Talk:Ryugyong Hotel/Archive 1

Timeframe of pic
Do we know what year the picture was taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.12.242 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No lighting at night
The structure is illuminated at night? Really?--The lorax 03:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't and never has been. However, North Korean books about Pyongyang inevitably include airbrushed "lights" on the building. (They generally airbrush vehicles onto the city streets as well.)  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Illumination at night
I was in Pyongyang in September and there during 'National Foundation Day' when anything that is going to be lit up at night, is lit up. I had a good view across the city from the Yanggakdo and it definately wasn't lit. Maybe this is a recent change?
 * Given that the DPRK regime seems to be embarassed by it (photos of it not allowed, removal from maps), illuminating it seems really unlikely. FWIW, I was there for May Day 2005, and again it wasn't lit. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comic
Pyongyang (comic) says 5 turning restaurants and 3700 rooms. --Error 04:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

single most unsettling structure
Not sure why User:Lotsofissues insists on removing the following. I have no connection with the site in question whatsoever so it is not a "vanity insertion" as asserted. I have seen this statement quoted on many other websites about Ryugyong Hotel including major reputable news sites and I feel it is worth being included. Please can you provide some justification why you feel it is not.

It has been described as "the single most unsettling structure ever erected by the hand of man"

I have probably read every single print English article about this monument to totalitarianism. Some reporters have described the building as ominious but never used such hyperbole. I do not want this article to deteriorate into a cacophony of personal opinion. Only reputable sources. Lotsofissues 10:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added hopefully a better description; I agree hyperbole and opinion aren't appropriate, but on the other hand, virtually every source I've ever heard describes it as "ominous", "sinister", "unsettling" or otherwise. Personally, I always say that if the Death Star was a hotel, it would look like the Ryugyong. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not good to use phrases like It has been described as (see Weasel words). Better to say something like "Project opponents like Jim Peterson haved described it..." or "Anti-communist observers in the West belittled it as an ominous and sinister example of the collossal waste typical of this Stalinist regime." (but say which observers said so: I just made that up, and sorry to say, I'm not notable enough to be quoted! ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Images?
I'm just wondering what happened to th images on this page. I know they used to be here, and a Google Images search for the hotel still links to an image which is said to be on this page. -- Jermdeeks 04:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess the images were deleted for lacking either source or copyright information. If you can find images licensed in a way that WP can use them, by all means please upload them. - choster 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a free-license image. It's not great, but the North Koreans actively discourage the taking of photos of the structure, so I don't know that a lot of better ones are floating around oth there. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just there and while in the presence of North Korean minders took many, many shots of the building. There was never any discouragement.
 * Most images come from this site: http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/

which includes, as far as I can find, the only finished rendition. ( showing glass reflective finish ) 67.188.118.64 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Film?
"Hollywood has apparently seized upon the general public's reactions to the building (many claim its 75-degree slope and concrete shell make it look sinister) by setting a horror film there. Even though the project—working title A Night in the Hotel—is currently in early stages of pre-production, little is known of the cast or crew or whether or not it will be shot on location." Could whoever added this provide information of what source was used? I couldn't seem to be able to find any article that mentions such... -elynnia-
 * I seriously doubt this; it's only really well-known to people fascinated with North Korea, and the DPRK would never let an American movie company film a movie like this. I googled for the name, along with Korea, Pyongyang, Ryugyong, Movie and combinations of these, and found nothing. Removed. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I

They could always use matte paintigs, CGI, etc. to make the movie appear to be set there without filming at the actual site, much in the way scenes in "The DaVinci Code" set at Canterbury Cathedral were filmed, despite having no permission to film there.

However I've found no reliable source that even suggests this movie is in any state of pre-production, or even in the unrealized idea stage. I can't even find mention of the rumor. 75.70.123.215 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sagging?
''The basic structure is complete, but it has never been certified as safe for occupancy. As a result, no windows, fixtures or fittings have been installed.''

No, the reason is not that it wasn't "certified as safe," which would imply an impartial and apolitical civil service in North Korea that could put a stop to a pet project of Kim Jong Il's. (There have been several other structural collapses in the city including an apartment block on Tongil Street and a Metro tunel.) The reason is almost certainly that North Korea ran out of funds to buy the windows, fixtures, and fittings, all of which would have to be imported. (There is nothing whatsoever of North Korean origin in the Yanggakdo Hotel.)

The building is sagging so badly that it will never open as presently constructed.

I think this is an urban legend based on the asymmetrical design of the hotel; looked at from many angles, it looks like it's leaning over, but it is not. (I have no doubts as to the poor quality of construction, but the sagging seems implausible and not credibly sourced.)

I will rephrase or remove both of these statements. Pr oh ib it O ni o n s  (T) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Artist's rendition
Do we really need some pic someone whipped up in Photoshop with a lot of clouds? Does it add anything to the article? does it reflect the final look of the building, which may have had, among other things, paint? --Golbez 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: I did feel it might be interesting to see an image of the hotel lit up by lights, as per the 'airbrushing' reference in the article. To make the image, I used the following for reference:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/skyscraperrot/ryug01.jpg shows the hotel in a similar cloudy, but daytime setting. The 'sunset' image is directly based on this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/skyscraperrot/ryug03.jpg shows the hotel with a poster out front which suggests that the hotel was going to be finished in a silvery grey coloring. This might even be due to glass paneling all across its facades. The building in the 'sunset' image is basically this one. AniRaptor2001 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon re-examination (see below for my original take), it seems the Photoshop picture serves no purpose at all (other than possibly thinly-vieled North Korea nationalism, which I'd doubt) since A) there are no lights below the cloudline, thus negating any use the picture may have as an illustration of the airbrushing, and B) the building is still unfinished in the picture, without paint and glass, as mentioned above. The second picture you cite (ryug03) contains a picture of the building in twilight hours, where the lighting makes it impossible to tell if the building was supposed to be grey, black, navy blue, or just glass-panelled from top to bottom - so I find it hard to believe anyone could draw inferences as to what the building was "going" to look like. The Photoshop looks like a concerete husk with some lights on the top, and a cloudy background which borders on the unrealistic.


 * It is not my intention to sound harsh, but I side with Golbez. --151.200.21.93 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more effective to find an actual airbrushed picture, rather than making an original creation for the sole purpose of illustration. The current picture also bears an uneasy, nearly frightening, resemblance to those "inspiration" calenders. I can imagine the caption:


 * "PERSEVERANCE.
 * Remember, if you silence any and all opposition, and work with absolute tunnel vision, you can build magic"


 * :-D --151.200.21.93 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd mention that I thought this was quite amusing.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 12:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As the one who (may have) mentioned the airbrushing business in the first place, I can scan something in from a North Korean book. I'm not sure to what extent copyright applies to information materials from the DPRK, though...  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it qualify as fair use? I didn't save anything from the time, but I recall quite a lot of magazines and newspapers publishing the photograph of the pyramids that made the cover of the infamous 1982 "retouched" National Geographic. If I'm writing a journalistic paper on photographic retouching, it seems better to include samples of what I'm speaking of, rather than refer people to old, possibly out of print, and possibly expensive magazines, newspapers, etc. --151.200.21.93 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Yes, it probably would count as fair use. My little aside there was in reference to the fact that status of international law, including copyright conventions, is often unclear in reference to the DPRK, which is often not a signatory to such things (and which is, for example, the world's biggest forger of $100 bills, suggesting lack of attention to copyright on the part of the North Korean government).  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 08:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to the left margin. I removed the picture a couple of days ago for all the reasons mentioned above. I'd like to see a rendition of the whole building with glass facade, restaurants, entryways, etc. clearly visible, though I'm not sure it would belong here. Pr oh ib it O ni o n s  (T) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One image from wired.com is Here, showing the hotel cladded in glass. There is an article about the hotel's constructiion being restated Here (Chinese). There were also rumours (and I must stress, they are just rumours, nothing more) that Orascom was going to invest in North Korea, restart contruction of the hotel and had been given the right to set up 3G networks there.Izax143 (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Flagship project
Does anyone know why the project halted? If opened, it would have been a shot in the arm for the regime. Why did they give up?

Lack of money? Structural problems? --Uncle Ed 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The first one caused the second one. The cement used was such poor quality that I'm guessing it would have collapsed if they continued. This is just my guess, though. --Golbez 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the structure is complete and it hasn't collapsed, despite 15 years exposure to the elements. The big reason was lack of money, as the facade and other elements would have to be imported and would have cost, at the very least, hundreds of millions of hard-currency dollars (ie, not fake North Korean $100 bills). This for a project that would never have earned any of this money back, as there are very few foreign visitors to Pyongyang, and never will be until the DPRK collapses; the running costs would also have been extremely high. Ultimately that money would have either had to have come from the army or the Kim family cognac fund, neither of which is politically doable, so the hotel was never completed.


 * Another thing, many DPRK observers assume that the real reason this hotel, and many other prestige projects in Pyongyang, such as Tongil Street, the 1987 metro extension (which contains the most ornate stations), and most notably May Day Stadium and the several single-sport stadiums in west Pyongyang, was the Olympics -- the North Koreans seriously believed they could threaten their way into co-hosting the 1988 Summer Games in Seoul. The South Koreans did in fact offer them a few events as a goodwill gesture, but ultimately this was not enough, and North Korea boycotted the event instead. The 1989 World Festival of Youth and Students was given as a pretext for the construction of all these buildings, but it was political and not very athletic in character, and drew (I think) only 17,000 participants, so it should be obvious what the DPRK had really intended.


 * Had they got to co-host the Olympics, I think you might have seen a finished Ryugyong Hotel in mid-1988.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 22:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence
The first sentence is jumbled--I can't fix it because I can't tell what it's supposed to say. AOB 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the article to restore the first sentence. I can see what Ed Poor was getting at by describing it as a "project" but most sources don't do that, and then we have to guess when the "project" began and ended, whereas we know when the thing was built. Furthermore, quite a few buildings in North Korea are thought to be, essentially, empty shells designed to impress, but the only difference here was they didn't have money to cover the structure in glass and finish the restaurants and a couple of floors. (I stayed at the Yanggakdo Hotel a few years ago and couldn't help get the feeling that parts of it were incomplete, even though it was built by a French company.)  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Architect
My wife visited North Korea in 2002, and was told while she was there that the architect who built the Ryugyong Hotel was executed after the hotel was discovered to be unsound. Has anyone else heard this? Are there reports to that effect anywhere in the media? Vidor 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image
I've listed the infobox image on WP:PUI as there doesn't seem to be anything on the website http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/ to indicate that the images are licenced under the GFDL. DWaterson 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Height compared to other tall buildings..
Earlier, the article stated that if the building were ever completed it would be the world's largest hotel and seventh tallest building. Since the hotel Rose Tower in Dubai is 333 meters, 3 meters taller than Ryugyong, it could still never be the tallest. I changed the first part of the sentence to say it would be the second tallest hotel in the world, but I don't know what to do about the rest of the sentence. Is it the 8th tallest or even further down in the list? --Konstantin 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rose Tower is not completed yet. The tallest now is the Burj Al Arab at 321m.

Delete elavator statement
the unsourced elevator statement I think is wrong and should be deleted. I will wait for feedback since I am no expert but on TV i have heard they stop because it is structurally unsound.

Concrete quality poor?
I havent found any enginineer's sources reporting the quality of the concrete as poor. I doubt such information from structural asessment's would be released by the DPRK if they were even undertaken. It seems that the claims of poor quality might just be opinionated for the purposes of mocking the hotel or the DPRK? I doubt the DPRK would permit such shoddy materials to be used for such a massive building. If it were to collapse, the consequences would be catastrophic in many ways (whether the building was in use or not). Maybe it should be rephrased outside construction firms have claimed that the hotel has been constructed with very poor quality concrete. Also, there is no specific sourcing to suggest the concrete has worn down in just 15 years. Theres even outside proposed 'ideas' for recycling the hotel. One of these 'ideas' appears to involve turning the building into a giant plant pot, which is just silly. This building requires a full structural analysis, and a joint international venture to complete it, with an absense of politics that could ruin the project. If this were finished it could move the DPRK forwards in socio-enonomic and political terms, this is what I think anyway. I'd like to see some structural analysis sourcing, and id be very interested in seeing this finished. Sorry to digress but this seems to be the best place to discuss the hotel. Bobman999 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting the leadership of the DPRK is logical and sane. --Golbez 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Im assuming the leadership of the DPRK is logical and sane for the purposes of finishing the hotel, if the hotel can be finished off as such. Bobman999 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, the claim for poor concrete should be sourced or deleted. Googling for verification just throws up blogs and Wikipedia mirrors, which is all the more reason to delete it from Wikipedia if it can't be properly sourced. Peter Ballard 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More poor concrete quality statements appear on the page, now fixed. Bobman999 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured on Yahoo!
Just FYI, but the story behind this building is a featured article on Yahoo! today and title with the eye catching headline of "The Worst Building in the History of Mankind." While the article doesn't mention this Wiki entry, it does link to a story in Esquire here: Link  --Brownings (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a bit silly now with all this unverified tosh about poor quality concrete, cheap and nasty cement, bad design, bad architecture, concrete sagging etc. As far as tourists have been able to find out, it appears to be structurally sound, and pieces havent fallen off after 16 years+. Even if there was such a report by a qualified civil engineering company, im sure such evidence would not have been released, so these claims are only a suggestion, until a certified structural analysis takes place. There is not enough techical information to make engineering statements about this building. These claims have been made by outside structural engineering observers. Also, it is highly unlikely that Balfour Beatty -- a huge, well known British construction company-- would build with these so called 'poor materials', if Balfour Beatty were even involved. Maybe someone should ask Balfour Beatty for information? Politics out of civil engineering please. Bobman999 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree... why/how would any major western architectural firm even work with the N. Korean government especially since there are no diplomatic relations between N. Korea and Western European nations... How would they be able to work with or under the N. Korean government? I suggest we contact them concerning this. Maybe a statement from Balfour-Beatty will clarify things. I would imagine that if they did do some work with N. Korea, we may have a lot of pictures from the inside of the structure... They would have been leaked one way or another.Dreammaker182 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I completely read the Yahoo feature and Esquire article and neither mention the British firm. Also I would trust the Yahoo article more because it is actually from Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080717/lf_nm_life/korea_north_hotel_dc;_ylt=AmUCSutXHgpgPl9ZrB5orzvXn414,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

82.25.110.231 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The ABC's source for the poor quality materials is Emporis. I took a look at the information that site contained on construction materials and it said nothing eluding to poor quality materials, and even if it did, users can add information to articles, so it doesn't appear reliable. If someone can find a reliable source, feel free to add that material back in. Momo Hemo (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

105 Building?
Can we get some substantiation for the claim that this name is used? After looking around on the internet I see that it is used on this page and one page obviously not created by a native speaker of English. I suspect that the inclusion of this name is simply wishful thinking on behalf of the contributor. I also suspect that contributor was attempting to mimic the 60-storey “63 building” in Seoul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.240.9 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) --JKeene (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted this name from the article, until someone provides a reliable source showing that it is a common name for the building. Thank you for catching it.

Added new paragraph.
I've added a new paragraph about the structural integrity of the hotel.

Please feel free to tidy it up if it appears to be inconsistent or if it does not seem appropriate in that section. I do feel however, that the paragraph (or a substantial part of it) is useful in the article.

Regards,

Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman999 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts to help clarify things, but there are no reliable sources for that information listed. If you can find some reliable sources that support that position, feel free to make the change. Otherwise, it's probably best if we left the quality or lack thereof of the construction materials out of the article. Momo Hemo (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Video
I found this YouTube video link in an esquire online mag. article (go figure...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r0fM31BXKk&eurl

esquire mag. article: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/DESIGN/worst-hotel-ever-012808?kw=ist

It is stated that it is unknown how the person shot it. but from the looks of the video, it looks real. I know that cellphones are banned in NK. It would be hard to sneak any kind of high quality video device into the country. I think this would be a good addition to the links because it shows the condition of the hotel in detail. You can really see the age in certain frames. Dreammaker182 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Balfour Beatty
Why is Balfour Beatty mentioned as a contractor for this project (right information column)? I highly doubt that they would be able to work under the North Korean government. Balfour Beatty is not mentioned in the body of this article and the company is not mentioned in most of the other language articles for this hotel. Dreammaker182 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible (though not likely due to reasons in discussions above) for such a large company as Balfour Beatty, to have been working in Pyongyang. The problem is, I cant find any sourcing for this. Also, the article doesn't provide two column sections for who the original contractors were, and who the new contractors are that have recently carried on from where Balfour Beatty allegedly left in 1992.

Bobman999 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC) --JKeene (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed pending the addition of reliable sources showing that Balfour Beatty was involved.

Neutrality Check:
I have started a Neutrality Check for the following reasons:

1: Quotes from sources referring to Ryugyong in such ways as 'hotel of doom' 'ugliest building', 'worst looking building' etc, are irrelevant as this is still classed as unfinished. It cannot be rated against other buildings as it is uncompleted and therefore comments about its appearance (no matter who made them) are meaningless. As mentioned in various forums, an unfinished building cannot be fairly judged by appearance as its simply not a complete structure thats viable for scrutiny. Nobody called East germany's unfinished autobahns (due to the iron curtain closing) the 'worst looking motorways' did they? 'Critics' were quick to point out how awful Ryugyong looks, maybe because its in North Korea. An unfinished building like this in north america would never recieve such a label, because the media would accept that it was unfinished for whatever reasons.

2: Quotes from sources referring to 'low quality materials', 'bad construction techniques', 'badly aligned elevator shafts', all totally unfounded. Although likely that the concrete was cheap and possibly substandard aswell, such information has not been confirmed, although we could find out at a later stage as construction has now resumed.

would be happy to discuss.

Regards,

Bobman999 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the unfinished nature of the building, this particular case would be one where an exception should be made to any usual Wikipedia policy regarding aesthetic comments about unfinished projects. The building was left unfinished for 16 years.  That amount of time is enough for an unfinished project to become a landmark in its own right.  The exceptional incompleteness of the building is part of what makes it noteworthy, and given that comments on its current state are reasonable. Huadpe (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Attributed and cited statements of opinion aren't in themselves non-neutral. I could see adding sources praising the building, though, but my bet is the only such source is the DPRK. If I'm wrong, then, great. Sofixit and add those attributed, cited opinions as well to address balance. However, if the only pro-Ryugyong opinion is from the DPRK, then it deserves one mention.

As for whether US media are nice to unfinished or troubled US structures, your assertion has no basis. Take for example John_Hancock_Tower. Basically, suggesting there is bias doesn't mean there is bias; you have to demonstrate it, not assume it. There's a source for the substandard building materials, is there a better source on their quality? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its more of a case of article relevance than neutrality, as i've stated. Thank you for the link to the John Hancock Tower article. Other than the 'plywood palace' joke, there is little vocal criticism of the tower, unlike this Ryugyong Hotel page which has been lambasted by the media (not just US media), and by outside observers & engineering firms, as well as tourists; Neither of which have access to the building or to any documentation of it. By providing the link you have just shown me how US media would not make so many negative comments on their own failed structural projects, or at least how a wikipedia article would be more NPOV and factual on a US project. I never said that US media would be 'nice' to troubled or failed US projects, I just think that they would be less likely to lambast them. Whether this is true or not doesn't actually matter because it shouldnt affect a good wikipedia article anyway. Perhaps you may want to consider that the John Hanhock article is what the Ryugyong article ought to be, a demonstration of referenced facts about the building itself and not slogans (whether sourced or not). One media comment may be appropriate towards the end of the Ryugyong article. The John Hancock article should be a model for what the Ryugyong Hotel article should look like, with the only notable difference being that the 'structural problems section' would have to be listed with allegations (although likely to be true in some cases).

The problem is, as you've already said, is that there is virtually no hard evidence about the structural quality as of yet. I don't think a lack of concrete evidence (excuse the pun) about the materials quality justifies a substitution with media slogans. I assumed that the article may have been biased, even if I didn't sound like that with my previous message, otherwise I would have placed a neutrality dispute tag rather than a neutrality check tag.

Your a far more experienced wikipedian than me, so if your happy with the article in terms of POV then please feel free to remove the tag, id rather someone else remove a tag when I place one on an article anyway.

The only pro-ryugyong hotel opinions are probably from 1988-1992 from the DPRK, since then the building had officially ceased to exit, until this year when construction resumed I assume.

Thank you.

Bobman999 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! As to the claims of being substandard, any structural engineer can look at the building, inspecting the surface around the bottom windows, and substandard or not, the photographic evidence points to structural and material integrity. It is up to an expert, or the opinion of an expert to assess the validity of this assessment. I had the photos looked at by both an engneer, and a expert on concrert, and although I will NOT post the results of their assessment, they pointed out the evidence of the pictures. ( i.e. the pictures speak for themselves )

67.174.157.126 (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What it comes down to is if we have sources, and those sources are typically considered reliable, that's what we use. If there is a void of opposing POV, what to do? If 5 sources say "bad" and 1 source says "good" then both NPOV and UNDUE would lead us to reflect that proprtionally. We can't make our own assessments of the building (that's OR). We can point out -- if we can back it up from the source material or another source -- that the critics haven't actually examined the building to add proper context. But we don't have that, and we shouldn't speculate on it... so we should let the sources do the talking as much as possible. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 04:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Content
"It should be noted that a lack of a safety certicate does not necessarily mean that the structure is unsafe. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to obtain any detailed information about the structure's integrity, as most details have not been made available by the DPRK. There is no access to any surveying reports (if conducted), material specification sheets, design plans and/or structural analysis results. There are various claims circulating around outside engineering forums such as poor concrete quality, bad alignment, sagging, severe weathering and subsidence. As of yet there is virtually no proof to these claims due to the above mentioned reasons, however it seems possible that the concrete quality may be substandard due to the costs involved & the economic state of the DPRK at the time of initial construction. At the same time though, the construction work was undertaken by outside firms that have a responsibility to follow international structural standards, & considering that this was a government project, the administration would not want to take the risk of using substandard materials which could cause a serious international embarrasement should the structure fail. Many of the outside claims against the structure's quality and integrity appear to be politically motivated, but it is possible that this matter will be cleared up should the hotel be finished & tourists be allowed to stay inside."

Removed by another user due to NPOV & OR (Original Research) violations. I may use parts of this to place back into the article, or revise it first.

Comments are welcome.

Bobman999 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC) --JKeene (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be pretty clear original research to me. I wouldn't add any of it back, without referencing reliable sources.

Actually Under Construction
Is this building actually under construction again - which by the way I find highly improbable - I've checked the ref and it just brings up a 404 page not found? Should the article be changed to reflect the lack of sources for the 'under construction' status change? --92.237.92.135 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the picture on this page before February 2009 and after it, will explain. However not when you wrote here. Ferike333 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

photos of ongoing construction . . ..
''On 24 November 2008, photos of ongoing construction at the hotel has been released. The construction was done to install windows up to the 30th floor on 2 of the 6 sides of the hotel'' WHERE THE HELL ARE THOS PHOTOS??????? I WOULD REAALY LIKE TO SEE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Koryo Tours newsletter.--GagHalfrunt (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to the latest construction pictures, it’s getting done fast!

http://i42.tinypic.com/2ebbvgy.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qnp2iu.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/2862020257_d6b3c5ee86_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/3110001633_92b09b2e60_b.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.22 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now part of WSP Group"
Someone added the words "Now part of WSP Group" after "Baekdu Mountain Architects & Engineers" in the infobox, together with a link to an article about WSP acquiring a British company called Charterhouse Building Services. Since there is no mention of North Korea in this article, I have deleted "Now part of WSP Group".--GagHalfrunt (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed reinserted content
The following has been removed again. "To date, the hotel has not yet been certified safe for occupancy, and it is widely reported by foreign experts and news sources to suffer from major structural flaws that render it unlikely to ever be " Teh reason is 1) no safe certification scheme exists in N.Korea so it is inappropriate to highlight it, and 2) it is know widely report that work has started again and so completion is a possibility + the words used in the article were not supported by the given citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also removed is "no photographs or information has been released regarding the interior, such as the questionable construction/engineering of the building or the degrading concrete" because 1) report what is know and what is not known, 2) the removed content is not supported by the given citation, 3) just because a developer does nto release photos, or at least ones which a contributor to Wikipedia can find, does not make in appropriate to speculate or insinuate, and 4) given citation does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this building looks rather well designed for a skyscraper
Making it of concrete means it's heavier and has thicker walls than it ought to, but if the same shape had been done using steel it might be a decent hotel. Of course the pyramid shape is awful, but a three pronged straight building with a sloped top and rotating restaurants seems like it would be light in all the rooms, and very pleasant. Most skyscrapers are just cylinders or parallelapipeds. I like the three spoked idea. It means all the rooms have windows! Too bad they also have prison like thick concrete walls, and the thing looks like a frikken rocket or a pyramid. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.146.254 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Latest official pictures about the hotel: Though that's the official website of the country, I think these are reliable. Ferike333 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Irony?
Isn't it a bit ironic that North Korea wants to build the world's largest tourist hotel yet they don't let any tourists into their country? Does anyone else find that a bit ironic? General Heed (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe a bit, but I might remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. -- timsdad  (talk)
 * I know, I was thinking that this little bit of information could be mentioned in the article in a trivia section or something like that. General Heed (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's not true that "they don't let any tourists into their country". Guided tours are possible but tourists cannot go around unescorted. See, for example, Koryo Tours. --GagHalfrunt (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, it's not like you can just go the airport right now and buy a ticket to North Korea. They build the world's largest hotel and tourism is severely limited. It might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. General Heed (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is unclear
At the present time, the article gives the impression that the building is expected to be completed and opened as a hotel in the opening paragraph, but in other portions it suggests that the structure is unsound and will never be usable. This discrepancy needs to be addressed.128.122.94.34 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a BBC story that has some information, it can be put in the article if someone has time. -Lөvөl 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a little cleaning up. Hope it addresses your concerns.  --RSL xii  22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Completion Date
When I was in DPRK this June, we asked about the hotel to our guide and the official line is that it is scheduled to be completed by 2012, in time for the 100th year anniversary of Kim Il Sung's birth. Is this worth mentioning? --86.142.45.38 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See the third paragraph of "Construction Resumes". Rodface (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tone of sentence in the introduction
This quote from the article's introduction has several problems imho:

Meanwhile the "hotel" has a 2012 completion date, at which point we expect they will announce that it is simply "too popular to take open reservations."

1. Needs a citation for the completion date. 2. Who are "we" and how does one know what they "expect"? 3. The "too popular" quote is cute, but who said it? 4. The tone of the sentence is, well, snarky. Is this NPOV?

I wish I knew more about the structure, but I do not feel qualified to make the edits. Cwelgo (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's been reverted as having very bad tone. --Golbez (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orascom denied this as a rumor
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/080807Ryugyonghotel.asp

"This report, however, picked up by various news outlets, appears to be false. “Orascom is not related to or involved in operations or hotel developments in North Korea,” says Mamdouh Abdel Wahab, the company’s director of investor relations."

Does Orascom claim to be the ones renovating it or not?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.12.213 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just an old article with obsolete information. Check out its date. Ri hwa won (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pyramidal building comparison
I don't feel that the diagram adds anything to the article, I'm going to remove it soon unless anyone has any objections. Rodface (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a bad diagram--it helps show how really big a project it is to have undertaken. The diagram has shown up on some of the recent news articles (blog articles?) about the building, suggesting that others find it useful too. --RSL xii  15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously, you've left in a diagram showing "The Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun" for comparison?!? How about you also add a section about hot the Ryungyong Hotel was built by ancient aliens and the number of floors supports the hypotheses that the world will end when the Mayan calendar runs out? Okay, maybe I didn't need to be that sarcastic, but I came to the talk page to see if any of you Wikipedians had even noticed that crap image. Seeing its use defended is really disheartening. I guess I could remove it anonymously... 71.227.169.132 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When I created the image, I had pondered whether or not to include the contentious "Bosnian pyramid". Like you, I do not subscribe to the idea that it is man-made. To emphasise its disputed status, I have:
 * Labelled it "(disputed)"
 * Assigned it number 0
 * Greyed it out
 * In a sense, its inclusion actually supports your position by showing how ridiculously large it is compared to the Egyptian and Mexican pyramids, for a building Osmanagić initially claimed to be built in 12000 BC. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9742;&#9993; 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need for pyramidal comparisons. Please remove that picture. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Image
I am posting a better picture for the infobox. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a hotel anymore
Being interested in architecture, I read up on this building with great interest. I have seen three sources that this is a now a multi-use building involving office space, residential space, hotel space. According to BBC, Orascom the construction company says "...it will be a mixture of hotel accommodation, apartments and business facilities." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8306697.stm This makes sense, given the impracticalness of using this building completely as a hotel, given current tourist situation for the foreseeable future. As expected, other sources mention there will be revolving restaurants at the top as well. Mdrejhon (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it anything, or is this all future hope? Last I heard it was still unused for anything but to serve as a warning to others. Anyway, if you're saying this because you think it needs to be renamed, we'd have to wait for some form of official renaming. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a new paragraph that should resolve this issue for now, without needing to rename the article. It was a good point that this is an under-served subtopic about this hotel because the article never even mentioned that this building will also have office/residential uses too, while I have found more than four sources on the Internet. I've cited two references, including BBC and Asia Times. 76.69.84.199 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "construction" that you see is merely a facade being built around the structure. There are no real plans for the dilapidated and unfinished interior.  The use of this building is now for a very large and expensive mobile phone antenna tower. --KJRehberg (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect this as well, but do we have any reliable source? Rodface (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have seen photos of the interior and work is being done. North Korea certainly has ambitions to use it as a hotel, which makes sense from an economic point of view as the structure is already built. I think they could reasonably expect to attract a lot of Chinese tourists. When I was there Yanggakdo Hotel seemed near capacity. I understand that occasionally tour groups are diverted to the Koryo Hotel because Yanggakdo is full.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Image used to illustrate the hotel may not have been taken in February as it is claimed
Because the trees look very green I have doubts on the date of the picture (Feb 2013). Temperature barely go above 0 degrees in NK in Feb and it looks more like a spring/summer picture than anything else. Please could the author comment on that since I am not entirely sure? Is it real picture? And if yes when was it taken?

Antoine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The uploader appears to put the upload date as the date the picture was taken (it might be the program they're using and not deliberate), so I think we're safe with removing the February bit (As I agree with your assessment) until we find out exactly when the picture was taken. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to doubt the picture is real as it looks like other recent photos. (And it looks like the hotel did when I was there last year.)--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on this user's upload history, the nature of the file, and the fact that they are a banned user, I would bet that this image is both a photoshop and that they did not even create it. — RockMFR 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But look at the other recent photos!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

'''BETTER THE PICTURE FROM 2011. MORE CLEAR'''--83.33.102.139 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
I have restructured the article to put the criticism of the building in the "Construction Halts" section, rather than having its own section.

It seems rather out-of-date to focus on the "Hotel of Doom" theme when it appears that work is progressing.

The claim that the DPRK denied the existence of the building seems rather weak. It is not surprising if it didn't include the unfinished building on maps and airbrushed it out of photos. On the other hand, a building that size could not be covered up, and there are plenty of reports cited in the article attesting to its fame.

In general, the focus on controversy, while an important part of the hotel's story, does become biased when it becomes a chorus of ill-informed negativity.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that someone has reinstated a lot of the obsolete negativity into this section. I think that says more about the self-righteous critics of the DPRK than the regime itself.  I mean, really, who cares???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the following:
 * Former CNN international correspondent Mike Chinoy likened it to the calcium deposit on the neck of Kim Il-sung; both were clearly visible despite official attempts to hide them.

This is merely a reporter's snide remark. It is out of date and was never notable, as discussed above. The comment about the growth on Kim's neck says more about the Western media than the DPRK regime. It is normal that the North Koreans didn't include this growth in photos or statues: the Americans have rarely depicted FDR in a wheelchair. However, as Kim was known to press the flesh, and give "field guidance" down to his dying day, a lot of the population would have seen the growth, just as they would have seen the gigantic eyesore that this hotel was when in Pyongyang.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail
I've removed a reference to a Daily Mail report for 2 reasons. Firstly, it is innacurate. It claims the reporter was the first Westerner to get inside. However, the Koryo Group visited there previously and have photos to prove it. The attached video is of the Yanggakdo Hotel, not this one. While the reporter seems to have visited North Korea as a tourist, most of the information could have been gleaned from this article. I suspect, in fact, that the story of the early morning jog is an invention. Secondly, this story adds nothing to the article. The Koryo Group have provided photos of the interior which are far more informative and convincing than this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted again.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mocked up photos?
The entry states that the NK government removed the building from official sources/photographs. However, none of the sources on the page provide a primary source, i.e. they are all journalistic articles without actual evidence of modified photos released by the NK government. Can someone provide a primary source to validate this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.194.198 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed this. It doesn't seem notable anymore, if it ever was.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Collapse?

 * As of June 2014 several central columns and floors in the main structure have collapsed or are in a state of collapse, and the Hotel is no longer accepting visitors of any kind. The building is now regarded even by North Koreans as unsafe to enter.

I've removed this. It doesn't have a citation, and I can't find any confirmation that it is true. Moreover, the hotel wasn't accepting visitors anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the building now in use?
According to this article, a coffee shop is now located at the top of the building:

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/article/9998/pyongyang-waffles-new-coffee-shop-and-south-korean-style-stew-restaurant-found

I cannot find any other news sources that confirm this information - has anyone else got anything that would back this claim up, and if so does the article now need to be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.208.143 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The comment by Leonid Petrov (who is a North Korea expert) says it is actually the Pyongyang Hotel which has this coffee shop. I think if Ryugyong Hotel opened there would be a lot more fanfare.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Estimated Completion
The estimated completion was changed to 2021. Was there any reason or is this a joke?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been changed back to 2021, and I've changed it to unknown. If you want it to say 2021, please explain why.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now we have the opposite problem, with editors insisting here, and at the Pyongyang page, that it was completed in 2011 or 2012. The last report we have, from 2012, showed the interior was still not complete. If someone has a newer report, please add it to the article. In the absence of that, the safest thing to say is that the hotel has not yet opened.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ryugyong Hotel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703133311/http://ifes.kyungnam.ac.kr:80/eng/m05/s10/content.asp?nkbriefNO=207&GoP=1 to http://ifes.kyungnam.ac.kr/eng/m05/s10/content.asp?nkbriefNO=207&GoP=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Second halt?
The article has recently been edited to claim there has been a "second halt" to construction and that the project has been abandoned. I don't see any evidence of this. No new information about this has been provided. There is no point in citing the dubious Daily Mail report (see Talk page archive) from 2012. If we want to know what the interior looked like in 2012, we can follow the links to the Koryo Group's photos and judge for ourselves. The charges against Kempinski's former CEO Wittwer appear to have no connection to the Ryugyong Hotel. If no one can substantiate this, I'm returning the article to what it was.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I’m the one who made the changes you’re referring to. They included two new references concerning the resuspended construction, but neither was to the Daily Mail. You are however correct about the Kempinski complaint; I’m removing that paragraph. Thank you! —LLarson (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2013 CNN report cites the 2012 Daily Mail report, which is the ultimate source of the claim that you quote, "Despite the flashy exterior..." etc. But that's not the main point. I don't see a source for the claims that: (a) construction has halted, (b) the project has been abandoned. We know that Kempinski pulled out of plans to open the hotel in 2013, but there's no further information. Kempinski is not the owner of the hotel. Kempinski was not involved in construction. Kempinski was just the proposed manager. The current version states that Kempinski said that the hotel wasn't ready to open. It didn't. Where's your source?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I’m repairing the attributions about the building’s state of readiness. I misspoke above: “construction” hasn’t been reported as suspended; plans to open the hotel have been. —LLarson (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think it's important to mention the nuclear test because that was very much part of the context of Kempinski's decision. It certainly was not an auspicious time to open an international hotel in North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , nicely done! —LLarson (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've checked NK News, which usually is on top of any breaking story, and they have nothing to report about the hotel since 2013. However, my understanding, based on visitors to Pyongyang, is that there is some construction continuing. But we can't see the interior. Therefore, I think we should avoid making definitive statements until we have a solid, recent source. Or actually any recent source...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I’ve definitely scoured for more recent information, too, and I would have updated this article when the NK News piece was published, but I didn’t read it in toto last month. It is a solid source; it’s not recent only because we didn’t quickly incorporate it into the article. Until the witnesses to the construction—which you’ve heard is continuing—publish something, our most recent verifiable sources are already cited, right? —LLarson (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , I don't understand the motivation for your continual edits. You are not adding any new information to the page. We have already noted in the body of the article that the hotel was planned to open on the 100th anniversary of Kim Il Sung's birth in 2012. But there were not two separate planned openings. Rather, the opening was delayed, and then abandoned. In my opinion that Daily Beast article was probably based on this article, anyway. No, I don't "own" this page. I'm just puzzled by what you're trying to do...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern for the state of the article, and I share it. Here at Wikipedia, we try to not question other editors’ motives. That said, my most recent edit to the article$undefined$ reflects a reliable secondary source. It is not helpful to say that “[I am] not adding any new information to the page”, and it is definitely not accurate. In addition to my work expanding and futureproofing the references, I am the editor most responsible elucidating what reliable secondary sources all say: construction has again come to a halt. Thanks. — LLarson &#160; (said&#8239;&amp;&#8239;done) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When I asked about motivation, I meant the motivation of the edits (of the text, not the footnotes). I am very puzzled by your comment. It appears to be true, as discussed, that there is no new information since 2013. I have yet to see a published source that says construction has halted. As far as I can see there is no factual change in the article that you have added, but you appear to think the article was somehow out of date... or... I'm not sure. Is it the tone of the article??? In my experience, many editors want to emphasise the "Hotel of Doom" theme. I think we should stick to the facts. The fact that the hotel is unfinished speaks for itself. We don't need to labour the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

has just added a sentence to the lead which says that the hotel is the largest abandoned building in the world. But is it abandoned? The source, Business Insider, describes it as a "deserted structure that has been collecting dust since its construction was abandoned in 1992". We know this to be false, as construction was renewed and the exterior was completed by 2011. So this source is not a reliable source. The Business Insider article cites the Guinness Book of World Records which says: "The tallest building that is completely unoccupied is the Ryugyong Hotel..." Unoccupied is more accurate than abandoned. However, Guinness adds: "The hotel was said to have been built in anticipation of a joint Olympic Games between the two Koreas, but was abandoned when the Games went to South Korea." This is a garbled account relating to Seoul hosting the Olympics in 1988, which doesn't exactly fit the halt in construction in 1992! Wikipedia should not cite sources less reliable than itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source gives both "abandoned" (in the title) and "unoccupied". You are quite right that unoccupied is probably more accurate. I generally consider the Business Insider reliable. Its reporting of what the Guinness Book of World Records said is certainly accurate. Oftentimes journalists of any media consider providing a background for their story a duty, and this is where they usually stumble (especially in North Korea related stories). Anyway, shall we change this "unoccupied", or site the Guinness Book of World Records directly, or did you have something else in mind? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest "tallest unoccupied building" because that is what the "world record". It would probably better to cite Guinness directly, but I'm not fussed about that. In this context, "abandoned" implies (a) no plans to open, however tentative or indefinite, AND (b) no construction work at all, AND (c) no maintenance. We still lack evidence for any of those points, let alone all three...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Moved this down to the Architecture section as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In this, tour operator Simon Cockerell is quoted as saying, "I haven’t seen any heavy construction going on at the site for ages". This indicates there has been some construction work going on at a low level. He also says, "Since the glass cladding was added though it’s not possible to see from outside if work has been continuing on inside". This confirms my point above. We do not have a reliable source to say that construction has halted, and therefore we should not say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Left off the maps etc
I don't understand the reason for restoring dated information that was removed five years ago. I think Mike Chinoy's laboured quip (if that's what it is) is not notable and including it is not neutral. The related information about the hotel being left off maps and out of photos was somewhat notable at the time, when construction was halted indefinitely, but now it isn't very notable. It is not really surprising that a construction site be left out of a guidebook, nor that an eyesore be cut out of a photo. Moreover, we don't have strong evidence about this. The ABC source is way out of date, including such comments as, "So even if an outside developer wanted to finish the job, it would have to first start by knocking it down and starting over from scratch". It is clearly based on the false premise that construction will never resume and everything it says should be taken in that context. In terms of the current issue, it says "The landmark has been taken off printed maps...'I have a sightseeing guide to North Korea [published in Pyongyang] in my hands,' Morse said. 'And there's no mention of it, and it's not on the maps in there.' " As I said, not very notable in retrospect. I don't see how the LA Times source is relevant here. The BBC source says, "Once, mocked-up images of a finished Ryugyong appeared on national stamps, yet it was now being airbrushed from official photographs". This is purely a passing comment, and not particularly notable. Was this "airbrushing" done routinely or only a few times? We don't know. There doesn't seem a strong basis in the sources given to say "North Korean government ignored the building's existence during the construction hiatus". It doesn't seem important for the article today. We can note that the building was called the "Phantom Hotel" etc, but dwelling on the past is not neutral and a case of undue weight, apart from the issues of accuracy.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As of?

 * As of 2018, the building remains unopened.

Is this really necessary? We clearly state that the hotel hasn't opened. There is no need to have a yearly update on this. It's like a yearly update that someone hasn't died. The "As of" tag means that someone has to scurry round updating this every year, which is a waste of time. If and when the hotel opens, it will be a major news story. There is no likelihood that the opening will be missed.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Update
Lights are on. This could mean renewed construction work, or not. I don't think it's worth adding to the article without something more definite.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some media outlets have jumped the gun and said it's open. This is clearly not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen photos of signage at the entrance, but I can't find a verifiable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ryugyong hotel 01.jpg