Talk:Belgium–Malaysia relations

WP:NOT
In 1968 Malaysia's Deputy Premier and Defense Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, toured the Belgian Navy mine school. Defence minsters visit overseas facilities all the time, I think it's hardly notable unless it got major media coverage in several sources. Otherwise Wikipedia would be reporting every single visit by a defence minister. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I have to trust your opinion, or the New York Times as to what is newsworthy. I will stick to the New York Times. You and I are just Wikipedia editors, reporting news has been their business since the 1840s.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * see WP:NOT. News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. will you now list all the visits of the Malaysian defence minister on all bilateral articles?LibStar (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You once again are confusing notability with verifiability. The single article would not establish notability for a stand-alone biography of Tun Abdul Razak or a stand-alone article on his visit. The article in the New York Times verifies a relationship between the two countries for an article on that very topic. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * still you're reporting news that is not historically notable. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Complain to the New York Times, I just edit here. I don't write for the New York Times. They chose to report it, I just added it here. You know how those liberal one-world papers are, always writing about a war here and starving children there. Never writing about what is of personal interest to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They chose to report it, I just added it here. so is that what you do for Wikipedia articles? We don't endlessly report things in Wikipedia. do you think it is necessary that we report every visit of a defence minister to an overseas facility? LibStar (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the New York Times report every event that happens on Earth? No, just what they find notable. We don't need articles on every event or person on Earth, but some of those events fit in Wikipedia in existing articles. Don't confuse notability with verifiability. That the New York Times in New York is reporting in 1968 on Belgium–Malaysia relations, should be a hint that it is notable. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the media does in what they cover. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * so you're saying that if New York Times reports it it's good enough for inclusion in any Wikipedia article? so anything I find in a google search with New York Times is good enough? LibStar (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * now that this article has survived AfD, I am proposing to delete this sentence in question, my point still stands that a defence minister visiting an overseas facility happens all the time. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules don't care how frequent an event occurs, just that it is reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * so Wikipedia articles should automatically include everything reported in NY times? LibStar (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A military attaché routinely conducts such visits; those by defense ministers are much rarer. I think its relevant content. If the NYT thinks it worth writing about, so do we. DGG (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, there's a false premise in your logic. You say the Times reported on "Belgium–Malaysia relations". They didn't. They reported on a visit that you surmised was relevant to "Belgium–Malaysia relations", but why should we take your word for it? After all, "Wikipedians don't determine notability", right? Reliable secondary sources determine which topics get covered, not topics you've happened to make up. - Biruitorul Talk 06:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are hung up on the word "relation" as if were a magic word that has to appear in the text of the article used to source the Wikipedia article. The article is about the concept, not the word. Read international relations, or pick up a textbook or an almanac. Look at the pages of the any Embassy, or State Department, or Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website and see that they are filled with the same topics. I have been looking at the relations articles you have contributed to and they are no different, just more prose and less isolated sentences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * so Wikipedia articles should automatically include everything reported in NY times? or any reliable source. For example, should I add to Egypt–Slovenia relations that a Slovenian Dancer Performs at Summer Arts Festival in Egypt, consistent with your reasoning? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh* Now you are switching to the Reduction to absurdity argument. "Slovenian Dancer Performs at Summer Arts Festival in Egypt" is an example of a cultural exchange, and I would say it belongs. Once an article is overwhelmed with information, then you have to rank the information and cull or move to separate articles. That is why the Biography of Obama is not 300 pages, even though you could write a biography that long. However if you add up all the Wikipedia pages on him, it probably equals 300 pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you try to insert into articles should be in Wikinews. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

also
''2006 Essensium NV, a computer chip manufacturer raised USD 7.1 million from Atlantic Quantum Sdn. Bhd. of Malaysia'' seems WP:NOT. companies set up overseas all the time, often for values greater than this and don't get reported in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)