1.png >>> a screenshot of the refugee district Rokasomee 10:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes...the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic does mention that Ghost in the Shell drew inspirations from this place, maybe that's why. _dk 10:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a mention of Long Arm of the Law and its sequel deserves mention. It used the locale memorably in both films climactic action sequences.

Questionable copyvio?
I swear i've read the text somewhere... and it's not on wikipedia. What caught my attention is the style.

 * ... With the Triads' power diminished, a strange sort of synergy blossomed, and the Walled City began to grow almost organically, the square buildings folding up into one another as thousands of modifications were made, virtually none by architects, until hundreds of square metres were simply a kind of patchwork monolith. Labyrinthine corridors ran through the monolith, some of those being former streets (at the ground level, and often clogged up with trash), and some of those running through upper floors, practically between buildings. The only rules of construction were twofold: electricity had to be provided to avoid fire, and the buildings could be no more than about fourteen stories high (because of the nearby airport). A mere eight municipal pipes somehow provided water to the entire structure (although more could have come from wells). By the early 1980s, Kowloon Walled City had an estimated population of 35,000 - with a crime rate far below the Hong Kong average, despite the notable lack of any real law enforcement.

 * Over time, both the British and Chinese governments found this massive, anarchic city to be a bit too much - despite the low crime, for if the 'Black Market' ever had a physical location, this would have been it, and needless to say, the sanitary conditions were, well, a bit wanting.

Here I've highlighted some perculiar use of description and structures that are not very scientific and encyclopedic. POV? I will fix up some of the punctuation in the meantime. --Kvasir 23:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have placed a copyright violation tag. Some sections appeared to be lifted word for word from this paper. See page 131. --Kvasir (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure that this site copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. This paper is dated 2005, while large parts of the article already existed in 2004. See . I don't think that this is a copyvio. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Is this settled? I'm going to remove the tag for now, it's really distracting and it doesn't seem like there's any evidence that this article is a copyvio.  Putting that tag on an article without specifying what source it's copied from is really bad form.P4k (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Shenmue 2
Is this the same city as Ryo visits in Shenmue 2, called Kowloon? If it is, maybe information on differences btw Kowloon in the game vs Kowloon in real life could be added? --Konstantin 12:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I just read this article and the similarity occured to me. This might go under a "trivia" section. Shawnc 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The city in Shenmue 2 is most definitely the Kowloon Walled City. --Golbez 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

neutral POV?
I think this paragraph is a bit biased: _____________________________ Evacuation and demolition Kowloon Walled City before its demolition.

Over time, both the British and the Chinese governments found this massive, anarchic city to be a bit too much - despite the low reported crime. If the 'Black Market' ever had a physical location, this would have been it. Needless to say, the sanitary conditions were a bit wanting. _________________ Can someone change it without losing the general message?

Exclave vs. enclave
The intro previously called Kowloon an exclave, but it also said it is located "in the middle" of Hong Kong. I'm pretty sure it can't be both. An exclave, by definition, must not be entirely contained within the larger state. If it's completely surrounded by one state (such as Hong Kong) then it is an enclave. List of enclaves and exclaves has it as an enclave, and assuming the "in the middle of Hong Kong" part is true, I believe that's the correct classification. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Under construction...
Just posting here as a heads up that I'm currently doing a fair amount of work on this article. At the moment City of Darkness is listed just as a general reference, so I'm not sure what statements use it as their source. I will be reading through that book and adding inline citations where applicable. I am also compiling some possible quotes that could be used in the article. If anyone can provide additional good images, or reliable sources for unsourced statements in the article, that would be very helpful. — tk tk  tk  03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Having looked over various population estimates, I've seen a few sources claim that 50,000 people lived in KWC at one point. However, given that (according to City of Darkness) the population was about 10,000 in 1971 and about 33,000 in 1987 based on government surveys, this seems doubtful. It may well be that people took the highest estimate that anyone had come up with and ran with it. If anyone can provide a solid, reliable source for the claim, though, I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong. — tk tk  tk  21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I am also removing (after searching for sources) examples in the "Cultural depictions" section that do not explicitly reference KWC. A "Walled City" is a generic term that could mean any city with walls, and "Kowloon" is the general area in which KWC is located. Neither term on its own can be definitively said to be referencing KWC. Of course, if a reliable source can be found for anything I've removed, please do add it back. — tk tk  tk  22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I've removed two of the images that are copies of the photos in City of Darkness, and put them up for deletion on Commons. It's really unfortunate (aereakowloon.jpg in particular was amazing), but copyright violations do need to be dealt with. I replaced them with another image and a quote from City of Darkness that gives a wonderfully vivid description of life in KWC circa the 1970s. — tk tk  tk  03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough
Doing informal calculations, I found population densities of cruise ships such as the Carnival Triumph, etc., to be something like 1200/acre (although such densities could well be more)(note: the unusual footprint of a ship makes it hard to calculate density per square foot of "land", given the bulletlike floorplan of a ship's hull and varying floorplan of its superstructure.) Kowloon Walled City clocked in at over 5000 people/acre, which is a lot. The population density of a Boeing 737-300 approaches that of KWC (4 964.93649 people/acre), but that population is all on the same floor on an airplane, whereas multistory buildings made up KWC. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Going with the population of 33,000 and the area of .01 sq mi, the desity would be 3,300,000 per sq mi. Daniel Christensen (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hak Nam"
Kowloon Walled City was also widely known as "Hak Nam", Cantonese for "City of Darkness", I am told. Could someone add this to the article? I would, but I don't know where would be best, nor what hanzi should accompany the term.

(And ideally a Hongkong-ese person could please add whether Hak Nam was a matter-of-fact name, or something deeply disparaging? I think you'd have to be from around there to know.) Sean M. Burke (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Hitman series
Though the article mentions it is used as the setting for certain missions from the Hitman video-game series, it is not actually the case. No mission from the game takes place within the Walled City itself. The larger city of Kowloon is used however. I may be wrong on this but I remember the series well and cannot recall any overt reference or depiction of the Walled City. 70.180.248.94 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Location, location, location!
Overlaying the 1915 map on Google Earth imagery puts the "Chinese Town" shown in that map about half mile SE (22.3283 N, 114.19454 E) of the location given in the article (22.33228 N, 114.18866 E) and in what later became part of the airport. The possibilities are: (1) The map is distorted and wrong, (2) The "Chinese Town" shown in the map is not the walled city which would be outside the area of this map, (3) The location given by the article is wrong, (4) I have made a mistake somewhere. All seem unlikely but what is the explanation? Other maps of the late 19th or early 20th century could shed some light. GS3 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The location you got from overlaying the map (22.3283 N, 114.19454 E) is roughly in the middle of the Lung Tsun Stone Bridge, which was the pier used for accessing Kowloon City aka. the "Chinese Town". You can see it very clearly with the satellite view of Google Maps, including the excavated remnants of the bridge. You can find additional old maps and a lot of information by browsing the references and external links of the Lung Tsun Stone Bridge article. It is very possible that the two different location data simply point to two opposite ends of the Kowloon City, which was fairly large. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After more investigation it seems clear that the four corners were roughly located at (22.33112, 114.18959), (22.33225, 114.18893), (22.33319, 114.19087), (22.33201, 114.19152) and so the center was at about (22.33214, 114.19023), where the remains of the yamen are still today. I have corrected the coordinates in the article accordingly even though the change is very small. Still, overlaying the 1915 map in Google Earth puts the city itself out where the airport end was. Not the bridge but the city itself. Not a big deal because the map might be slightly distorted and it might show as built city areas which were deemed to belong to the city but were open.GS3 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

how about a basic street map in the infobox or at least a note in the opening paragraph about WHERE it is relative to something in the modern world?! rather than some dusty old 1915 map. "NT" is pretty vague and most people don't really want to go off-page tracking this down.

was it indeed near Kai Tak? their existences overlap so obviously comments above that Kai Tak took over the space cannot be correct.

what MRT station(s)? all this talk of overlay maps -- please someone put it IN THE ARTICLE! 66.105.218.25 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Coordinates are given at the top of the page. You can click on them and view the location on Google Maps. Seems quite modern world to me. In case this is not enough, the article mentions "The area where the Walled City once stood is now Kowloon Walled City Park", which in fact means that there is nothing really notable in the vicinity. So interested readers will better go off-page to figure out the location, I believe. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Flat unit size
Thanks to for nominating this as a GA, and  for reviewing. There was some uncertainty about the meaning of the statistic "Because apartments were so small — about 60% were 23 m2" so it was taken out. Here's the original quote, which is talking about compensation for moving residents out pre-demolition:

 * "The final formula tied compensation to bringing the cheapest HOS [Home Ownership Scheme] flat within reach of the owner-occupier. Based on a unit size of 23 square metres, the size of some 60 per cent of all flats in the City, owners in the first phases were to be given $320,000[.]"

It seems pretty clear to me from "unit size" that the author is saying those flats are exactly 23 m², rather than "up to" 23 m². I've re-added the statistic (and clarified the wording to say "about 60% had a unit size of 23 m2"), as I think it helps readers to better visualize just how small many of the flats were. If anyone takes issue with that interpretation, let me know. — tk tk  tk  05:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I found this, which suggests that the flats were "approximately 23 m²", not exactly. Might be a useful ref to add as it's quite detailed. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, no worries. "Based off" indicates that they took an average size. I would be extremely surprised based on the hodge-podge housing and notorious lack of law-and-order if the units all turned out to be exactly the same size. --LT910001 (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately the paragraph you're referring to actually looks like it's describing the New Territories in general., you may be right about them taking an average size. I've changed the article to say "a typical unit was 23 m2", since that would be accurate in either case. — tk tk  tk  17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Looks good. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice! Should have pinged you before removing that, but glad we got it back in. Thanks :) — MusikAnimal talk 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal project
There's some good information in this interactive webpage from WSJ http://projects.wsj.com/kwc/ including interviews with the residents, a virtual tour, newspaper clippings of the years before its destruction, and a discussion on its cultural legacy. I think some of the stuff from there can be added into this page; and if not, they're interesting nonetheless! _dk (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kowloon Walled City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207014453/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/ to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124171803/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/gate.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/gate.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123182428/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/yamen.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/yamen.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113111609/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/eight.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/eight.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113111614/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/four.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/four.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113111628/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/zodiac.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/zodiac.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101220521/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/chess.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/chess.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125062435/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/mountain.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/mountain.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113111623/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/guibi.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/guibi.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123183633/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/layout.php to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/kwcp/en/layout.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volumetric density
I know Wikipedia is an encylopedia but I still want to propose the following even though allready taken out because of WP:OR: "Given the vertical scale and block shape of the settlement provides a basis to calculate an uncommon volumetric population density of roughly 400,000 per cubic hectare, at an average hight of 30m." Nsae Comp (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Depictions in literature
Aren't there any other literary depictions of KWC outside a single website? That seems strange, to say the least. I can't work on it right now, but at the very least almost the entirety of Cyberpunk literary genre contains references or inspirations drawn from KWC, and it does appear in some of Gibson's books.

Forgot to sign... Monteparnas (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

SCP Foundation
The first time I added this piece to the article it was accepted, in 9th March 2019. It was removed after more than a year, in 23 August 2020, without any explanation except be called a cruft and no talk about it whatsoever. For more than one year others polished and even restored this part when removed, in 2 April 2020. It is a sourced reference, primary-sourced for acknowledgement of existence, to a notable site. The referenced piece is explicitly about KWC. The "In Popular Culture section already contains less relevant citations. Why does it need further complications to be re-added now?Monteparnas (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference is a minor story that, while on a site that is considered borderline notable (it's been nominated and deleted previously for being non-notable) doesn't mean every story or page on that site is considered notable. The story itself is only barely about KWC and it is a very minor story of no lasting cultural significance. There is zero indication that the story of the artifact is in anyway embedded in the public consciousness to the extent that it can be considered popular culture, and it reads as something completely throw away. It's, in and off itself, not notable and basically including it is trivia.
 * I must ask though what your connection to this story and the site is. Since almost all your edits are about adding this to the article, it could imply you have a connection with it. At this point, having added it now 3 times across several years, it feels like you're trying to promote this particular story. Canterbury Tail talk 14:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added it the first time because I thought it relevant enough as a paragraph or line under In Popular Culture. It was taken down because it lacked a reference, so I added the reference as I thought that was it. I didn't looked again at the article for years, then I noticed it was taken down again. I searched in the history for the reason and what I got was an insult instead of a reason, and an earlier instance of someone deleting it and you re-adding it, so I thought it was just an error and re-added.
 * On that matter, I also read the newly formatted section and noticed a number of references that are just as minor, coming from sources I sincerely can't see as significantly notable, or where KWC plays a minor-to-non-existent role. I personally don't think they should be taken down, yet I don't see why they're more notable than this.
 * My only relationship with this reference is to know it, I have a greater relationship with my contributions being respected. The story isn't barely about KWC as it is both inspired and an alternative explanation to the city, and again not bellow the standard I saw on some the other standing references.
 * This situation really upsets me. I'm being called out as suspect of CoI because I want my contribution to be respected instead of being at the mercy of random fancies, while less notable references are kept. At least now it is clear the reason instead of justified with a gratuitous offense, and that being accepted. Monteparnas (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So any contributions to Wikipedia can be altered, changed, reverted etc that's just part of the nature of the work, it's no longer your edit once you commit it. Can it be disheartening, yes I agree it can at times, try not to let that get you down from that perspective. There's not much more I can say on that point.
 * So I still don't believe this extremely minor short story, in a barely notable website, is part of public consciousness enough to be included in a In Popular Culture section. I will note I personally dislike these sections as they tend to be a magnet for trivial mentions and non-notable items which can lead to situations like this. You say other mentions are less notable, but I'm not seeing it. The other mentions are all about items that actually have their own specific articles for the item in question, whereas this short story is simply one story buried away among thousands of others on a collaborative writing site. It's sort of the kinda of same notability as if someone mentioned something in a throw away line in a movie, we wouldn't consider that notable. If there are others less notable than that then by all means bring them here to the talk page about removing them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Size of the enclave
So, I really don't know what to do with this information, since it is certainly WP:OR rather than WP:RS, but, having looked at a lot of photos of the enclave over the years and looking at the size we currently state for it...I mean that's just clearly much more than 6.4 acres, right? I've looked for alternate figures for a bit now, but the problem is that the bulk of the media content about the enclave now consists of media articles that postdate this article, so there may be an element of WP:CIRCULAR at work here, but that too is speculation. In truth, I haven't done a deep dive on the research looking for older figures or the original secondary or primary source from which the current one originates, let alone attempting a systematic/technical approach measuring the footprint using historical data or metrics of the current park from contemporary maps (which would also be OR in any event). I'm still going to try it before long (if only to try to resolve the doubt) but it might take me a little longer than someone else with a more robust skillset for such things, so I thought I'd start by sharing my impressionistic reaction here. It's possible I'm falling prey to some forced perspective effects, but I really think that's significantly more than 6.4 acres. Sn</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * : The size does seem remarkable, but it is sourced to a journal article from 1987 which states the same figure (or 6.5 at least) ... that doesn't mean that the current source is necessarily correct of course - best way to change it would be to find a reliable source saying something else. Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The figure has to be wrong. 6.4 acres is the area of two or three houses on my street. The picture clearly shows more than that. Richferrara (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd guess it's more like 25 acres. Seems like there's consensus it's wrong so maybe it's best just to remove the figure. Hopefully eventually someone can find a better source. Mujinga (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems okay. 6.4 acres is the rough area of 5 American Football fields or just less than 2 Manhattan standard city blocks. That's a lot of area to have this kind of structure on and seems reasonable to me. Buildings and structures tend to have a lower area footprint than people think. Remember it is very dense. Looking at the park that covers the area and using the measure tool in Google Maps it comes to about 200m by 130m which does indeed calculate to 6.4 acres. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 09:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh that's a clever method! I was taking the the little pitches to the right of the city in the article pic as one football pitch and guesstimating from there, now I see on gmaps that they are practice pitches (and below them is a full-size pitch) so I would downscale my estimate back down to around 6.5. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I guess that's the best measure we have in the circumstances, with a more precise survey impossible without some extra records--and certainly more than I thought to do. If the math adds up, that's good enough for me, though I still say that looks more like 12-15 acres to my (not entirely untrained) eye. But again, with the perspective utilized with the wide shot images, combined with intuitive assumptions about the size of the structures that may not be entirely accurate, and so forth, I can see how it may very well be just 6.2-6.7 acres (depending on the source: I did see some minor discrepancies in how we quoted the particular sources which I should go back and change now, so some small benefit comes of my little exercise here).  In any event, I appreciate the indulgence folks.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no worries. Always nice to have a civilized discussion this stuff. And I was curious enough myself to want to do the math. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Kowloon Walled City - 1989 Aerial.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 06, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-07-06. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Aviafanboi (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Air rights
What is Air rights according to Wikipedia definition? --95.24.66.215 (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does that matter to anything, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We go by what the reliable source in the articles say. Anyway this is about an illegal set of structures, disregard is more likely the correct term than an overuse of rights (since they weren't legally applying for or using any of them.) <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case the link should not lead to the Air rights article in Wikipedia. --95.24.66.215 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no better article to link to. If a right is disregarded or violated it does not mean that it no longer exists. Sjö (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I have to ask you the same thing that I asked at Talk:Ethnic groups in Finland: where are you going with this? Do you propose a change in the article or is this a forum-like discussion where you just want to vent your views? Sjö (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kowloon Walled City


text:
Lingnan University (disambiguation)

Lingnan University can refer to two separate establishments:

 * Lingnan University (Guangzhou) - a university in Guangzhou, Guangdong province in China
 * Lingnan University (Hong Kong) - a university in Hong Kong

title: Lingnan University (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Tex Schramm

Hall of Fame
The article says that Schramm was the first person inducted into the Hall of Fame who wasn't a player, coach or owner. This isn't true. Hugh "Shorty" Ray was inducted as Supervisor of Officials and technical adviser on rules. I am removing this part of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.194.5.103 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Old comment
Nothing big, there just needs to be a space between the Main Page "Tex Schramm" link and the hyphen after it.

title: Talk:Tex Schramm