Talk:Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2/Archive 1

How to make references show up in the infobox?
Adding "Refs=blahblahblah" seems kind of not working.Kxx (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary protection
Would it be possible to consider temporary protection? As this is a rather big topic, and is on the WP front page (In the news), it seems that there is a high prevalence of vandalism. From time to time, there are "NK RULES!!!" and the like. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only vandalism, use of unreliable blog/forum sources is also present. I support some degree of protection to the page.- [[Image:Biohazard orange.svg|17px]] Tourbillon A ? 10:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example would be the contributions from User:WibWobble, whom to which I would consider an editor who doesn't seem to take things seriously (well, well, his user page says "I rock" for a start, and his contribs list seems to be full of childish trash), adding the "Things to worry about" template, and adding false information. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any means to remove this guy from editing the page? Keeps reverting and is so annoying there.Kxx (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be protected from unestablished users for a day or two, until the situation cools down a bit. - [[Image:Biohazard orange.svg|17px]] Tourbillon A ? 10:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about instead of your whining you get some sources and fix the article instead of reverting correct sourced information? WibWobble (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * お前は脑残ですか？--  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected due to the ongoing edit war, for 24 hours. Please everyone, remember the WP:3RR rule. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection
The Telegraph (UK) is reporting a failed launch. By not containing information on reports of failure the article is now significantly out of date. I move for unprotection. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Evercat (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.Kxx (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, for goodness' sakes, this thing reads like a North Korean propaganda piece. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have placed a request for unprotection on BorgQueen's talk page (the protecting admin). Toby Douglass (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I've gone out on a limb and downgraded it to semi-protected. I think protection on a current event won't do. Evercat (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7984254.stm85.74.254.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Yeahy! :-) Toby Douglass (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Article is much better now. Toby Douglass (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary for it to remain semi-protected? Evercat (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard to tell while it's SP, since if there is a problem which is resolved by SP, SP is resolving it. Remove it and see.  Toby Douglass (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar fix needed
Can someone fix the last sentence in the subsection International response to the announcement? Apart from Seoul not being a country (yes, yes, I know how capital cities are used as proxies for the governments they represent, but even that doesn't excuse this), but the rest of the sentence is awkward and not grammatical, and I think fails to properly express what it means to. Cheers. 59.167.42.156 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Dave

Japan Times article
Since the article is Semi-Protected,

North Korea fires rocket over Tohoku, an article by the Japan Times, contains some nice details on the launch. For example: "the rocket's first booster fell into the Sea of Japan approximately 280 km west of Akita Prefecture at around 11:37 a.m.", and "The Self-Defense Forces finished tracking the rocket at 11:48 a.m. after it had crossed northern Honshu and was about 2,100 km east of Japan over the Pacific." 199.172.209.106 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Government Statement
After the launch of Kwangmyongsong-2 Sweden has chosen NOT to make an own statement but is standing behind the declaration of EU. The statement referred to in this text is 3 years old and came after the Kwangmyongsong-1 launch. Please, correct this! Further information: Yiwa~enwiki (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sweden Ministry of Foreign Affairs"
 * "EU Statement"

470 mhz
Can it be confirmed by another sources.Any radio picking it up.-- '''yousaf465'  10:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Be interesting to see what comes of this if it turns out the launch failed! Toby Douglass (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * yousaf465 - what was the original source for this claim? I'm interested in how such claims come to exist.  Toby Douglass (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I spotted a reference to the 470MHz frequency on militaryphotos.net, which quotes information allegedly provided by the Korean Central News Agency. I suspect it wouldn't be transmitting on 470.000MHz but somewhere around there - although it's worth noting that Iran's Omid transmitted on 465.000MHz with Doppler Shift placing the actual received frequency somewhere between 465.010MHz and 464.990MHz depending on where it was in the pass. Gordonjcp (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The satellite worked: Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release
http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/61C14FA4E1D6BB25C325758F0028B242 Russia has the ability to see a tennis ball in space... However, the keps are still being processed. 212.188.109.7 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia and America both have the capacity to monitor the success or failure of the launch. I see no choice but to report both sides and make no decision on who is correct/truthful. Evercat (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It actually says "currently, the satellite's orbital parameters are clarified", i.e. they confirm the launch, but not its success. Óðinn (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see it now - "apogee: zero feet" :-) Toby Douglass (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The CNN piece I cited says:
 * "'North Korea sent an artificial satellite into an Earth orbit on the morning of April 5. The parameters of the satellite's orbit are being specified now,' Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement on the ministry's Web site."
 * If it went into orbit then it went into orbit. If it's in the ocean then it was never in orbit. Evercat (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Toby Douglass (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To admins who are able to edit while protected
Below section International response for the announcement, this paragraph, copied from Kwangmyŏngsŏng, can be added:

Despite its great sadness South Korea acknowledged the DPRK's achievements, saying South Korea was ahead of North Korea in its ability to make satellites, but trailed the DPRK in its rocket technology. As Seoul had actually wanted to be the ninth country in the world to launch the KSLV-1 from its own soil yet successful firing of a rocket by both Iran and North Korea has been a major upset.

Kindest regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also add to the list of critisisms:

🇦🇺 - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called the North Korean launch "provocative" and "reckless". "We urge the council to immediately consider further action," he said in a statement.

Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources (which I gave in my edits that some doofus with a yellow/red picture reverted multiple times) are reporting the rocket failed. Also, the time I had written, 11:20 (which was also reverted by the same person), was more accurate than the 11:30 currently in the article. WibWobble (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Really 脑残？！？！？ Don't delete people's talk posts, for chrissakes... --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotes: "doofus with a yellow/red picture"; "and never had any complaint until Mr. Obnoxious (you) started."; "Care to give a reason instead of continuing to act like a moron?" - This guy is the most 脑残 editor I have seen; he regards his posts as masterpieces, yet they have as sources 1 a Wikipedia entry, and a past entry at that, 2 a Twitter post, in which any 6-year-old can post bollocks, and 3 a Yonhap article with an entirely different title, to purposely mislead readers. I rest my case. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Referring to Special:Contributions/WibWobble, this editor has so far in his life edited this article, proposed deletions for


 * 17:24, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Zihni Abaz Kanina ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)
 * 17:24, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Eqerem bej Vlora ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)
 * 17:24, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Jani Minga ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)
 * 17:24, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Qerim Begolli ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)
 * 17:23, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Azis Efendi Gjirokastra ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)
 * 17:23, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Hysen Hoxha ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)
 * 17:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Shefqet bej Daiu ‎ (Proposed for deleteion)

...with horrible spelling at that, and made another 50 edits which were subsequently reverted. And he honestly thinks that the world is wrong and he is right; look in the section above... how many other users have agreed that this user is being disruptive? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WibWobble, Calling someone a doofus with a yellow/red picture that is clearly a Chinese name is nothing short of racism and a personal attack on a user. Restrain yourself accordingly or you may end up facing corrective action.Annihilatron (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

the KCNA would be so, so proud....
As noted by previous editors the current page reads like a press release from our 'Dear leader'...

I just wonder whether the unpleasant editor who is so sure of themselves has their implausibility meter switched on when they started barking off about sources and verifiability.... In my case, I just think observation and past form/history speaks volumes about the North's real intent.


 * Firstly what good is a comms satellite in a country where less than 5% population own a TV let alone a cell phone?
 * Secondly if there really is a comms satellite on board, as noted above, it's most likely use is to serve the North's military rather than any peaceful purpose
 * Thirdly a comms satellite is quite an egalitarian action from a leadership that allow millions of its people to literally starve to death.
 * Fourthly because a militaristic, paranoid, isolationist, oppressed society create a rocket for peaceful purposes if it did not have at least one ulterior or sinister purpose?

and finally...
 * My fifth point is simple and straightforward, NK has no interest in peaceful space research because it would more pragmatic and cost effective to employ the Russians to put any comms satellite into orbit.

So for those who are editing this apology with joy and exaltation to the revolution, maybe my points should be considered too?

Just to be healthily skeptical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.70 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FORUM. Note to self: update WikiStress counter. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I suppose it's just a forum for North Korea apologists like you, eh? Give me a break. The guy's post was totally legitimate for a talk page. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologist? Pfft. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 05:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First point - comms satellite useful for military purposes. Of course, the Americans will blow it up instantly should war occur, so that's a red herring.  Ah, I've just read the second point :-)  IMO, the entire thing is the project of a mad leadership with a totally insane world view.  Toby Douglass (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Third point - you could make a viable comms satellite by spending a couple of week's wages for any Western country in pretty much any Western high-street electronics shop. Several experimental satellites use off-the-shelf handheld radios for all their comms needs, and a simple 1/4 wave antenna.  You have a clear line-of-site path with no obstructions even off-path, so you only need a few hundred milliwatts to be heard back on Earth with a decent antenna.  The expensive part is getting it up there... Gordonjcp (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Valid for a talk page, but all conjecture and unsourced. You can reword it or perhaps add a WP:POV tag. Annihilatron (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed launch
The rocket failed to put the satellite into Earth's orbit - USA and South Korea --Nosedown (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't understand why established users cannot edit this article? Why is the editing option limited only to administrators? This is a current event topic and there is bound to be high level of vandalism, but that does not mean other contributors are not allowed to make constructive edits. The article is currently in a very poor shape. --Nosedown (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote from source provided: "Two stages of the rocket and its payload landed in the Pacific Ocean, a US military statement said." To anyone that has studied rocketry physics, this doesn't mean anything at all, and doesn't prove anything at all. A rocket launch requires the breakaway of numerous stages in order to leave the atmosphere, it does not stay as one entire piece. Not once in that article has the exact sentence "The rocket has completely plummeted into the Pacific Ocean" or the likes. It is most probably a poor interpretation, as a degree in journalism does not equate to a degree in rocketry. Here in Australia, you need a UAI of 98.00 to enter any form of advanced physics in University; any nob can write for the BBC and think they know what they are saying. Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I'm dumbstruck by your argument. The source clearly says that the payload fell into the Pacific Ocean. I don't know what kind of an Australian education you have acquired, but common-sense says that it was a failed launch since the rocket did not put its payload into Earth's orbit. It is as simple as that. --Nosedown (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I get your argument. The earlier version of the concerned BBC article did not specifically say that the payload had also fallen into the ocean. The updated article makes things quite clear. Cheers --Nosedown (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support unprotection. The controversy that triggered the edit war seems to have cleared.Kxx (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote says that the payload fell into the ocean. That seems an unequivocable claim.  It may be wrong, but the claim seems clear.  Toby Douglass (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * USNORTHCOM had it clear.Kxx (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I sourced news about it failing an hour ago but one user (yellow/red picture doofus) couldn't accept his work being updated. Sigh. I don't like it being protected either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WibWobble (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Poor you. I don't like the taste of avocado. There's plenty of things we don't like. But until a concensus is reached, I doubt that this page will be free from the lock. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and its not a red and yellow picture that this doofus has. Its a change in font and bg colour; ever learnt HTML? They're web colours of red and yellow! No JPG, how is that possible! Oh, and they are CJK characters too! Hanzi to be specific! And I have a name too, its 李博杰. It's not your fault that you're illiterate, but it is your fault for forgetting your manners when addressing this "doofus". 尛样, perhaps if you proved to be a much better person a few moments ago, we wouldn't have this harsh-talk, wouldn't we? Lots of love, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but your behaviour seems unnecessary and offensive. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be referring to WibWobble's edits on the 5th of April. You might be able to understand my anger then. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * People, before adding a source, from a big site or not, have a read through. See if it makes sense. Example from Yonhap: "The source, asking not to be named, said that the North Korean payload fell into the Pacific Ocean, along with the second-stage rocket." What if I told you that I was the source? Or that Joe Bloggs (in this case, Hong Gildong) said it? Would it still be a credible citation? If the source is unsure, then don't cite it. Wait for a sure sure source. Common sense really. Things to look for in a source include any biases, e.g. newspapers in Japan are known to be either Left or Right, some even Far-right conservative Uyoku dantai; if it makes sense, if it supports a statement, if the article itself is supported (i.e. not whollops). Being from a big scary station like CNN doesn't make it credible, for example. Yonhap is a politically right-leaning source, so take that into consideration. The author may have been hoping for XYZ. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * lollin' at dis. Using the argument "I'm probably more Korean than you" (based on, apparently, reading a lot of Wikipedia articles on Korea) to justify your edits. Take your O3 haplogroup and 꺼져, joker. WHOIS this IP and take that into consideration, you clown. Yonhap is a politically right-leaning source? Do you read Korean well enough to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.208.219.66 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you're cool, you and your "lollin'" and "dis", awesome gangsta language. You from East Coast or something? Have something constructive or some constructive criticism to argue what I've done wrong, or write nothing at all. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You must be the proud possessor of one of the largest heads in the world, in multiple senses of the phrase. You amuse me, student of "rocketry physics", Korean, Korean history, sociology, and Korean politics. Do carry on. Marksspite2 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Marksspite2 created 10:50, 31 March 2009. You were saying, genius? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, my account was created 5 days prior. Touché. Marksspite2 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Move for unprotection. Whether or not the claims of failure are true, the fact they are being reported is significant and relevant to this article.  As such they need to be present.  Whether or not they turn out to be true is something that will in time also be added.  Toby Douglass (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently, only the North Korean sources claim the launch to be successful. No statements yet from the Russian Space Agency or Space Forces; Russian media quote North Koreans. Óðinn (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to semi-protect. At this point only a Russian source is being listed on the article saying it reached orbit. Weather that's true or not (I'm leaning towards not) all views, in this case a Western one, must be sourced until an unbiased third party can verified either claim. 99.240.36.63 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the quoted russian source only says that a launch to orbit was confirmed by the russian ministry of defense but NOT that the satellite successfully reached it's orbit. I'd like to ask for non russian speakers to refrain of using russian written articles as references. Tom Paine (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, CNN's translation of that Russian statement is now evidence on this page for Russia saying the launch was successful. PeterSP (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now being reported as failed by the CNN. And the BBC article does mention that the payload also crashed into the ocean, so if that is true, then the satellite launch failed. Thus I think the article probably needs a good rewrite at this point. vanis314 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A statement from NORAD claims that "no object entered orbit." http://www.norad.mil/News/2009/040509.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.194.26 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the nation of origin receive priority in reporting launch? I.e., The North Korean media's description of a successful launch might be placed before Japanese/US comment that the payload failed to achieve orbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.102.173 (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When the nation of origin is itself a questionable source (that nation of origin's allies are disputing launch success anyway), its arguable that nobody really knows what happened to the payload. Was there even a payload? There's something to think about. Annihilatron (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't put a whacking great big three stage rocket on the pad without a payload. NK may be insane, but they're not stupid.  The US tracked the rocket and they assert it placed nothing into orbit and the rocket fell into the Pacific.  That seems to be a pretty clear argument for what happened to the payload.  Toby Douglass (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled with a similar question, what if northkorea did manage to send a taperecorder with il sung singing his favorite sons into space, does NASA admit it? I don't think it is that hard to launch something into orbit rili(rocket obviously big enuf), perhaps the article should clear up if the rocket trajectory was usefull, or at least moreless how it should be to get into space, although that has been definetly recorded and can be easily checked there is no mention. That they don't publish anything about the trajectory suggests to me it was one suitable to get a taperecorder into space, and that they obviously hide information from the public, suggests we have il sung singing his song in perpetual circles around us now.24.132.170.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Placing a payload into orbit is an *extremely* challanging engineering problem. The trajectory was published; it is normal to alert neighbouring countries of missiles flights and this was done, which is how the US/Japan/SK moved navel vessels into the flight path to shoot the rocket down, should it malfunction dangerously.  The NKs have said their sattelite is transmitting on 470 MHz.  I have not seen a single claim of a broadcast on this frequency.  The US monitored the flight path and assert nothing reached orbit because the rocket and payload fell into the Pacific.  Toby Douglass (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And the point is, this tells us nothing about what the payload even was. We know that the rocket could have potentially deployed something into orbit, and we know that the entire rocket and unknown 'payload' fell into the Pacific. Does that mean that maybe the payload was a giant empty box? We don't really know. It could have been a nuclear missile testbed with a giant box filled with soil to test how it would perform under weight, for all we know. There has been very little knowledge of what was even launched, other than a three-stage rocket. And yes, you would put a rocket up and launch it with a simulated payload (USA would do it with weighted wooden fakes, I suspect Korea might do it with soil, as its probably cheaper), especially if you were testing. Annihilatron (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reuters saying nothing was picked up on 470 MHz at 17:49 UTC Apr 5
I removed the last sentence from the Instruments section. I am not sure if any of the referenced articles mentioned that since there were no inline citation markers. I tried to locate a reference using Google News Search, which found no hits. Anybody who finds one could add that sentence back.Kxx (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing it. I, too, searched both Google and Reuters, and could find no such article.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Minor edit conflict in instruments section; someone replaced the "it (what)" with pyongyang; I replaced with KCNA (Korean Central News Agency) to line up with the news report.Annihilatron (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph
I propose changing the first sentence. "Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 is a North Korean satellite" is misleading, because when you click satellite, the first sentence there reads: "In the context of spaceflight, a satellite is an object which has been placed in orbit by human endeavor." All (reliable) sources say the rocket's payload (if there was one) was not placed in orbit. Without further clarification a reader would assume it's a satellite... in orbit. If the opening sentence also includes language such as "that failed to reach orbit", etc, that would clarify things. Just thought I'd bring it up here since this article is sensitive right now. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that KMS-2 is a satellite as long as it was supposed to be in orbit, whether it managed to do so or not. Nonetheless, I agree that the opening paragraph can be misleading. Joining the second paragraph to the first seems to be a quick & simple fix.Kxx (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 is supposed to be the satellite; Ulna-2 was supposed to be the rocket. Regardless if the satellite is in orbit, in the Pacific Ocean, or in the Fiction Department of the DPRK, Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 is Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2, and this article is on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2. Refer to the article on Kwangmyŏngsŏng - sure, we don't know what really happened to it, or if it even existed, but Kwangmyŏngsŏng is Kwangmyŏngsŏng. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just merged the first two paragraphs into one lest the impatient not notice that nobody believed KMS-2's success other than the North Koreans. (Well, the second sentence ends up looking somewhat awkwardly long. Maybe another fix needed?)Kxx (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. Toby Douglass (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

launched ... but not necessarily entirely succesfully
I don't read the CNN source as sayIng that the Russians have stated that the satellite has entered orbit. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says:


 * "North Korea sent an artificial satellite into an Earth orbit on the morning of April 5. The parameters of the satellite's orbit are being specified now," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement on the ministry's Web site.

Evercat (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

However... http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=455787&publicationSubCategoryId=200 seems to say that Russia is saying the opposite now. Evercat (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I had the feeling that Russian statement was just some minor functionary jumping to conclusions without full data. The Russians aren't particularly reliable.  Toby Douglass (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the satellite went into orbit, but failed to function. Russian reports of reaching orbit, Reuters reports that there is no signal. Do we have any sources that say that it may have entered orbit, but not functionally? (i.e. fresh space junk) --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether there was ever any satellite at all. Evercat (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Russian agencies detected a Milo (drink) tin can floating in orbit, and reported it as a fully-functional satellite? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See the link I gave. They seem to now be reporting no satellite at all. Evercat (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe.. because it was never a satellite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.138.70 (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is not enough information to even tell if there was any significant payload whatsoever. Advise waiting a few days while satellite trackers, radios, etc, add to newer news reports. Annihilatron (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm? the hell?  if the payload didn't seperate, then in a sense, yes, there was no satellite - you never would have seen it on radar because it remained attached to the second stage.  Toby Douglass (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a payload even existed in the first place. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realize Benlisquare that North Korea even attempting this is a major political stunt, giving the West the proverbial middle-finger on the international stage. And that Russia has a vested interest in appeasing the North and advancing their interests. 99.240.36.63 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, poor you, Mr.IP doesn't like me. Oh well. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Just a reminder.Kxx (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Kxx but it is relevant to the article, you can't escape the political realities surrounding this article nor the political leanings of those editing it. AndrewMcinally (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to minimize the politics. This article is about the launch itself; I would think to avoid giving political motivations undue weight in the article itself. As for the talk page *shrug*. Annihilatron (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the article should cover politics, this article is already a mess to begin with. But to jump on the fact that Russia has the capability to detect a successful launch so therefore whatever they report must be true is in violation of WP: NPOV. I don't think anything more has to be said on this. AndrewMcinally (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Removing Current Spaceflight Tag
Really, it barely lasted a day. While it's still recent, the only thing left to say is really what the unknown payload was. Most reliable sources claim that there is nothing where the koreans say there is a satellite, and most sources say the entire rocket, including payload, fell in the sea. Suggest removal of tag. Annihilatron (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Toby Douglass (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreffed anti-NK material
Someone with poor English (although much better than my whatever-his-language-is) is adding invalid material - the refs don't actually make the claims they're attached to in the article. I took out the "Rocket" section entirely, removed a claim that NK *has* three to five nuclear devices and took out non-NPOV sentence. Toby Douglass (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Edits by User:Jack332 are really problematic. This guy keeps adding references of this shape:
 * Nikkei's Japanese Oliginal Article"DPRK Blackmailed Japanese important objects(Missile) attack for retaliate(?) interception"
 * and some other things even though those have been reverted more than once.Kxx (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded, although as bad editors go, he pretty harmless and non-obnoxious :-) Toby Douglass (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
There is a ton of information at the Kwangmyŏngsŏng article ("Third orbital launch" section) that should be moved here instead. Updates on a current event should not be happening in two separate articles. Esn (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all. The first part is in regards to the Iranian space launch. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? -- G W … 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the two articles should be kept separate, but there is probably too much information on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 in the Kwangmyŏngsŏng article, so this content should be merged into Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2. But I think both articles should exist (Kwangmyŏngsŏng being the "program"). Mlm42 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120910123631/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news14/20090414-23ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news14/20090414-23ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402023049/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200903/news12/20090312-11ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200903/news12/20090312-11ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017015121/http://www.northcom.mil/News/2009/040509.html to http://www.northcom.mil/News/2009/040509.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409135223/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news05/20090405-11ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news05/20090405-11ee.html

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

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

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130602044232/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200902/news24/20090224-06ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200902/news24/20090224-06ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305221449/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200902/news26/20090226-17ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200902/news26/20090226-17ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402052223/http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/2009/03/30/Japan-deploys-PAC3-systems-in/1238409093.html to http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/2009/03/30/Japan-deploys-PAC3-systems-in/1238409093.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402084405/http://sankei.jp.msn.com/photos/world/america/090330/amr0903301116003-p1.htm to http://sankei.jp.msn.com/photos/world/america/090330/amr0903301116003-p1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408021058/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/06/content_11138713.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/06/content_11138713.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404013637/http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/missile_defense/technical_issues/the-predicted-path-of-north.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/missile_defense/technical_issues/the-predicted-path-of-north.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412091113/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news08/20090408-14ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news08/20090408-14ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809103554/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200908/news05/20090805-09ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200908/news05/20090805-09ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609215242/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news17/20090417-18ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news17/20090417-18ee.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)