Talk:Kippumjo

Transliteration

Kippumjo or Gippeumjo?--Mycomp (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Salacious Rumours

Do salacious rumours about a supposedly top secret group really need a article? We certainly should improve the sources. The article relies heavily on the Fox News article, which makes it clear that the story is based on unconfirmed reports. Demick's book (Fourth Estate, Sydney, 2010, ISBN 9780732286613, pp 30, 302) treats it as a rumour and refers to Martin...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And the translation "Joy Division" is deliberately constructed to evoke the Nazis - Joy Division (World War II).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources, including Fox News, such as the following:

• News Corp Australia
• Asia Times
• Fisher, 2015
• Newsweek
• Independent
• Al Arabiya
• Huffington Post
• The Guardian

Therefore, just because one article from Fox News is used, does not discount the weight of other reliable sources that verify that the subject exists.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

They're still salacious rumours.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• News Corp: "Within the walls of North Korea, the practice is incredibly secretive, and knowledge of its existence comes solely from defectors who have fled to China or South Korea." How do these defectors know about it? "Some critics have doubted the authenticity of Mi-Hyang’s story..."
• Asia Times: "Little was known outside North Korea about the pleasure squad, known as Gippeumjo. For years it was such a well-kept secret that some analysts even doubted its existence." Cites Kenji Fujimoto — this says the accuracy of his account is unknown; this says his stories are inconsistent.
• News Week: "reportedly". Quotes Toshimitsu Shigemura — according to this the source of some of the worst rumours about North Korea.
• Independent: cites Fujimoto again
• Al Arabiya: Fujimoto again
• Huffington Post: "reportedly"..."Proof of the squads has never been officially confirmed". Quotes Shigemura again.
• The Guardian: Fujimoto again.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what might think in general of The Mirror, this article cites both a former member of the Kippumjo, who escaped to South Korea and told her story to Marie Claire in 2010, and The Chosun Ilbo ("Kim Jong-un Picks New Members for 'Pleasure Squad'".). This article from the Daily NK, in Korean, cites several former members of the Kippumjo. The wealth of evidence may not support an individual act, but the existance of the group and its subdivisions seems as good as it gets for non-governmentally disseminated information from North Korea. --Bejnar (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, according to News Corp, some critics have doubted the authenticity of that "former member" (Mi-Hyang). The Chosun Ilbo, which has been accused of right-wing bias, uses the word "apparently" multiple times. Daily NK has the aim of bringing down the North Korean government, so it's not the most neutral source. Yes, there are a lot of reports, but that was also true with the execution of Hyon Song-wol, who later turned out to be still alive. The Mirror produced a copy of her "sex tape".[1] A North Korean story with a sex scandal is a potent mix. But the amount of times the story is repeated, and the amount of details given, [2][3][4][5] doesn't necessarily make it true.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not interested in "truth". We deal with published sources. --Bejnar (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth states, "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability."--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as others have pointed out, this topic has repeatedly been covered, over a period of decades, by multiple reliable sources. So it's easily enough for an article, and I'm removing the tag.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you've given a valid reason for removing a NPOV tag, but let's put that aside. I think the important thing is to report accurately what the sources say, including any doubts they express about the topic, as most articles do (including Fox News). WP:BLPGOSSIP says: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself ... whether the material is being presented as true". I think this applies to rumours as well as gossip. I don't know why you say that the topic has been covered "over a period of decades". It seems to start with Bradley Martin's book in 2004, and then the latest we have is the story that KJU's recruiting in 2015. I think that's 11 years of reporting. In any case, for all that reporting, there's not a lot of information in this article. In fact, this article claims that Kenji Fujimoto is North Korean. But, of course, Wikipedia is not about truth.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is this article a reliable source? (We use it twice.) There is no evidence that the young women in the photo are part of a pleasure squad or anything like it. If they weren't North Koreans, this would probably be treated as defamation.
• What about this, based on the Chosun Ilbo? Is it really credible that there is a shortage of virgins in a country of 20 million? How does this report square with our article Prostitution in North Korea which doesn't indicate that prostitution is so pervasive. And the suggestion that the missiles are fake? Ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a general problem when it comes to outside comments made about north korea. We have the "north koreans all die due to famine" claims, but then we have wikipedia mentioning how there are 25.67 million people living there in 2019? IMO there is too much propaganda used. We all are aware that north korea uses propaganda, but others use too. So this needs very objective comments. I understand that we don't get an admission of these prostitute workers for the higher ups from north korea officials, but any other random article isn't a "credible" source either merely because it makes such an allegation. Defectors are somewhat better as a source IMO but they could be paid to state something too. As long as it can not be universally verified, wikipedia should be wary, and if comments are made, a LOT of different sources should be given to lessen the risk of biased uni-focus. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Source(s)

I do not necessarily doubt the claims made, but south korean sources tend to not be universally objective either. And a LOT of the whole article seems just one-sided, to word this nicely. In my opinion wikipedia needs to put much more focus on reproducible verifiability, to not add to blind rumour mongering. The article as it is is also not hugely consistent to itself. It mentions disbanding in 2011 but past 2015 it speaks as if this continues happily - so why was it disbanded but then continues as-is? That doesn't quite add up. The article as it is is confusing. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

pick a lane!

what's the point of using "ki" "qing" and "gi" in the same paragraph? they're all the same thing!

this is not an article on transliteration quirks. i say use the korean spelling and be done with it.

and why's it in the etymology section to begin with?! 2601:19C:527F:A660:7172:56B:67D4:14A8 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)