Jump to content

Talk:Chonma-ho: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,378,564 edits
m Archiving 12 discussions to Talk:Chonma-ho/Archives/2024/March. (BOT)
Tag: Replaced
 
(70 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{Talk header}}
|-
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
|[[Image:Updated DYK query.png|Did You Know|22px]]
|action1date=07:54, 3 November 2006
|An entry from '''{{PAGENAME}}''' appeared on Wikipedia's [[Main Page]] in the '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' column on [[22 October]], [[2006]].
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Ch'onma-ho/archive1
|[[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|Wikipedia|right|40px]]
|action1result=reviewed
⚫
|}
|action1oldid=84926885
{{talkheader}}
|dykentry=... that the '''[[Ch'onma-ho]]''' is a little known, indigenously produced [[North Korea|North Korean]] [[tank]]; information on which has proven to be elusive even to the [[United States|U.S.]] government?
{{WPMILHIST
|dykdate=23 October 2006
|class=B
|auto=
|portal=
|attention=
|needs-infobox=
|A-Class=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
<!-- Task force tags -->
|Weaponry-task-force=
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B1=no|B2=no|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|Korean=yes|AFV=yes|Weaponry=yes}}
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=Mid|milhist=yes|nk=yes}}
⚫
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Chonma-ho/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=0|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}


{{old move|date=27 November 2023|destination=Chonma (tank)|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1188343902#Requested move 27 November 2023}}
==Reassessment from Start to B Grade Article==
I was reading through the quality scale and I think that this article is a B grade article. Well, I believe it's more than that, but in comparison to other articles, a B grade article. It's complete when you take into consideration the lack of knowledge on the tank in the civilian world, and the lack of sources on the net, or on paper. It describes what is known about the tank, and it describes, albeit briefly, possibly deployments. It has an infobox, which Start class implies that it does not; it has various photographs belonging to the U.S. Government; AFAIK there is no point of view in the article, just lack of knowledge (because, there is no sources to offer more). The only thing that it doesn't have is a lot of information, which seems to mean that it's not a Good Article, or an A class article, even if it's understood that there simply is no more information to add without a ''real'' expert on the subject (someone who has access to the intelligence agency, for example). I hope you all agree with me. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 17:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


==Clarify Please==
"it's most recent public appearance was the 60th Anniversary Parade held in Pyongyang, North Korea, on 25 April 1992"

60th anniversary of _what?_ A minor point I'm sure but now I'm trying to figure out what happened in Korean history in 1932.

[[User:Bigstape|Bigstape]] 13:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:Done, thanks for catching that. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

==Photographs==
Is it just me, or do the licences on the photographs appear to be unlikely? They all say that the photos are works of the US government. However, given the nature of US-North Korean relations, it seems incredibly unlikey to me that US government officials were not only invited to look at the tanks close up, but were also allowed to photograph them in their official capacity of agents of the US government. The fuzzy black-and-white picture could have been taken by a spy (although the US very rarely declassifies information that would aknowledge that it is involved in intelligence-gathering operations) but the other photographs weren't taken clandestinely. I'd believe that these are works of the Korean government, but it's a little hard to believe that they are works of the US government. --[[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


: Whoever took them, whether they are North Korean, South Korean, or from the United States, I believe these photographs belong to the U.S. Goverment/Army. They have been used in the article in ARMOR Magazine, which belongs to the U.S. Armored Corp/U.S. Army, and they are not cited. This would probably mean that they belong to the U.S. Army. The image that's used as the main picture was done by the North Koreans as a propaganda piece, but it's used widely by the U.S. Government and owned by it AFAIK, therefore I really see no issues. This is underscored that these are the few pictures which exist on the Ch'onma-ho that can be seen by the public. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Most stuff that was published by the US Army is released into the public domain. I don't think it's necessary to investigate further, but I wouldn't be surprised that, since the country isn't a member of the WTO, North Korean publications such as the propaganda image aren't protected by international copyright law. I'm sure protected US intelligence information has much better photos.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2006-10-22&nbsp;20:46&nbsp;Z</small>''

:::While I seriously doubt that the North Korean government is going to be suing wikipedia any time soon, the issue is that images have to have the correct licence on them. Each country has different laws. The pictures as is state that they are " works of the United States Federal Government." If that's incorrect, the photos shouldn't say it. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I know that there's a Public Domain - Soviet Union tag. If this is in the public domain because it was taken by the North Korean government, then I guess it should say something to that effect. --[[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: It's not incorrect. Whoever it was taken by, it now belongs to the United States Government. All pictures are used both in the article in ARMOR and by Jedsite, with no copyright tag. Unfortunately, there was no copyright tag which was included in my options that said something to the effect of, 'although not personally taken by an employee of the United States Government, this is owned by the United States Government'. If someone wants to make such a tag go right ahead. I don't believe that this is an illegal use of the images, as they belong to the U.S. Government and therefore can be used by Wikipedia. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::One of the photos originally derived from [http://img52.echo.cx/img52/7527/post1310840081851fm.jpg], which was not taken by a US Gov't official. And since I am not a paid member to view Jedsite, I cannot confirm the license tags. But, we still need a source for the photos or I will have them deleted. You have seven days starting now. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Where did you get that photograph from, and how do you know that this photograph belongs to whoever took it? As far as I know the photograph belongs to the U.S. Government. Jedsite does not have a source on it. Normally, all photographs on Jedsite that do not have sources do not belong to Jedsite, they belong to the Library of Congress/U.S. Government. That's why the tags on the images say so. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::If Jedsite doesn't list a source of the photo, then for our purposes, the images are sourceless. Plus, from what I been able to see on the website (that is available for feree), I see that the information is copyrighted "© Copyright 1987-2006." Without the information from Jedsite, we cannot say it is a gov't photo and cannot say it is in the public domain. Plus, the DPRK [http://www.kcckp.net/ko/notice/rainbow/index.php?en+Laws+5 has a copyright law] and we are following it, despite them not being in the various treaties (we do the same thing for Iran). So, most likely, we will have to delete the photos. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 23:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Source information is important, because it let's us confirm the copyright of an image.

:::::::: But Wikipedia is subject to U.S. laws, not North Korean. Zscout370, where is the policy that we will respect DPRK and Iranian copyright protection? My understanding is that if a country doesn't join international treaties, then their copyrights are simply not protected in other countries.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2006-10-23&nbsp;01:12&nbsp;Z</small>''

I have contacted both James Warford and Jedsite. I should have responses by tomorrow. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Qestion. What about images that come from a video, or more specifically, a televization of the parade? [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 00:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:The copyright rests with the television station that broadcasted the event. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:: A still image might be usable under fair use.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2006-10-23&nbsp;01:12&nbsp;Z</small>''

::: Specifically, this image on my server: http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/North%20Korea/Chonma-ho/chonmaho4_002.jpg [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: KBS, most likely. As for the fair use, I am still toying around with what free images we got and what we don't have. But I am thinking we could use one photo for the fair use, likely the one in the main infobox. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::As for the issue that Michael brought up, Jimbo has asked us to comply with Iranian law, despite the US not having a treaty with them. I believe we should also respect DPRK copyright law even if the US Gov't doesn't. I am not sure how that will affect our fair use, but we still need to get the image license right, for our own good. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==Expanding the Article==
Do you think that expanding the article by drawing parallels between the Ch'onma-ho and new Ukrainian and Russian upgrades of the T-62 will be off topic? To specify, I mean stating possible upgrades for the Ch'onma-ho, even if currently known variants, by describing the upgrades in the T-62 done recently by the Morozov plant in Kharkov. What do you think[[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

: I think it would be relevant, but we should be careful not to draw our own conclusions from any comparisons. As with everything, [[WP:CITE |properly cited]] experts' opinions are always best.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2006-10-22&nbsp;20:48&nbsp;Z</small>''

:: Point taken. The main reason would be because there is little information available to ''anybody'' on the Ch'onma-ho, and given their recent trade agreements with the Russians, including the T-72s sold and the probability of the single T-90 sold it's possible that the Russians have also been feeding them information, or even full on upgrade kits, of their T-62s. Even if they haven't it would still give an outlook on the ''possibilities'' of what can or could have been upgraded on the Ch'onma-ho. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== stats listed as n/a ==

I haven't changed this because I don't know what the convention is, but surely weight (for instance) should be listed as 'unknown' or 'information not available' not n/a. A non-applicable stat would surely be something like 'secondary weapon' on a tank with no secondary weapon. Not a stat which it must clearly have, but that we just don't know.
[[User:Gurkha|Gurkha]] 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

: My mistake. I always assumed n/a meant 'not available'. [[User:Catalan|JonCatalan]] 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:: The new template has a great feature: leave out the value and the row is omitted altogether. Much less cluttered. If there is something to say about the omission, then a note like [secret] would make sense.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2006-10-23&nbsp;01:16&nbsp;Z</small>''

Latest revision as of 07:56, 19 March 2024

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 23, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Ch'onma-ho is a little known, indigenously produced North Korean tank; information on which has proven to be elusive even to the U.S. government?

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chonma-ho&oldid=1214489614"