Talk:Chonma-ho/Archives/2024/March

Tank Name

I'm not entirely sure that the tank's name means "flying horse-tiger" in Korean, "ho" is used to designate a unit, similar to "mark". A better name for the tank would be "Pegasus Tank", since "Ch'onma" is a Korean equivalent to the Pegasus. - Unsigned comment by User:70.232.37.163

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)

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)

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

Why doesn't Workers' Party of Korea say anything about that date? 02:54, 21 November 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. --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. 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. —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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The copyright rests with the television station that broadcasted the event. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A still image might be usable under fair use. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 01:12 Z

Specifically, this image on my server: http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/North%20Korea/Chonma-ho/chonmaho4_002.jpg 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 ^{(Return Fire)} 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 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, many of these images should be good candidates for fair use, due to their rarity and the practical impossibility of photographing a winged horse in the wild.

Regarding Catalan's TV capture: man, did they ever kit that baby out. As a low-resolution still from a video, it definitely meets the "minor part" requirements. If there is no other image around of a similarly-equipped Ch'onma-ho, then it easily qualifies for fair use. Of course, it's always preferable to have an image that is licensed or public domain. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 03:24 Z

I was thinking the TV still, since it had a known source and copyright. Another free photo was added to the article, which is pretty good. The other photo I removed was the Juche-Po, which I won't delete, since it could be fair use on the Juche-Po article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I still have received no email from Jedsite, or response from James Warford. I speak to James Warford through Tank Net, so he might have not logged on yet today. We'll see, I guess. Is there anyway we can keep the propaganda drawing/picture of the Ch'onma-ho under fair use? That image is pretty widely distributed online - well, at least within the circle of those interested on the subject. The problem with the existing images, which I put to fill space, is that none of them are of the Ch'onma-ho, except the one in the info box. The pictures that were on here are the only ones that I know of which exist and are open to the West. JonCatalan 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, James M. Warford has told me that he doesn't know who owns the images. He says that they are widely distributed amongst those who know about them. I'm still waiting for a reply from Jedsite. I'll have to email them again, later. JonCatalan 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost forgot to ask. The anniversary parade is actually on You Tube. What about captures from the video, if You Tube caught the tanks? JonCatalan 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If the person who shot the video uploaded it on youtube, the copyright will belong to him. However, if he uploaded it from a television broadcast, then the copyright rests with the television station, if one is noted. If not, i'll play email tag with the user, since I got a youtube account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I received this email from Morozov's deputy designer on my request to use the images of the upgraded T-62 on the website of the design company. How would I transfer this into a copyright tag if I upload the image to Wikipedia?

Dear sir,

Referring to you e-mail message of October 24, 2006 (see below), we inform you hereby that we allow you to use the picture(s) in question, but with reference to the State-owned Enterprise Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (SOE KMDB) and the SOE KMDB's Web site.

Best regards,

Yuriy Volchenko, Deputy General Designer, SOE KMDB

JonCatalan 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good show of initiative. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It's important that they are aware that work published in Wikipedia will be republished, and that they agree to a GFDL or free licence. —Michael Z. 2006-10-25 15:43 Z

I have sent Morozov a second email. Hopefully they won't get too annoyed.  ;) JonCatalan 22:08, 25 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 thinkJonCatalan 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, 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)

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)

My mistake. I always assumed n/a meant 'not available'. 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. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 01:16 Z

Improvements

I've decided to dedicate my time to this article until I feel that I have done all that I can, and until I get enough information for my next major article (I'm gathering sources on the Leopard 2E and Spanish Coraza Project). That said, I'd appreciate if anybody mentioned something that could be improved in this article, or even if someone who is a better writer than me could improve the prose of the writing. Thank you.

Regards,

JonCatalan 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. A very broad coverage. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 00:14 Z

What do you think it would take to get this article to good article level? JonCatalan 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. given the fact that your T-34 article was featured, you mind if I 'steal' some ideas? JonCatalan 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) ... and I can't get the template user/maintenance box to show both ours names. I'm not very good at Wiki code, as you can probably tell. JonCatalan 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Steal away. I hope to read article through and drop some comments in a few days, but I'd rather not make any promises. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 18:38 Z

Since User:Mzajac/maintenance exists, the user can be added like so:

Hope that helps, -- Visviva 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Some person that is not signed into Wikipedia has been making edits. Not completely bad, but some of them incorrect. I'd like to clear some things up as reference for any future edits he may be interested in. I believe we're sure that T-72s were sold to North Korea; we are not sure if a T-90 was sold to North Korea. Furthermore, juche translates into self-reliance, so juche is not a policy of self-reliance, it is self-reliance. Please do not delete entire sentences without giving supporting details here; 'The Ch'onma-ho is the epitome of juche, or self reliance and is the spearhead of North Korea's armour fist' can be easily changed around to avoid making it sound like 'propaganda' - I simply changed fist with corps. Do you have any hard sources that state that the M-2002 can be based on the T-90? JonCatalan 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well . . . The first versions of P'okpoong-Ho were based on T-72s and T-80, but later versions realy look more like T-80UD with a turret from T-90. One T-90s was realy bought by Kim Jong Il in 2001. I dont know how it's used now - as a fighting vehicle or for test drives.

I know that one was bought (it's actually not guaranteed, either), but there are really no veriefiable sources that can say that the M-2002 is based on the T-90, so it's better not to say that it is. JonCatalan (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Drawing Parallels"

I have removed that section because it's pure speculation and provides not a single source. This does not belong into Wikipedia. --DavidDCM (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Split off North Korean tank history

I don't think that North Korean tank history is an appropriate section in this article, since tanks used by North Korea greatly predate this tank. It should be a separate article, North Korean tanks, that has the history, and list of tanks used by North Korea. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to create an article from scratch rather than try and split this section. In the absense of that article, this section makes a good introduction to the Chonma-ho. Op47 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I think Pokpung-ho should be merged into Chonma-ho; Pokpung-Ho page is severely outdated and lacking information (and full of misinformation), and following North Korean naming systems, these are the same series of vehicles. Both articles both need major re-writing, which I am up to do, I just want to check if people agree on the merge. Otherwise, I'll go ahead with it. DevonianShark (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what the information issues are? And unless I'm misunderstanding, given that the articles are on North Korean tanks, shouldn't they use North Korean naming systems (i.e. McCune-Reischauer)? toobigtokale (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The variants are all wrongly named (-ho suffix and roman numerals are not used by North Korea, they designate them otherwise (e.g. Ch'onma-92, -98, -214, etc.), and are filled with incorrect information (for example, claiming that North Korea operates imported T-62s, or that the armour quality is worse, or just dated information about each upgrade). I'm currently in the process of updating this article to at least reflect what we know now, but I won't merge the articles just yet.

Yes, they should follow North Korean naming systems. What I meant by that is that Pokpung-ho is a western name given to the two most advanced Ch'onma variants; they are not a separate series of vehicles and thus should not have their own page. It was initially thought they were separate when revealed in the early 2000s, hence the two pages being split and the information online suggesting they're different. I didn't mean their romanisation was wrong, apologies. DevonianShark (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Janes doesn't have an entry for the Chonma-ho in any of the yearbooks I've checked. Their licensed production is mentioned under the Russian T-62 entry but not by the name Chonma-ho. There is an entry for the "M-2002 Pokpung (Storm)" I'd like to look into this more, but I'm not familiar with North Korean AFV production. Can you send me some more sources User:DevonianShark? Schierbecker (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Janes is quite severely out of date then, it seems.

'The Armed Forces of North Korea: On the Path of Songun' is a good book but I don't believe it's available online. Here's a quote RE the 'P'okp'ung': "Although initially attributed specifically to the Chonma-216, foreign sources have come to ascribe to almost all of North Korea's post-2000 tank ventures the designator "P'okp'ung-ho" which creates much confusion by blending in different lines of development under a single name. North Korean sources make no mention of such a designation actually being in use, and even outright identify it as entirely incorrect." – the source for this passage is listed as the KPA Exhibition of Arms and Equipment in Pyongyang.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/chonma/ is a good up-to-date article but it primarily uses the above book as a source.

https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%8F%AD%ED%92%8D%ED%98%B8#s-6.2 This Korean wiki page has a section on the Pokpung/Chonma-215/216 name, with quotes from various experts. "the same names Cheonma-216 and Cheonma-215 are also confirmed in Pastor Jaeyoung Choi's visit to the armed equipment store [note: this is in North Korea].

The name Pompoongho itself first appeared in a North Korean defector's book and is not a name used inside North Korea." (translation by google so it's not the best)

Hope this helps @Schierbecker :) DevonianShark (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — mw (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Chonma-ho → Chonma (tank) – Chonma-ho is the designation given by western analysts; North Korea only use the name Chonma without the -ho suffix DevonianShark (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose since per the nominator's own admission, the current title is the English WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, Chonma currently redirects to disambiguation page Cheonma, and there has been no evidence presented on how or why that has to change. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Chonma-ho is the most common name in english sources but the vast majority of these are poorly researched articles or blogs; the most reliable sources don't use the -ho suffix. Following the guidelines, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)".

  The official name is chonma, but the sources that do use chonma-ho typically aren't reliable. This does present a problem, I agree.

  I have edited the name to Chonma (tank) to differentiate it from the current redirect page. DevonianShark (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since the move request destination was changed from Chonma to Chonma (tank), I also now oppose per WP:NATURALDAB. Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, there would need to be some list of WP:RS to counteract my "common name" claim since WP:COMMONNAME, per its current wording, relies on WP:RS for its basis. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Question Could you explain why you decided on a rename and not a merge? The common name issue comes up if you try for a rename; maybe you'd have better luck arguing for a merge. toobigtokale (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.