Talk:September 2016 North Korean nuclear test

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Wikipedia

Engineering Start‑class Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

International relations Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated working groups:
/
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Korean Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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)[reply]