Talk:Ryongchon disaster

message: Did the BBC display new satellite pictures of the area?  I have yet to see any sat photos that are newer than a year-old pic taken by Digitalglobe on May 13, 2003   (though I'm only looking on the Internet so far).  Mulad 19:03, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
: I believe it was a crop of the second of the images you quote.  There certainly didn't look like significant devastation on it, which one would expect from the reported damage.  They don't keep it on screen for very long, and certainly don't pick over the details, so I think it's old. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find it now, but on the first BBC Online reports on the disaster they certainly did provide a new satellite image showing a very large black plume over the town. -- ChrisO 00:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the trains have been carrying Chemical weapons?--131.216.163.87 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows.  Until some reliable person actually goes there it's impossible to know anything for sure. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I think "North Korea" and "South Korea" are fine, for this article.  We don't say "People's Republic of China" every time we mention that country, not "Taiwan Republic of China" for that.  If we didn't cover the matters you describe on the particular pages for those countries, I'd agree that we were expressing a point of view.  But here we're using a rather uncontentious shortcut, a policy we seem to share with most (english speaking, at least) media. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Just for the record, I'm not endorsing this change, & I have no strong opinion either way (although I'm used to referring to East Germany as the DDR [Deutsche Demokratik Republik]). I just want to bring this issue up for consideration, & before some fanatic starts edit wars over the proper style. -- llywrch 22:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing will stop the fanatics from ... fanaticising (!)  Call NK the DPRK and someone will want it called "communist occupied korea", call SK the ROK and someone will want it called "the right-wing splinter state...".  The only way to win is not to play. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Yabbut the hardest trolls not to play with are the ones who start with what appears to be a reasonable request, then gradually draw you in with further requests, until you find yourself enmired in a discussion (for example) whether George W. Bush is best described as "alleged President" or "illegally elected President". Sometimes it's best just to ask a question when the point seems silly, & not when it appears to be a matter of personal honor for several people involved. (And no, I'm not going to opine which is the better description for Bush.) -- llywrch 00:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure--131.216.163.87 22:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm removing the "koreanname" flag here, because this is neither a proper noun nor a culturally significant concept.  I don't see what purpose having the Korean name would serve... I note that the title of this article on KO is :ko:룡천 열차폭발 사고 ("Ryongchon train explosion accident"), which is certainly a descriptive title rather than a name.-- Visviva 07:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I removed the following as wp:OR:
:Reading between the lines, one conclusion is that an explosive made from ammonium nitrate was being transported by rail.  Under this explanation, the explosive (maybe a form of ammonium nitrate fuel oil, or ANFO) was probably intended for canal construction, and various officials must have confused this with other explosives and pure fertilizer in their differing accounts.
:If that is the case, the question of how the explosion was started remains, as these explosives need a significant initiation before they will explode, usually achieved with other explosives and a detonator.  However, there have been several major events where ammonium nitrate has ignited and exploded while being handled and transported.  For instance, the Texas City disaster of 1947 involved an explosion of 2,300 tonnes of the substance after it caught fire.
Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some OR 

message: The photograph is described as "a small town in North Pyongan Do, North Korea". What evidence is there that it is Ryongchon Station? Biscuittin (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have hidden the image because I can't even be sure that it is a railway station. It looks like a town photographed from across the railway tracks. Biscuittin (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: BBC News reports on this event, "2004 April - More than 160 killed and hundreds more injured when train carrying oil and chemicals hits power line in town of Ryongchon."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612
However, this event is listed on the "List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions" as;
Ryongchon disaster 
    A train explosion in North Korea on 22 April 2004; according to official figures, 54 people were killed and 1,249 were injured.'''
Perhaps the a more round about death toll could be used until verification of this information from a credible source is cited.
--A1maxmad (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Toll Accuracy 

message: the line: "It was suggested that the explosion might have been an assassination attempt, but South Korean intelligence services believed that it was an accident."
Should be changed or removed since its clearly violates NPOV by using a source which, for obvious geopolitical reasons, would have said the same thing even if it were a blatant lie. No one would suggest that the article on WW2 include the line "It was suggested that the nazi invasion of Poland wasn't in retaliation for Polish attacks, but Hitler's intelligence services believed that it was an attack."
If the source was a credibly unbiased source it would be ok but using an intelligence agency of a rival state is bad practice and opens up Wikipedia pages to generic propaganda and bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.210.49 (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think citing South Korean intelligence services is a problem per se, as long as we note that they are the ones making the claim (which we currently do).  I do think the line 'It was suggested' is a problem, however, that being a weasel word.  Im open to suggestions on how to fix this statement. Bonewah (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Bias 

message: Article has a link from the "ON this Day" section of the front page in English on 22 April 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)  The Effect section references Bagdad (Iraq Capital) Which makes NO sense to me. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bagdad / On This Day 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This change has been reverted twice by users who appear not to understand why I made it. The first sentence is not supported by the NYT article, which was written before the DPRK government made any international announcement. Without that first sentence, the second sentence has no relevance. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryongchon explosion vs. famine