Talk:2013 North Korean nuclear test/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reactions section

It might be worth using the {{flagicon}} template like has been used for these sections in the past. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article on flags. The notable responses should be in paragraph form and the less notable ones should be mentioned as "and X, Y, and Z expressed their disapproval". As is it is a flag gallery that is very difficult simply to read. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Three full paragraphs

Two sentences don't make a paragraph. The ITN nomination requires at least three full prose paragraphs. Edits accomplishing that have been reveresed repeatedly. I will try one last time to put this in prose and not list form. μηδείς (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

This [1] doesn't really appear to be a reliable source for determining the potential TNT equivalent of the explosion, it just appears to be someone's blog... 193.122.22.153 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is not, its use is WP:SYNTH. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Epicenter vs. Hypocenter

The "epicenter," by definition, means the surface location above the source. The hypocenter, on the other hand, refers to the depth of the event. Please correct this misuse of terminology.

Was there a reason you could not do it? 150.216.15.48 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Test section comparison

There's a problem here comparing seismic magnitude to blast yield in kilotons. That's 'apples and oranges' and needs correction or to be removed. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2013 North Korean nuclear test

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2013 North Korean nuclear test's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USGS":

• From United States Geological Survey: USGS Topographic Maps and "USGS Maps Booklet".
• From 2009 North Korean nuclear test: "Earthquake Details: Magnitude 4.7 – NORTH KOREA". Earthquake Hazards Program. United States Geological Survey. 25 May 2009. Archived from the original on 28 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: the ref has been renamed to the more specific "USGS report 2013 nuclear test" to distinguish between sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Magnitude of tremor and location

The lead says "A tremor, that exhibited a nuclear bomb signature with an initial magnitude 4.9". USGS has revised this up to M5.1[2] and given a more precise location closer to Sungjibaegam, North Korea. The main body says magnitude of 4.9 to 5.1. Should the lead say 5.1 and the infobox give a more precise location? Happy to update this if there are no objections. JamieSc (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is now the third time in row North Korea has done one of these ridiculously undersized "nuclear" tests. Trinity was 20 kilotons. How long are we going pretend that this is actually a nuclear device, and not a train car full of ANFO? Kauffner (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An underground nuclear detonation has a very distinct seismic signature which can be detected from the other side of the planet. Estimates of the yield by experts range from 4 to 15 kt.[3] If 4-15 kt is "ridiculously undersized" then why did the US build the B75, the British build the WE.177 or the French build the AN-52? Remember the US also built 0.072kt W48. JamieSc (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Trinity also weighed several tons. They're trying to produce devices small enough to fit on a missile, with inevitable effects on yield. Anyway, the lowest estimates are still around 5 kilotons; that'd have to be one hell of a train car. 94.12.28.244 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So they are making it small on purpose? Each blast has been bigger than the last one, which would suggest they want to make it as big as possible. The easiest nuclear blast to produce is 15 to 20 kilotons, so anything smaller is suspicious. Five kilotones is just a little larger than Minor Scale. An ANFO blast would cost only a few hundred thousand dollars. Why would they spend more on this than they have to? The blast in 2006 was under 2 kilotons. That's about a railway car full of ANFO. If NK had a nuclear weapon that actually worked, the first thing they would do is sell it to Iran. Kauffner (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is suspicious? Both sides in the Cold War went to great lengths to develop tactical nuclear weapon of <15 kt, and many <1 kt, on purpose. It makes perfect sense if your objective is to occupy territory after you have nuked the opposing force. I repeat that an underground nuclear detonation has a very distinct seismic signature and seismologists all over the world confirmed all three explosions were nuclear. JamieSc (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? None of the news reports claim there was "distinct seismic signature." Based on this article, it doesn't sound like there even is such a thing. I assume that NK's objective is to sell whatever is they build to the highest bidder. Magnitude 5.1, which is the upper end of what's being reported, corresponds to 7.3 kilotons. Kauffner (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No I don't make this stuff up. News reports are not the only sources of information and journalists aren't seismologists. The science that can distinguish between earthquakes, nuclear explosions and very large conventional explosions has been around since at least the mid-1960s.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The articles on tactical nuclear weapons being made small on purpose also have reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that backs up your assumption that all the tests were ANFO explosions then feel free to quote it, otherwise it is original research or mere speculation and has no place on Wikipedia. JamieSc (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So the NK blasts have "different seismic characteristics from an earthquake." That's not really the issue, is it? This paper estimates the yield of the 2006 blast as 0.48 kilotons. That would be really small for a nuclear blast. User:JamieSc is an account that was opened on Feb. 13, and you're already wikilawyering about OR. Point out a few obvious facts, and it seems that the wrath of the Kim Jong-un fan club has been awakened. Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

2006 was an outright failure, a fizzle. But the south koreans detected fission products in the atmosphere afterwards; no amount of ANFO would do that.94.12.28.244 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Device type Fission on rails

can we get a source on this please. Device type Fission on rails i've never heard the term before and neither does google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:215:8400:D846:1E85:C50A:3A75 (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Scrambling jets and air sampling

The lead is a bit confusing but it may be possible to clarify.

• A Boeing WC-135 Constant Phoenix has been operating out of Kadena Air Base since mid January.[16] There are multiple Korean, Japanese and Chinese reports about it.[17][18][19][20][21] One report quoted eyewitnesses saying a WC-135 took off from Kadena at 5:00 local time on Feb 13, the day after the test.[22]
• Japan scrambled fighter jets to collect air samples and established coastal monitoring posts.[23]
• South Korea used ships and aircraft to collect air samples.[24]
• Cannot find any evidence of Dutch aircraft being involved.

JamieSc (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC on usage of flag icons or prose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the use of flag icons rather than prose in paragrpahs helpful in the International reaction section of this article? μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Rationale

I have commented on the fact that this is not an article on international flags and tagged the article with a list|section template but there has been no response and the tag has been removed without comment. The international reaction section is in a list format I find difficult to read, and full of flag icons which do not seem to serve any standard wikipedia purpose for article text. Is the use of flag icons rather than prose in paragrpahs helpful in the International reaction section of 2013 North Korean nuclear test?

Comments

• No The use of icons makes the text difficult to read, serves no standard recognized purpose for article prose, and prevents the use of a standard format. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. I find that the icons actually improve the readability, making it easier to identify reactions with the entity. They help provide organization to the section that is already better organized as a list than in prose. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with Ks0stm; the flag icons improve the readability by immediately tagging each entry with the relevant nation. They are also quite standard in reaction sections like the one in this article, see Reactions to the September 11 attacks and International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster for examples. siafu (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This comment isn't directly related to the RfC, but on general criteria for inclusion. These reactions lists are quickly becoming the default on any political news-related articles, but is there a need to include all states that have commented on incidents such as this? Including commentary from states such as Bulgaria or Ireland on this topic seems somewhat trivial in nature. Should we only include comments from states that are the most affected by the incident or most involved in the incident? My reasoning is that states such as Ireland or Bulgaria may be broadly represented by the EU or UN, since all these reactions are typical press release fodder for the news media, and state approximately the same thing. So the question is: Are all reaction comments given the same weight for inclusion, and should we select comments based on relative weight, importance, or notability to an event? I think there needs to be a policy or essay for consensus on this issue, since all news events nowadays include lists of international reactions (of varying triviality) from various countries that may or may not be as involved as other countries. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I say for events like this keep them all and if it gets too long a separate article can be created. Other events may very well not deserve such treatment, but major events like this should. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, I don't think including the diplomatic comments of representatives of countries such as Kosovo or Albania is relevant to this article. We should only include countries specifically affected by the event, which in this case means the countries located in Asia, more specifically East Asia, as well as other nations such as the US, UK, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Russia, and maybe Brazil. So why is Romania on this list? Ecuador? Uzbekistan? I'm sorry to break this to you (in general), but these countries and their foreign policy are irrelevant and unnotable in influencing North Korea or in international relations. The UN and EU already represent countries such as Albania and Ireland, and Kosovo. There is no need to include them in this list as the diplomatic comments are just press release fodder anyways. Including them is trivial and bloats the already trivial list. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update: I oppose keeping flag icons are they are purely ornamental and decorative since most people do not know the flags of foreign countries or search (non-superpower) foreign countries by their flags. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes A list makes it easier to find individual responses T-man 2396 (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Yes I always find that putting flags makes it more readable and therefore easier to get information I am looking for. Leave the flags in :-) Cls14 (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• No The list strikes me as irrelevant to the article in the present state. Just a few prose examples would be better. If you make a new article, however, keep the flags.75* 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Prussia I am curious, when people are looking for the reaction of a country they don't live in, like Prussia, for example, is their immediate impulse to look for the Prussian flag, or to look the item up alphabetically? μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Prussia is not a country, but regardless, we could certainly include both without any disruption. siafu (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do hope you realize Prussia was chosen as an example because it doesn't exist, and should therefore not offend Prussians? μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For your previous comment: Most people don't look up foreign countries by their flag, since the only people who know a country's flag are likely the citizens living in that country (with the exception of superpower/more well-known nations). Therefore, the flags don't serve any use other than trivial ornamentation and decoration. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It is not the flags that I object to but the entire section. It already dominates the article and potentially there are 200 countries and thousands of organizations still to come. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a repository of knowledge, bogging articles down with vast chunks of almost cut + paste statements achieves nothing. Mtpaley (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I agree the section is oversized and trivial. At least the alphabetic addition of names is helpful, but the section should probably be deleted, spearated out or collapsed, with just a little prose above it. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have created a new page International reactions to the 2013 North Korean nuclear test. This matches the page for the 2006 test. Mtpaley (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Great job, Mtpaley; I believe it is time to end this RfC, μηδείς. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As there have been no additional comments for about a week, and it looks like there are no objections, I'll go ahead and close this discussion with {{Archive top}} Ender and Peter 05:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it "Universal Condemnation"?

Reading the term "universal condemnation" (to me anyway) implies that every nation and region has spoken out in concern over the issue, but wouldn't it be more a case of the test has "attracted condemnation by over __ countries/administrations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count of Tuscany (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

On a similar note are 26 entries saying that 'Country X does not approve of this' really worth while? Mtpaley (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not in bullet form, anyway. Having the entries in running prose and written in a manner that flows together rather than being point-stop-point-stop would be preferable. I might take a crack at it in a day or two. GRAPPLE X 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to make a comment in the RfC. I also find most of the reactions to be trivial. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that a long list of random governement workers condemning these tests is not really relevant to the article in any way. Just give a few notable examples.75* 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Now upto 31 countries and 3 international organizations. Two people have tried to remove this but in both cases rapidly undone. Mtpaley (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created a new page for the international reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yield estimate

NORSAR has published the seismic data for all 3 tests and estimates the yield of the 2013 test as "approx. 10kT".[25] That's slightly higher than the South Korean estimate but within the 4-15 kt estimated by others. Should there be a separate section for yield estimates from reliable sources? JamieSc (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The same source estimates the magnitude at 5.0, in line with USGS and South Korean estimates. So perhaps it's some sort of math goof. Kauffner (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Goof?? Whenever we have one of these tests many sources agree estimates of yield from seismic data have a very large error bar or a very wide range or however you want to see it because we simply know too little about the geology of the site and how this test was conducted. Since NK haven't even generally given yield estimates and no one would trust them in any case, the previous tests must be of rather limited use in calibration. This is about S Asian and other tests and was long before the NK test [26] but basically says the same thing. Any source who suggests there is a simple perfect correlation between yield and magnitude should probably be treated with grea caution, particularly if it's just a newspaper. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If the 2009 blast was magnitude 4.7 and 2.35 kilotons, and this one was magnitude 5.0, that works out to 7.0 kilotons. (2.35*(10^5-4.7)+2.35) Kauffner (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo response

Look at the diplomatic response by Kosovo, it's written like a quote but with no quotation marks. It's not clear if it's accidentally unquoted, or if it's paraphrased, or what. It should be fixed.Kbog (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fourth test

Heads up, South Korean media reports there may be a fourth test about to happen.[27] JamieSc (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

2013.05.05 test?

There are reports of a 6.2 magnitude earthquake from the area of the most recent test. This might be a new test. GMRE (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

False alarm. More available details have proven that to have been just a usual earthquake. GMRE (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case the epicentre was in Russia and at a depth of 349 miles. JamieSc (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)