Jump to content

Talk:Chonma-ho

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mzajac (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 23 October 2006 (→Photographs: does DPRK copyright apply to us? Still from video may be usable under fair use.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did You Know An entry from Chonma-ho appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 October, 2006.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

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. JonCatalan 17:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.

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

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

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. --Descendall 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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. JonCatalan 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 20:46 Z
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. --Descendall 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. JonCatalan 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the photos originally derived from [1], 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 (Return Fire) 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. JonCatalan 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 (Return Fire) 23:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 01:12 Z

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

Qestion. What about images that come from a video, or more specifically, a televization of the parade? JonCatalan 00:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright rests with the television station that broadcasted the event. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A still image might be usable under fair use. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 01:12 Z

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 thinkJonCatalan 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be relevant, but we should be careful not to draw our own conclusions from any comparisons. As with everything, properly cited experts' opinions are always best. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 20:48 Z
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. JonCatalan 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gurkha 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I always assumed n/a meant 'not available'. JonCatalan 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chonma-ho&oldid=83115574"