Talk:September 2016 North Korean nuclear test: Difference between revisions
→There seems to be a contradiction: new section |
→Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016: new section |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:The test was conducted on 9 September 2016, which is the 68th anniversary of the founding of North Korea."<br> |
:The test was conducted on 9 September 2016, which is the 68th anniversary of the founding of North Korea."<br> |
||
Any ideas? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
Any ideas? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|September 2016 North Korean nuclear test|answered=no}} |
|||
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. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/74.76.180.38|74.76.180.38]] ([[User talk:74.76.180.38|talk]]) 01:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:05, 15 September 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 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 September 2016 North Korean nuclear test was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 September 2016. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016
It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at September 2016 North Korean nuclear test. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
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)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Start-Class Engineering articles
- Low-importance Engineering articles
- WikiProject Engineering articles
- Start-Class Explosives articles
- Low-importance Explosives articles
- Start-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Start-Class Korea-related articles
- Mid-importance Korea-related articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- WikiProject Korea North Korea working group
- WikiProject Korea articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- Start-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- Start-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- Start-Class Korean military history articles
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests
- Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates