Talk:Ryanggang explosion

Relevance

The merit of this article is in doubt. Will this be relevant in 10 years? --Cantus 21:17, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on what the source of the explosion actually was. Another member of the nuclear club? Espionage leading to the James Bondian detonation of a weapons facility? --Rknobbe 21:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may well still be relevant in ten years. It will at the very least be a footnote in the diplomatic history of south-east Asia, and the footnote may as well be as detailed as this. It's an interesting incident from several points of view (NK secrecy; Western public and political reactions; Asian diplomatic reactions; nuclear proliferation concerns), and so, until we know how important it ultimately is, it is definitely worth collecting all this information together for others working in all the related fields to refer to. This article definitely deserves to exist for the time being. 195.167.169.36 11:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of current events

I'm really pleased with this article so far: it's a particularly good case of Wikipedia covering current events. We're in the right position to provide a layer of analysis beyond what conventional news sources do. Wikipedia can become, in addition to everything else, a source of contemporary history, like a newspaper of record but with historical analysis. 195.167.169.36 11:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

International officials?

From the article:

"Amid popular speculation that the explosion was nuclear in origin, international officials said that it did not appear to be nuclear."

Who are the "international officials"? As far as I heard, only american officials said that, but I might be wrong. --Conti|✉ 19:45, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen at least one article[1] that mentions that the South Korean government also made this statement. It would not be surprising, however, if much of the world press' attention is on what the U.S. government has to say. The press tends to go where the excitement is, however much this biases the reporting. (My, we're a bit cynical, aren't we? ☺) — Jeff Q 21:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've changed "international officials" to "officials from the United States and South Korea". It would be preferable to get even more specific, by citing particular individuals who have made such official statements. 81.168.80.170 21:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seismic data / radiation measurements

Where is the information on the two seismic readings coming from? None of the news articles I've read mention this. The implication in this article is that some unnamed party or parties detected two seismic disruptions, determined their location to be Kimhyŏngjik, and deduced they were explosions, but that's an awful lot to read into the unsourced statement, "two explosions detected seismically". I'd really like to know what details are available on this, especially since the seismic information seems to refute some of the theories being bandied about. — Jeff Q 21:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now noted this problem in the article. 81.168.80.170 23:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In addition to seismic measurements, one would think that sampling the fallout would be very important in determining whether it is nuclear. A sample of the dust or smoke would probably identify the explosive, even if it was nonnuclear. To anyone's knowledge, has anyone tried to sample the fallout? Does anyone know which way the wind was blowing? pstudier 22:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I was wondering that myself. Normally, I'd expect the world (or at least the U.S.) press to be all over weather reports, movements of naval and scientific vessels in the Sea of Japan, seismic research stations, etc., but there seems to be a total absence of such effort, or at least its results, even a week after the event. Normally, I'm not impressed with conspiracy theories, sharing Dean R. Koontz's opinion as expressed in his novel Fear Nothing:

The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are inattention to detail, a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut.

But on this issue, it certainly seems like either the press is incredibly lazy about something of worldwide fascination (very ratings-friendly!), the apolitical sources aren't talking (quite unusual in itself), or governments (including that of the free-press extolling United States) are squelching such reports. It's extremely troubling and only adds to the suspicion that things are much worse than they seem. — Jeff Q 23:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most of the dubious material on seismic data is now gone. A solid reference for an early report on seismic disturbance would be lovely; this is a major hole in the evidence. 81.168.80.170 20:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Multi-party talks

North Korea was NOT in multi-party talks when the blast took place. In fact, the six partners have been trying to coerce North Korea back to the negotiation table. Stargoat 21:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So there are talks in progress, they're just suspended at the moment. Please write a paragraph that you consider correct rather than just deleting the imprecisely-worded one. 195.167.169.36 10:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The talks are not suspended. They are simply not taking place at the present time, or at the time of the blast. The paragraph was totally incorrect. There is no reason to replace it. Stargoat 12:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have discovered a source which describes the talks as being "delayed" and "on hold". - Scooter 19:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why you are lying? Stargoat 01:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stargoat, exactly who are you accusing of "lying", and why? If you refer to the citation Scooter posted, I will make it explict for those who do not wish to follow the link:

Korea Nuke Talks On Hold

SEOUL, South Korea, Sept. 16, 2004

(CBS/AP) A delay in planned six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear activities appeared certain Thursday, with North Korea saying it won't talk until South Korea fully discloses the details of its secret atomic experiments. [emboldening mine]

The article goes on in more detail, but along a similar vein, from there. Now, one may certainly question the provenance of any news item, and CBS News has indeed lost some credibility in the past few weeks on an unrelated story, but the title clearly says "on hold" and talks of "a delay". Therefore, Scooter's statement that he "discovered a source", etc., is completely accurate.

To quote from "Wikipedia:No original research":

Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration).

The most effective way to correct perceived inaccuracy in Wikipedia articles is to present one or more sources that demonstrate one's contrary points. Scooter has done this. All you seem to have done so far is present your opinion. If you have sources that support your point, you really should present them so that the Wiki community can try to build a consensus on just what the truth is in this situation. Simply accusing people of "lying" does not advance your assertions or contribute to accurate encylopedia authoring. — Jeff Q 06:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. The article's title uses the words "On hold". However, the talks are not on hold. That would imply that the talks are scheduled for a time and place. They are not. There have been talks in the past, and there might be talks in the future, but they are not scheduled, or required (particularly on North Korea's part). There is no delay. The talks are simply not happening. Any reference to the articles as being "on hold" is therefore patently false. It was lazy composition by CBS and it does not belong in the article. Stargoat 12:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stargoat, your above statement that "on hold" means scheduled for a time and place is incorrect. Per Merriam-Webster Online[2]: on hold means in a state or period of indefinite suspension. Indefinite means being undefined. If there were a new time established, the length of the suspension of talks would be defined. Ergo, if the talks have not been rescheduled, then "on hold" is used accurately.

I think I see your point — that at least one party in these talks doesn't believe there are more to have — but you're not providing us with any source for your opinion. You have now made four postings without a single citation, and your criticism of "lazy composition" from a world-reknown (if recently tarnished) news organization belies your own failure to use the expression "on hold" accurately. It is becoming quite difficult to take you seriously. Wikipedia is not a blog. Surely you must have some source you can cite that demonstrates your point? — Jeff Q 01:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I note that Stargoat has a history of being involved in edit wars[3]. 81.168.80.170 17:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reinstated the paragraph, with an edit such that it explicitly described the talks as "indefinitely-suspended" in order to sidestep the debate about whether suspended talks can be said to be taking place. Stargoat's removed it again, with the edit summary "rv: North Korea has not acknowledged that talks will continue. Actually, they've said otherwise.".

First, taking that edit summary at face value: Stargoat's contention is not supported by the news articles we've seen and linked to so far. BBC News: N Korea 'will talk' says UK envoy explicitly states that North Korea has said they intend to continue the talks; this was my source for the statement that the talks would continue. Stargoat, if you know otherwise, then post a reference to a source for your statement.

Secondly, the fault that Stargoat sees is in one statement in a paragraph that says several things. This is not grounds to remove the entire paragraph. The appropriate corrective action for such a fault is to correct the erroneous statement.

Finally, I note that Stargoat did not previously mention this problem with the paragraph. He has been continually removing this paragraph, only coming up with a justification when pressed. This smells of bad faith. Stargoat, what is your real underlying objection to this paragraph? 195.167.169.36 12:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(For clarity: 81.168.80.170 and 195.167.169.36 are the same person. I don't want an account. 195.167.169.36 12:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I've now added {{disputed}} to the article. 195.167.169.36 13:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am finally going to address anon user's continued and unrelenting denial of something which is so plain, I didn't feel necessary to try and rebuke. The only agenda I have is the plain and obvious truth. I cannot understand what is so difficult to grasp about this. The talks are not delayed. They are and were simply not happening.

1. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/2799732
2. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=acMwW7rpnsLw&refer=asia (Powell claiming talks are alive, after North Korea declared otherwise.)
3. http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2004/200409/news09/28.htm#6 From the official North Korean news agency: "As already known well, the groundwork of the talks collapsed due to the@deliberate provocation of the U.S. hard-line conservatives and the double@standards applied by them in dealing with the nuclear issue."

The talks have not been promised to be continued. The faliciousness of this paragaph is remarkable, and what is more, the aggressive attitude displayed by anon user in refusing to try and gain understanding for a resolution has been completely unappropriate. I am removing it again. It contains falsehoods and does not belong. Stargoat 03:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This time you've only removed that one sentence, and reworded the remainder of the paragraph. This is better. The third of the links you post above also provides support for your statements. Now we're getting somewhere. (I fail to see how I've been "refusing to try and gain understanding for a resolution". I've been inviting you to provide references to back up your position, which is the appropriate next step in dispute resolution. But I digress.) The KCNA statement[4] appears to contradict the statement from the British envoy[5]. Now that we have conflicting sources, I'm rewriting the paragraph to describe the conflict. By the way, you also inserted into the paragraph a sentence about diplomats visiting the purported site; this is handled in more detail in an earlier paragraph, so I removed it from this one. 195.167.169.36 08:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Train?

Isn't this the explosion where it was confirmed that it was a train carrying petrol and another train carrying munitions that crashed causing the explosion? If not I'm sorry but I cna't remember any other explosion then that one and there is not even a mention of trains which is odd as that is what caused it. --Josquius 17:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to an earlier event which was widely covered in media ... ? Arno Waschk 00:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be the Ryongchon disaster. —Naddy 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

googlemaps

removed google maps as the area it showed was in china and is a lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorics

* Enemy action from a foreign state. North Korea has plenty of enemies who would be pleased by the destruction of a suspected uranium enrichment plant. Would that be considered neutral tone or not? I'm not sure... -- megA (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)