Talk:2018 Hawaii false missile alert

Requested move 14 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to "2018 Hawaii false missile alert" (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Hawaii missile alert → ? – Need a more descriptive article name SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

How about Hawaii false missile alert? Or Hawaii missile panic? SounderBruce 02:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say just WP:BRD move it to Hawaii false missile alert 2018 Hawaii false missile alert, which is unambiguous and consistent with most headlines. Panic is problematically ambiguous in that it can connote "wildly unthinking behavior". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Hawaii false missile alert or Hawaii false ballistic missile alert (I'm seeing these phrases most often in news headlines), unless somebody can come up with something better. Honestly, I was just trying to get an article up as soon as it could be reliably sourced and didn't spend too much time thinking about the article name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert, as this is a specific event at a specific time.--Geekgecko (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Move to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert – Geekgecko has it right, in my view. The relevant guideline is WP:NCEVENTS, which states that article titles about events should typically include not only the what and the where, but also the when. Mz7 (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The original title failed to address even what, let alone other two. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert ASAP. the important word here is "false" which needs to be added now, not in 7 days time. Just in case (God forbid) anyone in a bathtub is getting their news from Wikipedia. compare 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident we can have long descriptive titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert: I agree. This better describes the topic. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

*Move to Hawaii false missile alert. This has never happened before so no need for the "2018". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Move to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert. Hawaii false missile alert redirects to article. Renaming should occur as little as possible, and it could happen again, so therefore 2018. It is the first time, so therefore the redirect until a disambiguation needs to be made. MMetro (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved it to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert for now because there's no strong status quo ante concern for a brand new article, especially for a title that nobody currently endorses. We can continue to discuss the year issue per WP:NCEVENTS "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement." I don't have a strong opinion either way. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No objections here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am considering changing all links to Hawaii missile alert to the proper page and removing the redirect. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Oppose name of 2018 Hawaii False Missile Alert. Support Hawaii Missile Alert. There is no need for 2018 unless there is another one in 2019 or 2020. Even worse is the word "false". It was not a false missile alert. It was a missile alert. Not a false missile, as in airplane. Not as false alert as the sirens did ring.

Another problem is the word "false" is loaded. Why not call it Racist Trump or Imperialist USA. Same thing.

Yet another problem is this is Wikipedia original research. CNN doesn't call it "2018 Hawaii False Missile Alert". Neither does CBS, ABC, NBC, RT (Russia), etc. New2018Year (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@New2018Year: The word "false" neutrally denotes the fact that despite the alert, there was actually no threat. I think this is very much clear from a common sense reading of the title, and I'm confused as to what you think it means here. As I've said before, this structure is based on WP:NCEVENTS, which is Wikipedia's naming conventions for events, and it recommends including the year, even if the event has never happened before, because it is useful to the reader for identification. Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "false missile alert" sounds a bit strange. It was the alert that was false, not the missile.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. This page has been moved to Hawaii missile alert, but I'm not seeing a consensus built for such a move. I see three whole days of useful discussion above but don't see a clear target settled upon. For my part, I prefer 2018 Hawaii missile alert. I like WP:BOLD but a conversation is ongoing and only a handful of editors have contributed. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  I made that move not on the merits of it, but on technically grounds. As far as I can tell, this article was originally created at the title Hawaii missile alert, and then this RM was started. Then, rolf h nelson did an out-of-process move to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert on January 14, which I reverted on January 17 solely because it was out-of-process. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - We should discuss a title via consensus before any title changes take place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support / fine with anything - I'm fine with anything. Personally, I like the ones with 2018 in the title, in order to be more descriptive. I'm totally down for and support "2018 Hawaii false missile alert". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to 2018 Hawaii false missile alert – This title is more descriptive than the current title, as Mz7 and many more have pointed out. Philroc^{My contribs} 16:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is this article necessary?

This has already been covered in the incidents section of Emergency Alert System. I'm not sure why we need an entire article dedicated to this event. It wasn't an act of terrorism. It wasn't a hack. It was a gov official mistakenly sending an alert. Jayden (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Seriously. Has NOTNEWS become WP:HISTORICAL? AfD anyone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Let's give it a few days to see what the fallout (no pun intended) is from this. It's extremely unusual to see this kind of statewide false alarm, considering the context (Hawaii is 13 minutes by missile from North Korea, and the U.S. and North Korean governments have been threatening to nuke each other for a few months now). -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I should also note this clearly meets WP:EVENT criteria: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This incident has received international coverage. Will it be re-analyzed afterwards? We don't know yet. I expect it will, and when it is, anything that's relevant can be added to the article. My suggestion is that if it is not -- i.e. if this is a total non-story in a few days' time -- then we can revisit notability then. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you missed the part that reads... Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • This isn't a "water cooler story". A million and a half people were just (incorrectly) told they might have minutes to live. I suggest you compare this article with other "hoax" articles on Wikipedia, rather than your platonic ideal of what a major event would look like. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • This is routine? SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• I know I'm late here, but you have to be joking if you feel this is non notable. The reactions on the ground were anything from screaming/crying to calling their loved ones to say goodbye. Long term we don't know per WP:CRYSTAL but at the very least people are pushing for change right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this article is necessary. It effected Hawaii and the news spread all around the world within minutes. The article is in good shape as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, necessary, at least Trump did not order nuclear strike to North Korea. (But I ask this articke to be renamed) SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I agree that we should hold off on an AfD/merge discussion until the situation becomes clearer, but I suspect this will likely fail WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. I appreciate that a lot of people had very emotional reactions to this news, but unlike a newspaper, we determine encyclopedic notability based on things like lasting significance and persistence in news coverage, not the immediate emotional reaction to an event. Who knows? The FCC announced an investigation, so maybe this will catalyze a lasting change in regulations or military procedure in how we handle these missile alerts? (But speculating that at this point would be WP:CRYSTAL.) The core of WP:NOTNEWS is recognizing that encyclopedias and newspapers cover different things – whereas this event was certainly newsworthy, I think it's a valid question to ask whether this was encyclopedia-worthy. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well this sure isn't WP:ROUTINE coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on my experiences at AfD over the last few years, I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that NOTNEWS is de-fact WP:HISTORICAL. It is so routinely ignored, I am seeing little reason to believe otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, I respectfully disagree. Someone winning the lottery or a pet stuck in a tree would be WP:NOTNEWS. On the coverse, a false missile alert which has never happened before, and impacted over a million people passes WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You have a point, and that's why I think we should hold off on this discussion for now. On the one hand, if all that results from this is a few people getting fired, and it being forgotten by national-level news media relatively quickly, then I think it raises doubt as to whether that's WP:LASTING significance. On the other hand, this could spark a widespread movement for accountability and a change in federal regulations or military procedure – that would be lasting significance. It's too early to tell, essentially, so I think this discussion is moot until then. Mz7 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this article is necessary - unless we have other entrants for Category:nuclear false alarms in the United States. I can't find one. If there was one during the Cold War it surely would have an article too. cf 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident 08:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)
• Notable and historically important. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I don't know whether it's a survey or not, but in my opinion, yes, it is necessary. Incidents like this are pretty rare, and it shouldn't have occurred in the first place, thus as a historical mistake I think it has some sort of notability. Keivan.f^Talk 22:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Things needing coverage

EAS operator interface

Do I understand correctly that an EAS alert can be initiated simply by mouse-clicking a button/link in a program that runs on a personal computer? No "advertent act" such as lifting the cover on a physical button and pressing it, or by throwing a conspicuous switch/lever? knoodelhed (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the news conference yesterday afternoon -- as crazy as it seems, yes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking this myself. I think it is interesting that there also no second factor or segregation of duties involved in sending a message that could cause mass panic. Perhaps a section on controversy might be warranted Smoorfoo (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Background section

I removed a large part of this section which was using sources created before the event. This is WP:SYNTH. Instead, editors should use information about the background of the event gathered from sources published after the event. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I was reverted. To explain further... sources from before an event cannot reasonably be used to provide background on an event without it being WP:SYNTH. Using old sources independently is wikipedia editors picking and choosing old information that they think is relevant, which may or may not actually be. Use background info that is given in stories about this event. There is plenty. The section should be cleared so that editors can start with a clean slate using current sources. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a total misuse and misinterpretation of the policy. Reliable sources cited throughout the article repeatedly refer to tensions with North Korea, recent EWS tests, etc. It is in no way improper to draw on previously published sources fleshing those out for a clearly marked "Background" section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Look at the sources in the Background section - all but one source is from before the event. This makes it unreliable and unverifiable. IF there are sources elsewhere in the article, then they also need to be linked in the Background section also to the relevant points of information. As it stands right now, editors have chosen what they "think" is background, rather than what is demonstrable. That is what WP:SYNTH is. -- Netoholic @ 09:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That is untrue on all counts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You literally just added things. My statement was true as of my first post above. So far a "couple" of connections have been sourced as background to this event, but there are still several claims here that have not. Its WP:SYNTH to make connections that current sources haven't first made. -- Netoholic @ 10:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Currently nothing in WP:SYNTH is a blanket ban on citing pre-event material; feel free to bring up the topic there if you think such an explicit ban should be added. We can use pre-event citations as long as we do not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". For example, I just added "It is possible, but not certain, that North Korea has the ability to deliver nuclear missiles to Hawaii" to the background, sourced to a Dec 2017 source. (For example, it's not currently known how accurate the missiles are, whether they've succeeded in miniaturizing their nukes, etc.). In the unlikely event a page editor thinks, in good faith, that this specific observation is undue in this context, then we can remove it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the way it's been built out -- and I think this is entirely proper -- is that older sources are used to expand on what is stated in contemporary sources. As an example, a couple sources mention or contain internal links to the email sent out by the University of Hawaii that attracted some attention back in October. It's appropriate to go beyond the brief mention of that email in contemporary sources more focused on current events by using older sources that describe it in greater detail. Ditto the proposed FCC reforms, North Korean nuclear capabilities, and attack drills, all of which can be sourced with both contemporary sources and slightly older sources that are more detailed. WP:SYNTH would be using these references to draw conclusions not supported by the sources, as Rolf says. That's not the case here, and even before the changes that have been made to the section over the past 18 hours, I don't think it ever was. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Even that expansion could be seen as SYNTH. If the extended information you seek to add is really Background to THIS event, then sources about this event will explicitly mention it. There is no need to guess or go beyond. Doing so is what is treading us toward SYNTH problems. -- Netoholic @ 01:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So far, you are the only person who sees the section as violating WP:SYNTH. You're misinterpreting the policy and drawing incorrect conclusions. I really suggest you read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know you had declared that this discussion was "over" and we were "counting". Frankly, it doesn't matter. Adding material which cannot be verified as relevant to this event is not a matter of votes or "Kudzu says so". Proper wikipedia principle isn't a matter of arbitrary discussion cut-offs or vote counts initiated by Kudzu. -- Netoholic @ 01:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WTF are you even talking about? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_background_information. I gave an example there of what I feel would be a hypothetical pre-event source that would be noncontroversial; feel free to chime in if you have an opposing view to me or feel my proposal is too one-sided. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(crossposting) Like everything else we put in articles, Background information is whatever sources about an event describe as background to that event. WP:SYNTH comes into play when wikipedia editors are choosing a certain set of information to add as background, which may or may not really have any relevance to that event. This is a very easy way to accidentally slide into SYNTH. If Fact "A" is actually relevant to Event "X", then reliable sources about X will include mention of Fact "A" and can be cited as such. What happens, though, is during coverage of Event "Y", a wikipedia editor who strongly believes Fact "B" is relevant will (with good intentions) include sources which mention Fact "B" published either before "Y" or after "Y" but with no mention of a connection to "Y". Citing sources on X & Y will very naturally give you what is appropriate Background content, without having to guess. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Communication

There was 38 minutes between the false alert and its correction by a second alert. Obvious there was communication in that time. It would be good to get some more information about this. The article says, "An email from the state was also sent about 25 minutes..." but doesn't specify who the email was sent to (nor does the source). The article mentions tweets, but we don't know how many Hawaiians were following government agencies and politicians. As far as I can see, there is nothing about radio and TV combatting the false alarm. There is no indication how many people were in the dark for 38 minutes, but I realise this might be hard to estimate.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fisher

Just as the false alert was not triggered by an actual ballistic missile launch, the incident did not lead to an exchange of fire between the United States and North Korea. New York Times columnist Max Fisher compared the January 13 false alarm to the 1983 destruction of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 by the Soviet Air Force, which apparently mistook it for an American spy plane. Anger and confusion in both the United States and Soviet Union surrounding the incident could have touched off nuclear war at a time when Cold War tensions were already running high, Fisher wrote, and similarly, the U.S. government could have overreacted to an error in Hawaii's emergency warning system or the North Korean government could have misinterpreted it as cover for a U.S. first strike.

I don't see the point of citing Fisher. No doubt many people have commented. KAL007 is a very different example, and the comparison seems pointless — nuclear war fails to happen again. I don't think anyone could seriously think this could have led to nuclear war. This adds nothing to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've shortened it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Should be deleted entire. This is an encyclopedia: we don't quote every know-nothing reporter's uninformed conjectures, no matter how prestigious their company may have been once upon a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't think Fisher's opinions are notable, and I don't think there's a serious argument that a false alarm by the Hawaii government could trigger nuclear war — unless Hawaii has nuclear weapons. It seems impossible that North Korea would respond to a false alarm in Hawaii when it knows that it hasn't fired a missile.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Can North Korea reach Hawaii?

It is possible, but not certain, that North Korea has the capability to deliver nuclear missiles to Hawaii.

I think this strikes the wrong note. After the most recent test, experts, including James Mattis, believe North Korea could strike Washington and even further afield.[1][2] Is it certain? North Korea has not demonstrated that it can, but the USA has never fired a nuclear missile either. The LA Times article cited relies on a piece of analysis written before the latest test. The Express article cited says Hawaii "likely be in the range" of the ICBM. I think it would be better to avoid speculating about the range of North Korean's missile here, but if we do, we should say it's "likely" they could hit Hawaii. (The related question is how likely is North Korea to launch missiles — and if they did, against Hawaii???)--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland I removed my "but not certain" since "nuclear missile" vs "non-nuclear missile" is too fine a distinction to get into for a single sentence in a background paragraph. Feel free to reword further or remove. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll leave that for now, pending further input.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pornhub user stats under "Impacts" section

A contributor boldly added this today. It's a Fox News and RT cited assertion of the correlation between the the incident and Pornhub user numbers before and after it occurred. I question the need for such trivia insertion on this rather serious page. I removed the paragraph by undoing the edit. It's possible the sources want to trivialize the events on that morning; I'm not certain Wikipedia should do so. Thoughts? BusterD (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be a lot of statistics that could be cited, such as a spike in access to news sites, but I don't think this is particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And now this has been reinserted without discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it an interesting metric, and sociologically on par with all of the other reactions. And it's gotten considerable mainstream coverage:

http://www.complex.com/life/2018/01/hawaiians-adult-films-false-missile-alert

http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/01/pornhub-views-spiked-in-hawaii-after-false-missile-alarm.html

http://www.newsweek.com/hawaiians-stop-watching-porn-after-missile-threat-784346

And of course, Pornhub Insights itself (although this primary source apparently takes special permission to cite).

So not trivial. Very real human reactions. With statistics!

kencf0618 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC) kencf0618 01:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be self-promotion by Pornhub which media outlets have picked up because sex sells. But it isn't notable. We know people watch porn. And it's not surprising they would stop in the middle of a missile alert.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't self-promotion, it's their in-house statistical research, which has a direct bearing on how Internet usage was interrupted by the crisis, material which I haven't seen elsewhere. That sex sells isn't relevant; that we have citation-worthy data regarding the on-line sociological impact is. Sans circular reasoning, I await such citations. {{{crickets}}} kencf0618 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reinserted the PornHub statistics, because crickets. If you disagree, tell how precisely how it not relevant. Thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two editors who think it's trivial, and one of you. We have explained our positions. You might disagree with us, but based on the discussion so far I don't think you have consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)(signature added later)

Fair enough. kencf0618 (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed I have removed it again. Please do not add it in until consensus is achieved. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems like it is off topic to what the article focuses on. I understand adding it if the impact had a significant birthrate increase, but without meaning it is just trivial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll just note here that Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 has a PornHub citation. kencf0618 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So does 2016 clown sightings! This is self-promotion and trivial, and I don't think we should use these stories.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Non sequitur. kencf0618 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This makes it less notable, because Pornhub releases this kind of stuff all the time (through Pornhub Insights) and so there are Pornhub statistics for everything from political scandals to royal weddings to movie debuts. It really isn't notable; it's just self-promotion by Pornhub.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2018

The following discussion 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.

---

2018 Hawaii false missile alert → 2018 Hawaii missile false alert – It was a false alert, plain and simple. It was not an alert that there was a false missile, such as WARNING WARNING THERE IS A FALSE MISSILE IN THE SKY. IT IS A WEATHER BALLOON, NOT A MISSILE. DO NOT BE SCARED. New2018Year (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, 2018 Hawaii missile attack false alert ....would also be better than the current false missile title. Wikipedia is funny having funny titles. New2018Year (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the current title is incorrect. I read it as 2018 Hawaii false (missile alert) - that is, a missile alert that was false. That being said, I think 2018 Hawaii missile scare would be a less ambiguous title. AdA&D 02:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

False alarm?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per normal syntax GNews results are 1000x (yes 1000x) greater for "false missile alert" than "missile false alert" which is what you'd expect as missile alert is a fixed adjective-noun pair while "false" is an additional adjective added for this occasion. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. I'm sure no one would think of "false missile" as one term when searching "false missile alert". ToThAc (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – is it just me, or does that sound really weird. Missile false alert does not sound natural compared to false missile alert. CookieMonster755✉ 01:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, bad grammar. What’s the technical term for a noun used directly as an adjective? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Proposed title is confusing and unnatural. Philroc^{My contribs} 13:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support or call it 2018 Hawaii emergency false alert. New2018Year (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand why people don't like the way it sounds so I withdraw the RM but ask to RM to 2018 Hawaii emergency false alert. New2018Year (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that will gain much support as it just makes the title less precise and makes the phrasing awkward. AdA&D ★ 02:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Adjective order, and it just sounds grammatically wrong. RedPanda25 02:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

Jim Carrey

Actor Jim Carrey was also at Hawaii during the warning. He received a call from his assistant informing him about the situation that they were in. Once the warning had been declared as a false alarm, he was furious with the person who accidentally sent it out. GuyUser81 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)