|
I had a heated argument with User:Calton that whether a consensus formed from a discussion I made at MH17 talk page is applicable to International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown page. Calton insist that the consensus is only valid for MH17 page but as the discussion ended up with a consensus that the concerning edit be made on International Reactions page instead, I believe that thte consensus applied to the Reactions page too.
Here's the discussion of MH17 talk page that I talked about:
Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Hacking_incident_that_arose_from_this_plane_shootdown_incident
That just sound silly and archaic but since Calton refuse to back out from his edit war I have to take it here and ping all of you.
As such, does the consensus listed list above which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to here as well?
Mamasanju (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- If there was a possible consensus over there, then it would likely apply here to. However, I personally think this piece of information is a bit like trivia, and doesn't really belong. But no strong opinion either way. Stickee (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Stickee: Thanks for your input but I really think an admin should lecture Mr Calton that Wikipedia is not a prison or an army base where absolute rule reigns supreme. I posted the full snippets of the old discussion at his talk page but I feel like talking to a wall. Mamasanju (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
At the meantime I have pinged all users including who had participated in the old discussion to here. Mamasanju (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- We can always create a new consensus here, if needed. The so-called hacking incident hasn't gained any further coverage, it remains basically unrelated to this story and WP:TRIVIA and should not be included. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ahunt: Meantime I sleuthed and found this coverage by a Korean radio talk show. The incident is mentioned but I can't understand Korean 보안늬우스 2016년3월14일 HD1080 Security News Mamasanju (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I still remembred the "embassy analogy" that we discussed before that first consensus was reached. Mr Calton who ignored our whole discussion made back in the Inauguration Day wanted that old discussion and consensus to be repeated and duplicated over here, in reality. That's not how problem is solved and sounds silly. Mamasanju (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ahunt: Although the newfound Korean video source is presented I still believe that the suggestions from User:MPS1992 and User:Pincrete that the coverage should be brief still applies. Mamasanju (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I remember User:MPS1992 said the following during our discussion on MH17 talk page when it was Trump's inauguration day:
Incidentally, I think one or two people may be confusing the requirements for notability, which on Wikipedia means being sufficiently well covered by reliable sources to merit an entire separate article, and the much lesser requirements for merely being mentioned in another article. This incident does not need to be independently notable in order to be mentioned in this article.
@Ahunt: Regarding Mr Calton's insistence that our first consensus only applies to MH17 and not here, I think he is simply oblivious about the true meaning of Wikipedia has no firm rules of the Five Pillars of this encyclopaedia. I still assume that he reverted the edit under a misguiden good faith and hopes that he'll realize that one day. Mamasanju (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Responding to 'ping' I don't remember taking part in any recent discussions here or on main page, nor having made any suggestions. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Remember this? Mamasanju (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete At this point it's more or less a full repeat of the original discussion so here's your remark made back in the Inauguration day:
I agree with those who say that the incident is too insignificant (both the act and coverage) to be included here. I would have no strong feelings about inclusion in 'reactions', even there I believe our coverage should be very brief.
Mamasanju (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
* @Ahunt: @Stickee: @Pincrete: WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing, and being too wrapped in rules can cause a loss of perspective. In light of this I think it's best to apply the consensus we made at MH17 discussion area to here by restoring that "brief mention" content and swiftly end this discussion. Any comments to raise so far? Mamasanju (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- No strong feelings either way about inclusion here, minimal or none though. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate all inputs that're posted here. Have a nice week! Mamasanju (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong, too trivial and unrelated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- [Responding to the invitation in my Talk Page]. Tend to agree with Ahunt above. Cyber Anakin was hardly an "international player", was he? If he had been tracked down, maybe prosecuted by the Russian authorites, or had wrought some world-wide notable damage (like unleashing a WannaCry virus, perhaps?) then maybe I'd have a different opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123: If the affected number of victims is in the order of hundreds or thousands then I'll inclined to hold your opinion. But as the news article said, it was millions who're affected. Doesn't it sound a bit significant? Mamasanju (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Calton, Ahunt, Martinevans123, that it shouldn't be included. Trivial and non-notable. Clearly there's a consensus against inclusion. Stickee (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ahunt: @Martinevans123: @Stickee: In light of a turning tide this discussion has to be reopen again imo. I still remember my conversation with User:MPS1992 that notability level required for a single sentence mention <= notability level of the hacking event < notability level required for a standalone entry to be created. Mamasanju (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- So far I can agree on everyone assessment that it is quite trivia but per WP:HTRIVIA it seems like a "standalone trivia" raher than a connective one. Isn't "Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in", or did I miscalculated the assessment? Mamasanju (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
One thing to remember, notability does not degrade over time and all I see is his one remains stale and constant for meantime. Mamasanju (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahunt: @Martinevans123: @Stickee: From the WP:PRESERVE guideline.
Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research.
Mamasanju (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahunt: @Stickee: @Martinevans123: However, since a protracted argument over the inclusion of that edit sounds likely, I think we must find a compromise solution on this edit ASAP. Perhaps making the mention even more brief or translate & move it to other language Wikipedia whose inclusion rules are tad bit lenient? Wikipedia is not about winning and is not a battleground so it makes sense to find the compromise solutioon together.Mamasanju (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm only part of a tag team so up to likely propenents like MPS1992 whether to pick up the ashes. Have a nice week! 113.210.183.163 aka exiled Mamasanju 02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
| 
