A news item involving Ryongchon disaster was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 April 2004. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 22, 2012, April 22, 2014, April 22, 2019, and April 22, 2022. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 [1] [2] (though I'm only looking on the Internet so far). Mulad 19:03, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Mulad is right, there are no new pictures up to now. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/imint-note-010.htm . We should slow down so things can be sorted out. Awolf002 17:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I made some edits because I noticed someone used the abbreviation "NK" for North Korea, but this got me wondering: is it more proper usage to refer to North Korea as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)? After all, IIRC officially the DPRK claims to be the official government of all Korea, while South Korea (excuse me, the Republic of Korea [ROK] ;-) makes the same claim. Exclusively using the labels "North Korea" & "South Korea" may be considered by some as endorsing an offensive POV. -- llywrch 22:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I know this has no relevance to the article, but it just strikes me as revolting when I think of the North Korean authorities cutting off phone lines to the rest of the world. After treating the world with aggression for so much time, they now want aid from the world, but only in a limited fashion (only letting the Red Cross in, as if the DPRK government is the doing the Red Cross a favour), and they're also cutting off phone lines to stop reporting, but as I said before, they expect aid. if they want to be isolated, they should also refuse aid. Who would want to give them aid after this? But, it seems the rest of the world's tolerance and kindness never ends! 203.109.249.137 12:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have heard a lot of rumors about chemical weapons, i seen a documentery about North Korea on PBS, and it was suggested that chemical weapons are transported on North Korea's railway system. -- Comrade Nick 01:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Assaination attempt? It is mentioned on the Kim Jong-il that the disaster could have been an assination attempt, somthing that I believe was menioned as a possibility on BBC a few days later. If anyone has info on this, I do think it should be included. -- Jjcarroll 16:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I recall reading reports at the time that the shipment had to do with Syrian munitions, can anybody else confirm this?
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)
I removed the following as wp:OR:
Bonewah ( talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Article has a link from the "ON this Day" section of the front page in English on 22 April 2019 ( /info/en/?search=Main_Page) The Effect section references Bagdad (Iraq Capital) Which makes NO sense to me. Wfoj3 ( talk) 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
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)