Talk:2010 Japan–South Korea cyber conflict

Latest comment: 6 months ago by Extraordinary Writ in topic Requested move 5 October 2023

Framing of article edit

"Cyberwarfare" doesn't seem like the right word; that word is usually limited to state actors. toobigtokale (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 5 October 2023 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2010 Japan–South Korea cyber conflict. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply



2010 Japan–South Korea cyberwarfare2010 Japan–South Korea cyber conflict – Not sure what a good new title would be. I don't know if there's an appropriate WP:COMMONNAME; upon some quick searching it's hard to even find anything in English about this topic. But "cyberwarfare" seems like strong wording at the very least; I feel like that term is usually reserved for state actors, and this was all private citizens. The targets may have been part of the state, but if I DDOS'd the white house homepage right now I don't think people would call it "cyberwarfare". toobigtokale (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 03:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose switching the countries around, they should be in alphabetical order. Neutral on cyberwarfare/cyber conflict. — MaterialWorks 21:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh oops you're right; my mistake toobigtokale (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: I have now fixed the request to have "Japan–South Korea" rather than "South Korea–Japan", since you say that part is a mistake. Relisting for input about the "cyberwarfare" part. SilverLocust 💬 03:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support does not appear to fit the definition of Cyberwarfare, but as mentioned at the article, the term has a very loose definition Yoblyblob (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nominator. Especially with countries with fraught histories, we should reserve the word war for topics where it is clearly described as such by RS. --Tserton (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.