Talk:Kijong-dong

Quote From NK / DPRK Source

I found the quote in a book I was reading today at the library. I don't know why I sometimes see 2 citation/references when I used only one ref tag so if you see what went wrong please correct it. I also removed the part that said that they turn the lights on to make the village appear to be inhabited. Given how little we know about the intentions of the Korean People's Army I thought that was a bit speculative. Similarly, I took out the word 'automatically' for the simple reason that we don't know how the lights are turned on and off and given the power shortages in the country it seems unlikely that they'd be automated. kev. 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the reference tag MadMaxDog kev. 10:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still not sure why the quote was paraphrased a while back. At any rate although the Foreign Language Publishing House is--as far as I know--like (nearly?) all entities in the DPRK--owned by the government is it fair to say that it's the official line on the place? After all the book had a named author. Thoughts? kev. (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Chun Doo-hwan and capture the In-gong Gi

Can we get a citation here about Chun offering the reward 'in the late 70s'? Chun wasn't president of the Republic of Korea until 1980.

That bit was here when I got here and I haven't been able to find any external confirmation--however, you have a point about the date discrepancy. I'm going to remove it. kev.

Kijong-dong / Peace Village

Thanks Yu210148 for the links on "Peace Village". I deleted the first one, since it's a Wikipedia mirror on about.com. The third is the only one that says "Kijong-dong" actually means "Peace Village" in Korean, and I suspect that's just a misunderstanding on the part of the tour guide or the visitor. Googling for Korean web sites, I find some references to Kijong-dong being called a 평화의 마을, P'yŏnghwaŭi maŭl / Pyeonghwa-eui maeul, which does mean "peace village." But Kijong-dong itself doesn't obviously mean "Peace Village" in Korea (hard to tell what it actually means without knowing the hanja). --Reuben 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I've flagged this as needing hanja, though I don't hold out much hope. At any rate, "Peace Village" is clearly more in the nature of a nickname, rather like "자유의 마을" for Daeseong-dong. -- Visviva 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry about that mirror, I didn't have much time to cross reference the sources yesterday morning. You're quite right, the impression that I got was that it was a nick name rather than a translation of the Korean. :) I'm not sure why the quote got paraphrased though. Even if the source is from the north it seems more authoritative to have the full quote than a paraphrase of the quote. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that the book was published in the north though. Something like this... <scurries off to make an edit> kev. 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/DPRK, where we're working on creating and fleshing out articles about places in North Korea. --Reuben 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ruben, I'll certainly think about it I don't know how much time I'd be able to put into it though. If you can get your hands on a copy of that guidebook that's referenced in this article I seem to remember information on all sorts of areas in the DPRK/NK. I'll probably buy a copy at some point myself; the copy I read was in a reference library here (i.e., no circulation). kev. 11:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote looks fine to me now; it just seemed a little strange to have it at the beginning of a paragraph. Thanks for the work you've put in here. -- Visviva 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

True enough, it's not the most gramatically correct thing to do is it? I also changed it from 'North Korean Publications' because it was only one publication. I haven't run across anything else from the north that confirms or denies what's said there. I'll keep my eyes open though. I do wonder about the use of 'North Korea' vs. 'north Korea'. I don't want to get in to a big debate like what's on the discussion page for the artical on 'North Korea' but the perfered use in the north is the latter and seeing as this is an article about a place in the north it would seem to me that the 'n' should be lower-case. What is the concensus on this if there is one? kev. 12:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the hanja for this is still around -- DPRK is not big on hanmun... I'm going to remove needhanja tag -- even the Japanese site for Panmunjum tour of N.Korea calls this city kijyondon village, instead of having kanji Konamaiki 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

Cool pictures Isaac. Thanks for posting them. The wide shot really shows just how massive the flagpole really is. If anyone has pictures of the place taken from the north's DMZ tour that the wouldn't mind sharing that'd be cool. It's my understanding that you don't get up close and personal with the place on either DMZ tour but some different angled shots might be interesting. kev. 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Flagpole warfare (깃대 전쟁)

I've added a 'citation needed' tag to the bit at the end the end of the article about 'flagpole warfare' after I did a quick and admitedly far from comprehensive search and didn't come up with any relivant hits on either 'flagpole warfare' or '깃대 전쟁'. Would it perhaps be more accurate to say that some people it the south call it flagpole warfare?

If you think these are not relevant enough, feel free to change or remove it. Wikipeditor 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks I just added the reference tag. I hope I didn't come across too aggressively earlier I just hadn't seen it called that earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yu210148 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. You didn't seem agressive at all – contrariwise, I was afraid I might have sounded rude :) Wikipeditor 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Now this bot... the bot is rude. One little unsigned comment. I forget to put the '~'s in and this thing comes in here like Rambo! (See above, or the history on this discussion page.) --P.S. I know I can just edit the bot's remarks out but it wouldn't be as funny that way. :) kev. 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2 seconds – a quick bot indeed. Wikipeditor 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is inconsistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone. The weight of the flag differs by ~134kg, or a nearly 50%.Maybe someone keen can find the real weight or just change both articles to 1 weight.--64.230.6.145 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this later today and see if I can get clarification. kev. 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as the weight of the flag is not mentioned in the CNN article that's been cited for the height of the flag pole and the weight of the flag isn't cited at all in the article on the Korean Demilitarized Zone I'm going to remove the reference to the weight in both articles. kev. 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrative position

Could this be an actual dong within 평화리 (which at least appears on a map)? Wikipeditor 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in the administrative sense; the tong/dong in North Korea are equivalent in standing to ri, as tertiary divisions. Dong in this context, I think, is just a village, the Sino-Korean equivalent of 마을. This use of dong is fairly common in both Koreas, I think; down the road from me is a little hamlet called 남포동, part of a ri unit, which no one would ever confuse with Nampo-dong. And there's another little clump of houses that calls itself 금호마을 on one sign and 금호동 on another.

Should we get rid of the hyphen? -- Visviva 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps that would avoid confusion, but since the hyphen is not strictly reserved for administrative units and personal names with McCune-Reischauer, I'm fine with leaving it in place. Wikipeditor 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lights on and off at the same time each day

Added the citation needed tag to this part. Maybe I'm nitpicking but it brings it in line with the same claim made in the North Korea Peace Museum article. kev. (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the thing entirely, per WP:V. It doesn't prove anything, and its entirely speculative. Even if it were true--so what? It isn't evidence for anything, and is anecdotal at best. — Kortaggio ^{Proclamations} _Declarations 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of new references and in-line cites, so hopefully that'll address the WP:V issue. According to the US and South Korean observers, the town has a skeleton crew that maintains everything and turns the lights on and off. Either way, I'd say the lack of window glass (or with windows painted on in some cases) coupled with the TOTAL lack of normal civilian presence leads me to trust the refs. Consider how much it must have cost them to build that place in the 1950s, when they were even poorer than they are now, I'm guessing it's another example of the "propaganda by monolith" principle that led to the Ryugyong Hotel, a similarly useless and embarrassing project. At some point in those heady days of the 50s when they were convinced the glorious workers paradise was at hand, Kim Il-Sung apparently decided that a shiny "paradise city" right out in front of everybody's noses on the DMZ might induce the South Koreans to abandon their foolish desires for...you know, food and self-determination, and come on in for the fun. I'd imagine, much like the Hotel, they eventually gave up on that idea at some point after Kim Il-Sung died and decided that if they couldn't make it a shining monument to the Juche Idea, the least they could do was deny the Americans the pleasure of admitting they were full of shit. So now they blare propaganda radio to the foreign tourists who come to visit Panmunjeom and spend their money in the South instead of the North, and everybody who wants proof that they are full of shit just has to borrow a strong pair of binoculars. Bullzeye ^contribs 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comment below.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed for Distance?

At the end of the first paragraph there's a 'citation needed' tag where it says: 1.8 kilometers (1.1 mi) away.[citation needed]. Could someone map this out with something like Google Earth/Google Maps and clarify. Would a satelite image with the distance measured not suffice? kev. (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just did the math with the ruler in Google Earth and flagpole to flagpole is 2.22 km or 1.38 miles so I'll update accordingly. kev. (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Must we move this article?

Are there any North Korean post-war sources that mention 기정동, 기정리 or just 기정? Could it be that 기정동 is a pre-war name that has been entirely replaced by 평화리 in the North? Perhaps 기정동 is not in 평화리, but it is 평화리? Since the thing is probably better known outside North Korea than inside, using the Southern name makes some sense, but still, shouldn't we use whatever the DPRK calls it? Wikipeditor (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fake?

Having been to the DMZ on the northern side, I am sure there are civilians living here. I didn't get close to the flagpole, but there are apartment blocks closer to the road that show clear signs of habitation and there were people visible. The clincher is that the area is surrounded by fields of crops. There must be people there to tend the crops. In fact, I saw people doing just that. Now, I know this is "original research", but I don't see the justification for quoting self-appointed "experts" who have never been there.

And by the way, I don't think it's a model village. In fact, it's a bit of a dump.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

PS The article says that the village is used to house soldiers as well as a skeleton crew. Which actually makes it inhabited!--Jack Upland (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this: "Though no visitors are allowed, it is the only settlement in North Korea within direct eye- and earshot of the Korean DMZ." So what? Tourists in North Korea go right past it. And tourist can go to Pyongyang etc. This is not noteworthy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the claims (e.g. by Bullzeye above), that it is a "paradise city" for propaganda purposes, it should be noted that it does not look very different from North Korean cities that have been visited by outsiders: see the Gallery here:Cities of North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Flagpole location

The picture of the DPRK flagpole at the bottom of the page with the coordinates 37°56'30.24"N, 126°40'48.07"E is incorrect. These are coordinates for the ROK flag. According to GMaps 37.94528,126.655196 is or is nearly the correct coordinates. 156.99.75.2 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Kijŏng-dong → Kijong-dong –

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kijong-dong
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 26

Sawol (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - A lot of recent edits to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), though the instruction to not use full McCune-Reischauer in titles appears to be older. Re text body MOS:KOREA says "A variant of McCune-Reischauer is the official system in North Korea." Personally can't see any benefit to an English reader interested in North Korea of changing a title which tells you that ŏ is ŏ in Kijŏngdong to make the two vowels the same, which they aren't. But as long as it stays in text body, whatever. This is only a romanization. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Our other articles about NK don't use diacritics, see this category. KCNA doesn't use them either. Kauffner (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No need for diacritics here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninhabited village?

I've removed the description "uninhabited village" from the infobox. I think this is POV. The North Korean government describes it as inhabited, and this article states that the village is used to house soldiers. I know many people claim that it is uninhabited (none of whom have been there), but we should be impartial.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: RSs say that it's uninhabited, and if we took what North Korea says at face value North Korea (and South Korea, for that matter) would look very different. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's a contradiction saying that soldiers live there and saying it's uninhabited.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree Jack Upland;

"However, observation from the South suggests that the town is an uninhabited village built in the 1950s in a propaganda effort to encourage South Korean defection and to house the DPRK soldiers manning the network of artillery positions, fortifications and underground marshalling bunkers that surround the border zone."

First, it says "the town is an uninhabited village" and the wording of the sentence suggests that that was the purpose it served when it was built in 1950, but not necessarily now. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, it says that observation suggests it's inhabited... As for the soldiers, who says they have left? The border is as militarised as ever. The Guardian source says there are no residents except soldiers. If you look on Google Maps the village is surrounded by cultivated fields. Who cultivates them? We should not assume that North Korean sources are wrong when logic and independent evidence suggest that they are right. I'm not saying we should ignore the claims that the village is empty. As I said, I think we should be impartial.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peace Village (North Korea). 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/20061112222749/http://www.panmunjomtour.com/english/jsa/jsa_16.htm to http://www.panmunjomtour.com/english/jsa/jsa_16.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://economy.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_blogview.asp?at_code=370439
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301193929/http://dailypropaganda.com/2011/05/06/kijong-dong-north-korea/ to http://dailypropaganda.com/2011/05/06/kijong-dong-north-korea/

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) 06:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)