Talk:September 2016 North Korean nuclear test

International response

How should we organize the International response section so as to avoid repetition of condemnation on a country by country basis? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a great question. I think we should consider skipping the big list approach on current events. The condemnations tend to be platitudes written be speechwriters. I don't consider them relevant to an encyclopaedia. Perhaps we could just say "These countries made a statement". And maybe list any that sound personal or significant. In this case, Japan are neighbours, so their response might be relevant.

Less is definitely more, though. Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say a paragraph noting the reaction of key players: world powers and neighbours.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a paragraph would be sufficient Cloud0Envy (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland. There is some latitude with regards to what are "world powers", but Singapore, Italy and Israel (currently in the section) certainly don't count. Someone ought to turn this into a proper prose paragraph as there is little to no support for the bulleted list form. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

On a similar topic, we don't seem to have an article on the Sanctions on North Korea, though we have pages on various UN Resolutions. Am I missing something?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: We are missing an article on an encyclopedic topic, that's all. It should definitely be created. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The UN Security Council permanent members, Japan and South Korea would make a good set for limiting the reactions section. - Brianhe (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't have France, and I don't think we really need to. I would say South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia as neighbours, and the US as it has military involvement in the area. Other countries could be mentioned if they do something significant, like introduce new sanctions. I agree with Billy's comment about platitudes. Quoting these pronouncements at length conveys very little. The question is what, if anything, is going to be done.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have to say that if there are too many international reactions desirable to fit in a Wikipedia article, perhaps it's a better idea to move them to a separate article, while leaving the reactions of a few major parties (e.g. neighbours, US) on this article? I disagree with simply removing other countries' reactions solely because they are repetitive, since Wikipedia is supposed to present the facts rather than judging which facts are worth presenting in an article. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That was raised at the January test article and had no support there. I think the idea was to mirror the articles on earlier tests, but there was no need for it, and there's no need for it here. No one is suggesting this article is too big.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite the agreement above that the list is too long, a week has passed and nothing has happened. I think it is time to start by at least removing some of the entries. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, more responses have been added in that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagreed because the title says 'International response', and not 'Response from the neighbouring countries & US' or 'Response from other parties in the stalled 6-party talks' or such. Thus, I restored everything back. Sam 12:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No section should go into trivial detail. Just as a "History" section does not need to account for every second of the life of a country/company/person, an "International response" section need not recount all responses by all nations. Because of the nature of the section, we need to come up with selection criteria. One such set has been suggested above. Do you have alternative criteria to suggest? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I would rather sent all the response into another article instead. This was the standard practice for 2006, 2009 & 2013. Sam 13:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ussr 1991, you keep reverting my reduction of the list, stating there is no consensus. But looking above, I see 6 users (Finnusertop, Billyshiverstick, Jack Upland, Cloud0Envy, Brianhe and myself) saying to reduce the list, as opposed to you and AsianHippie saying they should be kept. 6 to 2 is a consensus by any measure. I don't want to get into trouble for edit warring over such an obvious point, so I invite you to self-revert. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I will not do the self-revert. Simply because as per Jack Upland have said "No one is suggessting that the article is too big. Meanwhile, I would prefer to maintain a consistency so that in the event of future nuclear testing by North Korea with a less than usual condemnative actions by non-6 party member state could be included in the article. The Wikipedia article should not leave the impression that its nuclear test is only met with regional condemnation while others keeping silent in the issue, at least for the foreseeable future. Sam 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you have taken Jack Upland out of context there, but I will let him confirm that. The first sentence of the section The test, conducted in defiance of the international community, prompted wide international condemnation. makes the degree of condemnation clear regardless of whether we list 2 or 20 countries. You could expand that sentence to list countries scattered all over the world. In any event, a summary makes listing every country redundant. It is especially the case when each of these long statements parrots the same general theme of "that was naughty, please stop" without adding anything particularly interesting.

On an unrelated note, your signature should have a link to your talk page. It was necessary to look at the revision history to figure out that "Ussr 1991" editing the article is the same person as "Sam" commenting on the talk page. Please see WP:SIGLINK for an explanation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I have moved all the specific response into a new article, as per 2013 situation for consistency reason. Signature has changed accordingly. ussr_1991 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And where is this new page? And where is the link from this article to that page? I have stayed out of the argument over the international reactions section because I don't have a strong feeling about it. But I do think there needs to be more of a summary of the other international reactions to replace detailed litany that has been deleted. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two links to this new page that I can see. What I can't see is a reason. A reaction page has also been created for the January test, even though there was a consensus not to do so. The only explanation given is "consistency". I can understand why a separate reaction page was created for the first test, but I don't see why that needs to be replicated indefinitely. It now seems clear that North Korea will continue testing, and the international reactions are not having much effect. We now have at least 12 different pages relating to the tests. As stated before, less is more.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. International reactions to the January and September 2016 North Korean nuclear test are forks that were created (without consensus) for the purpose of retaining content that otherwise would have been removed (with consensus). This makes them WP:POVFORKs and we should probably take measures to delete them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, the 2006 reactions page was nominated for deletion in 2013. It narrowly survived, but I think the nomination was apt for all these pages:"this article is a quotefarm of soundbites, indignant comments, empty rhetoric and 'mee toos' from overly self-important politicians from countries with only remote connection to the actual test."--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not engage in edit wars.

Hi, I wrote a clarification edit, putting the kiloton yield in context, and dropping in some links to relevant pages for people without the technical background.

Somebody ripped the whole thing out. Somebody with a weird agenda. Just a reminder, the point of Wikipedia is not to trash other people's edits, but to add information, links and context to improve articles. If it was Jeffrey Lewis - mitt's off. Your post comes off like propaganda for a specific government. Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of, is it really necessary to be "politically correct" to North Korea, of all places, when we're trying to objectively present facts in as unbiased a way as possible? "Democratic" "People's" "Republic"? Please. Their government is objectively, categorically not even remotely close to any of those things, & we all know such obfuscation is (and has been) blatant propaganda since the dawn of Marxist dictatorships around the world. Everyone knows what we mean when we just say "NorthKorea", & their tyrannical government is the only one that gets butthurt over it, because they know damn well they are not a "Democratic" "People's" "Republic". Not pushing any particular "ooh, agenda" (scary!) here, just trying to call things what they are, rather than devolving into Orwellian Doublespeak that's expressly for the benefit of one extremely hostile dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WC-135C Constant Phoenix

Google doesn't help much with the translation but this article from Mainichi Shimbun (a reliable source) seems to suggest the WC-135C is operating out of Kadena Air Base sniffing the air off North Korea for radioactive particles. Hoping somebody fluent in Japanese can check before adding. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This article seems to confirm it. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction

between these two side-by-side sentences.

"On 5 September 2016, North Korea fired three consecutive Rodong-1 missiles into Sea of Japan with high accuracy and at a range of about 1,000 km.[12] This marked the Rodong-1 as a credible and matured missile suitable for operational deployment since its first successful launch in 1993. The United Nations Council condemned North Korea's missile launches.[13]

The test was conducted on 9 September 2016, which is the 68th anniversary of the founding of North Korea."

Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here. The sentences you quoted was about the Background of the situation before the nuclear test on September 5. Some of these includes the deployment of THAAD is South Korea, the successful test of Hwasong-10 (Musudan) and Pukkuksong-1 (KN-11) SLBM as well as how Rodong-1 being an intermediate range missile was being tested simultaneously together which will be the case in the event of war. So my point is that after North Korea have successfully improved their credibility in missile attacks for intermediate range, the North Koreans decided to conduct a nuclear warhead test.Sam 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

The word "biannual" should be "semiannual" in the paragraph about the United States and South Korean joint military exercises. The exercises occur in February and August, not every other year. 74.76.180.38 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian and Foal Eagle are pretty well documented. - Brianhe (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Feel free to handle the request, I don't have time to read two articles. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Changed wording to explicitly say "twice a year" if that helps the ambiguity — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dont have time to read but have time to write down??. Please thats not logic in any sense. Go ahead with the change.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

The United States Air Force WC-135C Constant Phoenix is operating out of Kadena Air Base in Japan, to collect air samples for the purpose of detecting and identifying nuclear explosions. [1][2] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

Unviersity of Science and Technology of China locates the nuclear test to be at (41°17'54.60N, 129°4'40.80E), with an estimated yield of 17.8±5.9 kt.

LANLguy (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Already done It appears there's already coordinates supplied for this article. Stickee (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Unverified claim

The article states: "On 5 September 2016, North Korea fired three consecutive Rodong-1 missiles into the Sea of Japan with high accuracy and at a range of about 1,000 km." There is no reference to support the claim of "high accuracy." The sea of Japan is a large target... Big Lew 00:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I fear this page is under attack from participants sympathetic to the North Korean regime. There seems to be a consistent bias towards unverified claims that appear to exaggerate the nuclear capabilities of NK. Big Lew 01:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)