Contents

Talk:Panmunjom

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Korea High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated working groups: /  This article is supported by the Korean military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Military history: Asian / Korean This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Korean military history task force

I removed the sentence " But there is new evidence that North Korean and Chinese POWs had been subjected to screenings where they were forced to declare that they were unwilling to return to their communist countries. " If someone can find a reference for this claim, it should be included in the pedia somewhere, although probably not in this article. -- Visviva 13:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag <- something regarding what is mentioned there as Panmunjeom as the home of the largest flagpole should be mentioned.

It seems to actually be at Kijong-dong, but I'm no expert. --MyUsername 06:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flagpole is not inside the Joint Security Area (JSA), commonly referred to as Panmunjom. It is indee located at Propaganda Village Kijong-dong, on the North Korean side of the DMZ. wbfergus 16:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)wbfergus

"It should not be confused with the Joint Security Area (JSA) nearby" Does "it" refer to Panmunjeom or the building. I'm confused. Also one of the pictures refers to "Panmunjeom, Joint Security Area" which emplies to me that Panmunjeom is in the Joint Security Area. --Gbleem 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging this article with the article on the JSA. As Gbleem pointed out, Panmunjeom is acutally inside the Joint Security Area. Even within Korea itself, the terms "Panmunjeom" and "JSA" are often used interchangeably. Since Panmunjeom is part of the JSA, it should be moved to the respective article to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.221.73 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept separate. If people say the armistice was signed at Panmunjom, they don't mean the JSA... There isn't much to say about the village but we can keep a small article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is so much confusion about Panmunjom vs. the Joint Security Area, how about this only refers to the now defunct village, while most of the content on this page gets moved into the Joint Security Area page? --wbfergus 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after looking at it for a couple days, I think the best course will be to move the "Incidents" portion over to the Joint security Area page. The incidents (and the pictures) are of the JSA itself, not the village of Panmunjom. Both pages though should make mention of the confusion (interchangability) of the names, with links to the other pages(s). I think this will help alleviate some of the misperceptions. --wbfergus wbfergus 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then the article is full of pictures of the JSA, way to confuse people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.31.15 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because there is not much to be said of the original Panmunjom village. As far as I know, today's JSA is located within administrative borders of Panmunjom (even if far from the village center), so it is correct to say that JSA is in Panmunjom, and there is not much of Panmunjom left besides JSA.--Azarien (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has recently been moved (incorrectly out of the main space and into the Wikipedia-level space) and renamed Panmunjeom without any discussion, citing "Revised romanization is the correct spelling". I've moved this back to the previous title of Panmunjom, as this is the transliteration used by authoritative sources such as the UN (http://repository.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/60658/S_18920-EN.pdf), the Swiss Armed Forces NNSC page (http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/en/home/themen/einsaetze/peace/korea.html) and the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22831349). If any editors feel that Panmunjeom is more appropriate, please provide citations. CLW (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do people currently think about the idea of merging this article into the Joint Security Area article? I know the idea has been floated a few times in the past, but there didn't seem to be interest.

I suspect, most of the time, when readers look up Panmunjom, they are actually thinking of the Joint Security Area, but are not familiar with that name. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]