![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found it interesting that Venezuela even spoke out against the test. If someone can find the quote that the Venezuelan Government released, it's definitely worth noting, just because usually anything that goes against the United States is something Venezuela supports. (As far as I know it was not a statement directly from Hugo Chavez). Mientkiewicz5508 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
North America is the continent and so is Asia and Ocenia, so leave it as sucha nd stop reverting it to jst America.
ummm it happened oct 08 2006 not oct 09 2006, it has only been cot 9th for 5 minutes.
ok agreed... http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=205 -- mokaiba
Although all the news agencies are reporting this somwhat breathlessly, we should be careful until it's confirmed. North Korea has a long history of playing hijinks with the international community to get what it wants.
whats up with this stock market business? thats def. orig. research
It said South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT. from : [1] mokaiba
-->tonga is 4 hrs ahead of north korea [2] tonga earthquake happened at 150am oct 8th, NK did test oct 9th 1pm mokaiba
USGS website now lists a 4.2 mag event having taken place in North Korea.
The USGS is now saying 4.2 magnitude tremor, does anyone know of a potential yield that the bomb could have had? Some of the rumors I have heard say 400 Kilotons, but that seems a little big for their very first test, but then again, the USGS has confirmed that the bomb was stronger than originally thought. I think it will be a safe assumption to say that a device was tested, there is virtually no evidence right now that says it did not occur. Australia is really the only nation that picked it up who is still trying to figure it out for sure. Green Machine 6 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A 4.2 mag event might indicate a 1 kiloton device at 300 feet. Good info here: [3] [4]
1 kt is much more likely than 400kt. A 400kt fission device is a BIG fission device, huge in fact. Those kind of yields are typically reserved to sub-megaton staged fusion devices.
The only data we have to calculate yield is the seismic data. It varies from 3.8 to 4.2 based on source, leading to a yield estimate of .5 to 2 kilotons. I know of no source for a more accurate number, and both figures (3.8 and 4.2) are being widely reported. It is not clear where the '500 ton' or '550 ton' number is coming from, but it's most likely an inference based on the initial South Korean seismic. (Confirmed, the widely reported '550 tons' number comes from initial South Korean seismic data, that would make it obsolete if the USGS seismic data is better.) JoelKatz
The Kelly Kiloton Index [6] says that a 4.2 magnitude earthquake is equal to 2 kilotons of energy released. I don't know if nuclear weapons cause a different magnitude reading on seismographs, but the magnitude measured is consistent with the 550 ton to 2 kiloton estimates.-- Burzum 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Without venturing my own opinion, I've quoted JDW's estimate of the yield. Dbromage 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I decided to remove the contentious section:
I've been looking in to this a bit. I had been planning to give up and just leave it until things are clearer. But more information has come to light. The JDW bit which is at least sourced seems to suggest the 4.2 on the Ritcher scale may not 100% correlate with the yield. Even if my understanding here is incorrect or they're just wrong, I still don't think we can justify the above. The Pokhran-II case also causes doubt in my mind. I haven't looked in to it that well but as far as I can tell there was a lot of debate as to the yield [ [7]] [ [8]] of one of the tests (although in a different scale). As such, until and unless we can find a resonably reliable source which states that if the seismic event was 4.2 then the yield of the test was 2 kt we should leave this out. Nil Einne 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any official news links saying this actually happened or is this just self-researched news? And if so, lets please try to make this page as accurate as possible, as this is major news. Effer 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the first part of the "official announcement" text, because it didn't appear in the original announcement from the cited source. If it's genuine, it needs a good source. The removed text is "The citizens of the North Korean nation salutes our heroic leaders in making this great leap in achievement in defeating the international band of imperialists led by the chief imperialist George Bush. We salute our Dear Leader who continues the legacy of our Great Leader in building our proud nation into a bastion of socialist paradise." -- Reuben 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a quote in the Introduction, I think, pertaining to the fact that the Google Earth view of the area where the test is presumed to have taken place is standalone, a picture in its own right.
So? Who cares? What difference does it make? So, some old satellite imagery was taken of it... sure, it is supposed to be a missile testing facility.
What does this have to do with news? If you want an official reason to get rid of the quote, anything to do with Google Earth would be original research, and the research does not indicate anything of value to a news piece, or any piece on the wikipedia.
EDIT: Secondly :P What is the point of the Pakistani section under "International Response". It just says "No official comment". Why is this country listed under "International Response" if it hasn't yet actually responded?
I'm not opposed to an Analysis section. However, it should include well-sourced perspectives from expert analysts and should be carefully written. In my view, the Analysis section that I deleted did not meet these criteria. - Scottwiki 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It says in there "The yen also fell to a seven-month low against the US dollar while oil on the world market rose above US$60 a barrel." I'm guessing Korean yen, but I don't know. -- WikiSlasher 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Any word yet on this event's effect on U.S. elections this November? Rklawton 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Moore123456 is vandalising. See the section on "Chewmerica", just after New Zealand. Admins, how do we deal with him? Tjwagner 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest telephoning Kim Jong Il and asking him to conduct NK's next nuclear test in User:Moore123456's bedroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.111.60.113 ( talk • contribs)
"It is expected that the test will have significantly raised the radioactivity level in the region." Not likely - NK says it was an underground test, and I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. Unless they totally botched it, an underground test releases little or no radiation. Certainly not enough to "significantly" raise the radioactivity level. That sentence should either be deleted, or change to something like "Underground tests to not release significant amounts of radiation." 63.161.86.254 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it normal for a chronology to start with the most recent event? I'm not sure how its usually done on wikipedia, but this seems backwards to me. Harley peters 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time we compose a paragraphy outlining the case for a non-nuclear explosion. [9] Rklawton 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As of this writing, a careful search of Google News has not revealed any reports of gamma rays or EMP Electromagnetic pulse, despite the existence of US and presumably Russian satellites designed to detect these. Search terms were "North Korea" in quotes combined in different searches with 'pulse', 'gamma', 'gamma radiation', or 'gamma rays'. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Without evidence that strongly or definitively marks it as nuclear, it is good that "claims" is the third word in the article. However, it would be usefully educational and Neutral Point of View to point out to readers of the article that there have been a number of kiloton non-nuclear blasts in the past 100 or so years. N. Korea has an incentive to fake a nuclear blast if they are not capable of a nuclear weapon. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I found an article about the reaction of the swiss: Swiss Reaction Could someone add there reaction to the page. I'm not the best at major edits. -- Zrulli 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the link and added a bit of info from it to the Switzerland section that someone else missed.-- Falconus| Talk 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"undermine various threats" is non-sensical and either a poor translation or mistyped "treaties". -- Belg4mit 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is most of the lead a quote from North Korea? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody please tell me how to or where to go to properly cite sources. The whole "References" section is throwing me for a loop...
Thanks, Falconus| Talk 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"The U.N. Security Council should congratulate North Korea for its nuclear test instead of passing "useless" resolutions or statements, North Korea's U.N. ambassador said Monday." --- Yahoo! News
I think it's hilarious. That's all. LOL XD -- Heilme 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering why we need a second photo from Bush's speech, featuring, out of three people, only one who is even remotely relevant to the situation at hand (Dr. Rice). No offense to Mr. Bolten or the First Lady, but they don't have much to do with this article. Wouldn't an image of another world leader's reaction to the test be more meaningful? Heck, even a photo of Kim Jong-Il would be more informative. Kasreyn 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
reference 31 is blank. Either the code is messed up, or the citation just isnt there. Will someone please fix it? thanks. dposse 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that after 24 hours of furious and frantic editing this is, in the end, a pretty good article, better than many of the news reports and far better cited than any of them. -- Fastfission 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone move the Korean nuclear template to the left side, in order not to have the big gap after the Background section? Or teach me how to do it. Thank you.-- Doom777 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone could add that the earthquake (almost 4 degrees on the richter scale) from the testing was detected by Romanian quake detectors.
I realize that it's the Wikipedia standard to start articles formulaically, but a sentence like "The 2006 North Korea nuclear test was a nuclear test which the Democratic Peopl' Republic of Korea ..." just sounds silly. I think it would be reasonable to start with "In 2006 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claimed to have successfully detonated a nuclear test ..." or something that sounds like a person would actually say it. - Che Nuevara 04:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not been looking at this page so if I do something it might be incorrect or not reflect other edits. this concerns the statement "International condemnation of the test has been unanimous, coming even from North Korea's closest ally, the People's Republic of China." isn't it important Iran had a slightly different reaction - to claim the test was a result of American arrogance? -- gatoatigrado 05:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Currently we have mention of the NK envoy's comment expressing disappoinment that they were not congratulated in the internatonal reactions section. Does anyone else think it should be moved back to here? It isn't really an 'international' reaction... Nil Einne 06:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the international reactions are gone? -- Deenoe 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe somebody should put in the actual quote from the N. Korean Officer. Whats there now seems alittle misleading. Im sure that is what they are trying to do, but he never states it, or aleast the quote doesn't make any mention of it.-- Hasty5o 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I just caught that they had possible help on the radio... I do not have access to view news articules here at work so if anyone can elaborate alittle more it would be helpful. Drew1369r 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found it interesting that Venezuela even spoke out against the test. If someone can find the quote that the Venezuelan Government released, it's definitely worth noting, just because usually anything that goes against the United States is something Venezuela supports. (As far as I know it was not a statement directly from Hugo Chavez). Mientkiewicz5508 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
North America is the continent and so is Asia and Ocenia, so leave it as sucha nd stop reverting it to jst America.
ummm it happened oct 08 2006 not oct 09 2006, it has only been cot 9th for 5 minutes.
ok agreed... http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=205 -- mokaiba
Although all the news agencies are reporting this somwhat breathlessly, we should be careful until it's confirmed. North Korea has a long history of playing hijinks with the international community to get what it wants.
whats up with this stock market business? thats def. orig. research
It said South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT. from : [1] mokaiba
-->tonga is 4 hrs ahead of north korea [2] tonga earthquake happened at 150am oct 8th, NK did test oct 9th 1pm mokaiba
USGS website now lists a 4.2 mag event having taken place in North Korea.
The USGS is now saying 4.2 magnitude tremor, does anyone know of a potential yield that the bomb could have had? Some of the rumors I have heard say 400 Kilotons, but that seems a little big for their very first test, but then again, the USGS has confirmed that the bomb was stronger than originally thought. I think it will be a safe assumption to say that a device was tested, there is virtually no evidence right now that says it did not occur. Australia is really the only nation that picked it up who is still trying to figure it out for sure. Green Machine 6 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A 4.2 mag event might indicate a 1 kiloton device at 300 feet. Good info here: [3] [4]
1 kt is much more likely than 400kt. A 400kt fission device is a BIG fission device, huge in fact. Those kind of yields are typically reserved to sub-megaton staged fusion devices.
The only data we have to calculate yield is the seismic data. It varies from 3.8 to 4.2 based on source, leading to a yield estimate of .5 to 2 kilotons. I know of no source for a more accurate number, and both figures (3.8 and 4.2) are being widely reported. It is not clear where the '500 ton' or '550 ton' number is coming from, but it's most likely an inference based on the initial South Korean seismic. (Confirmed, the widely reported '550 tons' number comes from initial South Korean seismic data, that would make it obsolete if the USGS seismic data is better.) JoelKatz
The Kelly Kiloton Index [6] says that a 4.2 magnitude earthquake is equal to 2 kilotons of energy released. I don't know if nuclear weapons cause a different magnitude reading on seismographs, but the magnitude measured is consistent with the 550 ton to 2 kiloton estimates.-- Burzum 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Without venturing my own opinion, I've quoted JDW's estimate of the yield. Dbromage 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I decided to remove the contentious section:
I've been looking in to this a bit. I had been planning to give up and just leave it until things are clearer. But more information has come to light. The JDW bit which is at least sourced seems to suggest the 4.2 on the Ritcher scale may not 100% correlate with the yield. Even if my understanding here is incorrect or they're just wrong, I still don't think we can justify the above. The Pokhran-II case also causes doubt in my mind. I haven't looked in to it that well but as far as I can tell there was a lot of debate as to the yield [ [7]] [ [8]] of one of the tests (although in a different scale). As such, until and unless we can find a resonably reliable source which states that if the seismic event was 4.2 then the yield of the test was 2 kt we should leave this out. Nil Einne 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any official news links saying this actually happened or is this just self-researched news? And if so, lets please try to make this page as accurate as possible, as this is major news. Effer 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the first part of the "official announcement" text, because it didn't appear in the original announcement from the cited source. If it's genuine, it needs a good source. The removed text is "The citizens of the North Korean nation salutes our heroic leaders in making this great leap in achievement in defeating the international band of imperialists led by the chief imperialist George Bush. We salute our Dear Leader who continues the legacy of our Great Leader in building our proud nation into a bastion of socialist paradise." -- Reuben 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a quote in the Introduction, I think, pertaining to the fact that the Google Earth view of the area where the test is presumed to have taken place is standalone, a picture in its own right.
So? Who cares? What difference does it make? So, some old satellite imagery was taken of it... sure, it is supposed to be a missile testing facility.
What does this have to do with news? If you want an official reason to get rid of the quote, anything to do with Google Earth would be original research, and the research does not indicate anything of value to a news piece, or any piece on the wikipedia.
EDIT: Secondly :P What is the point of the Pakistani section under "International Response". It just says "No official comment". Why is this country listed under "International Response" if it hasn't yet actually responded?
I'm not opposed to an Analysis section. However, it should include well-sourced perspectives from expert analysts and should be carefully written. In my view, the Analysis section that I deleted did not meet these criteria. - Scottwiki 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It says in there "The yen also fell to a seven-month low against the US dollar while oil on the world market rose above US$60 a barrel." I'm guessing Korean yen, but I don't know. -- WikiSlasher 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Any word yet on this event's effect on U.S. elections this November? Rklawton 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Moore123456 is vandalising. See the section on "Chewmerica", just after New Zealand. Admins, how do we deal with him? Tjwagner 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest telephoning Kim Jong Il and asking him to conduct NK's next nuclear test in User:Moore123456's bedroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.111.60.113 ( talk • contribs)
"It is expected that the test will have significantly raised the radioactivity level in the region." Not likely - NK says it was an underground test, and I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. Unless they totally botched it, an underground test releases little or no radiation. Certainly not enough to "significantly" raise the radioactivity level. That sentence should either be deleted, or change to something like "Underground tests to not release significant amounts of radiation." 63.161.86.254 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it normal for a chronology to start with the most recent event? I'm not sure how its usually done on wikipedia, but this seems backwards to me. Harley peters 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time we compose a paragraphy outlining the case for a non-nuclear explosion. [9] Rklawton 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As of this writing, a careful search of Google News has not revealed any reports of gamma rays or EMP Electromagnetic pulse, despite the existence of US and presumably Russian satellites designed to detect these. Search terms were "North Korea" in quotes combined in different searches with 'pulse', 'gamma', 'gamma radiation', or 'gamma rays'. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Without evidence that strongly or definitively marks it as nuclear, it is good that "claims" is the third word in the article. However, it would be usefully educational and Neutral Point of View to point out to readers of the article that there have been a number of kiloton non-nuclear blasts in the past 100 or so years. N. Korea has an incentive to fake a nuclear blast if they are not capable of a nuclear weapon. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I found an article about the reaction of the swiss: Swiss Reaction Could someone add there reaction to the page. I'm not the best at major edits. -- Zrulli 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the link and added a bit of info from it to the Switzerland section that someone else missed.-- Falconus| Talk 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"undermine various threats" is non-sensical and either a poor translation or mistyped "treaties". -- Belg4mit 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is most of the lead a quote from North Korea? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody please tell me how to or where to go to properly cite sources. The whole "References" section is throwing me for a loop...
Thanks, Falconus| Talk 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"The U.N. Security Council should congratulate North Korea for its nuclear test instead of passing "useless" resolutions or statements, North Korea's U.N. ambassador said Monday." --- Yahoo! News
I think it's hilarious. That's all. LOL XD -- Heilme 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering why we need a second photo from Bush's speech, featuring, out of three people, only one who is even remotely relevant to the situation at hand (Dr. Rice). No offense to Mr. Bolten or the First Lady, but they don't have much to do with this article. Wouldn't an image of another world leader's reaction to the test be more meaningful? Heck, even a photo of Kim Jong-Il would be more informative. Kasreyn 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
reference 31 is blank. Either the code is messed up, or the citation just isnt there. Will someone please fix it? thanks. dposse 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that after 24 hours of furious and frantic editing this is, in the end, a pretty good article, better than many of the news reports and far better cited than any of them. -- Fastfission 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone move the Korean nuclear template to the left side, in order not to have the big gap after the Background section? Or teach me how to do it. Thank you.-- Doom777 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone could add that the earthquake (almost 4 degrees on the richter scale) from the testing was detected by Romanian quake detectors.
I realize that it's the Wikipedia standard to start articles formulaically, but a sentence like "The 2006 North Korea nuclear test was a nuclear test which the Democratic Peopl' Republic of Korea ..." just sounds silly. I think it would be reasonable to start with "In 2006 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claimed to have successfully detonated a nuclear test ..." or something that sounds like a person would actually say it. - Che Nuevara 04:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not been looking at this page so if I do something it might be incorrect or not reflect other edits. this concerns the statement "International condemnation of the test has been unanimous, coming even from North Korea's closest ally, the People's Republic of China." isn't it important Iran had a slightly different reaction - to claim the test was a result of American arrogance? -- gatoatigrado 05:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Currently we have mention of the NK envoy's comment expressing disappoinment that they were not congratulated in the internatonal reactions section. Does anyone else think it should be moved back to here? It isn't really an 'international' reaction... Nil Einne 06:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the international reactions are gone? -- Deenoe 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe somebody should put in the actual quote from the N. Korean Officer. Whats there now seems alittle misleading. Im sure that is what they are trying to do, but he never states it, or aleast the quote doesn't make any mention of it.-- Hasty5o 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I just caught that they had possible help on the radio... I do not have access to view news articules here at work so if anyone can elaborate alittle more it would be helpful. Drew1369r 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)