Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea/Archive 1

한글!
i added korean script for all the ranks i could. hopefully i didnt break anything. i just cant stand to see romanization reign supreme! -Lordraydens 06:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NK websites
I have seen on some other websites, namely this one, where the enlisted-NCO ranks are collar tabs instead of shoulder boards...I saw JSA, and I think the shoulder boards go on the overcoats and collar tabs on the everyday duty uniform, but I can't be sure. Can anyone help clear this up?

--HerrMauser 23:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have South Korean ranks in McCune-Reischauer, and North Korean ranks in Revised romanization? Isn't that backwards relative to the official romanization schemes recommended by the two governments? Also, it might be made clearer that the two versions are only different romanizations, being identical in Korean. --Reuben 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and corrected the romanizations, however it's caused some bizarre links. Daejang describes the North Korean rank while Taejang describes its South Korean equivalent!  I did my best to maintain as many links as possible, but there needs to be a concerted effort to move/merge/edit the various Korean military rank articles to fit Wikipedia (and government) conventions. AKADriver 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the link for Taejang(it's listed on this page as the South Korean romanization), when followed, the page says it's the North Korean...69.158.110.94 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

USAF ranks
I'm fairly sure that the U.S. Air Force senior NCOs ranks were shifted upwards in the mid 90s. In other words, a Master Sgt had six stripes under and around the star, SMSgts had six down, one inverted, and CMSgts had six down and two up. Not official research, just something to think about. Currently the CMSgt has six down, three up. Thanks. Also, i didn't want to change it myself because i haven't studied up on korean era air force ranks. --24.238.170.99 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)lowly AFJROTC cadet

Save the Images
I discovered this outstanding article some time ago and then recognized with horror that nearly every one of the insignia images is in danger of being deleted. Every one of the Korean insignia pictures comes from CNFK. Someone should write a bot and update the tags as most of the images have notices that they will soon be deleted. -OberRanks 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

CNFK Images
The copyright violation notice is unfounded. These are Korean military insignia images that are available from both CNFK and the U.S. 7th Fleet. The fact that they also appear on some other person's website is immaterial. That person does not own the copyright to Korean military rank pictures and, in all likilihood, obtained them from a US or ROK source.

In addition, I personally spoke on the phone with a Lieutenant Commander attached to CTF 76. He confirmed these are public images and are published frequently on countles insignia/rank webpages and are perfectly fine to use on Wikipedia. -OberRanks 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ROK Navy Response
I would dispute that the owner of the website this image appears on holds copyright on these images. I spoke with (about 15 minutes ago) a contact within the ROK Navy who says the owner of that website cannot copyright their insignia images. The images that webpage displays are identical to images which appear in both USN and ROKN publications. -OberRanks 04:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that they claim copyright on the versions of the images that they made. Can't we get or make free equivalents that are free of possible copyright? Also, the license tag on this page is false; this image is not the work of a DoD employee. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * According to CNFK, they made these images and now these same images are showing up on the website you found. The ROK Navy is saying the same thing.  I have now talked to three United States officers and four ROK officers about this and they all the same thing.  This is a danger of taking on face value websites that show information which also shows up on Wikipedia.  You dont know if the chicken or the egg comes first.  I plan to rewrite the entire article in the near future and will be reuploading these images in any case. -OberRanks 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the source for the original images? Videmus Omnia Talk  14:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The original source for any Korean military insignia image is the Republic of Korea Armed Forces who have in turn released, without restriction, all of thier insignia imnages to the United States military. That is per the Flag Aide to CNFK and the PAO Officer of the ROK 3rd Fleet. Those same people stated directly to me that there are no restrictions on using these images on Wikipedia and actually the article "Comparative Korean Ranks" is used as a reference by them. -OberRanks 23:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Admin Noticeboard
Hello admins. I know this user meant well, but a large number of Korean military insignia pictures were marked for deltion as "copyright violations" becuase they were discovered on another webasite. I have investigated this and the pictures on Wikipedia are from CNFK and the U.S. 7th Fleet. I confirmed this on the phone with an officer of CTF 76 and have seen these same images in many different military publications. The person running the website which also showed these images probably got them from a US or ROK source and, in any event, no one person can own the copyright to Korean military insignia. In short, I think all of these speedy deltion notices were rather hasty and am wondering if they can all be simultaneously removed. For more info, see Image talk:KoreanSeaman2.gif. -OberRanks 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like you should hit the tagged articles with a hangon template in the meantime. --Haemo 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but use Haemo's suggestion. We have been trying to sort out the insignia issue, as we did earlier with the Ukrainian rank images. As with that issue, the website uniforminsignia.net is involved. However, as it was explained before, public domain images can be redrawn and a new copyright can be affixed to it. That is what these folks did. You can easily use the images directly from the CNFK and the 7th Fleet or make them yourself (or ask others to do it for you). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to rewrite the main article that these images appear on and will probably be re-uploading better images. This is just frustrating that people are finding webpages which just happen to show material which also appears on Wikipedia and then automatically assuming that the Wikipedia is in the wrong before researching the facts. -OberRanks 05:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ober, many of the insignia images we have come from their website. I noticed the problem a few months ago on another sister project of ours and was resolved by just taking DOD images. But, I side with the tagger of the images. We do get a lot of photographs that people misrepresent or omit the source of the license; ditto with the licenses. There are just sometimes that, when we gather a lot of stuff together, many images will be affected. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are Korean insignia PD per Korean law? Because if they are not, you cannot "redraw" them and attach a free tag to your work which would be a copy of a non-free image. --Irpen 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most of the images are PD under US law (Image:KoreanSeaman2.gif is a US rank in Korea), but, yeah, so long as the nation's laws state that its PD, then it's PD no matter the source online.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then, are the images that are PD by US law magically cease being PD if they are reproduced at a web-site that makes a blanket copyright statement of its entire content? Can I demand the WMF to remove this image if I post it at my web-site along with other stuff I choose to place a blanket "All rights reserved" statement over my site's content? --Irpen 08:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what some people running websites are thinking and it is a bad situation. We had a problem with another website posting Army medals pictures taken from a government website, as well as pictures of United States Air Force badges, and then saying that he had a copyright on them.  This whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth as I have been personally involved with that person and thought it was happening again here.  The point is, some website owner cannot all of a sudden declare that he owns the copyright to Korean military insignia just becuase he puts pictures of said insignia on his website.  I do admit though the original uploader might have taken them from the insignia website, but it doesnt change the fact that the insignia website took them from the ROK Navy and CNFK.  I plan to redo the article and put up better pictures.  But, in any case, these speedy delete notices should be removed. -OberRanks 12:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ober, well, if the designs are PD, then we can make them ourselves and not use their images. I won't personally remove the speedy notices myself, since once we replace each image, it has to be speedied. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you plan to replace those images with? --Irpen 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can redraw and reupload in a different format so that people will not say the images we are using were copied directly from that website that was discovered. But, as stated before, that website does not hold a copyright on Korean insignia images.  They are free for public use per both the ROK military and CNFK. -OberRanks 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the premise is that images at the web-site are not free you cannot redraw them and release under the free license because your redrawing would be a derivative work of the non-free intellectual property. But if they are free to begin with, there is no need to redraw them since they are usable. Some Wikipedians claim that the images that are PD by US law magically cease being PD if they are reproduced at a web-site that makes a blanket copyright statement of its entire content. I would like to hear what solution they propose to this dilemma. --Irpen 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The best bet would be to just get replacement images from a public domain source. If you believe that uniforminsignia.net got them from CNFK, can't we do that too? Videmus Omnia Talk  00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you? --Irpen 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I plan to do but the images will appear the same since they are, of course, images of the same insignia; the only thing that will be different are maybe the file size and the image format. I also asked someone from CNFK to log on and verify all of this so there will be no problem in the future.  I think that should satisfy everyone. -OberRanks 04:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are "the same" except such technicalities as file size and format, they are free to begin with. The web-site makes a nonsense claim similarly to my example above about the Rembrandt image. Let me reiterate, if the images at the site are free, you don't need to redraw them unless you want to make vector graphics file of a superior quality and consider the difference in quality worth of your effort. If we cave in to the nonsense view pushed by some Wikipedia wannabe copyright lawyers and agree that the images have to be deleted because they are non-free, you cannot reproduce them, at least not redraw from the web-site. You would have to obtain the military statute of Korea (in Korean I presume), learn Korean to read it and draw these images from scratch based on the description in these statute. Is that your plan? --Irpen 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the argument here? Is it that the website in question simply took these images from a public domain source and republished them? In that case we can get the image from the same source. Or, if the website took the time and trouble to create these images from scratch based on official descriptions, it's all right for us to simply steal their work and ignore their copyright claim? Videmus Omnia Talk  06:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am assuming the later; they took whatever descriptions or drawings and made images from scratch. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia, please read what I said. I don't know how the web-site obtained its images. I think they are free no matter how they are obtained. You say they are not. I will not spend any more time trying to convince you.

All I am saying is that if we proceed from your assumption (images are not free), redrawing them from the web-site is not allowed because one cannot attach a free license to a derivative work based on a non-free intellectual property. My view is that the images are free and if we need them we can use them. Your view is that they are not free. In that case, the only way to obtain the free images is to learn Korean and do as I said above. If you have other suggestions to the editor who is willing to do the work of redrawing, please give them yourself. I cannot speak for you. Zscout have already redrawn some images of the Ukrainian insignia. Are you planning to IfD them as copyvios? --Irpen 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking past each other. If uniforminsignia.net makes a derivative work of a public domain image, and copyrights it, they may well be within their legal rights to do so. However, a Wikipedia can make a derivative work of the same public domain source image and release it under free license. This is what should happen, instead of simply taking someone else's work. We have a big problem with images stolen from that site that we need to clean up before some kind of legal action is taken against the Foundation. I believe everyone involved is acting in good faith, but we shouldn't be taking chances with exposing Wikimedia to legal action when free images can be obtained or made. I know it's easier to just take them from someone else, but it's wrong. Videmus Omnia Talk  07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. Zscout has redrawn the images uniforminsignia.net because you insisted they are not free. Are you now IfDing his images as well? --Irpen 07:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I hope you're not assuming bad faith on my part again, as you did when you reported me at WP:ANI for being "disruptive". I assume Zscout is redrawing the images as a derivative work of public domain images. Images that are derivative of copyrighted works are, of course, copyrighted as well. Videmus Omnia Talk  07:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait for what Zach would say on where he was redrawing his images from.

In the meanwhile, I suggest you take a look at two most crucial court cases that are incredibly important for understanding of the concept of the copyright: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service

From Bridgeman: "Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality."

From Feist: "the sine qua non of copyright is originality"

I am just giving you those links as a food for thought so that you may reconsider having to IfD Zscout's work if he used "copyrighted", as you say, images found at uniforminsignia.net --Irpen 07:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I already saw this argument when you presented it at ANI in regard to the Ukrainian insignia. I defer to Quadell's opinion on that. As be said, it's not up to us to risk legal exposure of the Foundation in borderline cases. (Although the primary purpose of WP:NFCC is not worry over getting sued, but in encouraging the creation of free content.) And I trust Zach to act in good faith and in the interests of the encyclopedia. By the way, has anyone even asked uniforminsignia.net if they'll release their material under a free license? Videmus Omnia Talk  07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also trust that Zach acted in good faith and in the interest of encyclopedia since he did not think that redrawing images from uniforminsignia.net is the violation of the copyright law (I also think so.) But let's wait for what he says. --Irpen 07:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not drawn the Korean Insignia yet. In the Ukrainian images, I do not know where the forum got their information from. But if you still feel the images are risk to have on the site, I will not be hurt or offended if they are arranged for deletion. Honestly, I don't blame the lot of you for anything, but this whole operation really blows now. Half of the work I sent to yall for a good 6 weeks have been fought over, picked at with an axe or banhammer and it is getting not fun to draw anymore. Hell, even Flickr hunting is running me and Irpen into major problems. I'll probably re-evaluate my status here once the Belarus FAC is over. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Official Policy of CNFK
To all above, Oberranks and his supporters are completely correct in what they are saying. Korean military insignia images are free and clear no matter WHO draws them/makes them or WHERE there are published. The Republic of Korea Military, which is the ultimate authority for all of the ROK insignia, has stated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that pictures of their insignia are without copyright and can be used by ANYONE. As far as the website uniforminsignia goes, there are about 12 different sources from which they could have gotten those images, not to mention that North Korean insignia are ineligible for any sort of copyright claim due to the status of their nation and a lack of diplomatic/legal ties with most of the western world. With that said, please understand that it is the official policy of CNFK, with support of the ROKs, that these images CAN BE USED on Wikipedia. If there is any doubt or if even more assurance is needed, post an e-mail address and we will respond to you from a navy.mil account. Thanks you (CNFK N-1 Staff) -59.19.47.188 12:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I am going to check with our legal consul or higher officials to see about the issue. However, we will not take your suggestion to use the DPRK insignia on our server. We have been requested by our founder, Jimbo Wales, to respect DPRK copyright law even though the US Government does not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I too thank CNFK for the response. This is off subject, but do we really accept North Korean copyright claims?  We are talking about a country where it is a death sentence for a normal citizen to view western publications (such as Wikipedia on the internet) and where they run concentration camps worse than the Nazis and view the dictator-leader as if he were a living god.  Not to mention they are a state sponser of terrorism and would kill every American who uses this site if they had the chance.  Like I said, it is off topic, but the Wikipedia founder might want to rethink that line of reasoning. -OberRanks 03:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we accept the DPRK copyright claims. We accepted Iran's and we have an email from our founder to enforce it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of whether we accept the claims hypothetically is moot. We have confirmed that the images are free of the copyright, and are usable no matter what the web-site where they are reproduced claims. --Irpen 04:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, go ahead and remove the speedy notices for the ROK images. If there were any that were deleted, I will restore them. Keep in mind they are only for the ROK images and not for the other images discussed here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what these images are. Videmus Omnia should be now removing his speedy tags and helping identify what images were already deleted due to his errant tagging. Hopefully, he would draw some lessons for his future conduct. --Irpen 05:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Wikipedia is the better for this discussion. --  But | seriously | folks   05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And how? Hours of wasted time and more to be waisted to undo his damage?. And where did I say anything about faith? --Irpen 06:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we're hot on the trail of an answer that we can use in future cases. It's not wasted time, it's not damage, it's not errant, and the only lesson to be drawn here is that there are two sides to every argument.  We all lose when we fail to recognize that. --  But | seriously | folks   09:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Military insignia of the South Korean Military (assuming by the posting, I would say naval). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dealt with the North Korean insignia on the page; they are not works of the US Government and they are protected by copyright. As for the South Koreans, I just found this and causing me to pause for a moment. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of North Korean Iamges
Who in the world agreed to this? When was this ever discussed? What are people trying to do?? The NK rank images on the page came from an insignia comparison chart published by U.S. Forces Korea. The North Korean government never showed up on this site and said they were copyright violations and I even updated the Marshal ranks pages (which have since been deleted!) to reflect the images were PD, US Government, and usable on Wikipedia. I have to wonder why people are willfuly damaging this article. I guess I will have to upload every North Korean rank insignia now from scratch unless someone else can sort this mess out. -OberRanks 11:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OberRanks, you keep stating that these images were produced by the U.S. government but you have yet to provide any links that demonstrate this. The only online version I can find is uniforminsignia.net. Would you please provide links to the U.S. military version of these images so that the copyright status can be verified? Videmus Omnia Talk  17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The NK Ranks were drawn by the uniforminsignia website. So it shows that the source was lied about. Two, we accept DPRK copyright claims, though our government doesn't. If you upload the insignia again, I will delete them again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The South Korean rank insignia are apparently stolen from the commercial website as well. For example, look at this page and compare our versions of South Korean naval ranks - same file format, same file size. As uniforminsignia.net has a consistent format for all of its created insignia, I find it highly unlikely that we both just happened to get the GIFs of these insignia from a common public domain source. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, CNFK lied to us? Is that what you are saying?  Your page on thsi site is quite vivid that you are an Air Force NCO.  Are you stating commissioned officers in a major staff headquarters have lied about this?  I also point it that it was offered to contact you on a navy.mil e-mail address, something which you never responded to.  Please read WP:AGF. -OberRanks 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is my line of thinking, but I am still going to sit on it. If the images are public domain, maybe Ober or the IP address could scan an US made chart we could use and crop. That is what I might do for Soviet insignia, if needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed another problem and this is not your fault Ober; the user who has uploaded the items was blocked from the site due to the problems of his uploads. He claimed public domain for a lot of things that are not and have lied about the sources many times. We had to delete a lot of his uploads, including the images here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this problem, Zscout370. Ober, perhaps you could reach out to uniforminsignia.net and request that they license their insignia so we can use them here.  That would sure solve the problem.  Should you wish to do so, you'll find further guidance here and here. --  But | seriously | folks   03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had to revert your edits a bit, BSF. Anyways, they do have a forum that we could pose questions to. I searched for an external email address and I could not find one easily. If no one is going to take that step, I will. As for the rest of the insignia here, I am dealing with some of the US one's. I had to get rid of one US image due to the same copyright issues, but I found a quick replacement thanks to a Google Image search. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just trying to clean up CAT:CSD a little and it seemed the discussion was still ongoing here. From what I can see, you did the right thing. --  But | seriously | folks   03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ober and the IP have another option and just give us a chart they made for the US Government. Then we can scan and edit it to whatever purpose we need. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Shocking
Guys, I am not liking what I am seeing above, espeicaly the line "the south korean insignia were apparently stolen". I have made some personal sacrifices and have made about 6 long distance phone calls to Korea to get this resolved. And a member of the CNFK staff logged on to this site and voluntered to confirm everything I said from a navy.mil e-mail address. Now, all of sudden, things are stolen? Have you read any of this that I've typed? 2 Army O-5s, 1 Navy O-6, and four Korean officers have directly stated to me over the phone "The insignia on Wikipedia are from a comparison chart published by U.S Forces Korea and CNFK and can be used freely". How about a little WP:AGF. I am also sorry if this is harsh, but an Air Force Sergeant and a young 20+ something man from the U.S. do not know more about Korea military insignia copyright law than Army lawyers and Navy JAG officers.

To resolve this, I made another phone call today and asked for the original insignia comparison chart from which these images are supposed to have come. I was told it is a Powerpoint Presentation and was published in 2004 by the Flag Aide to CNFK and that the pictures in it (NK, SK, nd US) all came from South Korean sources released to the U.S. freely. If I get a hold of this, will that make this crowd happy? At this point, with my many efforts discarded and suggestions that people are now lieing and stealing things, I wonder if any amount of evidence will satisfy people. But, I await everyone's reply and will remain in line with WP:CIV. I am sure you all meant no direct harm and are only trying to help. I thank you for your efforts even if I dont personnaly agree with them. -OberRanks 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the U.S. military created some digital version of Korean military insignia. However, I doubt that they created these particular insignia, and I believe that their response is based on a misunderstanding about the issue involved. If the versions they created cannot be found online, then how did uniforminsignia.net get hold of them? Are you saying that this is just some incredible coincidence that the CNFK images happen to be digitally identical to the commercial website's images? Videmus Omnia Talk  18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am stationed in Korea and have a solution to all of this. We do have insignia charts over here and they were all made by the U.S. and the ROKs. I could send them to O.R. or, even better, to someone on the other side of this debate. I can send it from a .mil account with a statement that it is from the Navy and can be used on Wikipedia. You can then put up whatever pictures you want with the assurance that they are from the U.S. Sound good? -59.19.46.29 03:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That can work. I will accept the images. My email is is hidden in this message, so you have to press edit to see it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in Pusan at the moment but will be back in Seoul in three weeks and will send it all then. That would be a good break for everyone involved in this dispute. -59.19.46.29 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is fine. All of the problem images will be gone by then, also. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The destruction of Template:SouthVietnamWarMedals has shown me that admins will do what they want regardless of how much evidence if presented. I will await the postings of the government insignia images but I'm sure someone will challenge them as well.  I could use a 3 week break and will take it now.  Best to all of you. -OberRanks 09:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What evidence? The fact that the US National Archives has a copy of an image is evidence of nothing.  It says right in the text of the NARA tag that it is not a copyright tag.  Even if the medals are PD, somebody photographed them, and with that somebody unidentified, there is no way to clear those images for use here. --  But | seriously | folks   10:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time Husnock uploaded the images; lack of information was common for photos, even public domain. I personally try to hunt sources and licenses down for the images I deal with. If, in one case it is a public domain ribbon bar, fire up MS Paint and just redraw the image. I believe the US Military has a chart for medals, but I would need to look. As I mentioned before, there are very few admins that even work on copyright issues so the same person you might be yelling/talking to will probably do the deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Admin Noticeboard
Zscout and others, we have a challange to our solution. Here is the text. We have 3 weeks until the insignia chart gets here, perhaps we can resolve it by then. -OberRanks 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CNFK does not have rights to release the images anymore than Burger King has the right to release McDonald's rights to their works. As previously noted, any works created by CNFK to display RoK military ranks are derivative works. RoK retains rights that the United States can not release. Only a designated copyright agent of the RoK can release rights to these images compatible with Wikipedia's policies. This is precisely the same kind of argument that Husnock got into regarding Japanese copyrighted works (and lost). --Durin 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend bringing such concerns up at Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea. We ended the debate there with the understanding that such an insignia chart would be good for use on this site. -OberRanks 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you pursue this line, and indeed upload such images based on this incorrect clearance, I will see to it that the images are deleted for violating copyright. CNFK does not retain exclusive rights to the images. Further, you've not identified an independently confirmable designated copyright agent for the RoK who has authority to release the ranks images under a free license. Until such time as this is done, no rank images from the RoK can be considered available under a free license for the simple fact that only the RoK has exclusive rights. We do not ask IBM to release Dell's logo rights, we do not ask Burger King to release McDonald's logo rights, we do not ask Ford to release Chevrolet's logo rights, and we do not ask the U.S to release Republic of Korea's image rights. --Durin 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * During the past week, I was able to get a hold of three senior US officers and four ROk officers. They all told me the same thing that the insignia of the Koreans is released to the U.S. military as free and public images.  I was then told that the U.S. has several insignia comparison charts and then it was agreed upon that one would be sent to ZScout.  I should add that I spoke to a JAG officer, a Flag Aide, and a Korean PAO.  I am sure you are not saying that you know more than they do.  Any even if you are, ZScout is supposed to get a signed statement from the navy releasing the images to us from a navy.mil account.  I think you could take it up with them when that happens.  Thats my two cents. -OberRanks 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in email contact with Durin on this issue. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the images can be reloaded when proof is supplied to that fact - appeals to authority based on undocumented conversations have never been accepted on wikipedia. Husnock is a navy officer so any emails should be treated with caution and independent verification achieved. --Fredrick day 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree regarding the phone call issue which is why we asked CNFK to e-mail out the insignia chart. They responded, as seen above, and we will have it in three weeks.  But I'm sure no naval officer would willfully mis-use a navy.mil e-mail account to send false information.  That is in fact a very serious crime. -OberRanks 15:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that chart indicate that the insignia on it were drawn by an employee of the US Government? Or might it just be a copy of other people's drawings? --  But | seriously | folks   19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this comment from CNFK should be reviewed . It's pretty much exactly what they told me over the phone. -OberRanks 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What comment from CNFK? I see a post from an IP account who could be anyone and claim to be anything. What are we having the same conversation over and over - appeals to authority and "I phoned them, honest" are not accepted sources - you know this. --Fredrick day 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP originates in Korea, but it could indeed be anybody. -- But | seriously | folks   20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did check that - I'm not saying that the guy is not from CNFK but, come on - we are all "long in the tooth" in regards to wikipedia core policy, claims based on "I phoned him" and "I work for organisation X, honest!" have never been acceptable sources and it's a red herring to even get into a discussion about it. --Fredrick day 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't Count on It
Given what has happened with this article, I don’t think CNFK is really going to give anything to Wikipedia. There have been three charges that these images were stolen and now apparently some discussion that OberRanks, who is supposed to be Husnock an active duty naval officer, plans to misuse naval communications systems to send out more stolen insignia. I don’t really think he would do that because you can go to prison for five years for misuse of government computer systems especially in a criminal way. I also think a commissioned officer would have better things to do than to get involoved in any of this, but that’s just me. But, you see CNFK probably now won’t touch this article with a ten foot pole. Someone should just link it to another site that already has pictures of these insignia and not bother about trying to get them from the Navy: T. Hodge, E9, RA -143.138.26.138 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We generally do not link to galleries. We still have a few more weeks until the scan is complete. I do not believe the sockpuppet talk; even if it is true, I am blocking those thoughts in my mind. I do not think what he is doing, email wise, is illegal since I had to email the US Navy before about national anthem recordings. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it will be safe to use whatever CNFK sends us espeically if it is from a military e-mail address. My one fear is that if a navy.mil does send this, I do not want to see people sending e-mails to Navy officers about these images being "fake" or "wrong" or that I am somehow behind it as was implied up above saying that e-mails from the navy should not be trusted since I am in the Navy.  I do not bring this up to ruffle feathers (I really dont, my thanks to everyone for patience with this) I just ran into this problem before where I was prepared to give e-mails and phone numbers from CNFJ, with JAG officers backing up the claims I was making, but was told that the Navy was flat out wrong and that thier word would not be accepted  .  Granted, that was a while back and I was being a bit of a jerk back in those days, but I am kind of afraid that might happen here again.  Again, this is not an accusation or a complaint, only a very serious fear.  Thank you. -OberRanks 12:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Some excerpts from the Armed Forces Personnel Act of National Defense Law of South Korea
Armed Forces Personnel Act of National Defense Law (국방법 군인사법):

Section 3 (Ranks)

(1) Commissioned officer ranks are subdivided into "Janggwan"-level ranks, "Yeonggawan"-level ranks, and "Wigwan"-level ranks - "Janggwan": Wonsu, Daejang, Jungjang, Sojang, Junjang. "Yeonggawan": Daeryeong, Jungnyeong, Soryeong. "Wigwan": Daewi, Jungwi, Sowi

(2) Warrant officer rank: Junwi

(3) Non-commissioned officer ranks: Wonsa, Sangsa, Jungsa, Hasa

(4) Enlisted ranks: Byeongjang, Sangdeungbyeong, Ildeungbyeong, Ideungbyeong--Bin2k1 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Already fixed

 * Byeongjang, Sangbyeong, Ilbyeong, Ibyeong, Byeong, Mudungbyeong

To do

 * Move Daejang to Taechang
 * Move Taejang to Daejang
 * Merge Taechang and Daejang?
 * Move Taeryong to Daeryeong
 * Move Chungryong to Jungryeong
 * Move Soryong to Soryeong
 * Move Sojwa to Sochwa
 * Delete Daewi (it just redirects to Senior Captain)
 * Move Taewi to Daewi
 * Fix red links

AKADriver 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for this, but there have been several changes to the main rank table which has broken several links and caused others to redirect to the wrong article. If such changes are being made, the editor should ensure it doesnt damage or delete already existing information. -Husnock 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanization revised
In the article, all South Korean ranks are spelled accordingly with the Revised Romanization of Korean system; all North Korean ranks, McCune-Reischauer system without the breves and the apostrophe.--Bin2k1 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Crap Copyright Claim
Since you guys went after this article with such fervor, take a look at this. Very obviously taken from a textbook and tis clearly not "original authorship". -OberRanks 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire nonsense above is crap. ROK military insignia are so widely distributed amongst the Pacific commands and nowhere ever has any Korean person or group said that the U.S. violated its copyright. Go to any ship in Yokosuka thats participated in UF Lens or SHAREM and you will find a Korean/US insignia chart hanging on the bulkhead of the ship's office. That said when the JAPANESE also use the insignia on charts and diagrams and books! And the Koreans really DONT like the Japanese! I agree with the Sergeant Major too. CNFK isnt going to waste time with this espeically with people saying against the evidence that the insignia are all stolen. Better to just link to another site. -68.188.93.135 (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, pardon my language but that is totally f-ing bull that Korean military insignia rank charts are copyrighted and that Americans cant use them/post them/do whatever they want with them. I've worked in USFK, CNFK, and 7th Fleet and we have hundreds of the damn things that we use in briefings every single day. I've never heard of the Koreans having a problem with this or suing the U.S. military over the rights to thier insignia (which are just stripes, diamonds, and stars anyway). SGT Y.O., USMC -121.175.2.182 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution to image problem
I'm sort of late to the party (by a year or more) on the South Korea military rank copyright issue. I understand the arguments of both sides (at least, I think I do). Perhaps one way to solve the problem (because I dislike tables that include spaces for images that don't have images in those spaces) is for someone to use their connections to have an official statement regarding rank insignia on one of the official RoK web pages. For instance, this page appears to be an official RoK military page containing information about rank insignia. To me, this would be a logical place to state South Korea's policy on the use of rank insignia. I do not know how feasible this is (not knowing all the connections of the involved parties), and I realize that this is a lot to ask (potentially) just to include a few pictures. However, one of the legal gray areas in RoK copyright law does appear to be issues concerning government-created works. So, perhaps this or some other indisputable communication would be appropriate. After all, these messages from people in Korea do have the appearance of someone who is writing from an IP address, which could be spoofed. While I try to assume good faith, everything has to be verifiable, including the sources. That's why there's an OTRS. Carl (talk 04:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added an exchange below that directly relates to what you are talking about. I sort of gave up on this article because it just wasnt worth it with all the threats being thrown around about contacting the Navy plus the nonsense that was being sent off site via private e-mail about UCMJ charges for stealing images, pretending to be a Navy officer, etc.  However, like I say below, most of the main opposers of images in thei article, such as Durin, BSF, and Fredrickday, have been off of this site for some time.  It may be time to revist the issue. -OberRanks (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcribed from user talk page
This is the way I see it: the proper pictures for this page (and others) were once part of the page, but were deleted due to the fair-use image eater or some such. The use of pictures of US insignia is not an acceptable substitute for the appropriate insignia, and I believe may be even confusing to the casual reader, who may come upon them and assume, "Oh, wow! What a coincidence! We have the same rank insignia!" I understand that this being an English-speaking encyclopedia, an explanation of rank equivalence does need to accompany foreign rank, but I think that use of the NATO STANAG code is sufficient, use of US rank in text form is more than sufficient, but use of US rank images is excessive. Lastly, I realize creation does require more effort than deletion, but I think the presence of US rank images on this page may discourage the creation and insertion of the proper images. Sergeantgiggles (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That entire article needs to repaired. It once had pictures for each and every rank insignia from all three countries but then was hit hard by a gang of folks bent on declaring the entire thing a copyright violation.  What made this absolutely ridiculous was we had South Korean officers, CNFK staff, and JAG officers ready to state that these insignia were free and clear to use on the site.  Yet we still had some users on this site who cried "Its all lies", deleted everything, and threatened to block/ban anyone who uploaded such images again.  Most of that original crowd isnt active on Wikipedia anymore.  I do plan to correct and repair that entire article but just dont have the time right now.  Anyway, taking the US insignia off would be a step in the wrong direction since thats the only thing that survived the original purge of the article.  BTW- thanks for your interest in that article.  Its been kind of abandoned by the mainstream crowd. -OberRanks (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate e-mails concerning this article to U.S. service members
To all who are working on this article, at least two members of a Commander Naval Forces Korea Reserve Detachment have reported receiving inappropriate e-mails regarding this article to navy.mil accounts. Specifically, charges that members of the Navy have stolen copyrighted insignia pictures from the Republic of Korea. The individuals sending these e-mails have claimed to be "official representatives" of Wikipedia and have stated that members of the military associated with this website will soon be brought up on UCMJ charges. This is obviously very inappropriate and completely uncalled for. If persons on this website have legitimate concerns or questions about CNFK, you can obtain direct contact numbers from the internet. Please do not send random e-mails to U.S. service members who may have absolutely nothing to do with this site. –CNFK Det D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.160.70 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks 70.253.160.70 for producing that familiar smell of a working farmyard....all the way from Missouri
 * IP address [?]: 	 70.253.160.70
 * IP country code: 	US
 * IP address country: 	ip address flag United States
 * IP address state: 	Missouri
 * IP address city: 	Saint Louis
 * IP address latitude: 	38.638500
 * IP address longitude: 	-90.302597
 * ISP of this IP [?]: 	SBC Internet Services
 * Organization: 	SBC Internet Services
 * Host of this IP: [?]: 	adsl-70-253-160-70.dsl.stlsmo.swbell.net

-unsigned comment User:86.151.95.19


 * LOL. Commander Naval Forces Korea Det Delta is headquartered at the St. Louis Naval Reserve Center which operates out of the Lambert St. Louis Airport in Missouri.  So that makes perfect sense!  BTW- I actually know who posted that comment of over a year ago and it was in response to a legit series of e-mails with some rather nasty accusations.  I think those responsible have long since departed Wikipedia (Thank God). -OberRanks (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the insignia?
It's been two years since the images were deleted?|

So where are the replacements?

You must fight the troll editors who take pleasure in making trouble. I draw all your attention to one the core rules of Wikipedia ignore all rules.

So put the insignia back.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.95.19 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The saga of what happened is well documented above. I no longer serve in Korea so don't have easy access to these insignia.  All I can say is most of the deleters of the insignia no longer are active on this site so there might not be too much resistance to putting them back in. -OberRanks (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

==

I have just been re-reading the ranks saga above and think that the whole thing stinks of some DPRK plot. How can military ranks be copyrighted? I mean its just plain stupid. The Germans who had been caught during the Battle of the Bulge wearing US Army uniforms - weren't shot for a breach of design infringement- they were treated as spies. Likewise throughout the world there are re-enactors who perform wearing uniforms (with insignia) in movies and at public events. How can that - using the logic above - not be a copyright issue?

The whole saga above stinks of high-handedness, pettiness, and a ridiculous lack of common sense. Which truth be told sounds like a description of North Korea!! Good luck Mr OberRanks I hope you get it fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.135.162 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet/Chinese
The charts should have PRC and/or USSR ranks as well, since DPRK's sponsors were those, as the ROK's was the US. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Be WP:BOLD. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Apteva (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

– North Korean ranks are always translated, not transliterated, both in official publications and in works of specialists. Elmor (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dae wonsu → Generalissimo (North Korea)
 * Wonsu → Marshal (North Korea)
 * Chasu → Vice-Marshal (North Korea)


 * Oppose: Not sure what policy covers this, but foreign ranks are typically put as they appear in literature. Otherwise, everything at SS ranks would have to be moved to "Junior Storm Leader", "Senior Group Leader", etc. Same principle here. -OberRanks (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about Germany, we are talking about North Korea, aren't we? In North Korean studies, there is no tradition to transliterate ranks. Elmor (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some very firmly defined Wikipedia policies about what to call foreign ranks in articles, especially those which in their natural form are written in a foreign language and/or with foreign characters. I don't pretend to know what those policies are in depth, but I do know it is against practice to routinely translate foreign ranks in the article name to English approximates & equivalents.  The German case is a very good example, and (although a different country) exactly that same policy would apply here.  Furthermore, the translations themselves proposed above are not accurate - Dae wonsu, for instance is more literally translated as "Supreme One" (I think), and the NK's themselves have have never referred to that rank in English as "Generalissimo" (Grand Marshal is the closest vernacular translation).  So, not that this isn't without merit, but such moves as those proposed here would require heavy discussion and consensus at the MOS Noticeboards before such a significant policy change were to occur. -OberRanks (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, sir, but what you say does not seem to be very accurate. First, "Generalissimo" is used 215 times on North Korean sites, whilst Grand Marshal and "dae wonsu" are not used at all. Second, could you please provide link to Wikipedia policy about ranks - if such a policy exists? Third, all Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, and while in European studies there is, indeed, a tradition to transliterate ranks, in Asian studies they are translated, as I have pointed before.Elmor (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Best place to start would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for clarification of the rank name translation policy and to get more visibility on the issue. -OberRanks (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is you who insist that some kind of naming policy does exist, it seems to me that it would be logical that you would do the inquiry. What do you think? Elmor (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: These can be translated, and often are, even in specialist books about DPRK. On the other hand they are mentioned more than the Chinese pinyin equivalents (the third doesn't have a PLA equivalent). But I'd think that lack of refs is a more immediate priority than a move for all 3 articles. I've added starting refs and reflist templates. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Kenneth B. Lee Korea and East Asia: The Story of a Phoenix 1997 Page 217 "In North Korea Kim II Sung stood alone as the military leader, known as Tae-wonsu (great marshal), above all other military personnel. However, after his death, the other military leaders became more visible." In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I got five GBook results for "dae wonsu" and they all translate: "Kim Il-sung received a new title, the "Generalissimo (dae-wonsu)" on April 13, 1992" (Korean public administration). There are thousands of hits for generalissimo "North Korea". In short, I did not find any examples of "dae wonsu" being used as an English-language expression that did not require translation. Why are we transliterating North Korean words according to the South Korean romanization system? "Tae wonsu" is at least as common as "dae wonsu". Kauffner (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; generalissimo is not a military rank in English, it’s an unofficial title. And it’s usually applied to tin-pot military dictators; if that is what this move is implying then it offends our neutral point of view. The Dae Wonsu page says the translation is “literally Grand Marshal”, so if you are looking for the English language equivalent I’d start there. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment: In fact there are so many things wrong with these pages, and with this RM in particular, I'm at a loss to know where to begin.
 * For a start, why move them at all? The articles for the other ranks on this page are all in Korean; why move these three?
 * And why do we need individual pages on Korean military ranks on the English WP anyway? There aren’t any equivalent pages on the Korean WP; why is this stuff more notable in English than in Korean? In fact they all read as exercises in OR; what sources do they have apart from the existence of the word itself?
 * Also, who worked out the equivalents? Why is a South Korean Wonsu not equivalent to a North Korean one? Why is a 4-star South Korean Daejang at a lower rank than a 4-star North Korean Daejang? What is the source for any of this? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can answer at least one of those questions. The comparisons and translations were acquired mainly from instructions written by Commander Naval Forces Korea, and backed up by documents from the Eighth United States Army and the United States Seventh Fleet.  Having not followed this article for some time, the specific regs are beyond my current knowledge.  Good points, though. -OberRanks (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with the amendment to use "Grand Marshal" instead of "Generalissimo". "Grand Marshal" is quite common in literature as a translation of this rank. Compare Google Books hits. The rest of the proposal certainly has its merit, as both policies WP:Common name and WP:Use English support it. Possibly, Moonraker12 could warm towards this solution, too, as he/she seems not to object against using English forms, but merely against the use of the title "Generalissimo". --RJFF (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To (belatedly) reply, I can warm to Grand Marshal as a better rendition of Dae Wonsu, but I did comment further to query why it is proposed to move these three pages, when all the others listed on this page are in Korean. Currently there are 15 pages listed in the NK Military ranks category, all with Korean titles; if this RM goes ahead there will be 3 in English and 12 in Korean. How is that desirable?
 * And if, following the logic, we change all of them to English, where does that leave this page? Will we really need an article to tell us that a sergeant in the NK Army is equivalent to a SK sergeant, who is equal to a US one? Or that a captain = a captain = a captain? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - after listening to Moonraker and OberRanks' points evidently no great benefit to an anglicising which will just blur the differences with S. Korean ranks. This is a very specialist area and sticking to the original terms has some benefit. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

North Korean 4 Star is not a 5
The chart is a bit misleading as it implies that the North Korean four star general rank is rated the same as a five star General of the Army. The star system pretty much matches up with the NKs having 1-4 stars in the regular tier just like the ROK and US. The confusion is that they start with Major General and having Colonel General as well, which creates a naming ambiguity. The chart should probably be adjusted by someone with higher skill at it than I. -OberRanks (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now four star has been bumped down to three and the semi-political vice marshal rank is shown as the direct equivalent of a four star general, which clearly isn't correct. Someone with experience editing the table should fix this up.  Chasu should really be "N/A" between a four and five star Wonsu rank.

Byeongjang is not an NCO Rank
I agree with the comments made above in "Some excerpts from the Armed Forces Personnel Act of National Defense Law of South Korea" - this chart has errors and needs to be corrected. One particular error that I see time and time again in these charts is the assignment of the Byeongjang rank to the category of Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). Byeongjang is not an NCO rank, it is a private rank. Hasa is the first NCO rank. Also agree with the earlier comment that this article does not site any sources whatsoever and needs to. The sources should be Korean sources and not U.S. sources, because U.S. sources are very frequently erroneous. contribs) 00:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Aja12aja (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Warrant Officers not Enlisted
In the US system, Warrant Officers are NOT enlisted men as they are in the UK/Commonwealth. They rate a salute, are called "sir," and rate officer's housing. The article says the same is true of Korean warrants. There should be a separate section for them as they fall between enlisted and commissioned officers. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of US ranks
I don't really see the need for the U.S.'s insignia to be present on this page, as there currently are 12 pages specifically for U.S. insignia, it is not like it needs any more. Furthermore, the U.S. is currently based on bases around the world in 30 countries, yet we don't see the U.S. insignia on these pages (and neither should we). I therefore propose to delete superfluous U.S. insignia on this page, so the page can accurately represent the ranks of Korea. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

North Korean Senior Lieutenant error
The tooltip for North Korean Army Senior Lieutenant gives the incorrect romanization daewi. The correct romanization is sangwi. I can't fix this as these I don't know where these templates reside.Bill (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DPRK-Army-OF-12.svg