Talk:Man Gyong Bong 92

Untitled
Was it the allegations or the missile parts which were made by the North Korean defector? It's not clear. Earldelawarr (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New service to Vladivostok
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-russia-ferry-idUSKCN18E2AA 104.156.98.201 (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man Gyong Bong 92. 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/20130805214152/http://www.interq.or.jp/white/ishiyama/e-column44.htm to http://www.interq.or.jp/white/ishiyama/e-column44.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Name - meaning
I realise that it is the name of a hill near Pyongyang, but what does Man Gyong Bong (만경봉) mean? Davidships (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong ship?
The section about tourism implementation should be removed or at least rewritten. It seems there has been a mix-up regarding which ship was converted into a cruise liner for the 2011 trial run. The New York Times article mentions the ship in question being 40 years old, which would match the original Man Gyong Bong but not Man Gyong Bong 92, which was about 20 years old at the time. Washington Times mentions it being a Japanese-built ship and talks about a plaque commemorating Kim Il-sung's visit to the ship in 1972, 20 years before Man Gyong Bong 92 was built. Plus, the ship pictured in both articles doesn't look like the 92 to me. One picture even shows the name on the ship's side being Man Gyong Bong without the 92. Lentokonefani (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the two vessels have become intertwined. As they are both part of a single overall story. I suggest that the material concerning the earlier vessel is gathered together in a new subsection of "Background", and not removed. Davidships (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)