Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Why Max Hastings is unclear

Hastings does appear to use the Krivosheev figures. His claim of 352475 total casualties is straight from Krivosheev's work, but with the Polish casualties not included:

Soviet losses in the “Berlin offensive operation” 16 Apr. – 8 May according to Krivosheev: 78.291 KIA/MIA, 274.184 WIA, total 352.475. Add Polish losses: 2.825 KIA and 6.067 WIA.

However, while the Krivosheev data says 78,291 KIA/MIA, Hastings somehow comes up with a figure of >100,000. I'm not sure how he did this math, and until someone can account for it, his figures should be left out. 68.160.51.45 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties: summing-up and suggestions

There appears to be confusion and dissent on casualties. I would like to sum up what I have found:
Soviet losses in the “Berlin offensive operation” 16 Apr. – 8 May according to Krivosheev: 78.291 KIA/MIA, 274.184 WIA, total 352.475. Add Polish losses: 2.825 KIA and 6.067 WIA. Of course no POW. Total ~ 361.000 casualties. We should note that these numbers are for Seelow, Halbe and the city of Berlin itself. Although Krivosheev gives “official records” (and today he is often regarded as THE authority), we should always add that he gives ONLY official records. By the way: His figures, esp. the total number of ca. 8.6 millions of soldiers killed and died, are far lower than those published during the Communist era (13.6 millions). Don’t know why the communists gave higher figures.

Other sources from Communist era – book “Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg”, vol. 6, East Berlin 1985, p.748: 102.000 KIA and 200.000 WIA for 16 April – 8 May. And p. 733: 30.000 KIA for city of Berlin only, this is a reasonable figure.

German losses are difficult to determine. The figures given in the table of this Wikipedia article (458.080 KIA/WIA and 479.298 POW) are based, if I am right, upon Soviet figures from communist era, or estimates – very problematic (by the way: total cas. of 937.378 are higher than the original strength?? Overall cas. comprehending reinforcements??). In the above cited GDR-book from 1985 I have found no figures for German losses. Anyway: If we compare 361.000 official Soviet and Polish KIA and WIA to 458.080 KIA and WIA (as given from Soviet sources), we have a ratio of roughly 1 : 1,27 (IF the numbers are correct). This ratio sould be made clear in the article.

Other sources: The new masterpiece of German military research appears to be “Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg”, ed. by the the Militaergeschichtliches Forschungsamt. -- Vol. 10/1 (ed. R.-D. Mueller, 2008), p.673, gives German KIA for Seelow, Berlin and Halbe as 92.000, and total KIA in the whole area (including 3rd and 4th Panzer Armee and 12th Army) as ~ 100.000. According to this book, at Halbe alone died 60.000 German soldiers (p.671)!

T. Le Tissier, The battle of Berlin, London 1988 (German translation, Frankfurt/Berlin 1988): 22.349 dead civilians in Berlin “and roughly the same number of soldiers”, citing Rocolle’s “Goetterdaemmerung. La prise de Berlin” (Paris 1954). Another interesting source for WW II cas., though regrettably not so often used for articles in Wikipedia, is the „Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgraeberfuersorge“: For West Berlin only the Volksbund had registrated 18.320 soldier’s graves, 33.420 for civilians plus 2.010 for non-resident refugees. There, Volksturm members are included in civilians (!).

To sum up: It is safe to assume that for the whole operation German KIA (92-100.000) were slightly higher than Soviet-Polish (81.000). With regard to the city of Berlin alone, we have probably 30.000 for the Red Army and perhaps 30-40.000 for Wehrmacht including Volkssturm. For the Red Army, the Battle of Seelow was at least equally costly as Berlin itself, and for the Wehrmacht Halbe far more than Berlin.--Akribes (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "are far lower than those published during the Communist era (13.6 millions)" I have no idea where did you take this number. The official (post-Stalin) number was 20 million Soviet citizens (both military and civilian). Nevertheless, the number of 13.6 millions is close to that provided by Krivosheev, because Krivosheev's 8.6 million are KIA+MIA. The total losses (KIA+MIA+POWs died in German captivity) are >10 millions, according to him.

You are right that the exact number of German casualties are hard to determine (if possible at all). Therefore we cannot choose one or another source based on that the number "look reasonable", and cannot assume anything safely. This is a rare case when we cannot rely on (perfectly working in other cases) German bureaucracy. I believe, in this concrete case a range should be given based on Krivosheev's and German data.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I give some sources for the "higher", older figures before Krivosheev. Hope to come back to that issue later.

Manfred Overesch (ed.), Das III. Reich 1939-1945, Duesseldorf 1983, p.621: soldiers 13.6, civilians 6.7, total 20.3

H. Dollinger (ed): Der Zweite Weltkrieg, vol. IV: Die letzten hundert Tage. Das Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges in Europa und Asien, Munich 1965, p.422: "Sowjetrussen": military 13.6, civilians 6.0, plus 1.72 Jews (here it is stated all figures include the Baltic states, too)

Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg, vol. 6, Berlin (East) 1985, p.782: military 10.0 (interesting point: among them 600.000 in Poland, 140.000 in CSSR, 102.000 in Germany), further 10.0 "Sowjetbürger" dead, i.e. civilians and Jews. A graphic on p.783 gives total losses as 20.6

Geschichte des Grossen Vaterlaendischen Krieges der Sowjetunion, Berlin (East) 1962-1968, vol. 6, p.34: 20 million, "fast die Haelfe friedliche Einwohner und Kriegsgefangene(!)" (nearly half of them peaceful inhabitants and prisoners of war). Would make 10 million soldiers KIA without POW.

The Oxford companion to the Second World War, ed. Dear / Foot, Oxford/New York 1995, p.1235: "About ten million Soviet servicemen (incl. partisans) were killed in action during the German-Soviet war, went missing, or did not return from German prisoner-of-war camps, and 18 million were wounded of whom one million died." Makes 11 million military.

M. Gilbert, Der Zweite Weltkrieg. Eine chronologische Gesamtdarstellung (German transl. Munich 1991, first London 1989), p. 744: 10.0 KIA and 3.3 died as POW -- military total 13.3 -- , plus 7 mill. civilians

Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, ed. Militaergeschichtliches Forschungsamt. -- Vol. 10/2 (2008), graphic inside the back of the book jacket: 13 million soldiers, 14 million civilians (includes territories annexed in 1939/40)--Akribes (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all sources you provided are published during Communist era, and all of them are not Soviet. Therefore, I don't think that, for instance, "soldiers 13.6, civilians 6.7, total 20.3" is trustworthy: this German source seems to try to be in accordance with the official (purely voluntaristic) number of 20 million dead Soviet citizens. With regards to later Western sources, the difference between them and Krivosheev is in the amount of captured POWs: according to the official Soviet point of view, a large number of males captured during first months of the war were civilians, not military.
One way or the another, all of that is hardly relevant to the battle of Berlin: during that time the records were much more accurate and complete than during the initial phase of the war, so I see no reasons not to trust them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a discussion on total cas. belongs to another page, but you had asked me from where I had the "higher" numbers. I have now seen that the above mentioned "Geschichte des Grossen Vaterlaendischen Krieges", Berlin (East) 1962-68 which gives 10.000.000 KIA without POW is a translation of: "Istorija Velikoj Otecestvennoj vojny Sovetskoyo Sojuza", ed. Petr. N. Pospelov, Moscow 1961-1965 (sorry if I have transscribed incorrectly).--Akribes (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, using official communist soviet estimates for German dead is very problematic to say the least, but it is indefensible when you then don't use the Soviets numbers for their own forces. In other words, that's a sort of cherry picking. So, if you are going to use Soviet for German then use it for themselves as well, which relates higher casualties. I think you should use soviet for soviet and german for german, or both outside. Don't mix and mash, though. Also, making a lump sum out of German casualties (which were higher then original force) and then separating the soviet dead, wounded, "sick" is also not the right way to do it. Again, follow one standard, not multiple ones. I think the numbers of the force of Germans is also a little high. 71.245.236.40 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Yeah, looking at it again the numbers don't add up for the Germans, and I think it should be relegated to the Battle, as that is the articles topic, and not the rest of the German military that was not there, nor planes. However, aside from that, the numbers are way too high for the Germans and way too low for the Soviets and the breakdown is bad too. Like I said the soviets have four categories of Dead and missing (Germans have no "missing category") wounded, and sick. The Germans are just all lumped together including POW's. And the sources are being cherry picked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.236.40 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree to you. But I am not responsible for the table which I find not very good indeed. And I am the last to mix and mash and lump -- quite the contrary I have tried to separate and differentiate. Please read carefully what I have written above. I just did not want to be impolite modifying the table without having discussed the matter. -- Unfortunately, it appears to be a tendency in Wikipedia (the English and German as well) to use only or at least primarily Soviet figures for German casualties up to now. The above cited "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg" (10 volumes) gives reasonable, well documented figures for single operations and there they give 92.000-100.000 German KIA for Seelow, Halbe and Berlin. -- On the other hand, regarding Krivosheev -- he is at least a good starting-point for Soviet casualties although some think he is too low. --Akribes (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I already wrote [1] relatively low Soviet losses and usage of Soviet sources do not seem strange for me in this particular case. I doubt German records to be reliable for the Battle of Berlin, because I am not sure the Germans had a possibility to do such records. I don't think Soviet data are too reliable for the initial phase of the war, and, accordingly, the German data are similarly unreliable for its final phase. In addition, the Red Army was on the apex of its military capabilities by that moment, and it dramatically outnumbered the Germans, so the losses do not seem unreasonable. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So you don't see a problem with listing "sick" and "missing" for the soviets, and separating wounded and dead for USSR, and then having no category for "sick", or "missing" for Germans and combining the there wounded and dead into a lump sum, and then including POW's (how could POW's be casualties, given that the war was over?. However, my main beef other then this strange breakdown which is totally misleading or at least bizarre is that you feel that the Soviet sources are reliable for German dead, but not for soviet dead! That is beyond unreasonable to say that you think the Soviet sources are reliable for Germans, but not their own in the same battle. That makes no sense. don't you agree? JohnHistory (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

BTW, the Germans are famous for their record keeping, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had reasonably good records of their operating units even at the final hour. However, again it's the strange difference in the breakdown and combination of casualties I object to, and even more the idea that Soviet sources are to be relied on when they are high for the Germans, but then the same records are not used when they are high for the Soviets. Do you understand? If you are going to do that then you must include the Soviet estimates of their own casualties and not just German ones. That seems very reasonable. The only reason not to would be to cherry pick lower numbers from other sources, thus tacitly invalidating the Soviets as a reliable source for the Germans as well. I also think the summary at the end about war crimes is also a little too slanted. There seems to be a lot of evidence that said crimes were either encouraged or at least tolerated at the highest levels. For instance, Stalin saying "boys will be boys" , etc. So that needs a reality check too. It was far too widespread, and far too unpunished for the concept put forth in that section to be truly valid. JohnHistory (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Let me add, that I don't mean to be accusatory or crude, sometimes my writing style seems that way when i don't have that as an intent. I just think my points are valid, and hard to argue against. I mean how can you say one is good for the opposite side, but not for their own? Maybe because they are higher for their own then another source one could find? How is this not then invalidating the Soviets as a source on the battle? I mean one could make a strong case that the Soviets would have reason to lower their own casualties and raise the enemies, which is reason to not use them at all or at least use them in conjunction with other sources, but to say they would inflate their own casualties is really a hard pill to swallow when they have an extensive track record of doing the exact opposite as recent research and Gov declassification has shown they did for example at Stalingrad. JohnHistory (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Finally, what you or I think is "reasonable" really doesn't matter one bit. Do you know what I mean? It's the source(s), and the balance of that sources usage and breakdown that matter. A lot of people could think any of these number were unreasonable or reasonable, we would get nowhere debating that. However, I think just the pure math for the German casualties doesn't add up, yet alone the strange bad dichotomy in the casualty breakdowns, and the misleading use of soviet data. (not using them for their own men) JohnHistory (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

One more example is lists the German military dead at the very bottom not near the "dead and wounded" while it breaks this down for the Soviets. So, if 22,000 German military dead then you should just subtract that from the total, and list the others as wounded, sick, or Missing. Then it would at least mirror the opposite column. However, that seems to show an unusual ratio of wounded. I think we can discuss this in the days to come, but some change is definitely needed in just the breakdown, yet alone the uneven use of sources, and the problematic nature of Soviet sources period. JohnHistory (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

(edit conflict)Re: "So you don't see a problem with listing "sick" and "missing" for the soviets" I didn't say so. My point was that the fact that, as a rule, German records are more accurate then the Soviet ones may result in some errors in that particlar case. I personally do not understand how could the Germans record all casualties during the battle of Berlin. In that sence, the German m=numbers are the losses they were able to count, in other words, a lower estimate. With regards to POWs, they were nor casualties, but they were irrecoverable losses. With regards to MIA, according to Overmans, MIA were usually unaccounted KIA. It is natural to expect that it was particularly true for the battle of Berlin.

Re war crimes, it is well known that Soviet war propaganda machine encouraged soldiers to kill every German. It was absolutelt justified when the hostilities took place outside Germany. When the Red Army entered Germany, it became necessary to change the propagandistic paradyhm, however propagandistic machine, as every big mechanism, has a great inertia. One way or the another, I wellcome any detailed analysis of Soviet war crimes made based on really reliable scholarly sources (not political websites).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe that 22,000 is just in the city, and not whole range, but again this is way too confusing because if it looks this mixed and mashed to me god prey for the random interested person who comes here. before getting the sources right, we need to at least get the breakdown right so that each column mirrors the other. For instance, other then the many indescrepencies in the casualty isn't I have already pointed, there is no "Berlin defense area" casualty total for the Soviets, only for the Germans. It's very convoluted right now. JohnHistory (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I agree, but if we are to list Soviet MIA, then we should list German MIA, who very well may have been KIA, or POW's and then counted twice. I mean, we can probably agree that all of the MIA from Vietnam are dead, but they are still listed as MIA without further proof. That is a well set standard. I also think that if these are the "initial" soviet reports, does that mean there are more detailed reports later? Either way, if we are going to lump German MIA into KIA,WIA,and POW then we should do the same for the Soviets. And, the breakdown for the "berlin defense area" should be for both sides, not just the Germans. And, I have trouble with POW's being listed as "casualties" when the war was over, not to mention they are typically isolated from the figures for WIA and KIA, MIA and lumped together, but even despite that again the war was over so it's hard to figure that out. We need to get the columns to mirror each other, then deal with the uneven use of Soviet figures, and the issues inherent in their use. JohnHistory (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Okay, I think I have stumbled onto a pattern here. I just looked at the Stalingrad page and without getting into the sources I found the same strange breakdown. German dead and wounded are combined, while Soviet dead, wounded, missing, and the "sick" are separated. In fact, Germans have no category of "sick" or "missing". I don't want to cast dispersions but this appears to be a widespread way to mitigate Soviet losses. JohnHistory (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

No, this isn't the case. Here you are cherrypicking again. The ~450k figure was the figure for killed given from an early soviet postwar military study, which would have been based on initial kill claims (see footnotes in Glantz). There were similarly inflated vehicle and artillery kill claims, with the overclaim ratio generally in the realm of 2-3:1. And what is this silliness with the wounded? In the Berlin operation, every German soldier was either killed or captured. The wounded would have either been left to die or would have been captured and given treatment by the Soviet Army. Your current insistence on disambiguating killed and wounded is quite frankly absurd, since every wounded casualty would have ended up as a death or a capture. I will remove the weasel word "wounded" in the initial estimate because this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the source. I would also strongly encourage other editors to reconsider the "wounded" category. I have labeled the figure of 92,000 as a "claim," since it is just that--a claim. As others have pointed out, German record keeping in the final months of the war was spotty to nonexistent.

Furthermore, if one extrapolates using the overclaim ratios of machinery, you end up with about 200,000 KIA, which when added to about 500,000 POWs, accounts for nearly every German soldier being killed or captured, allowing for some to have escaped. In my opinion, this is the most reasonable estimate that accords with the total force statistics, since all available figures are incredibly distorted by propaganda and the fog of war. HOWEVER, this falls under the category of original research and is not the place of Wikipedia. What JohnHistory did was a travesty. Not only did he directly DISTORT sources for political ends, but he imposed his own biased interpretation on already spotty records and mishmashed German, East German, and Soviet sources together under a category of "Later estimates" which makes his statistical parlor trick appear as legitimate historical research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.16.143 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Mueller and why I consider Mueller's figure a "claim." Unfortunately I only have access to this author's works in English, but in his "Hitler's war in the East, 1941-1945: a critical assessment" p.143 (3rd edition 2008), he states: "The Wehrmacht had also suffered heavy casualties by the time it capitulated under Grand Admiral Donitz on 8 May 1945. About 960,000 had died, 3.8 million had been wounded, and 1.2 million were missing." Well, the first thing you can observe is that Mueller is one of those historians who sits on the EXTREME low end of estimates of German war casualties. The other thing that you notice is that Mueller's figures are the standard figures cited directly from the Wehrmacht accounts, which have been shown in more recent studies to have been severely undercounted and unreliable from the close of 1944 to the end of the war. I have not seen his other book from which the Battle of Berlin figures are cited, which was also published in 2008, but I do not think his methodology has radically changed. Thus, I stand by my assertion that it is a claim.

Furthermore, something must be done to qualify the inherent bias in using a source like Mueller, just as "initial" qualifies the Soviet claim as something based on kill claims which are prone to serious exaggeration. For now, I will insert the word "low," but you regular editors may choose what to do later with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.16.143 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also deleting the line on Max Hastings because the man's methodology is completely unclear--"and recent writings by Max Hastings puts the number of total Soviet casualties - including the three fronts of Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky - during the period between 16 April and 8 May to 352,425 men, with over 100,000 killed." 352,425 is actually the figure taken straight from Krivosheev, if I'm not mistaken, minus the casualties of the Polish units. How his claim for deaths deviates so greatly from Krivosheev is unclear and as such only serves to confuse the reader. I'm removing this; maybe someone else can figure out what is going on here. 96.238.16.143(talk) 05:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There are also going to be authors that don't agree on events and especially things such as estimates of numbers. And ONE MUST REMEMBER THAT ALL OF THESE AUTHORS ARE SECONDARY SOURCES. Historians write with a certain amount of POV imbedded in their statements and their writings are based on evidence available at their time. That said, when there are hard citations in a Wiki article you can't just wipe it out because you don't like it or disagree with it. You can add a new citation after it by putting forth your different numbers or add a footnote as to what other authors state and give the cite. This has already been done. For example, when General Weidling was appointed commander of Berlin. Lastly, if the consensus is for the new cite to go into the main text, then footnote the replacement. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a very clear difference between those who do primary archival research, ie Krivosheev and Overmans, and those who cite figures from that research. Read the footnotes for once and see where these guys are getting their data. Citing a dozen authors who all cite Krivosheev or Wehrmacht archives or Overmans doesn't make a case any more compelling. The Overmans in-text reference should stay because that indicates where Clodfelter got figures for his book. Furthermore, while I accept the Hastings reference, it is still highly problematic that he derives such different figures while using the exact same source as all the others, namely Krivosheev (read the notes). I'm sure that Hastings wasn't trawling through the soviet archives in an attempt to replicate Krivosheev's methodology so that his figures may stand in independently without criticism. His figure of 352425 total is the figure Krivosheev gives for Soviet casualties minus the Poles. 96.238.16.143 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Early_estimates_-_population_balances The expulsion of Germans article offers a good model for understanding how historians handle demographic data. Note how the editors of that article cite only the major statistical studies, not every random history book that comes along on the topic. The reality is that while these studies are not unmediated glimpses into records and archives, for historians short on time and language skills, they might as well be primary sources. Similarly, there is no need to keep packing citations from recent authors on Soviet casualties when they just about ALL get their data from Krivosheev's archival work.96.238.16.143 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are not all the same and never will be. In my additions to this article I have only cited respected sources. I said you can add others, just do it right. For example, add Overmans (if you want) but cite it correctly. Kierzek (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, go to the footnotes. There is no point citing redundant, identical data which all come from the exact same source. And Clodfelter's book is a compilation of statistics based on earlier statistical work. What is the crime in clarifying that the 125,000 figure came from Overmans? It's not like Clodfelter was doing original statistical work.96.238.16.143 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit to casualty figures January 2010

this message was left on my talk page by 96.238.16.143.

There are a couple of comments I want to make. There is a problem with all such figures because they are amended as time goes on and the initial figures were to some extent guesses and/or created for propaganda reasons. One of the best examples of this are the figures for the bombing of Dresden.

The figures from multiple sources are often at variance BUT trying to explain the variances becomes an exercise in OR unless there is a reliable secondary source that does such a survey we can not do so. This is very frustrating because it makes the figures appear disjointed (and the style of writing amateurish, but unless the wording is not very carefully handed it will be OR. Here are some examples of OR:

• Revision as of 04:55, 16 January 2010 changes "Müller (2008) estimates:" to "Müller (low estimate):" yes it may be true, but without a reliable secondary source which explicitly says so it is OR (how do you know it is low unless you are doing a survey of figures?).
• [2] Again changing "and later estimates puts the number of dead to approximately 92,000 with another 200,000 wounded." to "though other accounts put estimated deaths as low as 92,000" expresses a POV as it implies that these figures are the lowest (how do we know that?). The other changes in this edit include removing some of the sources.
• Revision as of 14:39, 16 January 2010 adding ", which could explain why these initial estimates exceeded total German forces deployed in the area" is an editorial comment which was already inferred by the sentence, but this editorial comment is not covered by Beevor explicitly and hence is OR. As is the second addition "In any event, nearly all German forces in the operational area were either killed or captured during the offensive."
• Revision as of 19:33, 17 January 2010 "wounded is not a category, for reasons outlined; johnhistory took that one from an east german source, and then grafted it frankenstein-style onto Mueller. be consistent when using your sources" I think that is a fair point and is similar to my objection in "Revision 14:39, 16 January".
• Revision as of 19:37, 17 January 2010 The edit history says " Removed extraneous line. Read Hamilton's footnotes. That number is from Krivosheev. All these guys, including Hastings, are working from the Krivosheev, which is archival research)" do you have a source that say that or can you cite footnotes in the books that back up the statement? If so we can construct a paragraph which says so. But we should discuss it here first and get agreement that it is fair and accurate.

Some other changes such as placing "Author" in front of "Max Hastings" is an opinion pusher. Just link to the man's article and let the reader judge for themselves if he is an historian or an author. -- PBS (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the "Low," Mueller cites 960,000 Wehrmacht KIA during the entire war, with another 1.2 Million MIA/POW. This has been traditionally the lowest figure for German casualties, published shortly after the war with incomplete German archival data, greatly underestimating the deaths in 44 and 45. I do not believe I am wrong in pointing out that Mueller sits on the low end, as it should be clear where he derives his figures. His figures for individual engagements, likewise, falls into the same pattern. There is no one, I repeat, no one claiming so few German casualties as Mueller and others who continue to rely on the incomplete archival data, which I believe is only until the end of 1944 (but somehow strangely cited as until 8 May by Mueller). Every statistical study since, from the Red Cross to Ziemke to Overmans, has been revising the casualty figures upward, accounting for other branches of service, irregulars/volkssturm, foreign Germans, etc. This is NOT a POV but an observation given the historiography of the field, and I think it is misleading to present Mueller, who is actually using very old data, as seemingly more accurate than the Soviet kill claims figure because he's considered recent ("2008"). I would also like to say that the Krivosheev figures should be treated as definitive and not qualified and made to look suspect, which is why I also object to Hastings's odd math. Soviet Archives had the problem of the German archives in reverse--not at all accurate in 1941 but increasingly accurate towards the end of the war. Hence the criticism of Krivosheev greatly underestimating losses in Barbarossa due to units being called up and wiped out before they could enter the paper record. Megakedar (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And on Hastings, it still astounds me why a journalist like him is respected by some editors here as a historian. I did track down the citation, from page 475, citing 352,425 total casualties, broken down by front: 1st Belorussian 179,490; 2nd Belorussian 59,110; 1st Ukrainian 113,825. Take one guess as to what the Krivosheev data says (excluding the Poles, of course).

Irrevocable/total

2nd Belorussian Front - 13070 59110

1st Belorussian Front - 37610 179490

1st Ukrainan Front, 3rd, 5th,13 and 52nd army,

3rd and 4th Guards Tank Army, 2nd Air Army - 27580 113825

Overall: Irrecoverable: 78291 General: 352475

It is completely unclear what Hastings's methodology is to derive his >100,000 dead that he states in the very next sentence, since HE DOES NOT CITE ANYTHING AT ALL. His bibliographic essay explains how unpronounceable Russian names and arcane numbering schemes compelled him to leave out many of his citations--he apologizes for the "students who wish to follow in his wake." John Erickson he is not; these are basic omissions that would get any serious historian crucified at a peer review. As such, I RECOMMEND that the entire Hastings reference be stricken from this article (again). How can it be history when these claims are unsourced and unable to be verified? History written by journalists may impress the layman, but to historians they are of no use at all and should not clutter up this article. This is the equivalent of a rogue wiki edit. -Megakedar (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Megakedar I'm glad to see you have created an account :-) I think you have misunderstood what I said. Initial Soviet estimates is not OR because it is easy to ascertain (and I assume sourced). But a low figure can only be ascertained by quoting a source, because to know otherwise is expert knowledge and expert knowledge without a citation is OR. Also be aware of the WP:3RR rule, now you are aware of it, if you breach it you will incur a penalty. -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's rather weird to be telling a person studying to be a professional historian that historiography is somehow Original Research. It's merely the facts of the field, just as in the Expulsion of Germans article, the editors give high and low figures and corresponding methodologies. Also, Hastings should be removed, if you supposedly want everything meticulously sourced, since he didn't leave a paper trail that anyone can verify. As it stands, it puts his figure on equal footing with Krivosheev's archival work, which he apparently used to draw a divergent conclusion. We don't know how or why he did this. Megakedar (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Müller seems more accurate also because Soviet kill claims are just "unreasonably high". Consider that the entire Berlin operation is made up of mainly the Battle of the Oder-Neisse, the Battle in Berlin and the Battle at Halbe. The German KIA at the Seelow Heights are normally cited as 12,000 men and at Halbe a minimum of 30,000 men died. Where did the other 416,080 men die? At the gates of Berlin and the rest of the Battle of the Oder-Neisse? During battles where the corresponding Soviet KIA is just over 30,000 men? Please note that I do not take my own speculations to be any kind of science and that they are not arguments themselves for the validity of Müllers figures. EriFr (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

EriFr, I think you misunderstand. Those battles were not the only battles being fought at the time. Think operationally. If you just count the armies arrayed against the Berlin Axis, you come up with something around 500,000 Soviet troops. Where were the other 2 million troops? They were mopping up the remaining German army in the entire operational region. The reason why initial Soviet casualty estimates were so high was because they were working with the early estimate of 900,000 German troops, and they assumed that every soldier who wasn't captured was killed, though you have to take into account replacements which were still being drawn up to the war's end. Now, it seems that revised numbers have put the number of German force down to 766,000, which lowers the total casualty potential accordingly. The truth is somewhere in between the kill claims total and Mueller, who doesn't count foreign Germans or even specify other branches of service other than the Heer, though no historian has tangled with this historical issue. Which is why I believe if we are able to come up with high and low range for these figures, we could convey a more accurate picture to readers. Addendum: Oh, and you boys do some sloppy work. You do realize that Mueller only gives totals for the three battles of Seelowe, Halbe, and the city assault, right? According to that biased user JohnHistory: "“Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg”, ed. by the the Militaergeschichtliches Forschungsamt. -- Vol. 10/1 (ed. R.-D. Mueller, 2008), p.673, gives German KIA for Seelow, Berlin and Halbe as 92.000, and total KIA in the whole area (including 3rd and 4th Panzer Armee and 12th Army) as ~ 100.000. According to this book, at Halbe alone died 60.000 German soldiers (p.671)!" It still appears incredibly lowballed, but 92,000 is definitely not the figure. Megakedar (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I'm learning alot here. I've had thoughts about the Soviet kill claim for a long time, and posted questions, but with very few answers. EriFr (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The other thing to consider about the German archival method, which Mueller seems to use (the figure of 960k killed for the entire war--really only until Dec. 44--is a dead giveaway) is that KIAs only count as KIA only if the body is recovered and recorded. Everyone else whose fate could not be clarified is listed as MIA. This is a direct contrast with the Soviet accounting method, which lumps KIA, MIA, and POW under the same category of irrevocable. Just look at the data from Operation Bagration:

German Second Army: 7,080 killed, 32,833 wounded, 12,976 missing

Ninth German Army: 2,955 killed, 13,957 wounded, 64,762 missing

Fourth German Army: 8,015 killed, 29,383 wounded, 113,155 missing

Third Panzer Army: 8,311 killed, 33,508 wounded, 72,066 missing

From what I recall, these numbers don't include Austrians and others in the German army born outside of Germany, or even other branches like the Luftwaffe, but you get the picture. The Soviet accounting method was inherently inaccurate during early phases of the war, since it's unclear how many were killed vs taken prisoner, while the German accounting method was increasingly inaccurate towards the end due to so many being taken prisoner and otherwise lost in the chaos of war. When I get the chance, I'll go to the library; I think Rudiger Overmans, who is pretty much the modern day authority when it comes to German military and POW statistics, can shed some light on the historiographic issues of the field. You can find the details of his statistical study (using the demographic survey method) reproduced here: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=2838 . Note that he does not provide any breakdown for 1945 deaths by month due to the complete collapse of the accounting system, but with his estimate of 1.23 million total deaths in 1945, that's an average of 300,000 per month on both Western and Eastern fronts together. Megakedar (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

<--Megakedar you wrote "It's rather weird to be telling a person studying to be a professional historian that historiography is somehow Original Research. It's merely the facts of the field ..." you are probably right. The trouble is that Wikipedia has rules and the three content policies (WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:POV) are explicit on this see the sections WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SELFCITING, you can not put down facts that are not sourced. This can be very frustrating when you are an expert in a field. It can also be frustrating for people who like elegant prose because it is easy to rephrase information to improve the flow of a section can lead to a breach of WP:SYNTHESIS because the underlying sources do not support the more elegant wording (However there is often a way to summarise several articles that does stay within the content polices). The procedures are ones that editors of Wikipedia have imposed upon themselves to protect Wikipedia from POV Warriors and external critics who claim that Wikipedia can not be trusted. So please understand, I am not disagreeing with any of the facts you are mentioning, just the style in which you are presenting them within the article. -- PBS (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I agree. You have basically stated what I was trying to put forth. Megakedar, you missed the main point of my reverts to your edits. Wiki has set procedures to follow as to edits. I was not disagreeing with your content but methods. It is true that edits without cites can always be challenged, but don't expect all to agree. Edits with cites, in general, cannot be wiped out or changed without a good faith showing of why and consensus of fellow editors to it. As a student of history you know that most history over time is written by a consensus of facts/data after hopefully critical examination of sources. I have no objection at all to adding Overmans numbers. Just cite it properly. And I know Muller's numbers (added by another) were based on earlier data/estimates. My point was you should mention that but don't just wipe it out. A footnote is a good method. Again, remember, all these historians and authors are secondary sources. Some but not all research is original and many times people will "piggy-back" on the work of another and hopefully at least expand on it. The sorting process then begins. Two people can always read the same info and reach different conclusions. So keep these things in mind and edit away. Kierzek (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that JohnHistory left his POV turds all over this article for the past few months with no one bothering to clean it up. If these standards are seemingly so rigorous, then why did they fail so miserably with that wikitroll? Not only was he allowed to misrepresent his very own biased source, but he then did a little statistical frankensteining by mashing together 3 sets of data from 3 different studies to produce a casualty breakdown that made little sense--and yet it stayed for months. Apply historical standards to the evidence or do not apply them at all. According to John's own source, the operational KIA is not 92,000 but 100,000, yet somehow, despite all these eyes watching the article, he managed to slip the 92,000 figure through the "consensus." At the very least, today, that is getting edited, because this wiki article even managed to undercount the lowest published German estimates. Megakedar (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to Müller's book, and there is an assumption of good faith. You have altered the number from 92,000 to 100,000 and I have no objections to that as I assume that you have checked the numbers and are putting in are the correct ones -- that is what editorial review is all about. But I don't need to know what Müller's numbers are to know that the information presented as "German claims" or "Müller (low estimate):" is breaching Wikipedia policies. This is no longer a page that I pay much attention, as I have nearly 1,000 pages in my watch list I am trying to cut it down to a manageable level. Indeed I only became involved in this discussion because you asked me to! When one first starts to edit Wikipedia, if one comes from an academic background it can seem really odd that the additions to a paper on a subject which would earn marks at university are the very things frowned upon in Wikipedia, but that is what NOR is all about. If JohnHistory was doing OR then it is correct to remove that information, but in doing so new OR should not be introduced. -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's deal with this crap. I can't believe it's been staring me in the face this whole time. After a morning at the library digging through footnotes, I have a couple of updates.

1. Mueller is not a historian who just "happens to be German." His figures which JohnHistory cited come from the final volume of “Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg”, which is published by the the Militaergeschichtliches Forschungsamt, or the Military History Research Office of the German Federal Republic. While this source is not readily available (and individual volumes run up to $700 US on Amazon), an review essay by Earl Ziemke from the 1980s (when this series was being put together) clarifies some of the historigraphic, methodological, and political issues involved. While this series does not claim to be an "official history," due to the tense relationship between the Federal Republic and its Nazi past, it has all the makings of one. As Ziemke notes, a certain relationship exists between this collaborative work and the previous East German official government study (also cited by JohnHistory in this thread), as indicated by "Colonel Hackl's statement that the Military History Research Office proposes to give the German public and the Bundeswehr an account that will "facilitate their comprehension of the war."" Ziemke goes on to elaborate that "the objective manifestly is to derive a consensus for today's Germany from the documents and the published literature that will constitute a viable "German point of view."" The publication of that book series was also timed to coincide with the publication of the Soviet official History of the Second World War, 1939-1945. For these reasons, many historians (such as Chris Bellamy in Absolute War) consider “Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg” a primary source and list it in their bibliography accordingly. Mueller himself seems to have been working with OKH and OKW reports.

2. By the same token, Krivosheev is also considered a "primary" source. This proves the point I was trying to make earlier about derivative works being secondary in importance.

Thus there are two edits I am proposing, one of which I am doing immediately. 1) Mueller's figure of 100,000 should be relisted as "German Estimate (Mueller)" and 2) Krivosheev's primary archival work should be counted as definitive, since almost every book cites it, and discrepancies in derivative works (Hastings, Hamilton, Beevor) should be addressed in the footnotes. I'm still figuring out how to word this second one. Megakedar (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting about Mueller and Ziemke's critique. I knew Mueller's estimates were based on older data and that should be noted in the article. Such as, "an estimate by Mueller from earlier data from the 1980's was 100,000." Putting it after Krivosheev's. I am still interested to see your Overman information. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mueller section was actually published in the latest volume, volume 10 in 2008. The entire series is a massive collaborative project among many German academics aimed at hammering out a consensus German perspective of the history of WW2, using existing documentary evidence. However, I believe he was working from the established archival sources (which I have stated were breaking down completely as you got to 1945). This is probably why his figure of 100,000 matches up so well with the 102,000 claimed by by the East German government study in the 70s--the were working from pretty much the same records. -Megakedar (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add a footnote citing the Ziemke article that the research was funded by the FRG to justify the use of the word German, otherwise the edit will not stand because this talk section will be lost in the archives. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be clear what the MGFA "Militaergeschichtliches Forschungsamt" is, given that they state on their website: "Das Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt (MGFA), Potsdam, ist eine Einrichtung der Bundeswehr"--they are an institution of the Bundeswehr. I will add the Ziemke reference, regardless. -Megakedar (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can not state that Krivosheev work is definitive unless an expert has published stating at it is. If you want to include this fact you will have to footnote it along these lines "Some sources cited in this article including Hastings, Hamilton and Beevor derive their causality numbers from Krivosheev's archival work (see Hastings, p. 999, Hamilton ...)" -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think definitive is not the right word, but I think the derivative works should be moved to the footnotes for the sake of preventing confusion. "A number of sources cited in this article derive their causality numbers from Krivosheev's archival work. Hamilton uses the figure of 361,367 without further breakdown (p. 372). Anthony Beevor excludes Polish casualties, leaving 78,291 KIA/MIA and 274,184 WIA fora a total of 352,475 (p. 424). Similarly, Max Hastings uses the figure of total Soviet casualties excluding Polish forces (352,475), but increases the portion of killed to over 100,000." -Megakedar (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "You can not state that Krivosheev work is definitive unless an expert has published stating at it is." I believe, a publication in The Journal of Military History is sufficient. Walter Dunn (Walter S. Dunn. Reviewed work(s): Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century by G. F. Krivosheev Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 660-661) writes:

"The information in the tables is basic to any research on military actions by the Soviets. Although the tables have been created by the authors, the work is documented and one could check the original source material in the Russian archives. The question of reliability is significant. Reliability can be tested by comparing to other source material, by checking for internal consistency, and applying common sense from a wide variety of sources. Based on these three tests, the tables appear to be reliable, but, as so often in the past, imply one thing, when in truth some editorial work has been done."

"A check for internal consistency was made between Table 93 (p. 244) and Table 95 (p. 253). Table 93 states that 98,300 tanks and self-propelled guns were produced during the war, while Table 95 states that 109,100 tanks and self-propelled guns were received during the war. The difference (10,800) was most likely Lend-Lease; 14,430 tanks were sent to Russia during the war and significant numbers were lost in transit. More specifically, the figures for 1943 reflect a difference of 3,200, and Lend-Lease delivered 3,650 tanks in that year"

"Applying general knowledge, during the Battle of Kursk, Table 98 (p.262), Krivosheev states that 1,614 tanks were lost by the Voronezh and Steppe Fronts. Using a wide variety of sources, I have estimated that the Russians lost 1,000 tanks in the first nine days and a smaller number during the following three weeks. The reduction of tanks available to the two fronts from 5 July 1943 to 7 August 1943 was 854 (3,173 less 2,319). The Russians probably could have replaced or repaired the other 760 tanks, verifying Krivosheev's figure.

All of the above examples lend credence to the tables, but the user is alerted to test the numbers against other sources and to find answers for any discrepancies. The book is an indispensable reference for anyone seriously interested in the Russian military."

Another source (Michael Ellman and S. Maksudov. Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, Soviet and East European History (1994), pp. 671-680) discusses the overall Krivosheev's ("official", according to Ellman&Maksudov) numbers:

"It is important to note that this figure of 8.7 million only includes the regular armed forces and the frontier troops and internal troops of the NKVD. It does not include non-conscripted fighters (partisans, resistance fighters and the underground in territories occupied by the Germans). Nor does it include railwaymen fighting in their own militarised detachments, local anti-aircraft defence, the militarised fire service, police in frontier areas who fought against the invaders etc. Nor does it include deaths among the 500 000 conscripts called up at the beginning of the war but captured by the Germans before reaching their unit. It is an estimate of 'deaths of conscripts who reached their units' and not of 'deaths of all conscripts and fighters'.
How accurate is this 8.7 million figure? The book which analyses military losses and which is the basis for the figure itself draws attention to the limitations of the underlying data on which it is based. Checking it requires studying the archival material which it used and also the estimating methods it used in the absence of firm archival figures. In the absence of such work, it is reassuring to note that the new figures, based on military records, are quite close to the estimates based on the method of demographic estimation, and published by one of us long ago. On the other hand, there are some factors which make the 8.7 million figure too high as an estimate of deaths due to the war"

In other words, these two experts confirm that the numbers themselves (although not necessarily their interpretation) are reliable, and, if some other source uses the Krivosheev's numbers without doing additional archival research, it should be considered a tertiary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that reference. I did state earlier some of the problems with the Krivosheev figures, namely that they underestimate people who were called up without being registered (which happened a lot in 1941 and 1942). However, for an operation like Berlin, where the accounting system was working in full order and where everyone was accounted for, these figures should not be made to look suspect. -Megakedar (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoo flak tower AAA

This edit changed the calibre of the AAA guns used to defend the Reich Stag from 88 mm guns to 12.8 cm FlaK 40. I do not have access to the Beevor book cited but looking at an online version the does not mention in that paragraph the gun sizes, so what is a source for the size? If none is provided I suggest that we change it for anti-aircraft artillery and leave out the size. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The flak towers had originally been equipped with 88mm FlaK, but that was changed later in the war to 12.8 cm FlaK. For G-Turm Zoo a reference would be: Hans-Jürgen Mende,Kathrin Chod,Kurt Wernicke,Herbert Schwenk,Hainer Weisspflug (Eds.): Berlin Mitte: Das Lexikon. Stapp, 2001, p.651, ISBN 3877761119, 9783877761113. --Dodo19 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, please add the citation to the paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS-I recall you have the other edition of Beevor's book; anyway, the 2002 Viking/Penguin printing of his Berlin book mention's the "128 mm (12.8 cm) and 20 mm guns" of the three flak towers on page 287. Kierzek (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but my edition is 1,000s of miles away :-( -- PBS (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced data

The article say that numbers of Soviet equipment losses are taken from Krivosheev, pages 219 - 200. But there is nothing about Soviet equipment losses during the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation in Krivosheev's book either on these pages or on any other pages:

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/SovietLosses.pdf

Peter558 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

I appreciate that there is probably a place for the iconic "raising the flag" image somewhere in this article, but I do feel that it would be best to lead the article with a free image, and move the Reichtag image alongside the text discussing the image itself (or, if there is no discussion, adding some, as the image is a famous part of the battle). I see there are multiple free images already in the article; would it be possible to switch them around? J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please? I don't want to just remove the image, but I will if no one is willing to deal with this... J Milburn (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the image is fine and it or images like it has been used on the covers of several publications over the years to symbolise the Soviet victory in the Battle of Berlin. For example one of the main references for this article: Ziemke, Earl F. (1969), Battle for Ber lin End of the Third Reich, uses the image -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's actually got nothing to do with the issue... We have free images that represent the battle, or some could be found. Therefore, a non-free image should not be used in the infobox. It's not a particularly complex issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Which free image do you think best represents the battle? -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know, that's why I asked here. I think the image of the smashed streets is rather emotive, but perhaps a map would be more educational. You know more about the subject that me :) J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria state that (1)"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." and (9) "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." Since no free equivalent is available, this image can be used in the article namespace (infobox, as well as the main article, is a part of an article namespace). Therefore, I see absolutely no formal reason to replace this image with anything else (unless an equally good free equivalent is proposed). By now, no free equivalent is proposed at all, so we simply have nothing to discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed two possible replacements, so that's wrong. As for your actual argument- are you trying to say that any irreplaceable non-free image can be used anywhere in the mainspace? I have demonstrated that that image is replaceable in the context in which it is used- equally, an image of a politician during a key speech is irreplaceable, as they will never make that speech again- that doesn't mean it can be used in the politician's infobox, where any portrait of them would be acceptable. In this case, any image showing the battle would be an appropriate replacement- the possibilities I have listed (and I am sure there are more) are maps and the image of the ruined streets. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "an image of a politician during a key speech is irreplaceable" It is replaceable, e.g. with a verbal description. Theoretically, everything can be replaced, literal interpretation of the rule leads to a nonsense.

Re: "I have proposed two possible replacements" What do you mean? Please, present concrete images on this talk page, explain why they may serve as an equivalent, and only after that can we speak seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really getting rather tedious, there is a lot more "debate" here than there needs to be. I find your first comment completely unhelpful, and so I am not going to respond to it. You know damn well why it's unhelpful (or, if you don't, I'm crediting you with too much intelligence...) and so I ask you to refrain from such nonsense. It would be nice if you could treat me and our policies with a little respect. Regarding your second point, as I have made clear, I am not awfully familiar with the subject, or I would have replaced the image myself. Some concrete examples of possible replacements include File:Berlin offensive.jpg, File:Russian artillery fire in Berlin.jpg, File:Berlin bunker.jpg and File:Destruction in a Berlin street.jpg, all of which show the action during (or the damage after) the battle, and all of which show Berlin itself. These are just examples currently used in the article- we have lots and lots of free images on Commons. As this is just a general "oh look, this is the Battle of Berlin" image, one of these would be more appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You mix "replacement" and "equivalent". Policy says about "equivalent", not "replacement", so your arguments are a result of wrong understanding of the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And what role does the image serve in the infobox? To illustrate the Battle of Berlin. Could there be a free illustration of the Battle of Berlin? Yes. We have several. J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It illustrates the battle's outcome. There is no free equivalent of this photo that depicts the same event, so its usage is absolutely justified. With regards to other images, yes, they theoretically can replace this photo (although they cannot serve as its equivalent). If you provide another image that would be better as an infobox's image, we can discuss a possibility of replacement of this photo. However, a non-free status has absolutely no relation to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be an image of that event in the lead? Yes, if the title of this article was "the capture of the Reichstag by Soviets, as signified by them raising a flag" a photo of that event would be justified. As it happens, the article is called "Battle of Berlin", so we need a photo of that. Therefore, it is not only "the capture of the Reichstag by Soviets, as signified by them raising a flag" which can be illustrated in the lead, but any event in the Battle of Berlin. I am rapidly, rapidly losing faith in your goodwill. Could you please stop using such bullshit arguments, and just deal with this issue? J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

<--See my last posting. "I think the image..." Do you realise the significance that the Soviets placed on the capture of the Reichstag? That is why the image is iconic and is symbolic of the battle. It ranks with two other pictures from World War II: the US marines Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and St Paul's standing in a sea of flames. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that- why is that fact not discussed in the article? That would be a great addition. Then, the photo could easily be used alongside said discussion. However, it should not be used in the lead, as, in that context, is is clearly replaceable with any other image from or of the battle. The lead image represents the battle as a whole. We have free images of that, or free images could be created of it (maps, diagrams). Therefore, per NFCC#1, the image cannot be used there. I am not saying there is no place for this image in the article- as you say, it's iconic, and worth discussing- but its use in the lead as a general "this is the battle" image is not appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my reading of the fair use licence. This is an article about the battle not about a photograph of the battle. There is a link in the caption which leads to further discussion on the picture, so I see no reason to duplicate it in this article, particularly as this article is already twice the size of the recommended max size and is a summary style article. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the battle, so should be illustrated by an image of the battle. It is currently illustrated by a non-free image of the battle, which could be replaced by a free image of the battle. NFCC#1 says non-free images should not be used when they can be replaced with free ones. This is actually a little simpler than we are making it. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Which of the free images do you consider to be iconic? If you do not consider any of them to be iconic then it is not replacing like with like. See what I said above about the iconic status of this image. I suggest that as you seem to be in a minority on this subject that you drop it and see if anyone else comes into the conversation and supports you POV. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider any of the other images iconic. This has been tedious for a while, and that response has done nothing to alleviate that. The fact that this image is iconic actually has nothing to do with the issue at hand- it's a non-free image being used to illustrate something for which free images exist or could be created. You're making the matter a lot more complicated than it needs to be. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Change, please?

Ok, this has gone on for long enough, and the image is still there. Could someone who knows more about the subject than me please choose a replacement? If not, I'll be replacing it myself, probably with File:Destruction in a Berlin street.jpg. I accept that probably isn't the best image for the job, but it's better than having an unwarranted non-free image sitting around. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that it is unwarranted, the image is an iconic one of the soviet victory in this battle and as such is appropriate for the lead section of this article. As I said above "I suggest that as you seem to be in a minority on this subject that you drop it and see if anyone else comes into the conversation and supports your POV." -- PBS (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, as has been explained, the non-free content criteria are policy, and so, regardless of whether I am in a minority in this thread, are to be followed. We have/could create free images of the battle. As such, this one should not be used as a representative one. It's explained at length above. Could you please choose a suitable replacement? J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1. J Milburn seems to interpret the #1 NFCC clause as follows: a non-free image can be used only if it is the article's subject (i.e. when the article discusses the image itself). However, in actuality the criteria are somewhat different. The clause #1 states that non-free media cannot be used if
(i) either non-free content can be replaced by a free version that has the same effect, or
(ii) the subject could be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all.
The words "the same" and "adequately" are very important for policy understanding, because without them a usage of non-free media becomes absolutely banned in WP: obviously, every non-free image can be either substituted by a free image (having a smaller effect) or replaced with a verbal description (even if the subject cannot be conveyed with equal adequacy by text). I believe such an interpretation would be an obvious nonsense, so not paying attention to the words "adequately" and "the same effect" is a critical flaw in J Milburn's arguments.
The Khaldei's photo is expressive, carries enormous emotional charge and simultaneously depicts two XX key century symbols: the Reichstag and the Red banner. Obviously neither another picture nor a verbal description cannot be an adequate replacement, so the Khaldei's photo successfully passes a #1 NFCC test.
2. J Milburn seems to completely miss the importance of Reichstag's (not Berlin's) capture. That is another critical omission. Capture of Reichstag was an extremely important political goal. Thus, Donald E. Shepardson starts his article "The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth". (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-154) with the words:

"On 30 April 1945 a Russian soldier raised his flag over the Reichstag building in Berlin to signal Stalin's defeat of Hitler after four years of war."

Note, he explicitly writes about the Reichstag (although the building was abandoned since 1933 and had no military value), not about Reich Chancellery (where Hitler spent his last hours) or, e.g. about flack towers that were much better fortified and posed a more serious military treat. Why?
Chris Bellamy (Chris Bellamy. Absolute war: Soviet Russia in the Second World War. Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. ISBN 0375410864, 9780375410864) devoted a separate chapter of his book to the analysis of this question. He concluded that since the moment of 'victory' in a big war is hard to define, the seizure of Reichstag had become a primary Soviet target because that would be the best way to let the world know that they won the war against Hitler. The cry 'on to the Reichstag' first became widespread after Kursk, it was an ultimate goal of millions men, so rising the red flag on the Reichstag's roof became both an act of enormous symbolic importance and the military necessity. So the photo depicts a unique historic event that marked the actual end of WWII, and no adequate free replacement is available.

PS. In addition, let me point your attention at the fact that I tried to replace the present image with the low resolution image depicting the same event (to comply with the NFCC's clause #3) however, I have been reverted by J Milburn (WP:POINT?).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. This is not what I am saying, nor what our policy says. Now, what do we need an illustration of? The Battle of Berlin. Do we have free images, or could free images be created? Yes. Then a non-free image cannot meet NFCC#1 in that role (the infobox). There, that is the entire required consideration of NFCC#1, not the ridiculous post to which I am replying. Now, as no one has replaced the image, I am replacing it myself. Feel free to swap for another free image, but do not replace it with this or any other non-free one. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, provide an evidence that the replacement is adequate. Otherwise, your change may be reverted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it illustrates that Battle of Berlin, which is the only purpose the original image served in that capacity. That is all the infobox image is for- visual representation of the article topic. Therefore, they both achieve the same goal, and so the free image should be used. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No. First of all, the picture provided by you depicts a battle's aftermath, not a battle itself.
Secondly, the image removed by you is not just an ordinary illustration of the battle.

(i) This photo a symbolizes battle's outcome;

(ii) This photo shows a Berlin's building that at that very moment was a major and ultimate military goal of the battle;

(iii) This photo shows a unique historic event that was a key battle's event and per se had enormous political and military importance

(iv) This photo is a historical artifact that is deeply assotiated with the Battle of Berlin and serves its symbol.

In other words, this picture has even more reasons to be in the info box than another iconic photo in the Battle of Iwo Jima article. Note, in the latter case the argument (ii) doesn't work (no symbolic military targets are depicted on that photograph). Moreower, in this particular case (by contrast to the battle of Berlin) three more or less adequate free replacements are available for this iconic photo: File:USMC Memorial Silhouette.jpg, File:First Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpg and File:Stars and Stripes on Mount Suribachi (Iwo Jima).jpg.
I revert your good faith edit because you failed to prove that another photo can serve the same purpose.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I noticed the Iwo Jima photo was added to the article recently, so I anticipate your reasonable objections. However, before you started to object, please, answer the following question:

Would be the usage of the Iwo Jima photo justified if File:USMC Memorial Silhouette.jpg, or File:Stars and Stripes on Mount Suribachi (Iwo Jima).jpg or File:First Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpg were not available (or not in a public domain)?

The answer is "probably, yes", so I will probably agree if you remove this picture from the Battle of Iwo Jima infobox. However, if we assume that Suribachi served as the most important symbolic military objective since Midway, and it was the major symbolic battle's target, and raising the American flag there would symbolize complete military defeat of Japan, the need of this photo in the article would become absolute, so the answer would be "absolutely yes", and, accordingly, its removal would be absolutely unjustified. That is exactly what we have with the Khaldei's photo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, the picture I chose is perhaps not the best one. Feel free to swap it with another. And please don't cloud the issue by talking about other articles. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

By no means I wanted to cloud the issue, in actuality I tried to clarify it as much as possible using a close analogy. The Reichsrag photo depicts a central event of the battle of Berlin - and the Iwo Jima photo does the same. However, in addition to that the Khaldei's photo depicts a central event of all Eastern front theatre, the outcome that was a primary target of whole Soviet military machine. In addition, although more or less adequate replacements for the Iwo Jima photo do exist (see above), no adequate replacement for the Khaldei's photo can be found. All said above serves as a quite sufficient justification of the image's presence in the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've got an issue with another image, go and deal with it. Don't moan about it here. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your seem to refuse to discuss the issue seriously. However, as far I understand the policy I cannot re-place an image contested per NFCC. I suggest arbitration (or any other way to resolve the dispute). Do you agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Seems like a chronic waste of time. Just replace it, or create a collage, or whatever. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

<--We seem to be at an impasse. While I appreciate it is time consuming to go through the dispute resolution process, we have little choice but to do so if User:J Milburn you are convinced that you are correct and that User:Paul Siebert and I are wrong and you wish to pursue the matter further. I would suggest in the first instance that as it is you who wish to make a change that you initiate an RFC in a new section.

In this section I would appreciate it if you (J Milburn) would explain the edit reversal you made when you reverted from a lower resolution image to a higher resolution image of the image you disprove of.(revision as of 12:19, 5 February) personally I disliked the lower resolution picture on aesthetic grounds (given it is bigger that thumbnail it just looked too fuzzy), what was your reason for doing so. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the usage of the Rosental's photo in the Battle of Iwo Jima article has been listed among the examples of correct NFCC usage[3]. Obviously, the Khaldei's photo is even a stronger case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PBS-I second your post and also believe you gentlemen above should take this to dispute resolution. Otherwise, you guys will just keep going 'round and 'round. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the copyright holder has granted Wikipedia permission to use the photo for Wikipedia's articles, with a caveat that

However, even if this were not the case, the image would be legal under a claim of fair use as it is of low resolution and unsuitable for high-quality copies, would not decrease commercial demand for the original, is not used or sold for profit, and is used in the context of an educational discussion regarding the image.

Khaldei was an officer in Red Army, so there is a reason to believe that the Russian government may be the holder of the copyright. If we contact appropriate officials, there is no reason they would reject Wikipedia's request to grant permission to use the photo. (Igny (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

If I understand the issue correct, J Millburn's point is that usage of non-free images is allowed only in some exceptional cases regardless of whether such a permission is granted or not. Even after obtaining a permission this image will remain non-free, so NFCC will still be applicable to its usage, according to J Milburn.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, and that's hardly some ultra-conservative interpretation of the guidelines or anything. Images are free or non-free- permission for Wikipedia to use images does not make them free. Note that I have no opinion on whether the use of the images is legal on fair use grounds; I am talking about our non-free content criteria, which are deliberately stricter than law. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Then to be consistent, J. Milburn, you are obliged to start an edit war with editors at Battle of Iwo Jima about removal of the non-free image of the flag from the infobox. I am sure there are other free images of the battle. (Igny (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Again, the Battle of Iwo Jima has been listed among good examples of correct usage of non-free photo (see above).
It seems to me that J Millburn clearly let us know that he is not going to follow a standard dispute resolution procedure. In connection to that, does anyone have any idea on our next steps?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What I do or do not do with my time on Wikipedia is my business. If you feel there is a problem with another article, go and deal with it. If you don't, I fail to see what you're complaining about. There is no dispute that needs resolving here- we have our policies, we can stick to them. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you include the policy WP:IAR? The dispute here is not one on which you are on the side of the angels and others are deliberately ignoring policy. It is a question of policy interpretation, and the best way to resolve that, as you have not persuaded the majority here that you are correct, is by asking for more community input. As it is you who wish to change the article, it is up to you to follow the dispute resolution procedural policy, and as I first step I suggest you initiate an WP:RFC, or if you do not want to do that, just drop the issue walk away and return to it in six months and see if the opinions of the editors who are then watching this page then are more amiable to your interpretation of policy. -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war or disrupt editing at that article just to make a WP:POINT, if that is what you are suggesting. However you inconsistency just implies that either the other article is protected by other admins and you like to pick easy battles only, or you have and protect a strong POV with regards to Reichstag flag in WW2 articles and you use NFCC as a pretext. I suggest to start an RfC on use of non-free images in the infoboxes, combining both of these articles together.(Igny (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Dear PBS. Unfortunately, you are not right. NFCC seems to be stricter than other policy is. According to NFCC policy a burden of proof rests always with those who wants to add or restore a contested image, therefore, J Milburn is not obliged to prove anything. We must prove he was wrong, and only after that the image can be re-inserted. However, under prove I do not mean convince (I doubt it is possible in this concrete case). I believe, we have to initiate WP:NFR, and after consensus is achieved there, or more than four weeks passed (which is more likely) can we re-insert this image.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Here is a direct quote from WP:NFR: "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any editor may close a discussion."--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of time and space that has been taken up by this issue, outside involvement is clearly needed at this point. Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Igny, I am not using the NFCC as a "pretext" for anything, and I am certainly not here to pick easy battles- the stubborness of editors involved with this article has shown this is far from an easy battle. Additionally, I am not opposed to non-free images in infoboxes; I am opposed to replaceable free images, as the vast majority of Wikipedians are and should be. Paul, I've no idea where you're plucking these rules from- 4 weeks? What? If any of you want to ask for outside opinions of editors who know our NFCC, feel free to do so, but please make sure you understand the issue yourself before doing so... J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, may be my harsh words were uncalled for, I apologize and retract them. Nonetheless, since it is an issue of interpreting the letter and spirit of the NFCC policy here, my suggestion of an RfC stands. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Why not start a thread on WT:NFC first? That would be better than a full-blown RfC... J Milburn (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, could you initiate that? (Igny (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Regarding stubbornness of editors here. Keep in mind that WW2 is a very emotional topic for people in most of Eastern Europe. Events like depicted on the Khaldei's photo were comparable in symbolism to declaration of independence in USA. (Igny (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

An RFC would be better because it is best to discuss things that affect an article on the article's talk page, not some other page. Placing a template at the top of a new section is hardly an major effort. Why would raising the issue at WT:NFC first "be better than a full-blown RfC...", surly an RFC here with a note on WT:NFC as heads up is a better way to go? -- PBS (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Commanders in the infobox

Why are there more German commanders listed than Soviet ones? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The text makes it clear. Hitler replaced loosing commanders with others (rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic), Stalin kept a winning team. -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox?

A non-free photograph File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg depicts Soviet solders raising the Red Banner on the Reichstag roof. This event symbolized both the end of the Battle of Berlin and a military defeat of Third Reich in World War II. No free images of this unique historic event exist or could be created. The photograph itself is iconic, it is highly recognisable and can be found in most WWII history books and, arguably, is the single most famous picture of the entire WWII collection.
Can a non-free status of this photograph be a reason for its removal from the infobox, and will its replacement with some free image have a detrimental effect on the article?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you're asking rather odd questions in this RfC, and your phrasing of the question is about as non-neutral as it gets. The answer to your first question is yes- as a non-free image, it's a non-free image, so if the image or its use does not meet the non-free content criteria, then it should be removed. In this use, it is clearly replaceable, as we have free images of the Battle of Berlin (your claim that "No free images of this unique historic event exist or could be created" is clearly deceptive, as it is not that event that we are concerned with in this usage). As such, I would recommend that this RfC is reopened with a more useful and more neutral opening question.... J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO it symbolises a critical moment in the Battle of Berlin which no other images capture. Hohum 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's denying that. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for removing it then. Clarify? Hohum 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

When used in the infobox, the image is being used as a general illustration of the battle. We have free images (or could perhaps create free images- maps and the like) which could illustrate the battle generally (for instance, the picture of destruction which I have replaced it with). As such, in that context, the image fails NFCC#1, as it is replaceable- if free images exist, they should be preferred over non-free images. That's it, really- the discussion has become incredibly convoluted and over-complicated. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that non free image of the flag in infobox of Battle of Iwo Jima has to be removed as well? After all, it could easily be replaced with a hand drawn map of the battle or a picture of some burnt tree or hole in the ground or something. (Igny (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Yes. There's not even a rationale for that use. I have removed it. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the image is iconic, it does summarise the entire battle, which is what the infobox is for. No other image will do that as effectively. Hohum 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then use several other images, in a collage. The fact that something is famous does not mean that it can ignore our non-free content criteria, and the fact that it may do a better job (frankly, I'm not certain it does) doesn't mean we can suddenly use it. Compare to biographies of modern pop singers- there are plenty of great press shots and publicity shots that do a great job of showing what they look like, but we use free images, as a poor quality free image trumps a high quality non-free one. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• The opening to this RfC is completely non-neutral and should be edited. With regards to the image, it is non-free and there could be a much more informative free equivalent—a map—so it needs to be removed from the infobox. It's really simple. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Since other editors abstained from initiation of RfC, I decided to do that according with my understanding of the issue. I would disagree that this has been done in non-neutral manner, because it contained facts describing the image itself, not the issue. Noone questioned so far that the image is both iconic and historically important, that it symbolically summarized the outcome of WWII in Europe etc. All these statements are facts, not my opinion. The question itself was quite neutral: does a non-free status prevents usage of this image in the infobox? However, if you believe that the statement is not neutral, please, explain concretely, what should be changed there in your opinion.

I am not sure if I, as an editor who started this RfC, can express my opinion here, however, let me argue with regards to the map that I am not sure if such a proposal is more reasonable. In WWII articles, the infoboxes, as a rule, contain not maps, but images that summarise the article's subject. As an example, I can refer to the Battle of Iwo Jima article that has a non-free image in the ifnobox, and this image adds no information (although has an enormous emotional effect). Btw, the Iwo Jima article was listed as an example of correct usage of non-free images.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Btw, the Iwo Jima article was listed as an example of correct usage of non-free images. Not anymore. (Igny (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Wait, sorry Paul, you are arguing about this image on so many pages I can't keep track. It should be removed from the World War II and Eastern Front (World War II) articles, but in this article it should be okay, as it is an iconic photo of this battle. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re neutrality, "The photograph itself is iconic, it is highly recognisable and can be found in most WWII history books and, arguably, is the single most famous picture of the entire WWII collection." -- iconic of the Battle of Berlin, yes. Highly recognizable? Debatable. Most history books? No, they would show the Iwo Jima/Normandy/atomic bomb images—they are all much more iconic and used. Single most famous photograph? No, it's not. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, there is perhaps a place for it in the article, but, as we have free images, certainly not the infobox. That would be a separate issue. As for the question of the non-neutral opening- yes, you state facts, but you state facts only to set the scene of how great the image is, which is not actually directly related to the question. It's pretty clear which "side" you are on. It would be like a newspaper column in England listing statistics about illegal immigration, suicide bombings and Islamic oppression of women before asking the completely neutral question of "should planning permission be granted for a new Mosque in Bradford" or soemthing akin. Additionally, the question you asked has already been answered- no, there is no ban on non-free images in infoboxes. However, there is a rule against non-free images which are replaceable with free images. I'm not quite sure how many times this has to be said. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep in the infobox for this article. This is an iconic image of the Battle of Berlin and can not be replaced with a similar non-free image, and as none of those are iconic. BTW the damaged street could just as easily be damage done curtsey of the RAF and the USAAF, there is no way of telling. I do not have an opinion of the usage in the World War II article. J Milburn you were repeatedly asked to use the dispute resolution process and you declined to do, Paul Siebert told me on my talk page that he is inexperienced in drafting RFCs so please don't bit him over it. I am sure he will do better next time and as you have placed your opinion directly under his, your arguments (an the tone you have adopted in this discussion) are there for editors new to the conversation to compare. So unless there is a specific sentence you wish to have struck out, the introduction to the RFC may not be elegant but it is fair. -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Erm, no, as the questions asked in the opening to this RfC aren't particularly relevant, and, as has been said, it is asked in a ridiculously one-sided way. An opening to an RfC should get straight to the point, and should be completely neutral. Again, if we're going to go through the motions of a RfC, can we please reopen it with a better opening? We can draft one together, if you like. A more fitting question would be "is it acceptable to use a non-free image to illustrate an event for which there exist free images, when the non-free image is iconic?" or something akin. The issue at hand is replaceability versus iconic status, not infoboxes and "non-free status" of images being "a reason for ... removal". The equivilent would be me writing a paragraph on how important our non-free content criteria are and how damaging non-free images are, before defending the paragraph by saying it is not non-neutral "because it contains facts describing the policy itself, not the issue". See where I;m going with this? Again- if we really feel that a RfC is the way to go here, we need to do it properly... J Milburn (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You were invited to open an RFC and you did not do it. What wording would you like for this RFC? -- PBS (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No, as I do not want an RfC. You clearly do. What is wrong with the wording I propose in the post above? Would you accept that that neutrally sets out the central question, on which this issue hinges? J Milburn (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear Ed (talk • majestic titan) I believe your statement about Iwo Jima/Normandy/atomic bomb images reflects a general Americocentrism of the popular Anglophone WWII literature. Yes, the books written from American point of view used to pay much more attention to Pacific war and Western front, however, all serious WWII books that pay due attention to Eastern Front contain this image. The most recent example is a Chris Bellamy's "Absolute War" with this photo on the cover.
Re: "...you are arguing about this image on so many page..." Because the image has been removed from so many articles. Each article is a separate case, so I have to argue in each place separately.
Re: "It should be removed from the World War II and Eastern Front (World War II) articles, but in this article it should be okay, as it is an iconic photo of this battle." Well, could you please explain me the following. During the Eastern Front discussion you expressed an opinion that "map would provide greater information for readers the article as a whole, and the Berlin image could appear in the appropriate section", in other words, during that discussion you supported this image in the main article. I am wondering what new considerations forced you to change your mind.
With regards to WWII, taking into account that EF was a major part of WWII in Europe, and that European theatre was the major WWII theatre of war, therefore, World War II and Eastern Front (World War II) are inseparable, and the image symbolising military defeat of Nazi Germany as whole is equally relevant to both the latter and the former.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "is it acceptable to use a non-free image to illustrate an event for which there exist free images, when the non-free image is iconic?" J Milburn was invited to start this RfC, however he abstained from doing that, so I've done that in accordance with my understanding of policy. I doubt this statement is more neutral, although it is clearly false. No free equivalent of the event (taking of the Reichstag, the battle's apex and symbolic final) exist or could be created. Other images illustrate either the battle's consequences or some peripheric events that serve to the article's purposes only nominally. BTW, during the recent discussion on the WP:NFC talk page most participants agreed that #1's "or could be created" should be interpreted as "could be plausibly, or reasonably created. And, obviously, a "free replacement" is not a "free nominal (or formal) replacement". Anyway, knowledge of NFCC policy is not sufficient to make a judgement on an image's compliance with #1, because knowledge of a subject itself is also quite necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS. Does this diff[4] mean that —Ed (talk • majestic titan) has withdrawn his objections against the image, and all his comments have a relation to the neutrality issues? If yes, than J Milburn cannot refer to his opinion in his recent edit summary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When used in the infobox, the subject of the image is the battle, not the capture. As such, the image must be considered replaceable in that role. In the role of showing the taking of the Reichstag, yes, it's probably irreplaceable. That's irrelevant. J Milburn (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

CLEARLY the consensus is to keep the photo at this time. As PBS stated, "Not one editor to date has said that they do not wish it to be there." J. Milburn, has been the only voice I have seen that wants to exclude it. Kierzek (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am another voice. Thanks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "you state facts only to set the scene of how great the image is, which is not actually directly related to the question". The point is moot. Per policy, usage of non-free images is justified if they are obviously far better than their free analogues, therefore by just asking: ""is it acceptable to use a non-free image to illustrate an event for which there exist free images, when the non-free image is iconic?" we set a scene for the answer "Probably not" at least. It is quite necessary to explain that the case is exceptional, namely, that the image is both iconic and historically unique and that this picture itself is arguably the first material evidence of the Allied victory in WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reply from Ed17, mostly because I can't follow who was replying to me and who wasn't above. No, I have not withdrawn my objections to the image as a whole. The problem is that you are dragging this discussion onto 347895 different pages, making it really hard to follow. To me, I don't care if it stays or goes in this article. In every other article, however, it needs to go or be moved to the appropriate section where the taking the Reichstag is discussed (an exception is WWII, where it needs to be gone entirely, as the taking is not discussed enough). Paul, you need to see WP:IDHT. Yes, the "consensus of the community" part does not apply here until more people have commented in this RfC, but you have been told by three experienced administrators (me, J Milburn and NuclearWarfare) that you are in the wrong, and you can't seem get what we are telling you over and over and over. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Re "usage of non-free images is justified if they are obviously far better than their free analogues" -- um, what? Have you even looked at the non-free criteria policies? I'm having a hard time thinking that you have, as that statement is 100% against them. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • @Paul - my entire point here is this: the photo is iconic for the Battle of Berlin. For the entire Eastern Front? No. The taking of Berlin was purely symbolic; Germany's military was piecemeal, its economy shambles and land ruined. A truly representational image would be one of the battles that changed the war, ex. Stalingrad, or a map that might actually help a reader understand what the heck the article is talking about. The Iwo Jima image is the same way; while it may be iconic of the Battle of Iwo Jima, it certainly isn't iconic of the Pacific War or even the island hopping campaign. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ed17. When I wrote about your withdrawal of your objections against the photo, I meant the Battle of Berlin only. My point was simple: if you really have withdrawn your objection, then J Milburn could not refer to your opinion in his recent edit summary, and he seems to be a sole person who objects against this concrete image in this concrete infobox. Therefore my first question is: did I interpret your position correctly?

Re: "posting "onto 347895 different pages"". As J Milburn correctly noted, the result of this discussion will have no effect on other pages, so, since the image has been removed from different pages, corresponding independent discussions should be conducted separately. That was no my idea.

Re: "Have you even looked at the non-free criteria policies?" Yes, I did it many times, and I am afraid that this my interpretation is even stricter than the policy says in actuality. I've done that deliberately, because during previous discussions I have been accused in too liberal interpretation of the clause #1. It would be much more helpful if, instead of asking rhetoric questions, you wrote how do you interpret the clause.

Re: Eastern Front. You probably noticed that I prepared a collage for the EF article, however, it seems to be ignored by other editors, so the idea to replace the iconic photo with a collage seems to be unsupported. I am still waiting for commentaries, an I am ready to modify the collage accordingly. However, I believe the assertion that the image can theoretically be replaced by a collage is not a sufficient ground for the image's removal if numerous attempts to create such a collage are not supported by others, so if no consensus on the collage is achieved in reasonable time I'll restore the iconic photo.

Re WWII. Your assertion about the Reichtag's photo in whole WWII context needs to be supported by reliable sources. During the WWII discussion I did provide the quotes and the sources that state that taking of Reichstag was a symbol of the military defeat of European Axis as whole, thereby demonstrating extreme importance of this event (and, accordingly, of this photo as a sole image depicting that) for both the WWII and EF articles. This my conclusion is based on reliable sources, therefore, it must be taken into account seriously.
One way or the another, let's finish with this article first. Please, let me know if I interpreted your opinion on the image in this article correct, and does it mean that J Milburn is the sole editor objecting against this photo?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Two points- firstly, can we please stick to discussing this article on this talk page. Secondly, this is not a straw poll. We work on consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Partly. No, I don't have an objection to it being in this article (although I'm not a fan either), but the RfC has only been open for one day. I would let it run for longer before claiming consensus.

Perhaps an entirely new page is needed for centralized discussion?

If your position on NFCC was stricter, you would be vehemently arguing alongside J Milburn to remove the image. I'm sorry, but you are still interpreting the criteria too liberally IMHO.

Re Eastern Front, bring it to that talk page. Not sure why I need reliable sources, because you said yourself that it was only symbolic. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your point correctly. How these your words: "I don't have an objection to it being in this article (although I'm not a fan either)" can be understood in light of these "No, I am another voice. Thanks."? Please, clarify.

Re: one day. I fully agree that any attempt to summarise this RfC discussion would be premature fo far.

Re my position on NFCC. My point is that given both iconic status and historical importance of this picture even this strictly interpreted criterion is met in that concrete case.

Re: Eastern Front. As I already explained, I took some concrete steps to attempt to prepare a free replacement for this image. I am waiting for other editors' comments on the collage I prepared, and I see no reason to renew the discussion on the photo so far. I believe noone can accuse me in making this collage just pro formae, however, if this (or other) collages will be rejected, it will be a proof that no free equivalent can be prepared. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Not sure why I need reliable sources, because you said yourself that it was only symbolic." You probably understood me incorrectly. Reliable sources provided by me state that taking of Reichstag has enormous political effect and, partially for that reason, became one of primary military targets. Since the sources explicitly emphasize importance of this event, at least similarly reliable sources (and similarly explicit wording) are needed to question that. Unsubstantiated assertions (I mean, assertions not supported by sources) cannot be an argument in that situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

<--It seems we are agreed on something! Are there any objections to reverting this edit to the heading of this section? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion of this photo in the Eastern Front article seems to be premature. Even an originator of all this story didn't openly object against this photo in the main article (I mean EF). In close future I'll add some text into the "End of War: April–May 1945" section and Khaldei's photo will be placed there. With regards to the infobox, frankly, I personally agree that some collage in the EF infobox would be, under some circumstances, a better solution: remember, Eastern Front constituted about 50% of whole WWII, most Holocaust victims were Eastern Europeans, so it is almost impossible to summarize all these events by one single photo. Of course, by writing that I do not endorse unconditional removal of this photo from the EF infobox, however, again, it seems to be prematire to discuss this issue so far. With regards to WWII article, I fully agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, the EF article seems to pretty much have its conclusion, which is not only for better on policy grounds, but far better on common sense grounds- a collage in the lead, with the non-free image alongside some text referring to the image and the event specifically. The difficulty now is finalising the collage. The WW2 issue is completely different to the other two; that revolves primarily around NFCC#8, while the image needs to be removed from the infoboxes on NFCC#1 grounds. However, this RfC is still asking very much the wrong questions- I strongly feel it should be geared towards only this article (as that is where the debate still seems to be raging) and the questions should be more carefully picked. We need to find what it is that we actually disagree on, and then use RfC to help determine an answer to that. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Title back to what it was. -- PBS (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, so there can be no doubt that the image is iconic:

• "A Soviet soldier heroically waves the red flag, the hammer and sickle billow above the Reichstag. Yevgeny Khaldei photographed one of the iconic images of the 20th century." ([5] Spiegel Online International).
• "That photograph is to the war in Europe what Joe Rosenthal's image of the planting of the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima is to the war in the Pacific." ([6], Time magazine]).

Here are a couple that links the photograph directly to the Battle:

• "May 2, 1945, marked Germany's surrender in one of the bloodiest battles in history: the Battle of Berlin. One of the images most closely associated with that event was captured by Ukrainian-born photojournalist Yevgeny Khaldei. His photograph of Soviet soldiers raising the hammer-and-sickle flag above the Reichstag is one of the most iconic photographs to emerge from World War II." ([7], Radio Free Europe).
• "In some ways it does offend sensibilities that we may have been gently hoodwinked. On the other hand, consider who the images are for. There are many 'stakeholders' in a war. The soldiers fighting it, their loved ones at home, war workers, neutral nations, political leaders - and the enemy. The images of ... Khaldei ... communicated a different message to all these important groups in a way print or the human voice could never do. Particularly to the enemy, the message was loud and clear - throw down your weapons, you've lost." ([8] BBC)

-- PBS (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Ok, that doesn't really prove anything. The fact an image is iconic doesn't mean we can use it how we like. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Surely it adds contextual significance to the article, ticking NFCC:8, which I believe is the sticking point. ? The references provided by PBS go toward showing that, while "that doesn't really prove anything" is an unfounded dismissal, not an argument. Hohum 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
      • As FPAS says below, the fact that it is iconic is somewhat of a red herring. The fact something is iconic does not mean it can go anywhere, for any reason, even if you have a source saying it's iconic. NFCC#8 is not met by citing sources on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. This is precisely parallel to the case of File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, an image that is iconic in very much the same way and for similar reasons: we use it in its own dedicated article, where it is explicitly discussed as an image (its creation, its impact, how it became iconic, etc.), but not in the infobox of Battle of Iwo Jima, the battle which it iconically represents. The question discussed above, i.e. what exactly the image is iconic of, is a red herring: the decisive criterion is not that, but the fact that its iconicity is not the topic of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is mute for at least three reasons: firstly, the Rosental's photo has been removed from there during ongoing discussion by the same user who removed the Khaldei's photo.
Secondly, the Iwo Jima photo does have free equivalents adequately depicting the same event (the attack of Suribachi, or even raising of the American flag on Suribachi, e.g. [File:First Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpg]), whereas no free equivalent of the Reichstag's picture are available (btw, satisfactory pictures of the battle as whole are also unavailable: most photo's show just the battle aftermath, and cannot be a good illustration; thus, the photo of a ruined street was made in July, when the war ended, and, moreover, it is not clear if these devastations were a result of the battle itself or of Allied bombing).
Thirdly, as I already pointed out, the Rosental's photo has been listed among nine good NFCC#8 examples[9], so it is quite possible that the Rosental's photo will be restored in the Iwo Jima article soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. And, finally, the Rosental's photo is only iconic: it carries no information per se (we see just few square meters of debris) in addition to what other pictures show. By contrast, a panorama of the Berlin's centre (and of Germnany's most symbolic building) is seen on the Khaldei's photo, and I know no other photos that would depict a Berlin's centre by the moment when the battle just ended.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact the image is an example of something that meets our NFCC does not mean that it can be used anywhere for any reason. In fact, if you actually read the (discussion, not policy, guideline or even essay) page you link, it refers to the use of the image in a different article, not the battle article. There wasn't even a rationale for the use in the battle article. This is a perfectly valid comparison, as the other image was right to be removed. Thankfully, no one has started riduclous RfCs at the other article- in fact, someone in the know has chosen a different image for the lead after I removed the non-free image. If the image is restored to the infobox of the battle article, it will be removed again. Once again, you're showing your strange, warped view of our NFCC. It'd also be nice if you could try, just once, to post a comment in one edit, rather than 18 PSs and copyedits. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn, I think that "Once again, you're showing your strange, warped view of our NFCC." is uncivil and I hope on reflection that you too, and so I hope you will apologise for the use of such ungentlemanly language. -- PBS (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Had RfC been initiated about re-adding of the Rosental's photo into the Battle of Iwo Jima article, I would probably abstain from participation because that case clearly falls into a "gray zone": from one hand, many free equivalents exist that depict the same event, and the Rosental's photo adds nothing to that, however, from the another hand, this Rosental's photo immortalized the battle as whole, so only due to this photo Iwo Jima (as opposed to, e.g. Okinawa) became a symbol of inevitability of American victory in Pacific.
However, this adds nothing to the current discussion. My major point is that the analogy between Iwo Jima and Berlin does not work because (i) no adequate replacement exist for Berlin (by contrast to Iwo Jima), and (ii) Khaldei's photo is the only view of the battle's focal point and the panoramic view of the Berlin centre taken in early May 1945 that show the devastations caused by fierce fighting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this replaceability argument simply does not work. We are not looking for another image of the flag being placed on the roof, we are looking for another free image of the battle. The argument about a "panoramic view" is potentially a better argument. However, why a panoramic view is required is not as clear- we have plenty of images of destruction. Do we really need to go the extent of using a non-free image to show a panorama? Of course not- the destruction could easily be shown in other ways. We do not use a non-free image because it is better than other available images- we use a non-free image because it shows something that could not be shown in any other way that urgently needs to be shown. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"does not mean that it can be used anywhere for any reason". That isn't being suggested, so please avoid making strawman arguments. It is being argued that it be used in a specific instance for a specific reason. There is no other image which sums up the result of the Battle of Berlin than this one. That is exactly what this article is about. The linkage is direct. Images of destruction do not convey the same relevance. Reichstag - evidently Berlin, surrounding destruction - a battle, Russian flag - the victors. There simply isn't another image that is as relevant to the article as that, which makes it irreplaceable. Hohum 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Equally, other pictures show things that this does not; I could easily list a great number of things that the majority of publicity shots of celebrities have that our free images of the same subject do not. That does not mean we suddenly start using them instead. If you are happy to point out that the fact the image is usable on Wikipedia "does not mean that it can be used anywhere for any reason" is an invalid argument, you will equally accept the fact that shouting about how much the image itself is allowed to be used anywhere on the website has no relation to whether or not it is usable here... We judge each usage of its own merits. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, I'm talking about centrally relevant things to this article, not thought experiments about random things in others. I ask again if you could limit yourself to this debate about this article instead of misrepresenting what others are saying. I made specific points about the direct relevance of the image to central themes of the article, please respond to that instead of some misrepresentative guff about celebrities and shouting. Ironically, I agree that this image and situation should be judged on its own merits - and I have only ever talked about this image, this situation, and its merits, not random and flawed metaphors. Hohum 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, let me point out that NFCC are not as concrete as someone tries to represent. They state: (#1) "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose.", and (#8) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", however, no explanation has been provided for what does "the same encyclopaedic purpose", "significantly increase" or "would be detrimental to that understanding" mean. Obviously, that has been done in purpose, because redundant codification is able to kill any WP-style project. Therefore, everything beyond NFCC ##1 to 10 sensu stricto is not a policy, but just interpretation of the policy, and, accordingly, should be treated as such. Accordingly, a serious proof is needed for applicability of J Millburn's interpretation to our case. References to "our policy", or some consensus achieved earlier about living persons' photo do not necessarily work here: as I already pointed out, our policy does not tell anything of that kind, and, as regards to "consensus", this consensus was achieved without my participation.
To make a decision about permissibility of a photo, one has, in addition to familiarity with NFCC, to realize what is the "encyclopaedic purpose" of this concrete article, what is "detrimental" to understanding, and what is not.
In my humble opinion, the best way to do that is to contribute to the article positively (by adding some useful material, not by removal of it). If one's edits are accepted, he/she thereby demonstrated that he/she was able to understand what encyclopaedic purposes the article serves to, and, accordingly, his/her arguments for/against some material have a due weight. Otherwise there is no warranty that assertions on "replaceability" are not as laughable as the statement about a wheelchair as an adequate replacement for a car.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove: The key concept here appears to be whether the non-free photo adds to the reader's understanding of the topic or not. Indeed, the photo is symbolic for the battle but from an encyclopaedic POV it presents only information that can be adequately conveyed in words. The fact that the Soviets captured the Reichstag is well understood without the photo. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep: The photo holds much greater symbolic meaning that just the "capture" of the Reichstag (which held no real strategic nor political importance at the time). The photo represents the end of the Ostfront war with victory for the Soviet Union. The end of the last battle that brought down the curtain on four years of "no holds barred" fighting between: the two brutal dictators and their vast armies; two ideological opposed parties (Nazi & Soviet Marxism); with millions of men on both sides killed while fighting over a vast amount of territory. With that said, I understand the policy interpretation as to whether the photo can with kept, as it should, entails more then an "iconic" status. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul, the same argument works far better in reverse- you have limited experience with the NFCC, and so your argument should hold less weight. Of course, such arguments are unpleasant- what's to stop me extending it? I have far more experience with Wikipedia than you, so my arguments should hold more weight? No; that's not how it works. Stop being ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison betweem these two subjects (I mean NFCC and the Battle of Berlin) is a comparison between apples and oranges. It is an example of two different visions of Wikipedia. Should a stress be made on creating of a good free content or on good free content? I am not eager to remove all non-free materials from here, because I realize it is impossible to achieve without serious detriment to WP quality, whereas you are ready to remove even extremely valuable materials without serious attempts to propose really adequate free equivalent. Again, you proposed no good equivalents so far; all photos proposed by you are like a wheelchair as a replacement for the car. You have to agree that it would be possible to logically prove that a wheel chair is a good replacement for a car, however, even after that the former will not run as fast as the latter.

"Good encyclopaedia" means "good articles". It is impossible to improve WP in general at cost of deterioration of concrete articles' content.

If you really "have far more experience with Wikipedia" than I do, you should realize that in this case two quite different interpretations of the same NFCC rules are possible. In that case the opinion of those who are really well informed on the article's subject, and of those who really cares about the article's quality should be taken into account more seriously. You have not demonstrated yet that you are interested to improve this concrete article, and you have no moral rights to deprive us of the car under a pretext that "free wheelchair is available".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. BTW, I spent a lot of time trying to find a good free 6th photo for the EF collage, but I can't so far. Did you try to do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS. The very fact that debates over the image compliance with NFCC's ##1 and 8 last so long suggests that the policy is not as clear and straightforward as you try to represent. Let me demonstrate my point using the opposite example: the policy state that an image contested per NFCC should be removed until the dispute is resolved, and all participants of the dispute accept that clear and equivocal requirement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• After pondering for quite a while, I have decided with some regret to support the removal of the picture. The rationale is that Wikipedia is an open project, and it should promote the use of free material. Hopefully, under growing pressure from Wikipedia community, many important and iconic pictures will be moved to public domain sooner rather than later. I do not think it would hurt the project to wait (even a few decades, but hopefully much less) for this to happen. (Igny (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia does allow usage of non-free images, because it is unavoidable both now and, unfortumately, in observable future (because our world does not move to Communism, so intellectual property will never be abolished). Therefore, the question is not in removal of non-free images from everywhere, but in making a correct decision on permissibility of such images in a particular article.
Such a decision can be done only based on profound analysis of the article's subject, not by superficially reviewing the article followed by formal application of WP rules.
Let me demonstrate this point using this article and the article "Censorship of images in the Soviet Union"[10] as an example. The Khaldei's photo has been removed from here and has not been removed from "Censorship of images in the Soviet Union". I believe, the reason was purely formal: whereas the present article's text does not mention the photo explicitly, the "Censorship" article does discuss it. However, if we look at these two articles more carefully, we will see that the photo in "Censorship" is used just to demonstrate a very simple fact: there were two wristwathes on the original photo and no wristwathes after modification. However, this piece of information can be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all. By contrast, I do not see how to describe an atmosphere in conquered Berlin without a Khaldei's photo. The photo tells a lot about the Berlin's center, the place where the most severe fighting occurred; it presents the central event that symbolised the battle's outcome; it summarises the total Eastern front's outcome; it carries an enormous emotional load. Can all of that be "adequately conveyed by text"? Obviously, not. In other words, we have a pure example when formal application of WP rules performed by a person superficially familiar with the articles' subject had the effect directly opposite to what should be expected from the commonsensual point of view.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but if what you claim this picture shows is so imperative, why isn't the issue discussed in the article text? If you feel another image/another usage of this image is problematic, go and deal with it. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but if we could describe the picture, we wouldn't need it. <rimshot>

But seriously, the issue is discussed in the article, in fact, it's the climax of the subject of the article. Hohum 23:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of what Paul was describing as unique to this picture is described or discussed in the article. What is discussed is the battle- for which we have free images. This is not a wildly difficult issue. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, did I understand correct that by adding the story about the Reichstag as a primary Soviet objective, about numerous attempts to rise a red banner there and about military and political importance of this act the issue will be resolved? Frankly, I am going to do that anyway.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. The only photos that describe a battle of Berlin proper are File:Berlin offensive.jpg and File:Berlin bunker.jpg. The first photo has been nominated for deletion by you. The second photo depicts the Zoo flack tower that is hardly a typical picture: Soviet forces generally manoeuvered around it, so the tower's personnel had to surrender after the battle ended.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn you worte "That's nice, but if what you claim this picture shows is so imperative, why isn't the issue discussed in the article text?" I have already presented sources that state that this picture is an iconic representation of this battle and why we do not describe it in detail here. Do you want me to repeat myself or can you read what I wrote previously. -- PBS (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear PBS, I believe, J Milburn's argument is reasonable. If sources exist that demonstrate importance of the Reichstag's taking, some text should be added into the article. I believe we should do that anyway. In addition to the sources found by you I suggest to mention the Bellamy's opinion (I cited it on the WWII talk page). I propose you to think together about adding this material to the Reichstag section, because the article will only gain from that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an overview article, the detail of the battle for the Reichstag is in the article Battle in Berlin. -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't find much reasonable about an argument that seems to veer between: It's not mentioned in the article, so the image isn't justified, and If it can be described by prose, there is no need for the image. Where exactly is the wiggle room between these two? Hohum 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be fairly obvious? Take fine art. A specific painting could be discussed in the article on the artist, but you're not going to have a full understanding without seeing the painting. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe". The image describes an important part of the battle for which sources are given here stating that words can not convey the same meaning adequately -- and certainly not is the length of prose we have available (this article is already a summary article and larger than 32k). The image is being used to convey a several points and as such it makes a statement about the battle and is similar to quoting an expert on an event, where the words of a quote convey a meaning that Wikipedia prose can not convey as succinctly. For example we use the quote "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life." to describe the Battle of Waterloo, but we do not describe in the article about the battle when, where, or why Wellington made the remark, because the article is about the battle not the quote. -- PBS (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"A specific painting could be discussed in the article on the artist, but you're not going to have a full understanding without seeing the painting."

"A specific iconic event could be utterly relevant to an article about the Battle of Berlin, but you you're not going to have a full understanding without seeing it"

(Hohum ^@) 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the key word here is full. The "full understanding" is a subjective category, so it is hard to formalise it. Of course, you can decide that in the case of fine art no full understanding is possible without seeing the image, whereas in no images are required in history articles for full understanding. However, such a decision would be quite arbitrary and voluntaristic. In addition to that, WP is based on sources, therefore, if reliable sources state that some event, and, accordingly, a photo that depicts it, is extremely important, then at least equally reliable sources are needed to question this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say is correct, to a point. If we have discussion of an issue in reliable sources that cannot be fully understood without an image, yes, an image would be nice. However, that does not mean that we can use a non-free image for anything discussed- instead, we must judge what is necessary to be seen- obviously, fine art usually needs to be seen. A discussion of a specific photograph probably requires an image of said photograph. There is not any kind of "automatic" right for a non-free image to be used to illustrate an event, regardless of whether event is discussed. If the appearance of the event is of vital importance and discussed, then yes, perhaps. In the vast majority of cases, no. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No one speaks about "automatic" right for a non-free image to be used to illustrate an event". In actuality, a problem is reverse: a non-free image has been removed per automatically, or formally interpreted NFCC criteria. I already gave an example when these criteria gave a "false negative" result (I mean the Censorship of images in the Soviet Union article). Obviously, this article is a direct example of the "false positive": whereas formally and superficially interpreted NFCC require this image to be removed, a more deep analysis demonstrates the opposite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Remove all photographs from the article that cannot be reliably attributed to PD-US-Gov (name, rank, date) or an equally bulletproof PD license. Selection of just one image makes little sense here. NVO (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If you feel any of the freely tagged images are non-free, feel free to nominate them for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I think, on balance, and given the explicit references in the text to the battle for this particular building, and to the photo and to its iconic status, that in this article (Battle of Berlin) and in the section on the battle for the Reichstag (not the infobox at the top of the article), the image would meet NFCC criterion 1. While I understand many of the arguments made against it, I on balance accept Paul Siebert's comments about the particular qualities of the picture in this particular context. I support the removal of the image frome general articles, such as World War II. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)