Talk:Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
A story relating to the article Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.

Contents

[edit] Name

According to the Wikipedia naming conventions for Korean, the title for this article should probably not be spelled "Yongbyon Reactors". Unfortunately, that's the form almost universally used in western mass media. — Babelfisch 06:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to have both the DPRK and the south Korean spelling in the name box: 1. It's not very clear. 2. The native or local spelling should be preferred. It wouldn't make sense either to add DPRK spellings to all south Korean names. It's better to have the southern spelling in a note somewhere for reference. — Babelfisch 02:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have little knowledge of Korean romanization and defer to your expertise, but I earlier added "(sometimes called Nyongbyong or Nyongbyon)" for the practical reason that google searches on these revealed useful sources to an English-language researcher. The IAEA use both Nyongbyong or Nyongbyon, and the KCNA uses Nyongbyon. Googling "Nyŏngbyŏn" and "Nyeongbyeon" as given now in the article reveal none of these useful sources. I think there is a strong case to still mentioning Nyongbyong and Nyongbyon to assist the researcher; but I'll leave you to decide if and how this should be done. - Rwendland 11:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It's important that the Wikipedia article can be found, but it's no less important that it's accurate. The spelling Nyongbyong is simply wrong - this spelling just demonstrates complacency of western media towards Asian names. The IAEA seems to be undecided or particularely ignorant - it doesn't seem they are really concerned with that place! - and uses three different spellings. (They also write Nyonbyong.) We could also see this as a test for the reliability of Google to come up with correct information. Google of course wouldn't find Nyŏngbyŏn, because the Internet is not a suitable habitat for diacritics - you won't find any English-language resources by googling "Hồ Chí Minh" either. The transcription Nyeongbyeon follows a south Korean standard ("Revised Romanization") that has been largely ignored on an international level. In this case, not even the media in south Korea seem to use it. — Babelfisch 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of local names, is the term “녕변원자로” much used in N. Korea, as opposed to “녕변핵시설” (as used at de:Atomanlagen von Nyŏngbyŏn)? I guess the latter better matches the English term “Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center”. Wikipeditor 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Wikipeditor 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Cursory examination suggests that much or all of the content on this page was originally taken from globalsecurity.org's page on Yongbyon. I don't know what the next step would be, and assume some more experienced editor than I can review and handle this. If it goes the other way and globalsecurity.org is borrowing from wikipedia, I was unable to find a reference to that fact with some quick googling. JamieMcCarthy 18:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The first version of this article is a subset of globalsecurity.org's much longer article - does look like a copy&paste selection. I've added a fair bit of original content since then, so this is annoying. I guess someone will have to rewrite some of the content, but I don't have time right now. The article is a bit messy, so I suppose it is an opportunity to improve the structure anyway. Rwendland 01:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So what happens next? Are we at the point where we follow the "all revisions have copyright problems" instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems? JamieMcCarthy 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all the suspect copyright text paragraphs (as in the first version of the article), and as it happens all that is left is stuff I've written (plus the info box I remember someone else adding) - I can vouch for that. So the current version is copyright OK I think, though I see that I haven't followed a procedure suggested by Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. I've never dealt with a copyright issue before - can someone who has say if what I've done is OK for a relatively minor copyright issue, or should we copy the current to Talk:PAGENAME/Temp, and and ask an admin to remove the history:
Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over.
What's left in the current version seems to make quite a decent, though small, article covering the essentials. Rwendland 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense?

Wouldn't the first section of this article now need to be in past tense, since the reactors have been shut down?

Lots of reactors in the world are shut down. When it gets decommissioned, then we'll change the tense. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just wondering. (I made the original question, by the way, sorry for not signing my name.) It just seemed to me that the "shut down and sealed" implied it wasn't going to be reopened again. My bad. Siddonie 16:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Nyŏngbyŏn remains in operational state, then it's still a nuclear reactor, regardless of whether it's in use or not. So the present tense could stay. (Stefan2 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Citations?

This PBS NewsHour article mentions a quote from Larry Niksch, stating that the reactor was not connected to the power grid in 2003. The same claim has been repeated in more recent articles. I would have expected North Kora to connect the reactor to the power grid by now, if for no other reason than appearances. Given the controversy surrounding the operation of the reactor, should the article not have in-line citations for the claims of heating and power generation?

You have to remember the running reactor is a titchy 5MWe experimental technology proving reactor, smaller than many a research reactor. The two follow-on reactors (prototype 50MWe and production 200MWe) were intended as serious power reactors. That said, Siegfried Hecker visited the 5MWe reactor early 2004 reporting that "They are producing electricity and heat from the reactor now for their town".[1] NB The writing of this article predates the current style of many inline citations, just listing refs/extlinks at the end; but I can assure you it is all derived from the listed extlinks. Rwendland 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)