Talk:Nuclear power in North Korea

Requested move
This page was recently moved from "Nuclear program of North Korea" to "Nuclear power in North Korea." The change in title is inappropriate, and I am unable to reverse it either by "undo" or "move." The scope of this article is the entire nuclear program of North Korea, of which the defunct nuclear power program is a relatively minor part. NPguy (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (The mentioned move was reversed on August 6, 2008). Baileypalblue (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009: request to move Nuclear program of North Korea to Nuclear power in North Korea

 * 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 moved. The concerns of the opposing editors have been addressed, because there is already an article on the weapons program, so no split is necessary. -- Aervanath (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm splitting the April 2009 discussion to a separate subsection because its move request goes the opposite way of the August 2008 request, and the previous format left me confused as to what move was being requested. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it (the August 2008 move to Nuclear power in North Korea) was appropriate. The nuclear weapons portion needs to be split into a separate article, NBC weapons of North Korea (please, ditch the malapropism WMD - the U.S. now has a president who speaks in complete sentences). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (I refactored 199.125.109.126's comment so it would retain clarity after I split out the April 2009 subsection.) Baileypalblue (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * First split the article (without ambiguous the "NBC" jargon in the title), then request the move. A move request should not be based on promise of future editing.  But more importantly,
 * Why is a split needed?
 * —  AjaxSmack   02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NBC weapons is not jargon, and not ambiguous - for 50 years it has stood for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. A much better term than WMD, which means nothing. Correction, it means that whoever uses it does not know what they are actually called. A split is needed because North Korea does not have a nuclear weapons program - it has a nuclear power program and a former nuclear weapons program, which should be covered separately. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But, why cover them separately? And if that is the best move, execute the split first, then change the name.
 * I wasn't advocating using WMD either. Neither are appropriate for a title.  However, NBC is relatively more ambiguous (it has a primary meaning at NBC and many other uses at NBC [disambiguation]).  Weapon of mass destruction is the term used for the article on the subject at Wikipedia and I'm not clear on why you consider it to be a malapropism. —   AjaxSmack   16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose seems appropriate since it covers more than nuclear power, the other option would be Nuclear industry of North Korea 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note that we already have North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, which should obviate the need for another article on the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. Accordingly, I'm going to BOLDly remove the requested split tag and replace it with a link to North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.  Baileypalblue (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this discussion, but I'll comment anyway. I support moving this article back to Nuclear power in North Korea to conform with its sister articles which take the form "Nuclear power in foo" (see template in the article).  Apparently a previous editor believed that Nuclear power in North Korea was too narrow a title, but I think it's fine as an umbrella term for the DPRK's nuclear power industry and its weapons program (which is covered in detail elsewhere, but can be summarized here).  In my opinion, it's the current title, Nuclear program of North Korea, which is overly narrow and redundant to North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.  Baileypalblue (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave it alone. North Korea doesn't have a nuclear power program - it has a nuclear weapons program. NPguy (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm no expert on this subject, but most of the material in this article appears to discuss a nuclear power program that the DPRK has, or had. If the DPRK really has never had anything except a nuclear weapons program, then this article is a content fork of North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and will have to be merged into that article.  This article is viable as a stand-alone only if it covers the nuclear power program that North Korea supposedly has/had.  Baileypalblue (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Rename this article
This article was again renamed, despite a lack of justification or consensus. In accordance with previous discussions, please revert to the more accurate title "Nuclear program of North Korea." North Korea does not have a nuclear power plant. Even the so-called "five megawatt electric" reactor is not connected to the electrical grid and was used primarily to produce plutonium. At one point North Korea was conducting a nuclear power plant, but it gave up that plant under the Agreed Framework in exchange for Western-built light water reactors. But with the collapse of the Agreed Framework that project was abandoned.

Bottom line: North Korea doesn't have nuclear power or a nuclear power program. The current title of this article is misleading and should be changed. NPguy (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If North Korea previously had a nuclear power program and dismantled it, then that nuclear power program must be documented in Wikipedia as a matter of historical record, and the state of nuclear power in North Korea today must be documented; this article does that, so it is appropriately named. If the DPRK's nuclear power program has always been a sham, then this article is a content fork or even a POV fork of North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, since most of the content in this article asserts that North Korea has had a peaceful nuclear power program.


 * If you feel strongly on this subject, then instead of moving the title around you should begin a merge discussion. The primary problem is that the point of view you are expressing is not currently represented in the article; I suggest you document your claims in the article with reliable sources and see whether you can attain consensus there for your changes.  Otherwise, the article's title needs to reflect its content.  Regardless, the previous closing decision was valid at the time it was made because your objections, as well as the objections of others, were addressed as part of the discussion.  Baileypalblue (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article is very little about nuclear power, much more about other elements of North Korea's nuclear program. That's why the title is inappropriate.  I also objected to a similar change in the title of the article "Nuclear program of Iran," and it was reverted. NPguy (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why aren't you arguing for a merge?--Aervanath (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with what? Why?  Renaming is all that is needed. NPguy (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, it would seem you feel that the topic of the current article is no different than North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction, so if you feel that way, why not merge the whole article there? I also note that you have not responded to Baileypalblue's request for reliable sources. That would help convince others of your point of view as well.--Aervanath (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read the discussion of the initial proposal to move the article, I do not detect consensus. Therefore, the move was against consensus and should be reverted.  This is beginning to look like an abuse of power by an administrator. NPguy (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In reference to Baileypalblue's comment about reliable sources, I'm surprised that someone who has read the article would have the impression that it's mostly about nuclear power, or that additional sources would be needed to demonstrate that this was not the case. Aside from one paragraph that refers to plans to expand nuclear power, there is virtually no mention of nuclear power.  I ask again, how is the current title accurate?  It seems self evident that it is not. NPguy (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a valid point that either the article is about nuclear power in North Korea, and is named correctly, or it is a content fork of North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and needs to be deleted. However, it is also true that North Korea does, did, or may in the future have nuclear power, and so it is a valid title, and anything about weapons should be deleted and moved into the second article. The same scenario happened with the nuclear power in Iran article - it started out as an article about the allegations of Iran developing nuclear weapons and after much edit fighting was split into two articles, one only about nuclear power, the other only about the attempt to obtain nuclear weapons. This article needs to do the same. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the previous comment. It completely omits the possibility that the previous title and the current scope of the article were well matched and appropriate for a Wikipedia article. This seems a perfectly adequate outcome. Someone could write an article whose contents match the new title, but that is no reason to change the title or contents of the current article.

Perhaps there is confusion about the meaning of the words "nuclear program." It does not imply "nuclear weapons program," though it could certainly include a nuclear weapons program. In my view, it is the best, least POV description for a program that may have both civil and military elements or for a program that may have both power (electricity) and non-power elements.

None of which is to say that this is a very good article. But I strongly disagree with the notion that it needs to be rewritten to fit into the straightjacket of what other articles on nuclear programs cover. North Korea is unique.

The preceding description of what happened with the Iran nuclear article is also at odds with the facts. The Nuclear program of Iran article is similar to this one in that it covers all nuclear activities, whether power or non-power, and without prejudice to whether they are military or not. Attempting to divide that article would be just as much a disservice as attempting to split this one. NPguy (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NP in Iran has a hatnote at the top, stating "This article is about Iran's nuclear power program." Here is how it started. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that incomplete summary. NPguy (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter-Korean Summit
Should the Inter-Korean Summit section be placed in a chronological fashion? Twillisjr (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hello, I reviewed this article as part of an assignment for class. After reading I did have a couple suggestions. The first one is that when I clicked on some of the links for references they did not work. My second one is that I noticed there were a lot of news based articles, I would like to maybe see some more scholarly articles and also updated information on the page. Mccormick022 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)