User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2017/January
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Felt offended by refusal to use proper name for my ethnicity
It is deeply offensive to Hellenes to refuse to use the Hellas/Hellenic/Hellene word for us. This is our ethnicity and this is the name we use. No surprise there are so few Hellenic editors here. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that I wrote "Hellas (Greece)" and other editors reverted me and used only "Greece" even though I tried other ways to solve the dispute such as using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" or "Greece (Hellas)". Thus it was other editors who reverted me. Because I feel offended by this anti-Hellenic behaviour and I perceive it as an attack on my ethnicity I will not continue editing on Wikipedia and leave the project. Please see the sources I added in Name of Greece if you want to know more about the name issue. Thank you. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
List of states with nuclear weapons
Thanks for your response to my comment on the discussion page. To my mind the comments on the talk page have already crossed many lines, in terms of harassment, anti-semitic insinuations, and soapbox sock-puppetry. The IP editors are not trying to improve the article but to pollute its talk page with invective. This may not fit clearly into any specific violation of WP standards, but it clearly violates any reasonable standard of civil discourse. I don't know what should be done, but I am convinced that something more ought to be done, unless WP wants to accept this form of incivility as its new norm. NPguy (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Concerning your request to me from 26th: "Please stop using unreliable sources in China nuclear weapons articles. These do not meet Wikipedia standards for quality or accuracy of information sourcing. "
Who said the sources unreliable? Which Wikipedia standards these sources do not meet? Please, cite each source and make a clear detailed answer which standard or rule the certain source doesn't meet. KOT-TOK (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the detailed explanations. You wrote: "The vpk-news.com articles cite no sources for the numbers, only the General's own speculation. That the General said this is not in question, he wrote the article. But to then put his numbers in the article requires secondary sources or another form of confirmation. It's not good enough to rewrite the article based on his assertion without sources or references." Which kind of sources are you expecting from the General? A reference to a Soviet-time documentation concerning weapon nuclear reactors (given to China from USSR during nuke technology transfer in 1956-60) and their production rates? Sorry, but the real documents about these reactors (like Jiuquan plutonium production reactor, Kuangyuan reactor based on the same design) and plants (like No. 221 Plant of the China Nuclear Industry) built in China in 1958-1966 are still classified in Russia. So, it would be useless references to classified documents, which only a few modern Russian specialists have ever seen. The sources in Russian intelligence? Maybe one can find somewhere in the Russian intelligence archive some sources about two independent Chinese nuke industry groups: Northen group in Baotou, Koko nor (Qinghai), Lanzhou, Yumen and Southern (Sychuan) group in Guangyuan|Kuangyuan, Ebian, Zitong (all in Sichuan). But you can use US intelligence sources instead: https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/prc_72/dia_discussion.htm - they are writing about same two groups. Some confirmations are here http://www.nti.org/learn/facilities/707/
Besides, FAS article also states completely unconfirmed information about tritium deficit in China (which supposedly puts a limit to the maximal number of Chinese nukes, supposedly at 300 pieces). Where are the references to any (even classified documents) which proves the quantity of tritium China produces per year? Where is the amount\mass of this tritium available in China, produced in China annually? No estimations, not even a hint. FAS article https://fas.org/blogs/security/2011/12/chinanukes/ gives no quantity of tritium produced in China each year, no explanation why China could not produce more tritium, no sources about China tritium production estimation. The author Hans M. Kristensen just decided by himself that China has the quantity of tritium which enough for about 300 nuclear warheads. And he wrote it bluntly in his article: "China probably only produces enough Tritium at its High-Flux Engineering Test Reactor (HFETR) in Jiajiang to maintain an arsenal of about 300 weapons." Using your words is's just "the article based on his assertion". He even forgot to mention the mass of tritium in kg! Why it's is OK to put the Hans Kristensen's number of 300 maximal Chinese nukes based on his own estimation of tritium production in China and not OK to put Viktor Yesin's 40 tons of weapon-grade uranium and around 10 tons of plutonium based on his assertions? The General at least worked with nukes in Russian Strategic Missile Forces. Hans M. Kristensen has no experience in the field of nuclear industry, nuclear forces, has no physics education at all, he is not a scientist! He has no PhD, not even Master degree! Look at his CV: http://www.nukestrat.com/HansCV.pdf - he just has a Danish college grade (1977-79) in math and biology! He was a Greenpeace activists and later executive and has some publishing experience. That's it. How this kind of self-proclaimed nuke expert can decide for the whole world and Wikipedia how much tritium China produces per year or how much fissile materials China has? KOT-TOK (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)