Talk:Assassination of Kim Jong-nam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older talk[edit]

Please see Talk: Kim Jong-nam--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just sawn reading[edit]

Wrong was giving Atropin and Adrenalin if in heart attack danger likely causing death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.162 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

um, what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.22.12 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VX stockpiles[edit]

The information about VX stockpiles seems to be very speculative and dubious. The article on VX nerve agent doesn't say that North Korea has the third largest stockpile, but says that the USA has destroyed its stockpile. I think it would be better to leave this out, since there doesn't seem to be a consensus among sources what the status of stockpiles around the world is, and it isn't very relevant here.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have condensed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is the contradiction between the idea that the weak effect is the result of old stock and the idea that the VX was generated in situ by combining binary chemicals. And of course there is no explanation why nobody else came into enough contact to cause them serious harm. The entire presentation is more based on bias and assumptions than on anything else. There is no proof that North Korea was involved, there is no indication that the victim attempted to interfere with the government of the country, so no indication of any motive, not to mention the strange execution by "pranksters" and so on. I mean, really, how often do innocent young girls physically attack a stranger at an airport and in an action successfully coordinated to the second ? While keeping a strange fluid on their hands for minutes ? It only makes sense if you are already predisposed to believe that the North Korean government is evil and irrational so anything is possible. I wonder that this rather arcane "explanation" passes scrutiny by serious people and no alternatives are considered. JB. --92.195.113.2 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siti's Release[edit]

We now have four paragraphs about Siti's release, thanks to Night Lantern. This is excessive. All we need is a summary. Most of this content will be out of date in a matter of weeks.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: Hi. Thanks for reminding Mr. Jack. I understand, but that will be the last paragraph for her release with the insertion of several important views from other court members over the sudden release. Night Lanternhalo? 09:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind, Night Lantern, that all this could be deleted shortly.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: Entirely? Without trimming and leaving some of the important points? Night Lanternhalo? 09:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mr Night, I don't think there is much point in discussing what's going to happen to Huong, now that we know.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

An anonymous user has posted the following on my talk page:

Hi I just want to let you know that I have reverted one of your removals on Assassination of Kim Jong-nam. While it seems to be trivial Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia whatsoever so I don't see any harm if we're being comprehensive on small but interesting details like that.

This refers to a story about a hacktivist called Cyber Anakin operating a spoof Twitter accounts. This is completely not notable. This kind of thing happens every day. We can't record every reaction. The page is currently over 100kB which according to WP:SIZESPLIT is clearly oversized.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the story was featured on major news outlets like BBC and Newsweek, even to the point of being covered by Yahoo! News I don't see why it's "completely not notable", although I would be warm to the idea of "splitting it" considering the page size as you've said. 137.74.150.79 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How would you split it?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both the BBC and Newsweek coverages are based on a story on North Korea Tech whose wiki article in contrast is stub-level therefore transposing the contents to there looks right. I might also argue for creating Kim Il-sung Open University page but I'm not good at creating a new page though so let's go for the former shall we? 137.74.150.79 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: the article is 32 kB, not 100 kB readable prose size. WP:SIZESPLIT says for <40kB readable prose size: "Length alone does not justify division ". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop: Pardon me, how to calculate readable prose size? 137.74.150.79 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I use User:Dr pda/prosesize, which WP:SIZESPLIT also recommends. You need to be logged in to use scripts (it could work with a browser addon like Greasemonkey as well). But the idea is to only take text (excluding lists, references and other non-prose material) and count how much disk space that takes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for the prose size info, hope you have a nice weekend! 137.74.150.79 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'd be interested in creating an article for Kim Il-sung Open University [ko], provided that there are enough sources. Failing that, a section in an article of a parent organization could be written. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was going off "Page information". That's good to know. I was not suggesting a split. I accept that the article is not oversized, as I said, but I still think Cyber Anakin is not notable. However, it's not worth arguing about further.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my jumping in, that IP has since been blocked as an open proxy and partly because of that, Softlemonades mass reverted a past addition to Reactions made by one of the users on the proxy, regarding self-described hacktivist Cyber Anakin, who had in 2018 pulled some prank against a North Korean university website and featured on BBC and Newsweek.
Pinging @Finnusertop: and @Jack Upland: for extra opinion, is it worth it if it's re-included in the article? Softlemonades thought that it is "not notable" or "important enough" to be put in this article, so perhaps resurrecting a proposal above on moving it to Kim Il-sung Open University [ko] might help? 12.28.52.123 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSWEEK isnt RSP and BBC calls it a prank. It wasnt featured either, it was on their blog.
More background on the IP hopping mass inserting person pushing Cyber Anakin content on a lot of pages:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Cyber Anakin and IP editor conduct
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3&oldid=1113421618 from before the archive
User_talk:Softlemonades/Archive 1#UnBlocked Filed malicious report to have me blocked, overturned on appeal, admin concluded it was harrassment against me. Right after I was blocked this IP editor mass reinserted Cyber Anakin content citing my block
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyber_Anakin&diff=prev&oldid=1113169783 IP editor said theyll IP hop and use "unlimited proxies"
Talk:Cyber Anakin is also worth looking at to get an idea of the IP editors behavior and attitude but its really long Softlemonades (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already saw it. My take is that there are multiple users on the proxy addresses, some good and some bad. It's effectively fecked when a vandal took over their range and started trolling by impersonation, turning the serious dispute into a sh*tshow. 12.28.52.123 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting without comment - Is that the new style here ?[edit]

I had written the following in comment of the above section regarding "VX stockpiles". My comment is intended to point out shortcommings of the current article since it does not appear to make a lot of sense and I was hoping that a discussion and re-checking of sources could lead to improvements of its plausibility. But somebody decided to just delete my comment without any explanation. So let me put that here in its own section and maybe have a reasonable discussion please. I am completely open to other opinions and do not desire edit-wars or any other kind of conflict. What I had written before:

The other problem is the contradiction between the idea that the weak effect is the result of old stock and the idea that the VX was generated in situ by combining binary chemicals. And of course there is no explanation why nobody else came into enough contact to cause them serious harm. The entire presentation is more based on bias and assumptions than on anything else. There is no proof that North Korea was involved, there is no indication that the victim attempted to interfere with the government of the country, so no indication of any motive, not to mention the strange execution by "pranksters" and so on. I mean, really, how often do innocent young girls physically attack a stranger at an airport and in an action successfully coordinated to the second ? While keeping a strange fluid on their hands for minutes ? It only makes sense if you are already predisposed to believe that the North Korean government is evil and irrational so anything is possible. I wonder that this rather arcane "explanation" passes scrutiny by serious people and no alternatives are considered. JB. --92.195.113.2 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

92.193.235.189 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-nam&oldid=1205423150"