Talk:Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3

Cost

Reference http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_20/68975741/ says that both the launch ($850 million) and the other celebrations ($2,000 million) marking 100 years since the birth of the country's late founder will cost 4.75 million tonnes of rice and not just the launch itself. But considering that North Korean Won cannot be spent outside North Korea, they really could not buy that much rice if they forwent the above events. Did they shift people from food production to work for the launch and the celebrations? And if so, by how much did food production drop? Did they purchase components for the rocket and other items for the celebrations from other countries? If so, the foreign exchange used could have been used for staples purchases. This is the analysis one has to make to determine how many tonnes of rice all these will cost. With this reasoning, I removed the "Cost" section from the article as it is inaccurate. Q43 (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a possible lock

Since this page is likely going to get potentially vandalized due to the launch occurring, I think that the page should be somewhat locked down if possible. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

failed

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-korea-launches-rocket-amid-global-concerns-report/story-e6frfkyi-1226325496084 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.136 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ping! Apr 13, 2012, site needs updating stating the launch failed with the above url as a reference. There's more informative tidbits about a description of the breakup occurring 90 seconds into launch with the second(?) stage failing. roger (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

the important part

isn't the important part, the launch, and the launch vehicle, and not the satellite? The satellite is rarely mentioned, and it is the launch vehicle that has the most international impact, and technological impact. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

NK is trying (or claiming to be) to join the very small club of satellite-launching countries. So it is not unimportant in itself. Rmhermen (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because no one honestly thinks they were really trying to launch an actual satellite. Why bother giving details of an imaginary object? 68.202.112.66 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually AFAIK unlike in the 2 previous cases, there doesn't seem to be as much question whether a real satellite was involved. The primary contention was then even though a satellite may have been involved, the test was primarily intended to help them test ballastic missile designs. (Even in the other cases, while there is consensus they failed, there doesn't seem to be consensus whether a real satellite was involved or a dummy one. There does seem to be consensus, at least with the first one that orbital insertion was attempted.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe. But let's say you say satellite, and I simply say "payload." You could fill the thing with chocolate as far as I know, as long as it's a similar weight to oh say, a nuclear warhead. 68.202.112.66 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. You alleged "no one honestly thinks they were really trying to launch an actual satellite" but as I pointed out this doesn't seem to be supported by sources. In fact as I pointed out even in the other cases were there is dispute, there doesn't seem to be consensus. Remember this talk page as with all article talks pages is intended to discuss improvements to the article not to discuss random editor opinions. And it is important we get it right. We shouldn't claim there was no actual attempt to launch a satellite if this isn't supported by reliable sources. In fact if we go back to before the launch, claiming there was no satellite but then if it turned out they had in fact attempted go and indeed up successfully launching a satellite (for real this time unlike previous times where they claimed success in contradiction to all evidence) wouldn't reflect poorly on Wikipedia if we were ignoring what RS were saying and substituting random editor opinions. (If we report NK's claim of a satellite and it turns out there is no satellite this doesn't reflect poorly on us as long as we are simply following RS.) This is of course a completely separate issue from what the of focus of the article should be. I don't think anyone whas ever disputed that we should explain why there is concern over the launch regardless of the involvement of a real satellite. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs editing

Could someone (preferably the original writer) edit this sentence please: "On 21 March by the North Korean Embassy to Russia but Roscosmos's spokeman said Russia refused to dispatch its experts to the launch because it violated the UN Security Council resolution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.17.57 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, a LOT of the English on this page needs correcting, including many items in the "International Response to the Announcement" section. I'm surprised that such a prominent page has not been properly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.17.57 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 → Unha-3 – most of this article talks about the impact of the launch and launch vehicle, not the satellite, therefore, this is an article on the rocket, with the satellite forming a minor part of the content of this article. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Merge the rocket Unha-3 to this article. We appear to ahve an article on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2, but none on its rocket (which also failed to put the satellite into orbit). This will leave a redirect at the rocket article, leading the the satellite article, so that those looking for the rocket will find the WP contnt on it thorugh the operation of the redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - we can redirect Unha-3 to this article since it isn't presently separate, but Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 should be preferred for consistency with the other Kwangmyŏngsŏng articles. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • But it isn't what makes the incident significant, also WP:COATRACK. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a satellite article. Rmhermen (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of this is not a satellite article, it is about international reactions to the launch of the rocket. It contravenes WP:COATRACK. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • But read the first paragraph of WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack -- and the content of this article does not generally pertain to the rocket, but to the fact of the launch of the satellite and the rocket to the extent that it pertains to that --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article is both about the satellite and the launch as an internationally significant event. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- You can mention some sources there is no satellite at all or demo satellite but still it is must be referred as a satellite. Superzohar Talk 12:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- The KMS is the satellite, Unha is the rocket. Comparable with Saturn V (the rocket) and Apollo (the satellite). Arius1998 Talk 13:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - and redirect Unha-3 here. Unless you've got a better name for the article about the international reaction to this particular launch, or more information on the rocket than Unha. -Fennec 00:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Launch is different from the make of the rocket. Like the Saturn V rocket is not associated with the specific missions and the results of that mission. Given the convention and the difference between the rocket and the launch mission. The primary focus is the failed launch and not the rocket used. Unha is the rocket and Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 was the mission to put the satellite into orbit, the failure of the rocket deemed the failure of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 mission. The mission itself is notable enough to be independent of the rocket page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no reason to merge the launcher and the satellite articles, makes no more sense than to merge Voyager-2 with Titan III/Centaur. Choronzon (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In contrast to Voyager-2, this is primarily notable as a political event. News sources have used Unha and Kwangmyongsong interchangeably, so someone looking up "Unha-3" is very likely to want this article rather than the launcher series article. A disambiguation link can be added at the top if necessary. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is clearly an article about the launch of a specific satellite, not about the generic rocket. Keep things as they are. Truthanado (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, the launch is an important part of the satellite's mission, and not vice versa. Individual launches do not require articles if their payload is covered, per WP:LAUNCHES. I would also recommend snowball closure. --W. D. Graham 14:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

International reactions

Do we really need separate sections of the international reactions to the launch annoucement and international reactions to the launch failure? Can't they be combined at this point? Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

DPRK vs. ROK space race

I'm struck that there is a complete absence of media attention to the possible view of the DPRK's 'civilian', i.e. non military rocket launches as a purely political race with the South for historical access to space. They've put up a satellite just ahead of the ROK and propaganda is served. Decades down the road will history still view it as purely a military rocket program in guise? It's dual use is obvious as the cold war space race, but why does no one seem to take that angle into consideration for their motivation? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130108073955/http://www.zarya.info/Gallimaufry/Kwangmyongsong32.php to http://www.zarya.info/Gallimaufry/Kwangmyongsong32.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720002621/http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1694897.php/North-Korea-s-planned-rocket-launch-raises-missile-concerns to http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1694897.php/North-Korea-s-planned-rocket-launch-raises-missile-concerns
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412002134/http://nknews.org/2012/03/n-korea-reveals-details-of-kwangmyongsong-3-satellite/ to http://nknews.org/2012/03/n-korea-reveals-details-of-kwangmyongsong-3-satellite/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 launch.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• VOA reporter Sungwon Baik in NK Space Center.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)