Talk:Campbell Shopping Complex fire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia Low‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Campbell Shopping Complex fire be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Kuala Lumpur may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Facts section

My reading of WP:TRIVIA is that neither a fact (or "interesting facts") section is appropriate under the WP:MOS. Reliable sources discuss these same facts anyways. It should just be written into the article. Pinging @60.49.75.221 and 3primetime3: for further views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I didn't dare revert the edit for the first time after learning about 3RR. The user has currently been reported for harassing me on my talk page and slight edit warning. I noticed you have pointed it out. Thanks for that. Should we rename the section to trivia? I saw your edit on the incidents section. I can support that! :) If so, we will probably anger the user. But what do you think? 3primetime3 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3primetime3: Whether or not it angers that person is not the issue. I don't know why "Trivia" or "facts" matter. Things like "the incident also highlighted the standards of fire safety in high-rise building ...." and so on aren't trivia, aren't even facts, but are opinion, unsourced opinion by the way. The fact that a movie was out in theaters at the same time isn't even relevant to me, it just sounds silly. Should we add that there was a movie about planes around the time of 9/11 to the 9/11 article as "trivia" or "an interesting fact"? --Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I definitely see what you mean. The entire section is actually unsourced and it sounds opinionated. I would support you on adding any relevant information onto the top paragraph. In fact, I could even suggest you on removing the whole thing as it is completely unsourced and looks like it seems a little off topic. At this point, I really don't care what anyone does to the article :P, but the "Interesting Facts" needs to go. 3primetime3 (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys,

First of all let me introduce myself, I am working for the Information Ministry and my task is to gather information and submit/edit articles to Wikipedia on past events which helped to shape the nation. The Campbell Shopping Complex fire though not of paramount importance as there was only one casualty involved although there were huge losses involving property damage and loss of jobs is a significant event for the country as we do not want a repeat of a similar event in the country where there maybe more casualties and considering the fact that more and more taller skyscrapers are mushrooming in the country. So statements like standards of fire safety although it is a statement of opinion and unsourced forms an integral part of the article as we do not want a repeat of a similar event. I'm sure it is the function of Wikipedia not only to provide information but also to educate the public on fire safety. Have you all heard of the saying, "Don't let history repeat itself?" And ironically this year marks the 40th anniversary of the disaster. Many people weren't born or too small to remember the incident as it happened so long ago and I'm sure you guys weren't even born yet ! Very sorry for the "fiery outburst" yesterday as I was in a foul mood. 1.32.71.165 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a mission to educate the public on fire safety. We are an encyclopedia and we summarize whatever reliable sources have written. If the government's policies on fire safety changed as a result of this disaster maybe you can find something in a WP:Reliable source that documents the change. If you continue to add unsourced material you are likely to be reverted and you are risking sanctions yourself. As a person who works for the government, you should create an account and put something on your user page to explain your role. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]