Jump to content

Talk:2013 North Korean nuclear test

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Praise from leftist groups

[edit]

The leftist group Utopia has praised North Korea's nuclear test (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1150499/leftist-group-utopia-congratulates-north-korea-nuclear-blast). Are there any other leftist groups that have praised the test, or have all the other leftist organizations been unanimous in condemning the test? 21:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.28.33 (talk)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes. 71.170.12.131 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From lowest to highest estimate. Why?

[edit]

2006 and 2009 tests is listed with lowest of the international estimates from geological measuring in the fact boxes on the right side of the page. But for the 2013 test Wikipedia has listed up the highest estimate (40 kilotons). This makes it seem that this bomb is 17 times as powerful as the 2009 test. But in reality the bombs has become just a little more powerful from time to time.

The german measurement is clearly wrong as it is totally out of range with the other nations. Please correct.

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.128.106.111 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the German estimate is wrong, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". However the infobox range of 12-21kt is not reflected anywhere in the text or referenced. JamieSc (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the WP:UNDUE principle, which would suggest not putting so much emphasis on estimates that don't make sense. Kauffner (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the fantasy numbers with the South Korean estimate of 6-9 kilotons. For the 2006 and 2009 blasts, the yield estimates are from papers published in scientific journals. This type of estimate takes some time to produce, and neither paper was published until two years after the event. Of course, no one has written an equivalent paper on this blast yet. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Since most other nations (Except Norwegian source) are a party of six-party talks apart from German source, could it be possible that the relevant parties are trying to lower the yield in order to make North Korea's nuclear threat not that credible at all (And showed that the international efforts of embargoing NK works well since the DPRK's nuclear advancement was slower than any other nuclear armed states)? Even Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources (South Korea source) estimated the yield as 7.7-7.8 kilotons which corresponds to Russian's surpass of 7kT mark means that South Korea Defense Ministry's 6kT - 9kT estimate is a political effort to report the yield below than the lower range in order to reduce the negative impacts to it's citizens.
This is a conspiracy theory lacking evidence or credible basis. NPguy (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources (South Korea source) estimates the yield at 7.7 ~ 7.8 kT, and that corresponds to Russian's "clearly surpassed 7kT yield" claim, I think it is only appropriate to revise the max yield from "6kT to 9 kT" to "7kT to 9kT" given that South Korean's official sources initially claimed 10kT yield and they revised to current 6kT ~ 9kT while to US sources revised upwards on the magnitude of the earthquake from 4.9 to 5.2. Hence, the "conspiracy theory" has it's merit and not purely based on anti-West / South / US sentiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.124.50 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This remains a conspiracy theory, based on imputed motivations rather than technical analysis. NPguy (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information

[edit]

Intro: "Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean investigators had failed to detect any radiation."

Next section: "The CTBTO radionuclide network later made a significant detection of radioactive noble gases" --Skintigh (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2013 North Korean nuclear test. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_North_Korean_nuclear_test&oldid=1196644068"