This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
January 2016 North Korean nuclear test article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving January 2016 North Korean nuclear test was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2016. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of January 2016 North Korean nuclear test be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Korea 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. |
I think we must remember that the current test has registered a seismic scale of 5.1.
This is similar (based on revised seismic scale of 5.1 in 2013) or even higher (based on original 4.9 seismic scale as in 2013).
Even the South Korean source have amended the test yield estimation to 6–9 kilotons using the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization’s calculation method.
Hence, there is higher chance that both 2013 and this nuclear test yield is at least about 7 to 9 kilotons, instead of 6 to 7 kilotons as claimed by this "expert" Joseph Cirincione.
It is very evident that the International Community is trying to media blackout the test yield so as to prevent North Korea from having the bargain chip in any possible future talks with the US if ever had. It is also clear that such information is hidden from public domain so that the North Koreans could not get much data apart of what they are currently capable of.
In summary, North Korea should have announced the yield and have the ability to measure the yield it tested so that International Community can acknowledge it as de facto nuclear state, just like what India and Pakistan is doing now.
CNN has reported a N.K. statement that the device was buried rather more deeply than for previous tests. I will add that modifications to the blast chamber perimeter could greatly mitigate seismic propagation and signature isotopic release. Also, the test—being only a test—may have deliberately undercharged a lithium deuteride secondary component so that a fusion 'burn' would be demonstrated, but unsubstantial. Not unlike running a car with only a few quarts of gasoline: the whole system is still shown to work. JohndanR ( talk) 15:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
An hour ago, I had added this paragraph but wonder if that should be in the lede. Many experts doubt that this was a hydrogen explosion so perhaps the coverage of the skepticism should be discussed sooner in this article. ( Senior Defense Analyst Bruce W. Bennett of research organization RAND is also skeptical, telling the BBC that "The bang they should have gotten would have been 10 times greater than what they're claiming.... So Kim Jong-un is either lying, saying they did a hydrogen test when they didn't, they just used a little bit more efficient fission weapon - or the hydrogen part of the test really didn't work very well or the fission part didn't work very well."[15]) Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors should bear in mind that Wikipedia is not news. We don't necessarily need to know what the Australian government says about everything. The USA has conducted over a thousand nuclear tests, not including the "subcritical" tests which it is still conducting. We don't have an article for each of these tests.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It is an important section but it keeps getting longer ... with quotes re: speculation by yet another expert. If we added a quote from every expert who is being quoted in the media, this section would soon become excessively long.
Are the new quotes being added actually providing any new info? Let's keep that in mind before adding more and more. Peter K Burian ( talk) 14:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This was renamed from "2016 North Korean nuclear test" to "2016 North Korea nuclear test." The explanation for this change (the article should use the country's name and not a "demonym") does not make sense. The previous name was grammatically correct. "North Korean" is simply the adjective form of "North Korea" meaning, in this case "by North Korea." It does not refer to inhabitants of North Korea.
Should it be changed back? NPguy ( talk) 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone know the source for the claim: "North Korea was not known to have the infrastructure to produce lithium deuteride fuel"? Unless one is talking about lithium-6 deuteride (and enrichment of 6Li), this doesn't seem like something that requires special infrastructure (producing deuterium is easy, and reacting it with Li is a simple chemical process). Prevalence ( talk) 13:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is the response of Cuba, Belarus, Syria and Zimbabwe not mentioned ?
Oppose - A "Reactions" article would take the "Skepticism" section as well as the "International reactions" section. There would be little left of this. This is repeating the mistakes of the past when multiple articles were created for each test. This is recentism run rampant.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It's easier to keep everything together as a coherent whole, and I've seen no good reason to for the proposed split. NPguy ( talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and closed it, as there has been no reasoning given to split the articles, nor has there been any support for such a move. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The subject line kind of says it all. If there's another test in 2016 as is widely expected [1], what will this one be renamed to? - Brianhe ( talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on January 2016 North Korean nuclear test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
January 2016 North Korean nuclear test article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving January 2016 North Korean nuclear test was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2016. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of January 2016 North Korean nuclear test be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Korea 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. |
I think we must remember that the current test has registered a seismic scale of 5.1.
This is similar (based on revised seismic scale of 5.1 in 2013) or even higher (based on original 4.9 seismic scale as in 2013).
Even the South Korean source have amended the test yield estimation to 6–9 kilotons using the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization’s calculation method.
Hence, there is higher chance that both 2013 and this nuclear test yield is at least about 7 to 9 kilotons, instead of 6 to 7 kilotons as claimed by this "expert" Joseph Cirincione.
It is very evident that the International Community is trying to media blackout the test yield so as to prevent North Korea from having the bargain chip in any possible future talks with the US if ever had. It is also clear that such information is hidden from public domain so that the North Koreans could not get much data apart of what they are currently capable of.
In summary, North Korea should have announced the yield and have the ability to measure the yield it tested so that International Community can acknowledge it as de facto nuclear state, just like what India and Pakistan is doing now.
CNN has reported a N.K. statement that the device was buried rather more deeply than for previous tests. I will add that modifications to the blast chamber perimeter could greatly mitigate seismic propagation and signature isotopic release. Also, the test—being only a test—may have deliberately undercharged a lithium deuteride secondary component so that a fusion 'burn' would be demonstrated, but unsubstantial. Not unlike running a car with only a few quarts of gasoline: the whole system is still shown to work. JohndanR ( talk) 15:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
An hour ago, I had added this paragraph but wonder if that should be in the lede. Many experts doubt that this was a hydrogen explosion so perhaps the coverage of the skepticism should be discussed sooner in this article. ( Senior Defense Analyst Bruce W. Bennett of research organization RAND is also skeptical, telling the BBC that "The bang they should have gotten would have been 10 times greater than what they're claiming.... So Kim Jong-un is either lying, saying they did a hydrogen test when they didn't, they just used a little bit more efficient fission weapon - or the hydrogen part of the test really didn't work very well or the fission part didn't work very well."[15]) Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors should bear in mind that Wikipedia is not news. We don't necessarily need to know what the Australian government says about everything. The USA has conducted over a thousand nuclear tests, not including the "subcritical" tests which it is still conducting. We don't have an article for each of these tests.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It is an important section but it keeps getting longer ... with quotes re: speculation by yet another expert. If we added a quote from every expert who is being quoted in the media, this section would soon become excessively long.
Are the new quotes being added actually providing any new info? Let's keep that in mind before adding more and more. Peter K Burian ( talk) 14:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This was renamed from "2016 North Korean nuclear test" to "2016 North Korea nuclear test." The explanation for this change (the article should use the country's name and not a "demonym") does not make sense. The previous name was grammatically correct. "North Korean" is simply the adjective form of "North Korea" meaning, in this case "by North Korea." It does not refer to inhabitants of North Korea.
Should it be changed back? NPguy ( talk) 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone know the source for the claim: "North Korea was not known to have the infrastructure to produce lithium deuteride fuel"? Unless one is talking about lithium-6 deuteride (and enrichment of 6Li), this doesn't seem like something that requires special infrastructure (producing deuterium is easy, and reacting it with Li is a simple chemical process). Prevalence ( talk) 13:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is the response of Cuba, Belarus, Syria and Zimbabwe not mentioned ?
Oppose - A "Reactions" article would take the "Skepticism" section as well as the "International reactions" section. There would be little left of this. This is repeating the mistakes of the past when multiple articles were created for each test. This is recentism run rampant.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It's easier to keep everything together as a coherent whole, and I've seen no good reason to for the proposed split. NPguy ( talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and closed it, as there has been no reasoning given to split the articles, nor has there been any support for such a move. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The subject line kind of says it all. If there's another test in 2016 as is widely expected [1], what will this one be renamed to? - Brianhe ( talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on January 2016 North Korean nuclear test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)