Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 6

Aftermath, rape footnotes, longer term occupation
Now that we have moved the number for the rapes into a footnote, I do not think that the paragraph that starts "Although most sources agree..." is adequate. Several other English language sources were discussed in the section and following sections. I suggest someone goes through them and puts in the various ranges suggested by different authors, so that the reader has an idea of the scale and the range of figures.

As an aside on how life changed after the initial conquest, yesterday I did some editing of the article A Woman in Berlin and added this citation: "" The chapter which is linked in the citation is worth reading, and makes some interesting points.

I think we need a paragraph on the long term occupation of Berlin and a mention of the creation of East and West Germany. Not much, just a few sentences to allow links to other articles, as a sort of "see also" paragraph. The things that could be mentioned are:
 * Allied Control Council, Four-Power Authorities, Allied High Commission
 * Berlin Blockade
 * creation of East and West Germany from the zones of occupation, and that Berlin had a special status.
 * Berlin Wall
 * Four Power Agreement on Berlin, Transit Agreement (1972), Basic Treaty (1972)
 * Two Plus Four Treaty of 1990 and Berlin the capital (Or as the Economist put it when the move from Bonn was agreed the "once and future capital") -- PBS (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the absence of the story of division of Berlin onto four Allied occupation zones is a serious omission. With regard to the rest, I think the links to corresponding main articles would be quite sufficient. Berlin wall and subsequent event do not belong to the WWII history, so I am not sure if we need to tell about that.
 * In summary, we definitely need a para about creation of French, British and American zones in Berlin; we also should briefly mention that that lead to formation of the West Berlin pseudo-state, however, the rest, probably, belongs to other articles.
 * With regard to "Although most sources agree...", please, correct me if I am wrong, but I got an impression that these different English language sources are based on the same data set. In addition, some of these sources (e.g. Grossman) maintain that the numbers per se are not so important, so by taking the numbers from there, but by ignoring the author's opinion we observe the letter of these sources but distort their spirit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the aftermath is at the moment only about the city of Berlin, we should also consider that this battle was really the last major campaign and it involved more than the investment and storming of Berlin. Roughly speaking it covered what would become the territory of East Germany. -- PBS (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. That is why I fully support your idea to discuss division of Berlin onto several occupation zones that lead to formation of West Berlin. However, Berlin Wall etc belong to the history of Cold War, so, in my opinion, all of that is hardly relevant to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

May Day
Joseph Stalin had ordered Marshals Georgy Zhukov and Ivan Konev to capture Berlin on May Day. Is this true? --Arima (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference between english and Duetsch version
why there is difference in strenght and Casualties and losses between the english and duetsch wikies? Superaryan85 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you are talking about the figures for Axis strenght and losses? What concerns the strenght, there are differences, but the German article does not give any source for its figure of 1 milllion men. What concerns the losses, both articles use Müller as source for the estimated 100,000 dead, but the English article also quote the initial Soviet estimation based on reported kill claims (450,080 killed). EriFr (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Polish forces, Korczyc
We have the Polish flag representing Poland in the belligerents box. In that case, shouldn't we also have their commander, Władysław Korczyc (W. Berling had been replaced), in the commanders box? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were all under Soviet (Red) Army command, so I would say, no. Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So should the Polish flag be removed? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some editors would say, yes. I say no, because they were a different nationality of key troops in the battle; under Red Army command. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there are Wiki guidelines on this. I am still a bit uncertain about how it should be done. Take for example the many WW2 battles where non-German SS units (e.g. Belgians, Latvians) who swore an oath to Hitler and fought on the German side: we tend not to use their national flags in boxes because the SS was part of the German armed forces even though these key troops in the battle were a different nationality. Italians, however, tend have a flag and a commander listed, because they were not officially part of the German armed forces despite being under German high command, e.g. WP:Battle of Stalingrad. The Polish troops at Berlin were under Soviet high command but had Polish uniforms, flags and leadership and swore an oath to the Polish nation rather than to the Soviet Union. At the moment I am thinking they're comparable to the Italians at Stalingrad, who have their commander Italo Gariboldi listed in the box.-Chumchum7 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another precedent is WP:Battle of Arnhem with Polish troops under Brit high command. Polish commander is listed. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me chiming in, but I thought you might find this discussion that I initiated some time ago of interest. I do think there needs to be more thought about examples of different nationalities fighting for one power (such as the Dutch in the Battle of Arnhem). Regarding commanders though, I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule. Sosabowski's notable role and legacy from the Battle of Arnhem largely warrants his inclusion in the infobox, this is far less to do with his nationality or the force he commanded (much like John Frost actually). I don't think we should necessarily just include the commanders of each nationality unit unless they have a notable tie to the battle. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Chime in as much as you like. I agree notability is one of the triggers for inclusion. I'd also say that if there is a technically de jure independent force as a belligerent, its commander should be included. The Italians are included everywhere from Stalingrad to the Battle of Britain for this reason... what's good for the Italians is good for everyone else ;-) -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there does seem to be a certain overlisting of some non notable commanders about. You might like to raise this on the Milhist talk page to get some more opinions, as this is a wider reaching issue than just this and Arnhem (although I imagine its been discussed before somewhere). Ranger Steve (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo
Although WP:NFCC's #1 precludes usage of non-free images when some free equivalent is available, that clause does not define what is the "free equivalent". In just assumes that non-free image would not probably be used if the answer on the question: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" is positive. To answer this question, some concrete free image is supposed to be available, and, if during the discussion of these two images the users come to an agreement that the free image would have the same effect, the non-free image should be removed. In other words, I expect the user who removed the Reichstag photo to propose a free equivalent of this image here, on the talk page, and to provide his explanations of why this free image is a good substitute. If no adequate free equivalent will be provided within one week, I'll restore the removed image. Since this issue has already been discussed in details before, and since all arguments and sources supporting this image has been already provided, I believe the burden of evidence has been sustained and no new arguments are needed. However, if some new free equivalents of this photo will be provided, I am ready to consider a possibility to replace the non-free image with its free equivalent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't sit there and make demands and decide how you are going to "run" this discussion. We need an image to illustrate the battle- there are free images which illustrate the battle. Therefore, we use free images. You cannot say "oh, but the free image isn't nearly as nice as the non-free one". No, it probably isn't. That's not actually how it works. We don't use non-free content because it's "nice". Some possibilities-
 * A map, either showing the movement of the troops, or the location of Berlin. Maps like this are popular to lead articles on older battles.
 * File:Russian artillery fire in Berlin.jpg shows fighting taking place in the battle
 * File:Berlin bunker.jpg and File:Destruction in a Berlin street.jpg give an idea of the aftermath
 * If you're genuinely attached to the photo previously used, File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1569.jpg is a free alternative
 * There's plenty of other stuff at Category:Battle of Berlin.
 * So, yeah, choose something free. I've no doubt that you people know the subject matter better than me, so I trust you to make a solid choice, but, for God's sake, nothing non-free. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this your interpretation of the NFCC's #1. The policy clearly tells about a free version, or free equivalent, i.e. about some free image that has the same effect, not about a free alternative (a free bullock cart is a free alternative of commercially available Ferrari, but not a free version, or free equivalent). The fact that some free image is available that describes the events that have some relation to the article's subject, does not automatically mean that this free image is a free version and that it has the same effect. It is up to us, the Wikipedians, to decide if the effect is the same, and policy tells about that clearly and unequivocally. (BTW, it connection to that, let me point out that your edit summary, which is on the brink of common norms of politeness, is totally irrelevant: I do not need to change policy, I simply want this policy to be interpreted correctly.).
 * Since all free images you mention have already been discussed (except the postal stamp), let me demonstrate my point using the latter as an example. Although I appreciate your efforts to find a free equivalent of the iconic free photo, I don't think this postal stamp can serve this purpose adequately. Firstly, it is simply ugly from the aesthetic point of view. This image is as adequate equivalent of the original photo as the student's sketch of Picasso's Guernica is for the original. BTW, had the stamp been an adequate equivalent of the Khaldei's photo, it would violate a copyright law, and, therefore, would not be allowed in WP according to NFCC's #1 (In that case I expected you to delete this image as an unauthorised reproduction of the copyrighted original). Secondly, it does not transmit the atmosphere of the events (which is partially a consequence of (i). And, thirdly and finally, it was issued by currently non-existent Soviet satellite state; that fact downplays the importance of the event the stamp describes, reduces it to some local level event, and diminishes the psychological effect of the original image, a parody of which this stamp is.
 * Please, provide a free equivalent, because, per NFCC #1 you have to do that before removal of non-free image. Removal of the non-free image can be done when the consensus will be achieved that this non-free content can be replaced by a free version that has the same effect. I disagree that the images provided by you will have the same effect, and this my opinion has been supported by other users during the previous discussion. You provided no new arguments so far (except the postal stamp, which is unsatisfactory). Please provide new arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "You can't sit there and make demands and decide how you are going to "run" this discussion." I assume, by saying that you did not imply that it was you who is authorised to set the rules. Our opinions have exactly the same weight here (until we observe WP policy, and common norms of politeness). Your status of administrator, or your familiarity with NFCC does not change this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I have to stop you here, because you're simply wrong. It is not "up to us, the Wikipedians, to decide if the effect is the same"- if we have free images, we use them. Someone can not waltz into an article on a dead person and remove the lead image (a free photograph) replacing it with a very nice non-free one and say "OMG THE EFFECTS NOT THE SAME". Stop your bloody wikilawyering and choose a free image. And yes, I'm aware our "opinions" carry the same weight (absolutely nothing, nobody cares what your or my "opinion" is) and I don't care how "new" the arguments are. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with Paul Siebert, we seem to be at an (increasingly irritable) impasse on interpretation of wiki policy as interpreted by one administrator - who makes valid points, but, I believe, so do we. Since I think we've already had an inconclusive RFC, I'm not sure if a third opinion would end this, but perhaps we could get the opinion of an uninvolved administrator? I have noted User:Georgewilliamherbert exhibited the patience of a saint and an even hand in other, far more awkward conflicts. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really want to waste other people's time, the appropriate page is that way. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to bring an end the the wasting everyone's time. Your attitude isn't befitting of an administrator at the moment. Please moderate your tone. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Such tone is inappropriate for an experienced editor or administrator, and just makes her/his arguments weaker. I posted a general question there .--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially after the additional details Paul added regarding the image after the last round of discussion about it (which I instigated), I see no issue with the inclusion of this image in the article at all. While there are other images which show portions of a battle or a map showing some kind of overview, they would most definitely not serve the same encyclopedic purpose (and the stamp is clearly a derivative work and as such I have nominated it for deletion on commons). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion has spilled over into WT:NFC. I'm loathe to be repeating arguments in multiple places. But, I concur with J Milburn that the image does not belong here. NFC very clearly covers this case. That guideline is a consensus interpretation of WP:NFCC that should not lightly be overridden. We already have an article on this image available at Raising a flag over the Reichstag. The image does belong there, but not here. Is it an iconic image? Absolutely. But, that's far from there being enough reason to include it. The subject is Battle of Berlin. The subject isn't raising the flag. There were more than a million casualties in this battle. One flag raising does not encapsulate this entire story, not by a long shot. The flag raising, while symbolic of VE day, is a substory of the entire battle. The same is true of Battle of Iwo Jima and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima which is a similar case. A weak argument might be able to be made that the image is appropriate for the Battle_of_Berlin subsection, but it is weak at best. There wasn't a link to the raising of the flag on the Reichstag article, but I've added it. That's all that's required. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not only with raising of the flag. This photo is the only photo made during the battle (the battle ended on May 2, the day the photo was taken), in the battle's focal point. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I boldly restored the image per the outcome of all of the previous discussions regarding its inclusion here. Feel free to yell at me now. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I boldly removed it. There's no consensus to include it, neither here nor at the earlier RfC at Talk:Battle_of_Berlin/Archive_4. Burden to get consensus on controversial inclusions exists with the people wishing to include it. See second to last line of WP:NFC. That consensus does not exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only explicitly mentioned burden on controversial inclusions of non-free content is that they "provide a valid rationale" as well as satisfying the 10 individual criteria. If these are met, then there aren't any other issues, nothing about consensus is in there (it certainly may be involved in determining whether everything's met, but it's not the stated burden). I'd ask that you please stop adding words to policies. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, anyone who can write a rationale should be able to include all the non-free content they want, right? Sorry, wrong. The point is there's no consensus that a valid rationale exists. I'm adding nothing. Anything else you'd like to accuse me of? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this, what do you feel is wrong with the rationale for inclusion? Which of the criteria does it fail? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Criteria #1 and #8. Free content exists, and this single image, while iconic in itself enough to warrant an article on it, isn't strongly relevant to this article such that we must have it in order for someone to understand it. We know Germany fell. That a flag was raised over the Reichstag isn't significant to that understanding. We also have File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R77767, Berlin, Rotarmisten Unter den Linden.jpg, which is iconic itself in that it shows the Brandenburg Gate in the background with the hammer and sickle flag in the foreground. Very potent image in itself. It conveys the same meaning; Berlin fell to Soviet forces. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This image is not frequently found in books, articles, etc, so it hardly is iconic. With regard to NFC, this guideline is hardly applicable here. It states that the use of non-free images in unacceptable "to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". However, this article initially had no passages about the image, it discussed the event the image describes. The passage about the image was added later to meet J Milburn's request. Similarly, had the Rosental's photo been the sole photo of the Iwo Jima battle, its usage would be quite justified, regardless of the existence/non-existance of the article devoted to this photo. Since no other photos exist that describe taking of the Reichstag, and since this photo is the only photo that describes that event, the question should be stated as follows:
 * "Is the photo of the Reichstag essencial for this article"?
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Well then, anyone who can write a rationale should be able to include all the non-free content they want, right?" Yes, that is a rationale is needed for. If the rationale is strong enough, a non-free image can be included. However, this rationale should be really strong. With regard to consencus, it is not just a right of veto.
 * Re: "We know Germany fell. That a flag was raised over the Reichstag isn't significant to that understanding." That argument is too universal to be useful. See, e.g. "We know Germany fell. That the Battle of Berlin took place isn't significant to that understanding"., or "We know Germany fell. That the Allied Landing in Sicily occurred isn't significant to that understanding", etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated at WT:NFC, I am not going to quibble over whether or not the Iwo Jima case applies here. As to the guideline not applying; you serious? So, since it's not ok in the passage about the Reichstag, it's ok in the main infobox for the entire article???? What? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I added the words about this concrete picture because J Milburn pointed out that the article should discuss this concrete image, not the event itself. In actuality, this passage is redundant, because not the article discusses this image, but the image is needed for better understanding of the article's subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So let's reverse this, since the inclusion people should be defending it. What information is conveyed by the image that the article doesn't already convey to the reader? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In collective mind of most post-Soviet people the words "Reichstag, May 1945" were associated with victory in the war as whole. Capture of the Reichstag was a declared goal of the Battle of Berlin and of the war as whole since 1943. Therefore, the red banner in the hands of the soviet soldiers on the Reuchstag's roof was/is a powerful non-verbal message with enormous emotional load. Most Soviet, Russian and Western books about WWII have this photo, sometimes on their cover. Many readers expects to see this photo in the article about the battle of Berlin, Eastern Front or WWII as whole, so the absence of this whoto in these WP articles creates an impression that these articles are incomplete. New regerations of readers also need to see this image, because it belongs to few iconic images of the epoch.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First you say it's not iconic ("This image is not frequently found in books, articles, etc, so it hardly is iconic") then you say it is ("Most Soviet, Russian and Western books about WWII have this photo")? You're completely confusing me. Regardless of whether it is iconic or not, it still fails to address the issue of why we can't link to the article about image in the section about the fall of the Reichstag, as the guideline instructs us to do? (and which I added) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R77767, Berlin, Rotarmisten Unter den Linden.jpg is not frequently found in books, articles, etc, so it hardly is iconic. By contrast, the Reichstag's photo is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Regardless of whether it is iconic or not, it still fails to address the issue of why we can't link to the article..." There is even more radical solution: we can provide a link to the Russian state archive where the photo is available in electronic form (in an "external links" section). However, there is a big difference between seeing the iconic image on the article's top (or in the article's body), and going to some other article/site.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw this from NFC, and this is a clear case of replaceability. Free images need not be as good, as nice, etc., as nonfree versions. They just must be adequate and illustrate the subject. So, even though we have a very nice nonfree photo, we've also got some perfectly adequate free ones. We must use those instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since a few editors want to rehash this again, I will comment again. One must remember that the photo holds much greater symbolic meaning that just the "capture" of the Reichstag. To the Soviets the event as represented by the photo became symbolic of their victory demonstrating that the Battle of Berlin, as well as the Eastern Front hostilities as whole, ended with the total Soviet victory.Bellamy pp.663-7 As Interior Minister Zincenko had stated in his order to Battalion Commander Neustroyev "...the Supreme High Command...and the entire Soviet People order you to erect the victory banner on the roof above Berlin".Hamilton p.311. This last cite I added to the article earlier this year so that general readers who know nothing about the important symbolic nature of the photo might better understand said photo in context. For the inclusion of the so-called non-free photo at hand, a valid rationale has been provided by Paul Siebert and others above. Therefore, I vote to keep it herein or at least it should have a link to it. However, it does appear this is a case where outside objective input might be helpful to hopefully conclude the matter within Wiki policy. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NFCC is not subject to vote. The image is replaceable and replaced, so it must go. I'm sure it's a very nice photo, significant, etc. But even if I accept all of those for true, it must go.
 * If it's been especially historically noted, you might consider writing an article on it specifically, similar to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. If it hasn't been noted enough to support an article like that, it's not too significant anyway. But regardless, it can't go in this article, since other photos serve to illustrate the concept of the Battle of Berlin. We do not need the best available photo, and that is not an appropriate reason to use a nonfree image. We use nonfree media only where they cannot be replaced by any free media. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "NFCC is not subject to vote." Correct it is subject to different interpretations. Please, demonstrate that my interpretation ("free equivalent", not just "alternative of unspecified quality") is incorrect.
 * Re: "If it's been especially historically noted..." You change your arguments during the discussion. Initially your claim was based on NFCC #1, now you switched to NFC. However, this does not work too. Not only the image is iconic, the event it describes is equally iconic, and no free images for this event exist. Whereas the image itself deserves a separate article, the event (capture of the Reichstag) belongs to this article, as well as to some other WWII related articles. Therefore, the image describing this event belongs to all these artcles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "We use nonfree media only where they cannot be replaced by any free media." The NFCC #1 states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose ." Not any media serves the same encyclopaedic purposes, so your interpretation is simply incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a specific article about the capture of the Reichstag, and no free images of that event exist, you may have a case there. But this article is about the Battle of Berlin. This photo, for example, is of shots being fired during the battle. That's a very clear illustration of the article's topic&mdash;the battle. It's not necessary that every facet of the battle be illustrated. That serves the encyclopedic purpose of providing a visual depiction of the battle, just as your image would do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The taking of the Reichstag was a central part of the battle of Berlin, its apex and a focal point. It was also a crown of the Eastern Front hostilities and of European WWII as whole. The Katiusha photo by no mean can serve the same encyclopaedic purpose as the Reichstag photo does: it is just a photo of the rocket launcher that was common for the Eastern front during 1941-45. It conveys no message at all: it just a sign: "look, you wanted some photo? Here it is." This is an exact demonstration of what I wrote above: the bullock cart as an alternative for Ferrari.
 * Ironically, the Reichstag photo is considered essential for the discussion of a marginally relevant subject (a sign of alleged looting committed by Soviet soldiers), however, it is considered to be not essential for the discussion of much more important things it is directly connected with. This is a clear demonstration of what can happen when WP rules are being interpreted purely formally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A focal point of an actor's career may be their win of an Academy Award. But if we have a free photo of them walking down the street, and only nonfree photos of the awards ceremony, we use the free photo. That has no more bearing here than it does there. I realize you think the photo may have some legitimate uses, and it indeed may. But one of them is not in this article. We have free photos of the Battle of Berlin. They're already in the article. We can't use nonfree images given that. On the nonfree image policy, yes, it's interpreted strictly&mdash;it's one of the few areas the Foundation's actually stepped in and set limits. One of those limits was "Never when we can use free material." Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not precisely what the Foundation said. They said, "Non-free content ... should be to illustrate historically significant events", and "Any &#91;non-free content&#93; must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose". That's the foundation for WP:NFCC, but they didn't write the NFCC, we here at Wikipedia did. As Paul has been saying, the key is never when we can use free material for the same purpose. This image is representative of the apex of the Battle of Berlin, and there is no other image (that I'm aware of) that would visually demonstrate that. It's iconic nature (I believe Paul cited something in the discussion at the top of the page which stated it was the most famous of the whole war) means that it can not be replaced by anything else which would serve the same purpose, since this photo is very much a part of the essence of the battle. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I also would like to point out that when someone tries to speak on behalf of the Foundation, (s)he must not misinterpret what it says. The analogy between the actor's photo and the photo of the historical event is bad, because according to the Foundation the EDP explicitly applies to historical photos ("Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events ..."). Therefore, per the above quoted resolution, not only usage of this photo is acceptable, it is explicitly allowed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not responding to any one person. I'd just like to note how hard the inclusion people are pushing for this. No analogy qualifies. No policy is applicable (or if it is, it's directly in support of usage). No guideline applies. Nothing makes a dent. I stopped contributing to this conversation because it wasn't going anywhere. Several people have attempted to make it clear why this image is not acceptable for this article, without success. I can't say I'm surprised at this, but I can say that further discussion is obviously pointless. What is apparent is consensus for inclusion does not exist. That's the metric we must apply, indeed it's one of our five pillars. The prior RfC didn't achieve consensus. There's no consensus here now. You can start another RfC if you like, but it very likely wouldn't achieve consensus either. Without consensus, this image isn't going to be included. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, Hammersoft the above may be true but nothing is set in stone. Clearly there is not a meeting of the minds as to policy and this matter SHOULD be decided by impartial members herein. Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, consensus can change, but it hasn't as yet. As to impartial people making the decision, I got brought into this discussion from WT:NFC. I'd never contributed to this talk page or the article before this. Same for User:Seraphimblade. We're outside opinions, are we not? That we happen to disagree with inclusion doesn't mean we're not impartial. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, de facto consensus was for inclusion which is why the image was sitting in the article, so if you say consensus hasn't changed then why do you keep removing the image from the article?
 * Regardless, as I've said before, consensus is not a part of the requirements outlined in WP:NFCC. This doesn't violate the limited requirements of the EDP. This may or may not violate the NFCC policy but there's no consensus to include/exclude it, so it's basically a content dispute. Another RFC or mediation would be the way to go if editors continue to desire to remove the image from the article (there's only one 'R' in WP:BRD). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? De facto consensus? Someone coming along and including the image doesn't constitute an authority driven by consensus. No consensus has existed among any debates to include the image. That's the metric. Period. Not surprisingly as I pointed out above, now we're being told that consensus doesn't apply either. I guess we're supposed to throw out Five pillars along with WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, the Foundation's stance on non-free content, and outside opinions aren't impartial. I'm just in shock. Guideline, policy, fundamental principals and Foundation...none of it applies. What in hell DOES apply? Only people who have an interest in this article as shown by whether they've edited before? This is absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way Verno, to respond to your assertion of "only one 'R'"; let me be clear. Continued attempts to include this image into the article when consensus does not exist for inclusion will result in a report to WP:AN/I. Feel free to seek mediation if you like to change the existing consensus (or rather, lack thereof). No worries there. But, acting against consensus is not the way to go. Since WP:NFCC is clear on the matter in regards to where burden lies, and that burden has not been achieved, restoring the image is acting against policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, de facto consensus, as in it was added and not removed for a significant period of time while others edited the article without removing the picture and thus tacitly approved its inclusion. Could you point out a policy that there must be consensus to include something before it's included? I'm sure it would be a shock to all of the 'no consensus' closes at XfD which aren't deleted and removed since there's no consensus for inclusion. Five pillars is a summation of policies, not anything binding in it's own right. We've never said throw out guidelines, policies, or foundation statements, we've said that they don't support the removal of the image. I'm operating under the assumption that everyone here is impartial. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if this supposed "de facto consensus" carried weight, the policy on the issue is clear; it can change. When this issue has been debated, there's been no agreement to include it. I've noted WP:NFCC policy before, specifically the second to last line, but the people wishing to include this image say it doesn't apply. Neither does any other policy or guideline apparently. I guess the lesson we're to derive from this is that this case is an extreme exception, so much so that no rules apply. Even in this latest rejoinder, your asserting that five pillars doesn't apply. Asserting that Consensus is overridden by "de facto" consensus. You're claiming that you're not doing these things, but you are. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hammersoft. These your words ("I'm just in shock. Guideline, policy, fundamental principals and Foundation...none of it applies. What in hell DOES apply?") are hardly correct and polite. Why you decided that we build our arguments not based on what policy or guidelines say? Could you please explain me why did you decide that you (by contrast to, e.g. VernoWhitney) are authorised to decide what the policy or guidelines in actuality state? Let me summarise all points. The dispute was around NFCC #1 (the image has been removed per this clause), then it switched to guidelines NFC, and finally, to the Foundation's stance on non-free content. Below are my comment on these three issues:
 * 1) The NFCC #1 tells about a free equivalent, or version or alternative (if one of acceptable quality), that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose. The opponents of this image state that the academic purpose is to show the battle, so any photo of any quality would be fine. By contrast, I, as well as several other editors, insist that the academic purpose is to show the battle's symbolic end, and no other images can serve the same encyclopaedic purpose. The point is, that that was not just an ordinary WWII battle, that was the final battle of the Eastern Front campaign, which was simultaneously the final major WWII battle in Europe. Therefore, by no means some ordinary and faceless image can serve this academic purpose (to show the symbolic battle's outcome).  My conclusion is : in actuality the dispute over NFCC #1 is a dispute over the article's encyclopaedic purpose, i.e. not a dispute over policy, but just an ordinary content dispute.
 * 2) The NFC states that the non-free image cannot be used "to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". As I probably explained, the non-free image is needed here to illustrate the significant article's point, not to "illustrate an article passage about the image", although such a passage exists in the article's stable version.  My conclusion: this clause is simply non-applicable here, and noone was able to demonstrate the opposite.
 * 3) The Foundation's stance on non-free content is also quite clear. It states:
 * "...EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."

In other words, it explicitly defines more loose rules for historical images than for photographs for biography articles. The latter fact is especially important, because most arguments against this photo were drawn based on photos used in biography articles (probably, because these users simply are not familiar with the situation with history photos). Per Foundation's stance on non-free content it is not automatically correct. And finally, let me remind that WP:CONSENSUS is not a right of veto. It states: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The statement like "I insist the policy state that, and you must obey, because I know what the policy states in actuality" is hardly a legitimate concern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC) And, finally, let me point out that the Hammersoft's argumet ("I'm just in shock. Guideline, policy, fundamental principals and Foundation...none of it applies.") is double-edged. I also can ask the same question: since, in my opinion, the policy, guidelines and the Foundation's position are quite clear in this case, and, according to them, this image should be in the article, I would like to know what other arguments Hammersoft needs? However, by contrast to Hammersoft, I cannot say that I lost my patience, and exhausted my arguments. I am ready to continue this discussion in a polite manner, to present new arguments and to listen the arguments of my opponents (if they have some).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've withdrawn from this discussion and am not reading it anymore. There's a tremendous amount of fluff going on here, and no one is being convinced of anything. There's no agreement. There's no consensus. That's all that matters here. Of course, there isn't even any consensus that consensus matters. We've thrown that out with the bath water too. Regardless, I've voiced my intentions above. Speaking for the Department of Redundancy Department, where no rules apply (and even the food isn't Australian), adieu. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no consensus so far. However, since consensus is not a right of veto, then it will probably be achieved in your absence. If you have no further legitimate concern (at least you seem to be unable to formulate it logically) we will try to take into account all remaining legitimate concerns without you, because your decision is just a decision to withdraw yourself from the process of a consensus building.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sophisty, sophistry, sophistry. Let's make this alarmingly simple. What goes in the infobox? An image of the subject. Do we have free images of the subject, or can they be created? Yes, and yes (maps). So, we cannot use a non-free image. That's pretty much end of discussion. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which subject? By asking that I invite you to step into the realm of content dispute. I state that the subject is taking of the Reichstag, which is a symbolic outcome of the battle, its political and military target. In my opinion (and the sources support that), that was a key event of the battle. That is how I see the main encyclopaedic purpose of the article, because it cannot be reduced to just one more military operation of the Red Army. I carefully looked through the policy and guidelines, and I found nothing there which requires us to adjust the article's encyclopaedic purpose depending on availability or non-availability of free media.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, no, the subject of the article is the Battle of Berlin. The clue's in the title. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mix two terms: the subject of the article and the article's encyclopaedic purpose. The policy clearly tells about the later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An infobox image should illustrate the subject of the article, yes? J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox in the article's stable version conveyed the very concrete message, namely, that the article tells about not an ordinary military operation, but the battle that effectively ended the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And let's make something else alarmingly simple. Unlike free content, a lack of consensus on a nonfree content issue defaults to exclude, since nonfree content is presumptively against project goals. This is unlike articles and other free content, where a lack of consensus defaults to inclusion. Regardless, however, no amount of consensus can override the NFCC requirements, just as no amount of consensus would allow a non-neutral article. They're fundamental precepts and cannot be overridden. And no amount of saying the NFCC requirements mean something different than they do will actually make that true. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. Only legitimate concerns should be taken into account during consensus building, saying that my arguments are not correct because they are wrong is hardly a legitimate concern. I provided a concrete arguments explaining why, in my opinion, your analogy with an actor is not valid. Please, provide concrete counter-arguments, or explain, why, in your opinion, your interpretation of policy is more correct than mine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are free replacements is a legitimate concern. Do you really have nothing better to do? J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These "replacements" (i) do not serve the same encyclopaedic purpose (to show the symbolic, political and military outcomes of the battle), and (ii) are hardly alternatives of acceptable quality. These two concerns are also legitimate. I have plenty other things to do, so I take a break until tomorrow. I expect to see fresh counter-arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose you are describing is fulfilled by the article text. Articles are not comprehensively illustrated by photos, and as above, not every facet need be illustrated. The infobox, as well as many parts of the text, make it very clear why the battle was fought and what its outcome was. The idea of images is to provide a supplement to the article, not to be the article. Realistically, someone who wasn't already familiar with the battle probably would not immediately say from looking at it "These are Soviet soldiers raising their flag over the Reichstag." It could just as well be any bombed out building, if one does not already know what the photo is of. It is the text which comprehensively runs down the battle. The photos are supplemental material, showing things such as what the battle looked like during its progress. We even have photos of weapons actually being fired, certainly a powerful and clear visual aid, as well as clearly showing the type of weaponry used during the battle. This is very similar (to answer your above) to describing the Academy Award win in text only, while using whatever free graphics we have available. It is the text which must be comprehensive, and the text which serves the purpose of providing a full narration of its subject.
 * Regardless, just because you don't like a point does not render it invalid. One would imagine you would dislike and disagree with points which do not support your position, but that does not mean you may dismiss them. Your points have been answered. The encyclopedic purpose of providing supplementary visual aids to an article on the battle is served is accomplished by free images here. If you feel the image is extremely iconic, and that view is supported by sources, please go write an article on the photo itself. That is what we do with Raising the flag on Iwo Jima, which is probably the most iconic and well known photo from World War II. There may be a place for it on Wikipedia. That place is just not in this particular article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * Please restore the photo. It is iconic and its importance to the article goes far bound any informative value. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That really ignores the point; the fact that a photo is "iconic" (whatever that means) certainly does not go "far bound any informative value". Just because an image is famous, or "iconic", or you like it, or whatever, doesn't mean it can be sprayed around whereever we please, if it is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully without presenting a strawman: "The purpose you are describing is fulfilled by the article text". This is a rationale which isn't policy, and would lead to *all* non free images being removed, since any image can be described by text, or replaced by a map, or a stick figure drawing made in paint. Clearly that isn't the intention of the policy that allows fair use images.
 * I'd also ask J Milburn again to stop with the snideness, it isn't helpful. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong, that very much is what the policy says. Non-free images that can be replaced (be that by text, or by a map, or by a user-made diagram, or whatever) cannot be used. Note non-free content criterion one. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what Hohum said. Yes, non-free images which can be replaced by something free (text, free image, whatever) must be replaced, but this does not mean that every non-free image can be replaced, which is what I believe Hohum was getting at and this is a broader scale of what this whole hoopla is about: you believe the image is replaceable, others do not. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Hohum said- "The purpose you are describing is fulfilled by the article text". This is a rationale which isn't policy. That's simply wrong. Regardless, I'm glad that we are agreed that replaceable non-free content cannot be used; the fact that counts as progress in this discussion is depressing, but there you go. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the major mistake of J Milburn and User:Seraphimblade is their belief that the vision of the encyclopaedic purpose of the article can be affected by availability or non-availability of free images. This is incorrect. The editors decide what the article is about, what should be shown in the infobox, etc. And after that the images are selected which serve to this encyclopaedic purpose. If free good quality (not necessarily best quality) images are available, then they should be used instead of non-free photographs. However, if no free images are available that serve the article's encyclopaedic purpose well enough, a non-free image can and should be used. The encyclopaedic purpose of this article, as we see it, is to show the battle's symbolic outcome, and, although that theoretically can be done by the article's text, that in actuality is not easier than to describe by words the piece of art (that is why non-free images of the pieces of art are allowed in WP). It is clear for us, the editors working on this article, that the encyclopaedic purpose of this article will not be fully achieved without some photograph of the Soviet soldier on/in/near the captured Reichstag. We provided the sources that confirm that our consensus on that account rests on a rock-solid base, and we see no reason why this vision can be adjusted. We found only one another photo which would equally serve the same encyclopaedic purpose, however, this photo (made by Grebnev) is also non-free, because it is a property of the Russian State Archive. Consequently, we see no free acceptable free alternative for the present photo.
 * What you J Milburn and User:Seraphimblade propose us is to adjust our vision of the article's encyclopaedic purpose based on the arguments which have no direct relation to what the sources say about this article; this is hardly appropriate, and is not allowed by the policy.
 * Let me also point out that the Battle of Iwo Jima article cannot serve as a good example in this dispute. The focal point of the battle was the taking of the Mount Suribachi, and the article contains plenty free photos that depict this event (including first raising of the flag). It contains even the image of a postal stamp, which is definitely a derivative work (a detailed reproduction of the photo, including very tiny details) made based on non-free Rosental photograph. Let's imagine now, that none of these photos were available, and we had just a handful of photographs that show, e.g., some USS firing at (allegedly) Mount Suribachi, a photo that shows devastated Japanese positions (after the battle) and some other faceless images which give a reader no impression of the events on the Mount Suribach. In that situation, clearly, the usage of the Rosental's photo would be allowed and necessary, because these free alternatives would not serve the article's encyclopaedic purpose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Regardless, I'm glad that we are agreed that replaceable non-free content cannot be used; the fact that counts as progress in this discussion is depressing" Wrong. This thesis (which is simply a part of the policy) has never been contested by me and other editors. The dispute was about what the word "replaceable" meant in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, you do realise that Battle of Iwo Jima leads with a free image of the battle, don't you? J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the infobox image? I would be glad to see some similar photo (Soviet soldiers attacking the Reichstag) in the article's infobox, however, no such photo exist. In addition, as I already said, since all photos made by the US military are free now, and, probably, because the battle of Iwo Jima was much less intense, a lot of free photos are available for this battle, some of them are almost as good as the Rosental's photo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean. It's hardly comparable when the "iconic" photo, as you put it, has managed to not get plastered at the top of the article. It'd be nice if we could do something similar here. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, your desire to see some another photo in the infobox is not sufficient to remove the Khaldei's photo. Per policy, the photo should be removed when some good free replacement is found, not when someone believes that it can be done. Note, we do not add new non-free image. By contrast, you removed a non-free image from the stable version. The use of this image was allowed per wikimedia licensing policy, which made explicit exception for historic images. Of course, this exception was supplemented with a reservation ("Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."), which allowed you to remove this image, and replace it with some free equivalent. However, to do that you had to demonstrate that that free equivalent serves the same encyclopaedic purpose (and to convince us in that). You had not done that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn's interpretation of my post is curious. He appears to believe that *all* non-free images are replaceable, or completely misses the point I made. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You made a claim about policy, I was merely pointing out that your claim was wrong. You're reading too far into my comments; I'm not really interested in a great big debate about the nature of the NFCC. If a non-free image is replaceable by free text, it should not be used. Simple. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, *any* non free image can be replaced by text. This is obviously not the intention of policy, since there are provisions to use non free images. One of them is where they add to an article in a way that text cannot. Please explain why this is not one of these occasions. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. However, since this argument has been already repeated here many times (and repeatedly ignored), our opponents seem to have nothing to contrapose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To prevent future attempt to use Iwo Jima's case in this dispute, let me reiterate the following: there is a big contrast between Iwo Jima and Reichstag. Whereas Iwo Jima was just one of many battles for remote islands, which neither marked the end of the war nor even lead to fast Japanese defeat (the war lasted for more than a half a year and atomic bombing and Soviet invasion of Manchuria were needed to end it), the battle of Berlin and taking of the Reichstag were effectively the end of the war in Europe. Whereas neither Iwo Jima in general nor Mount Suribach were a political target #1, the Reichstag was proclaimed an ultimate target in 1943. Whereas Iwo Jima was immortalised essencially by the Rosental's photograph, Evgeny Khaldei's photo was immortalised by the fact that it was taken of the roof of the Reichstag captured by Soviet soldiers. For all these reasons too much analogy between these two articles are hardly relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, while you two are going to sit there and assert this bullshit, I have nothing more to add. You've been told the policy, by plenty of people. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you don't believe it, good for you. Now, go and do something useful. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, after repeatedly asking you politely to stop being uncivil, you come back with that? I ask you to strike it immediately. It is not acceptable. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...You are straight up saying that replaceable content should not need to be replaced. Unless we're speaking different languages, that is bullshit. No incivility, just an unwelcome smack with the cluebat. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are losing your patience, which usually is a sign that your arguments have been exhausted. Regarding the policy, in our dispute I was constantly making references to concrete policy clauses, with quotes. Therefore, your last general statement can hardly be considered as an argument. Let me also point out that, since you have no a right of veto, and whereas you decided to withdraw from the process of consensus building, the consensus will be achieved without you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the consensus has already been achieved. The NFCC exist no matter how much hot air you throw about here without me. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked for an explanation why this image doesn't add enough to this article for it to be included using fair use rationale. Your blanket statements have been applicable to *any* non-free image being removed, which is obviously not the intention of policy.
 * Your comments go far beyond WP:CIVIL. Including your last one. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies with you to prove it does, not for me to prove it doesn't. Or would you like to claim that that isn't the case, as well? J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden is explicitly to provide a "valid rationale". A rationale has been provided. Whether it is valid or not is beginning to resemble a "is too/is not" argument. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And let us once again be clear: We do not use the most iconic photo from World War II, and one of the most iconic of photography in general, in the article about its battle. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima has an article about the photo, since the photo itself is covered very substantially in sources, and the photograph is in itself a notable subject. However, it is still disallowed in Battle of Iwo Jima. We do not use nonfree content when free is available. Period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade. I have a feeling that you simply haven't read my recent posts. In these my posts I never make a stress on the fact that the photo is iconic, although, in my opinion, the fact that the photo which depicts some very important historical event is iconic per se just serves as an addition argument for its inclusion into the article. However, since I didn't mention that, to avoid straw man fallacy, please, address my major argument, namely, that showing the taking of the Reichstag by Soviet soldiers is essential for the article, and the article's encyclopaedic purpose is not completely achieved without such a photo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me. The fact "the Reichstag by Soviet soldiers is essential for the article" is not actually related to this discussion- that's a different issue. Here, we're talking about the lead image, which is to illustrate the battle. We have free images which illustrate the battle, or we could create one. Compare- a musical sample may be of great importance to an article on a band, but we would not lead the article with it. We would lead the article with a free image of the band. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If your only issue is with the image being the lead image then why did you begin (and others have continued) with removing the image entirely? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed the image from the article completely, not only from the infobox. Accordingly, the discussion was around the thesis: "if the photo of the Reichstag taken by Soviet soldiers is essential for the article as whole ". Had you proposed just to move the picture, the discussion would go in quite different direction. I concede that by saying that you made an attempt to find a way out of an impasse, and that your attempt is appreciated. However, we all clearly understand that that was not your initial point. And, please, we aware that the analogy between historical photographs and other non-free media is not direct, because the policy of Wikipedia and the Foundation seems to be less strict in that case. Historical photos are explicitly listed among exceptions (although with reservation), and the guidelines' language is much less strict in historical photo's case ("...for commentary" in the case of historical photos vs "...for critical commentary" in other cases).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC response to Paul Siebert) I'm getting that same feeling. I already addressed that. We need not illustrate every facet of the battle, nor will the article be incomplete without doing so. We can easily explain that the taking of the Reichstag was effectively the death knell for Nazi Germany, and that it marked the effective end of the European front of World War II. Wait&mdash;I just did explain that. No photo was necessary for me to do so. In fact, without such an explanation, the photo wouldn't even convey those things. If you didn't already know what the photo was of, it'd just look like guys raising a flag on a bombed out building. It is the text that conveys the significance of the event and battle, not the photo. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "We need not illustrate every facet of the battle, nor will the article be incomplete without doing so." Which part of the battle should be illustrated and which shouldn't is a content dispute. To decide what the encyclopaedic purpose of the article consists in, join the discussion about the battle, and change the consensus if you can. However, the consensus about the article's content cannot be affected by availability of non-availability of free media.
 * Re: "In fact, without such an explanation, the photo wouldn't even convey those things." The policy clearly speaks about the educational, not informational purposes, and that is an important moment. Education cannot be reduced to just presenting some verbal informational message. A significant part of education is a transfer of knowledge (including non-verbal one) from one generation to another. The fact that you do not understand that the Soviet soldier on the Reichstag (I do not mean this concrete picture, that was a part of those days' atmosphere) was an important symbol of the previous epoch means just that a significant lacuna exists in your own education. I do not think it would be correct to impose this lacuna on the WP audience.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)"We can easily explain that the taking of the Reichstag was effectively the death knell for Nazi Germany, and that it marked the effective end of the European front of World War II. Wait—I just did explain that. No photo was necessary for me to do so."

"I can easily explain that the Raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima involved some soldiers raising a flag. No photo was necessary for me to do so." This would be true even in an article specifically about the photograph. Yet it is obviously sensible to allow non-free image use in that case. Why it isn't so obvious to you in this case escapes me. Whether it is used in an infobox or in the main prose is a style decision. That it is important to content is a content decision. A rationale has been provided, which is made in good faith.. it's not as if this is an article about balloons. So who decides if the rationale is valid? ( Hohum  @ ) 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Interestingly, how many times that should be repeated to warrant a concrete response?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I've taken half an hour out and there's loads of new posts, but I would like to clarify two quick points. Firstly, my removal was always on the basis that it should not be the lead image; I've never actually taken the time to consider whether it had a place elsewhere in the article. If the photo's really that iconic, it may warrant a couple of lines' worth of discussion, in which case it should be. Secondly, there are no differences in policy between "historical" media (surely, any non-free content would be "historical"?) and other non-free content- all non-free content must meet our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can admit your time is more precious than mine, however, than is hardly an argument. If you are not ready for hard discussion, a simple reference to your alleged deep understanding of the policy are not sufficient. You either participate in the discussion seriously or withdraw from it.
 * Regarding your knowledge of the policy. Your advice ("if the photo's really that iconic, it may warrant a couple of lines' worth of discussion, in which case it should be") is simply wrong. The photo has its own article, so, per guidelines these couple of lines would be an argument against this photo, not for it. Please, read the guidelines carefully. You also will find there that there are some differences in language when the policy tells about historical photo and most other media.
 * Your problem is that you do not understand that this photo is here (under "here" I mean the stable version) not because it is iconic, but because the event it depicted is iconic and historically unique, and no other photo exists that depicts this event.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @J Milburn: The raising of the flag over the Reichstag didn't begin the battle, end the battle, change the course of the battle, or having any impact on its outcome. It's a tangential story to the topic of the article. As such, a link to the article regarding the raising of the flag is appropriate, per WP:NFC. Repeating the image here is wholly unnecessary. Paul, I know you'll disagree. Honestly, I haven't been reading your comments, just following J Milburn's. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Had you read my comments, you would never write this. Not only you are unfamiliar with the course of the current discussion, your general knowledge of history seems to be quite insufficient for this discussion. I will not re-iterate their mejor points here, I'll just recommend you to read, e.g. Bellamy's "Absolute War" to understand why capture of the Reuchstag was a key event of whole Eatsern front campaign and of the European theatre of war as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you say no other images depict the event- maybe not, but other images depict the battle as a whole, which is what's needed in the infobox. And no, the policy most certainly does not differentiate between "historical" media and "non-historical" media; non-free content is non-free content. You're simply wrong there. All non-free content must meet the criteria. What you're citing there is the guideline, which is there to help newbies judge whether they should be uploading pictures. If it suggests "historical" media is "more" allowed than "non-historical" media, it needs editing. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, what we are talking about? Do we discuss the image in the infobox, or we discuss the necessity of the photo of captured Reichstag for this (and several others) article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard on guidelines, I do know they are guidelines, however, I relied on the Hammersoft's words ("But, I concur with J Milburn that the image does not belong here. NFC very clearly covers this case. That guideline is a consensus interpretation of WP:NFCC that should not lightly be overridden."). Both you and him seem to be a wery big specialists in non-free media, and I assumes if he recommend these guidelines as something "not lightly be overridden", they should be treated seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have said, repeatedly, that we should not have a non-free image in the infobox. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. And you cannot say I am not prone to dialogue. As you remember, we resolved the problem with the Eastern Front article, which lead to the article's improvement. However, after a consensus has been acheived you unilaterally replaced the photo, which we moved from the infobox to the main article, with a quite insatisfactory postal stamp. You also unilaterally removed the same photo from this article's infobox, which looked like an indication of your intention to remove the image completely. In that situation, your complaints look somewhat odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (FWIW, I don't remember the details of the EF discussion.) I'm just trying to do my bit. Obviously, this isn't the place for this discussion, but I stand by my edits at the EF article- I'd even say there was a case for using the stamp even if both were free. My removal of the image from one place does not necessarily indicate any objection to it being used elsewhere- if there's genuinely a need for it here, then we can discuss its use. You'll have to excuse me if I'm a little weary of the whole thing and a little apprehensive about further discussion- when it's taken this long to get what little distance we have... J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you didn't indicate your non-objection to usage of this photo in this article; moreover, you clearly stated the opposite.
 * Secondly, the fact that you do not remember the details of the EF discussion demonstrates that your approach to that discussion is not serious. My objection against the postal stamp are presented both here and in the EF article, and I am intended to reverse your removal because you failed to address my concern (more precisely, you simply ignored my post).
 * Thirdly, I am ready to discuss with you the ways out of an impasse, provided that you will demonstarte your readiness to a compromiss. Currently I have some serious reasons to doubt in that, and I am afraid any my step towards compromiss will be used by you as a formal pretext in favour of removal of this or other images, which I, as well as many other editors consider indispensable for Wikipedia, and which you are trying to remove for some completely formal reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me elaborate. In the historiography of the Second World War the Battle of Berlin is seen as a victory of one ideology over another. No amount of armor, battle damage, dead bodies or hectic action can convey this symbolic meaning of the battle. I have not yet read the argumentation on this thread, so I do not want to comment on what has been said. I am however aware of a modern tendency to rewrite the history of WW II and deny the Soviet victory. As a replacement is offered a narrative of "double genocide." Challenging the iconography would be a useful tool in this campaign. If we remove the image from this Wikipedia article we would be doing a great favor to this ill-founded effort. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Also note, that the flag is not just any flag of the Soviet Union but the Banner of Victory, especially made for the purpose by Stalin's orders and today possibly the most sacred object in post-Soviet Russia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm sorry, I've really got no idea what you're talking about now. This is not the place for a discussion about the EF article. Petri, I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Petri; attributing efforts to not have this image in this article as some sort of grand conspiracy to repudiate Soviet contributions to WWII is astonishing to say the least. I for one am not interested in any sort of grand conspiracy ideas. It's just a non-free image that was being used completely inappropriately. Hell, I even suggested the image that you put in the infobox on the article now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't read any of this discussion, but I think it's clear that we must not use a non-free image when free ones are available - even when the free ones don't provide the same information. Why not? Because it's illegal. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Offliner. You simply do not understand the copyright law. Fair use is absolutely legal, otherwise all sites where this image can be found would be sued. To avoid usage of non-free media as much as possible is an internal WP policy, which has nothing in common with any copyright law. For instance, although Associated Press gave an explicit permission to use the Joe Rosenthal's photo for WP purposes, this image is treated as non-free by WP policy and every reasonable effort is made to replace it with free alternatives where it is possible. For instance, it has been removed from the Battle of Iwo Jima article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I guess I don't know enough about the (American) copyright law. Offliner (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your problem is not with the copyright law, but with WP policy. If I understand it correct, the ultimate goal (which cannot be fully achieved is in reality) is to make absolutely free content. Let me demonstrate that using this image as an example. By placing it here we violate neither American nor Russian laws (the image is used for not-commercial or education purposes and the fair use rationale is provided). However, if someone will copy this article, he may consider all its content (including this photo) is free, and will treat it accordingly. Depending on how this content will be used, that may lead to violation of the author's copyright. That is my understanding of this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't really need to get into the underlying philosophy of the NFCC (the fact that we have is a signal we've gone too far...) we just have to assess this image's usage in relation to them. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued
After a pause, which, in my opinion, allowed passions to settle, I would like to renew the dispute, because the free replacement is not satisfactory in my opinion. In connection to that, my proposal is to restore the Khaldei's photo for several reasons:
 * 1) The present picture can hardly be an adequate replacement, because (i) the picture seem to be done after the battle has ended, and (ii) the event it depicts is not unique per se. By contrast, raising a flag over the Reichstag was an unique and historically important event that marked the end of the Battle of Berlin, the Eastern Front campaign and the war in Europe as whole. I already presented the quotes from reliable sources that demonstrate the immense importance of this event, and here  one can find many other books that also discuss it. The photo of the Reichstag captured by the Soviet soldiers must be present in this article, and just a photo of Soviet soldiers on Berlin's streets, or a photo of the devastated Reichstag is not sufficient.
 * 2) There are equivalents of this photos, however, all of them (made by Grebnev or Kapustyansky) were made by Soviet military photographers, and per current Russian legislation are not free. That is a general issue, because overwhelming majority of Soviet WWII photos are not free. This even forced Russian Wikipedia to address to the Russian authorities to amend the Russian civil code to allow free usage of old Soviet historical photos.
 * 3) I am agree that the editors who are working on some particular article can be less critical to the article's issues, so a fresh eye is often helpful. However, it is not correct that the opinion of an uninvolved editor always has a greater weight.
 * 4) I am watchlisting most WWII and EF related photographs, and I see that many non-free photos are gradually disappear from them. I never reverted these removals, and I do not remember that other editors participating in this discussion did that frequently. In other words, we all generally agree that the usage of non-free media should be minimised to the lowest possible level, and, consequently, we cannot be blamed in misunderstanding of NFCC policy. Moreover, I concede that our last dispute over the EF article leaded to production of the collage which serves the article's encyclopaedic purposes better, improved the article and became very popular (I found that many other Wikipedias use this image).
 * 5) In connection to the misunderstanding of the NFCC policy, I recommend to read the discussion about removal of non-free image, which has recently finished there . The discussion's result was keep. More importantly, many arguments in this discussion closely resemble the arguments presented here. Moreover, many users, including very experienced administrators, explicitly addressed to J Milburn in attempts to explain to him that his understanding of the NFCC regarding history photo is redundantly strict and that historic photos should be treated not in the same way as  "the endless Transformers toys, album covers, book covers, and the rest".

In connection to that, I propose:
 * 1. To restore this photo here and in some other WWII related articles.
 * 2. To come to the explicit agreement that we will not oppose to reasonable efforts to clean WWII related articles from non-free images. Since I personally never opposed to that, it will not be a concession from my side, because I also agree that the amount of non-free images should be minimal in WP, however, it the case of this photo I strongly believe that the photo of Soviet soldiers in the captured Reichstag is vital for this and some other articles and simply see no free alternatives for the above mentioned reasons.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not for this article. As to "other WWII related articles" plus your entire point #2, this is the wrong forum. As to the AfD on another image, that's another image. Not this one. I also do not appreciate you singling out a particular user in an attempt to undermine that position that this photo's application here is not valid. Personally, I see a roughly even 50-50 split on the issue, and if there are "many users, including very experience administrators" that disagree with J Milburn's interpretation, there's just as many users that agree with it. Enough of the singling out. I could just as well single _you_ out for all the efforts that have been made to attempt to educate you on this issue (without success). Such arguments add heat, not light. Enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "As to "other WWII related articles" plus your entire point #2, this is the wrong forum." Don't be too formal. To avoid repetition of the same arguments on other pages, and to save our time, it is better to come to some general agreement here. Regarding my #2, this is a direct response on the J Milburn's argument from my talk page.
 * Re: "I also do not appreciate you singling out a particular user in an attempt to undermine that position" Since J Milburn and you expressed similar opinions during that discussion, and your positions are similar here, the same is equally relevant to you.
 * Re: "I see a roughly even 50-50 split on the issue" If you believe that the decision was wrong, file a complaint to the appropriate noticeboard. Remember, however, that per WP:DEMOCRACY the decision cannot be based on simple count of votes. Definitely, the arguments of the image's supporters were stronger.
 * Re: "I could just as well single _you_ out for all the efforts that have been made to attempt to educate you on this issue (without success)." Please do that if you believe it will help. Please, take into account that my arguments on this talk page were very close to the arguments that had been put forward during the Holocaust picture discussion. Will you try to educate all editors there too?
 * Re: " Such arguments add heat, not light." These florid words do not prove nothing. I pointed out at several obvious facts, demonstrating that I am not a proponent of non-free media in Wikipedia, and, based on that, I expect my opinion to be taken into account. By contrast, the Holocaust picture discussion demonstrated that your and J Milburn's opinion on this subject is hardly the majority's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Try again. Sure, sometimes images I nominate for deletion get kept- it happens. That was a completely different image, nominated for completely different reasons; I have no desire to revisit that, as you damn well know, bringing it up here really does stretch my limits to assume your good intentions. As for your assertion that "historic photos" should be treated differently to other non-free images; quite simply, shut up. That is not the case. I'm not going to discuss it with you, I'm just going to tell you- that's not the case. The NFCC apply (and the clue's in the name) to "non-free content" not "content that is not free and has not been labelled historical by someone". Just shut up. Stop bringing that up. Seriously; you're so wrong I can't say it enough. Give up- go and do something useful. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry. As you probably noticed, I am not a native English speaker, therefore, probably, I do not understand some nuances. However, aren't the following Angusmclellan's words:
 * "But, contrary to J Milburn's slippery slope argument below - "if we can't enforce them on high-profile, highly academic articles, what chance do we have on articles about rappers or porn films?" - the answer would appear to me to be that if we were aiming to change the standard we should raise the bar at the bottom end, removing the endless Transformers toys, album covers, book covers, and the rest, before starting on the harder cases. Your mileage may vary but the consensus here is not for deletion on this basis."
 * which are directly addressed to you, a clear indication of the fact that the way you are trying to implement NFCC is too simplistic and amateurish? In addition, please explain me if I understand correct that the words shut up, which are addressed to the opponent are extremely rude? (I studied English not in English speaking countries, so the contemporary rules might change since those times, however, I was told that was a strong insult).
 * Generally speaking, I am a little bit disappointed. I took a break to give to both of us an opportunity to think. During this time I made a serious work in attempts to find a good replacement of this photo. I presented new arguments and new proposals. And what I got as a result? Insults and baseless accusations? Do you think it is a demonstration of the strength of your position? --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then be disappointed. Frankly, I don't care. You take a break to think, and you come back attacking and continuing to attack your fellow editor, now calling J Milburn "amateurish". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me examples of these attacks, please. Re "amateurish", per WP:DUCK, if someone demonstrates an amateurish behaviour, than this behaviour is probably amateurish. Note, however, that my characteristic related not to J Milburn in general, but to his interpretation of NFCC policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think one point that should be clear at this point is that this discussion has run its course. There is no consensus on the use of the flag raising over the Reichstag image on this article. Consensus may change in the future, but it doesn't exist now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no consensus on the removal of the image. The question about the need of some photo of Soviet soldiers on/near the captured Reichtag is a content dispute, and has nothing in common with NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted to you several times previously, there has to be consensus to include a non-free image. Also, NFCC is absolutely central to this discussion since this is a non-free image we're debating. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be HAVING this conversation! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not discussing that IfD debate, and what you feel was decided there has absolutely no relevance to this issue here. Drop it. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to continue the discussion in that vein. This looks like I deliberately provoke you to demonstrate inappropriate behaviour, which may lead to sanctions against you. Believe me, that is not what I want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are bringing up unrelated discussions (which you damn well know I do not want to discuss) and continually asserting things that you have been told, again and again, are not the case. There's no reason to continue this discussion. We have free images of the event. They should be used to lead the article. There's nothing more to be said. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, drop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the opinions that J Milburn's approach towards non-free media are closer to "changing standards", not to observing current standards, and that he started his crusade from the wrong end, is highly relevant to the subject of this discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think he is on a "crusade" (and yet again you're attacking him), then raise the issue at WP:AN/I. This is not the forum for it. J Milburn is not after you, he's not after Holocaust images, he's not after Soviet victory images, or any thing else. You are demonstrating a stunning lack of ability to assume good faith and are violating civility. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Physician, heal thyself. I don't like ANI, and I will try to avoid it by any means. Re "crusade", I see no negative connotations here. Moreover, I believe, removal of most non-free staff would be very beneficial for Wikipedia, and in general I support that. For me, "crusade" means something noble, and I have nothing against that, provided that it does not violate WP spirit, and does go against common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. This diff is a recent demonstration that I more support this crusade than oppose to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since English is not your first language, allow me to educate a bit. "Crusade" is often construed as a negative connotation, at least within the U.S. I advise you not to use that term to describe anyone's actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was a big surprise for me to learn that in such a Christian country as the US the word "crusade" bears a negative connotation. In any event, you left unanswered my other points. "Just drop it" is hardly an answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The points have been answered previously. I have no wish to keep debating this forever. As I noted before, the reality is that no consensus exists to use the image on this article. Therefore, it is not going to be used. At some point in the future, consensus may change. That time is not now. At this point, we're just rehashing old ground. There's no point. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal belief that you convinced me is not sufficient to state that the issue has been resolved. There were no consensus to exclude a photo of the Soviet soldiers and a red flag on/near the Reichstag, so if you want to exclude this image, please, provide a free alternative (I mean another photo of Soviet soldiers in/on/near the captured Reichstag). Note, in the case of Iwo Jima the Rosenthal's photo has been removed because similar free photos were available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you feel the image should be used in the article? J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Paul: I didn't say I convinced you. Please don't put words in my mouth. And, as previously noted, you're still going about it backwards; we are not obligated to prove the image does not belong. The burden is on people wishing to include non-free media to prove (where contested, via consensus) that we must have a non-free image. Those wishing to include this image have not accomplished that consensus. Therefore, it stays gone until such time as consensus changes for it to be included. That time, as I noted, is not now. Continuing to debate it is futile. Believe me, I'm 1,000,000,000,000,000% convinced you want it included. I have so little doubt about that fact that I wouldn't even think of doubting it in this life or the next several lives I might lead. I got it. You want the image included, and you feel you have a case for why it should be included. The problem is, you've failed to convince towards a consensus that your case is valid. Therefore, the image stays gone. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Drive-by two cents worth: I'm not a big fan of the "non-free police", especially the tactics of disparagement some of them use. I do read their arguments carefully though, and in this case I have to agree the non-free image is not needed in the infobox. The Unter den Linden image for me conveys equivalent information. The main purpose of the infobox image is to convey something significant about the battle, which the free image does: that's the Brandenburg Gate if I'm not mistaken, with a hammer-and-sickle flying in front of it - so clearly the Germans very thoroughly got their butts kicked. This was the battle that effectively ended the war, and the symbolism of the Gate and the Reichstag are equal I do believe. The free image conveys the outcome of the battle, which is what I would look for in the infobox. The "iconic" image (later officially retouched I notice, if only the USSR had had Photoshop! :) appears to have been ordered for propaganda purposes, so I think it would likely qualify for non-free use in the section where it is discussed. But I think for the infobox, the free image is indeed precisely equivalent in its informative value for the purpose of this article. Franamax (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not in the section where it is discussed because it already has its own stand alone article at Raising a flag over the Reichstag, as per the guideline at NFC #6. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an undue restriction on the uses of non-free historical images explicitly permitted by the Foundation resolution. The outcome and aftermath of the battle is an important part of the article. From appearances, the non-free image (the retouched one) was used by the Soviet state to announce the victory to the people. That is significant in the place where it is discussed in text. Special orders were given to take the photograph, that is a signal event in the battle. Album covers in a discography article, I (mostly) agree with you. Historical images, different standards, as the resolution states. Franamax (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Foundation resolution allows nonfree historical content iff there is no free content available for the subject. Since we have free photos of the Battle of Berlin, no nonfree would be allowable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no non-free image to replace the one used to announce the victory to the Soviet people, in the place where it is discussed in the text. You seem to suggest that a free image of a box of bullets would suffice to replace all others, so long as it was definitely bullets used in the battle. That does not address the context in which images are used to illuminate the text. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Franamax: The "undue restriction" is one agreed upon by consensus and included in the NFC #6 guideline, as previously noted, and now quoting; (under Unacceptable use) "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". So, we'd be using an image of the flag raising over the Reichstag to illustrate a section that discusses the flag raising (Battle_of_Berlin) when we already have an article about the flag raising at Raising a flag over the Reichstag. That goes directly against the guideline. I'm not making this up. This is what the guideline says. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Described in a guideline with the little bit about using common sense and exceptions applying, so don't take the exact words as gospel. The Foundation clearly envisions historical images as an exceptional case. You propose to (forgive the usage) ghettoize an iconic image to where people are not going to see it, which seems contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. This was the image used to propagandize the Soviet victory, so it seems appropriate in accompaniment to the text discussion describing the way that victory was announced. It is a very dramatic image, so its use conveys more than plain text can. It is appropriate as an illustration within the description of the battle, as it represents the culmination of the Soviet Army tactical objective. Whether or not there is a specific article seems immaterial. Sport team logos, album covers, Mech3 battle tanks, sure. This is of historical relevance though, it conveys an important concept, it is not mere illustration. It shouldn't be in the infobox (IMO) where it has no context, but it is relevant to the article, notwithstanding whatever current wording of the sub-clauses. Remember, "common sense". Franamax (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Describing your position as "common sense" is, to be honest, rather arrogant. I could just as easily say that it's "common sense" that, yes, a free content project would use a free photo over a nonfree, and that it's also "common sense" that the free images here are rather more than a box of ammunition used in the battle. Apparently, your "common sense" interpretation is far from universal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I could just as easily say that it's "common sense" that, yes, a free content project would use a free photo over a nonfree, and that it's also "common sense"..." No. If the rules implied that, then "common sense" would require simply to remove all non-free images, because it is always possible to find some means to present the same information. However, since the policy tells not about information, but about article's encyclopaedic or educational purposes, it is simply incorrect to speak about inclusion or exclusion of some non-free image before we have elaborated a common point of view on educational purposed of some concrete article. For example, can you explain me how do you see the educational purpose of this article, and which free image(s) can serve it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The educational purpose of this article is to provide an encyclopedia article on the Battle of Berlin. Generally speaking, in terms of a battle, that includes: What war the battle was in, what led up to it, which sides fought, a timeline of important events during the battle, the battle's outcome, and the outcome's significance. It is absolutely impossible to provide that information through images, so it is necessary that this be a prose article describing those things. Given that, the images are meant to be visual aids, and any image of the battle serves such a purpose. It is not necessary that we have an image specifically for the battle's outcome, any more than it is necessary for us to have an image of every event mentioned in the timeline. We have some images which are generally known to be of the battle, and those serve the purpose of an auxiliary visual aid just fine. Or to put it briefly, since only the prose comprehensively explains the battle, the images' educational purpose is to complement the article as an auxiliary part of it. Now, that's true of this article. If there were an article about the photo itself, then suddenly the photo is the centerpiece of the article, not an auxiliary. But in an article covering a general subject, like a battle, any free images of the battle serve as appropriate auxiliaries. And we've got pictures that are clearly during hostilities&mdash;you don't get much more "of the battle" than that! Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're describing images used as simple ornamentation. The purpose of an image, especially a non-free one, is to convey something significant about the topic which cannot be expressed in words alone. Generic images do not suffice for this purpose, specific images targeted to enhance the prose do. Franamax (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c + dinner) Let me hasten to point out that I do not intend to come across as arrogant, I don't feel imbued with some special understanding unavailable to thr common folk. I'll also note that I hope we're not returning to the "tactics of disparagement" I've noted in these types of discussion, not that far above in this thread as a matter of fact. I've responded latterly to two points, one that we have "free photos of the Battle of Berlin, no nonfree would be allowable"l the other that wordng in a guideline disallows an image because it is used elsewhere. When questions arise where the strict wording of guidelines becomes an issue, it becomes necessary to examine in depth how the guideline should apply to the specific article in question, on the specific merits. I've examined this in some detail and presented my detailed arguments as to why the candidate image qualifies as acceptable non-free use. I've not seen a refutation of those specific arguments yet, only generalizations. Franamax (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I refuted it above, but my point was rather long. To summarize: We have free images that show what the battle looked like. They are not poor quality (by WWII photography standards), they are not only tangentially related (they're weapons being fired during the battle, quite unlike your "box of bullets" example), and there are even several of them. We need not have every subpart of the article illustrated. If there are no free photos of the taking of the Reichstag, we can illustrate other parts of the article instead. Most articles don't have every section illustrated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is absolutely no entitlement to use non-free content just because a section is unillustrated, if that is what you are trying to imply. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not what I wish to imply at all, I would use that argument in a Pokemon article. ;) What I am stating is that this image was used as the feature of Soviet propaganda, it was specifically ordered up. That is how "news" worked in those days. This was total war and the Battle of Berlin was its apotheosis. The image is a part of how one enjoins a populace to engage in total war. The Reichstag was the major tactical objective, to put it in the vernacular, some general said "We have the Reichstag? Get a picture of it right now. I don't care if men die doing it, go get a picture, right now, we need this". It's very much a qualitative argument, but that is how I assess the suitability of images where they are discussed in context. Franamax (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are not completely correct. This photo was not ordered by a Soviet propaganda. From memory, Khaldei did that by his own initiative, the flag was made from red tablecloth, and the persons who raised the flag were not selected by Soviet authorities.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And still we're rehashing old ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cannot agree. For instance, I believe that the last Seraphimblade's post may give a new impetus to the discussion. In my opinion, the problem is that we have a different vision of the article's encyclopaedic and educational purposes. If I understand him correct, he sees the main and the sole "encyclopaedic and educational purpose" in informing people, although the policy clearly speaks about education. It is very important not to mix these two things. Education is much more complex thing, it means not only to transmit some informational message, but also to create some personal attitude towards the events the article describes. In that sense, neither photos can transmit the same message that the text can nor vise versa. Photographs play not auxiliary role, but complementary role: they do what the text can't. Text transmits more factual message, whereas photos transmit mostly emotions. Of course, I mean good or iconic photos, not every ordinary photograph.
 * For instance, it is possible to write the Holocaust article without any single photograph. As a result, a reader would learn that 6 million Jews were killed during 1939-45. However, for most readers that would be abstract Jews, some anonymous people; and a reader would never try to identify himself with these faceless and anonymous people (even if you give their names in the article, they still will be anonimous for a reader in actuality). However, addition of few Holocaust photos changes a situation dramatically: a reader sees real people, and, although no addition factual information is provided in these photos, reader's perception of the text changes dramatically.
 * We have similar situation here. Try to imagine: the Battle of Berlin alone involved more troops than in the Battle of the Bulge. The number of killed was greater than the number of total losses in the Battle of the Bulge. And that was only one of major offensive the Soviet military had carried out, thereby taking the major brunt of this war. Moreover, during the most critical years of this war these people had been carrying this brunt virtually alone. It is the blood of these people that bought a victory in the WWII and saved million lives of Western soldiers. And who were these people? Just Asiatic hordes which came from nowhere and went back when hey had accomplished their job? That is exactly what German nationalist propaganda says, and currently Wikipedia does its job perfectly in accord with that concept. We see faces of American, British and German soldiers, but we do not see good Soviet photos. (The Brandenburg photo is hardly good. Moreover, it creates absolutely wrong impression about this battle and these people, it is just a botboiler appropriate for facebook, because it conveys no additional emotional message.) By contrast, these photos create more full impression about the course of the events and about these people, , , , , , however, due to idiotic Russian laws all of them are not free.
 * Let me summarise, although it is true that many photographs play auxiliary role in WP, some good or historic photos are absolutely required not because they help to transmit the information conveyed by the text, but because they do what the text is unable to do. It this particular case, the photo of the Soviet soldiers in the Reichstag is absolutely necessary because to capture the Reichstag was the ultimate personal goal of millions men since 1942-43. These people were dying instead your grandfathers and grand-grandfathers, and it would be sacrilege to refuse to show the moment when their collective dream had materialised. It is the more sacrilege to do that under absolutely formal pretext. In the situation when good Soviet EF photos are virtually missing in most EF articles the Reichstag photo is absolutely required for this and several other articles, because the educational task is not fully achieved without it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent explanation of your thoughts&mdash;and done without a single use of a single photo. If reliable sources back up your assessment, we can certainly edit the article to reflect it. If not, we'd be POV pushing, regardless of method. Certainly, we can make clear the importance of the Soviet contribution to WWII in this article. But no photo is required to make that point, as you just amply demonstrated. But we have photos of them in the middle of the fight, firing their weapons! You just well demonstrated why the use of a single photo is not necessary to communicate a given concept. That's why we have prose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Offtopic): Paul, you might want to fix your signature, you have an unclosed underline tag in it. I closed it here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I already tried to do that, however, I failed due to edit conflict.
 * Re sources. This discussion lasts very long. During that time a lot of sources have been provided. If the sources are the sole issue, I can re-collect these sources for you, although you are also able to do that by looking through this discussion and the talk page archive. However, to save your and my time I simply ask you to believe that all my claims are supported by very reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Excellent explanation of your thoughts&mdash;and done without a single use of a single photo". That is exactly what I mean, although I was not completely accurate. Of course, all historical photos can be replaced by text, however, this would be a non-encyclopaedic text. Under no circumstances the text from my above post can be placed into the article's space, because the style is more appropriate for a novel rather than for encyclopaedia. That is exactly why such photos are needed. And, by the way, you are simply wrong: I did present many photos, most of them are vital for this article. However, since the policy does not allow non-free media not in the article's namespace, I provided just links.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One more important consideration. One of major encyclopaedic purposes of Wikipedia is to present facts neutrally. Neutrality is one of three major pillars of Wikipedia. In the situation when many American, British and German photos are in public domain, whereas most Soviet photos are not, the images illustrating the events related to the history of these countries are overrepresented as compared with the Soviet photos. As a result, the psychological effect the WWII articles have on a reader is biased: a reader perceives Americans or Germans as human beings, whereas the soviet soldiers are seen by him as abstract functions. Such an effect, which is a result of absolutely formal interpretation of the policy, is in a direct contradiction with WP policy requirements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not any recognized interpretation of NPOV, and it takes an awful lot of lawyering to think NPOV requires use of nonfree content. NPOV means we must present a balanced picture, true, but we can do that in prose, or images, or in any number of ways. It in no way requires us to use nonfree content to be "fair" in some manner&mdash;in the same vein, if we had articles on two people running for a political office, but had a free photo of only one, we'd picture one but not the other, and that would not for a moment violate NPOV.
 * I agree that we would not directly allow the prose you wrote into the article, but it could be rewritten to be encyclopedic while being no less clear. We'll still have some illustrations of the battle. If you want an illustration that Soviets fought, we've got illustrations of them in the thick of the fight! Really, if anything, I find that to illustrate that point more clearly than them raising a flag. But regardless, NPOV or sourcing or anything else has nothing to do with that. It comes down to one simple point, being this: The photo is a nonfree image of the Battle of Berlin. We have free images of the Battle of Berlin. That means we cannot use it in this article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely cautious with that type terminology: your formal interpretation of NFCC fits the definition of lawyering much better. Let's agree to avoid these type arguments. Regarding your "The photo is a nonfree image of the Battle of Berlin. We have free images of the Battle of Berlin. That means we cannot use it in this article.", it is an oversimplification and misquoting of the policy. The policy clearly tells about free photos which serve the same encyclopaedic purpose, and I believe I was able to demonstrate that existing photos do not serve the same encyclopaedic purpose as I see it. And you have to concede that you were not able to demonstrate that my vision of the encyclopaedic purpose of the EF articles is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not "have to" concede a point, nor really can I, when I have not the faintest idea what you even mean by it. And, yes, they illustrate the same encyclopedic purpose&mdash;depicting the Battle of Berlin, the subject of this article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Apologize for the separate edits, I saved my posting before I was done with it.) I also stated lawyering for a reason&mdash;you're trying to twist things around, and nitpick at the definition of "encyclopedic", and even bring NPOV into it in some concept of a massive systemic unfairness that some copyrights last longer than others. That's classic lawyering. The spirit of NFCC #1 is clear and unambiguous: When we have free photos of the subject of an article, we use those instead of any nonfree material. When it's even reasonably possible that we could get free photos for an article, we wait on those rather than using nonfree content. It's only when we both have no free content and no reasonable hope of getting it that we consider allowing nonfree content. And that's only to pass the first guideline. The NFC guidelines are strict for a reason&mdash;this is a free content project. We use free content whenever possible. We do not allow an extremely strict, nitpicky definition of "same encyclopedic purpose" to shoehorn in nonfree content where we have free content for a subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not twist anything, I just describe a situation. I didn't point at that before because I believed this type arguments were redundant.
 * Re " The spirit of NFCC #1 is clear and unambiguous: When we have free photos of the subject of an article, we use those instead of any nonfree material." Of course no. The spirit of NFCC #1 is that non free media should be replaced with free equivalent whenever it is possible, and that the decision should be done based on common sense. You pretend to interpret NFCC #1 spirit, although even the NFCC #1 letter is defined more loosely.
 * Re "When it's even reasonably possible that we could get free photos for an article, we wait on those rather than using nonfree content." This is totally irrelevant. It is hardly probable that new free historic photos will become available in future. From other hand, since all non-free images will eventually become PD, therefore, the universal solution is: exclude all non-free images for a while, because in distant future they will be free.
 * Re "The NFC guidelines are strict for a reason&mdash;this is a free content project." What is the reason behind this reason? I see almost no value in such a project if that will lead to poor quality content.
 * Re " We do not allow an extremely strict, nitpicky definition of "same encyclopedic purpose" to shoehorn in nonfree content where we have free content for a subject." ... and you do allow an extremely loose definition "free equivalent" do decrease quality of the content?
 * And, finally, what do you mean under "we". Are you entitled to speak on behalf of the Foundation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To your point regarding nonfree images, I certainly did not intend to imply that we reasonably can get any further free images that don't already exist. Nor is the fact that all copyrights will someday expire a trigger for replaceability consideration, so that is a straw man argument which no one but you has advanced. What I did intend to illustrate with the example of waiting for free images is the point that we prefer even no image whatsoever to a nonfree image, when it's reasonably possible we can get a free image of the subject. Here, we're past even that point&mdash;we've already got free images of the subject. If even the possibility of free images of the subject preclude the use of nonfree content, the actual existence of them precludes it far more strongly. As to speaking for the Foundation, while I do not speak for them, they already spoke for themselves, and "never when we can use free" was a very clear part of the resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a straw man, but ad absurdum: my goal was to demonstrate that your interpretation of NFCC #1 is beyond common sense. Of course, I mean this particular case only.
 * Re Foundation's resolution. If you mean that it says: " Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." My English, probably, is not good enough, but I found nothing there which can be interpreted in such a way. Resolution says: (i) historically significant events (by contrast to majority of other cases) can be illustrated by non-free photos (which means that the same criteria cannot be applied to historical photos and to pokemons or transformers), and (ii) not every photo on the article's subject can serve as a replacement for non-free images, but only those photos " which will serve the same educational purpose".
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, the same educational purpose. Such as photos of the Battle of Berlin to illustrate the article about the Battle of Berlin. That would be an example of photos serving the same educational purpose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reponding to various points raised above: And on we go. As I noted before, we're rehashing old ground. In my above responses, I find myself repeating much of what I've said before on this subject. I'll repeat myself again (not that it will stop this endless debate): We do not have consensus to include this image. Without that consensus, it will not be included. That may change in the future, but that time is not now. It is blatantly clear that there is no agreement to the two sides of this discussion, and equally clear that neither side is moving towards a middle ground of agreement, compromise, etc. I fail to see a reason why this discussion has to go on and on and on and on and on. We're not convincing each other of anything but the vigor with which we believe our respective viewpoints. I'm quite happy to concede that both sides have vigorously defended their viewpoints. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * informing people vs. education: We're splitting hairs over the connotation of these two words? Wha???
 * some personal attitude towards the events: No, Wikipedia is a dispassionate, neutral source. Personal attitude is not acceptable.
 * Battle of Berlin alone involved more troops than in the Battle of the Bulge The size of this battle has no bearing on whether to include this image or not.
 * Soviet military [tool] the major brunt of this war Whether or not they did has no bearing on whether to include this image or not. I'm also not going to engage in a discussion about the relative merits of the contributions of the various allies. It has no role here. Plenty of people have opinions. Further, the topic is considerably greater scope than just this one battle.
 * It would be sacrilege to refuse to show the [image]: Wikipedia is not concerned with whether inclusion or something or not is sacrilege. Displaying images of Muhammad is sacrilege to the more than one billion Muslims in the world. Yet, that's exactly what we do at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial.
 * To the notion that we must display non-free images of Soviets soldiers in order to not be biased; False. Such a notion would provide a carte blanche permission slip to include whatever non-free images of Soviet soldiers one would like to add to an article. I've seen people in this and related discussions propose a special category for holocaust images, historical images, or now in this case Soviet soldier images. If you want such a special exception to our policies, then put forth an RfC to consider the matter at WT:NFC. Trying to get special dispensation here, on this article, for this image, to apply to a whole swath of images is absolutely the improper forum.
 * We don't need accusations of lawyering
 * I believe I was able to demonstrate that existing photos do not serve the same encyclopaedic purpose as I see it. Yes, you've done a wonderful job of demonstrating this in so far as your viewpoint is concerned. The problem is that your view does not carry consensus. As I've said, I have no doubt about your viewpoint, it's that your viewpoint and defense thereof has failed to swing consensus into your favor.
 * you were not able to demonstrate that my vision of the encyclopaedic purpose of the EF articles is wrong People wishing to exclude non-free content are under no obligation to prove it does not belong. As I've said so many times already, it's up to people wishing to include non-free content to develop consensus to include it when such use is contested. This use is contested, there is no consensus to include it. And, repeating myself yet again, that means it doesn't get included.
 * (with regards to NFCC #1) It's only when we both have no free content and no reasonable hope of getting it that we consider allowing nonfree content. Precisely correct.
 * The spirit of NFCC #1 is that non free media should be replaced with free equivalent whenever it is possible, and that the decision should be done based on common sense. Again repeating myself, your idea of 'common sense' might not be so common. Your idea of 'common sense' doesn't trump policy any more than my idea of 'common sense' trumps policy.
 * What is the reason behind this is a free content project?: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." (ref: Mission).


 * Re "Wha???" Because these two things are not the same. And the difference is important. See above.
 * Re "No, Wikipedia is a dispassionate, neutral source." So it should present all content equally dispassionately. In a situation when American or German related good photos dominate no equally dispassionate and neutral description of the historical events.
 * Re " The size of this battle has no bearing on whether to include this image or not. " It has. More than 80% of all WWII military casualties took place in the EF. The description of these events deserve to be visually illustrated in accordance with this ratio. That is the more important taking into account that contemporary Western audience is extremely poorly informed about these events. Just go to your local library and look through old NYT (1941-46).
 * Re "Wikipedia is not concerned with whether inclusion or something or not is sacrilege." Straw man. I wrote not about "inclusion", but about "exclusion". Probably, exclusion of Muhammad would be correct if that insults millions peoples. In addition, it is sacrilege to compare the story with these cartoons (which will be forgotten in close future) and WWII.
 * Re Wikipedia is not a memorial. Again, straw man. The policy states: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others . Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy wikipedia notability requirements ]." Do you imply the event we are talking about is not notable enough?
 * Re "Yes, you've done a wonderful job of demonstrating this in so far as your viewpoint is concerned." Thanks. I appreciate it. "The problem is that your view does not carry consensus." Consensus is not a right of veto. Please, provide real arguments.
 * Re " your idea of 'common sense' might not be so common. " What you refer to are just guidelines. This is more relevant. None, this is one of five pillars, and it has the same status as the free content pillar. Too literal and too formal interpretation and implementation of the NFCC comes in a direct contradiction with two other main WP principles: neutrality (as I have demonstrated above) and the absence of strict rules.
 * Re Mission. I fully understand that the central idea of Wikipedia is to create a free content. However, since that is supposed to be done not at cost of creating a poor content, the Foundation made some explicit reservations (quoted by me in my previous post). In these reservations, it mentioned historical photos as a separate case, which means that they should not be treated according the same rules as many other non-free photos. It also explicitly stated that the idea to create fully free content should not come into a contradiction with educational purposes of Wikipedia. And it is very strange that you haven't addressed this issue in your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Try not to misuse bold fonts. This is interpreted as yelling and is generally considered a bad style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS Re "I fail to see a reason why this discussion has to go on and on and on and on and on." Because I have a feeling that your interpretation of one WP major principle comes in contradiction with at least two others. And that issueis probably more general than I thought initially.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of this is repetitive, and not worth re-re-re-re-re-re-engaging on. I would like to highlight this quote though, and respond: "Consensus is not a right of veto. Please, provide real arguments." You know, I was recently criticized for citing policy. If consensus is not a 'real' argument, then we might as well close up shop and shut down the project. No, Consensus is policy, and no amount of calling it a non-real argument is going to make that go away. I'm sorry you find the lack of consensus so inconvenient, and would rather it be a non-real argument. But that doesn't change reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me reiterate: the WP Fifth pillar is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented  here ". In other words, all what is said on other WP policy pages must not be treated as a strict rule understood literally. The WP Third pillar (one of five principles which must be observed) is "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." Full stop. That is all about non-free media, which is not subordinated to the "ignore all rules" rule. The idea of the Third pillar is that WP is free content, and that which allows anybody to edit Wikipedia. This pillar is observed unless copyrights are not violated. Since fair use do not violate copyright laws, fair use images do not violate WP five pillars. Of course, the non-free policy applied additional restrictions on the fair use images, which is correct, in my opinion. However, these restrictions are not a part of the WP:FIVEPILLARS page, therefore, they are subordinated to all what is said on this page, including the "ignore all rules" and neutrality rules. That is why I believe your interpretation of NFCC is deeply flawed in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not being sarcastic or derogatory in my asking thus. I'm just dumbfounded. Do you actually believe what you just wrote? The categorical lack of understanding of what this project is expressed through that post is astonishing. This above post shows an absolute total ignorance of our purpose. If you're position is as above, and if there's no basis on which to change your opinion (the voluminous amount of dialogue here hasn't changed your position one bit), we have absolutely nothing further to discuss. We are at philosophically opposite polar positions. I think I'm going to permanently exit this conversation now, barring some revelation. There's nothing for us to discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By contrast to you, I cannot read between the lines of WP policy, I just open relevant pages and read what the policy says. If you see any logical flaws in my post, please, point my attention on them. Please, note that I was not a first participant of this dispute who started to refer to literally understood WP policy during this dispute.
 * In return, for me is also hard to believe that you really believe that your position is rock solid. Of course, I understand that that is the case, because I assume your good faith. However, it is really hard to believe that you really believe in what you write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS By exiting this discussion you abstain from the process of consensus building.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for hell sake no. I have already expressed my opinions and you disagree with them. Just because I refuse to keep repeating myself over and over and over again doesn't mean I suddenly agree with you, and I have no voice in this consensus (or lack thereof). Don't you dare pull that crap. The only thing you've won here, is that you have tired me out of continuing this discussion. The discussion is going nowhere, it's repeating itself, and it's pointless. I've even repeated that God knows how many times. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We both are in the same situation. I also cannot understand why you don't understand very simple things. To resolve the problem, let's try to explain what is the most essential in our POVs. In my opinion, the most essential ideas in my arguments are:
 * It is incorrect to interpret the NFCC #1's words "if one of acceptable quality is available" as "if a free image on the article's subject is available". The term "article's subject" is too broad and allows different interpretations.
 * It is incorrect to approach to historical photos in the same way majority of other non-free images are treated, because the Foundation explicitly separated them into a separate category (a quote has already been provided).
 * Please, try to briefly outline your position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I won't. We're just repeating again. Myself and others have already refuted your point 1 and point 2. Let me ask you one question. Yes or no: Does consensus exist to place this image in the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't refute them, you in actuality simply ignored them.
 * Yes, there is no consensus to include this concrete photo into the article, however, there were no consensus not to add a photo of captured Reichtag into the article. I was able to demonstrate with sources that this event was important. So, please, provide a solution: give me another picture that will serve the same encyclopaedic purpose.
 * I understand this request is rhetoric: you cannot and you will not do that. However, a consensus is something that may change. Let's see.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Another question, yes or no: Do you agree that WP:NFCC says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created"? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what WP:NFCC says since, in reality, non-free content is governed by WP:NFCI and its blanked exemption for around 100,000 album covers, 90,000 logos, 20,000 book covers, 20,000 non-free posters and so on. A vanishingly small proportion of these non-free images would pass the NFCC if they were considered on their merits and not protected by a combination of fanboys, fangirls and specially written exemptions.

What I suspect irks Paul Seibert, for it irks me too, even though I would happily see 99% of our non-free content nuked tomorrow, is the ridiculous disparity between the effort needed to find an image for an album by some defunct garage band and that required for any historical or biographical article on most non-US C20th topics. Garage band: steal one off Google, add boilerplate rationale, profit!; other case: find one, source it, figure out the copyright status, write a non-free content rationale and then watch for people sneakily orphaning it so they can sneak another deletion in (now this last I have not seen personally, but I did see someone doing this so they could nominate "OR, LQ, UE" images at FFD, so I'm sure it happens), and forever wonder when the image will be deleted when you aren't watching. Any editor who looks at Transformerscruft or Gundamcruft or the like, and who has been in the habit of editing other sorts of articles, will be astounded by the endless screeds of non-free content.

I am not sure that there is anything that can be done specifically in the case of Soviet images from the Second World War. It may be that the BA's campaign of copyfraud uploading to Commons will result in some appearing, depending on just how sloppy their work is. Or it may not. It should be possible to find some images which PD-Russia-2008 still leaves in the public domain, although again not here. In additoon "originally published anonymously or under the pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication" will be open to endless challenges from the usual suspects. Some areas we could improve our chances of finding images if we dropped the ridiculous attitude that not-free-enough images (NC and/or ND restrictions on use) have to be treated the same as not-free-at-all ones.

I do appreciate that some administrators and editors believe that they are doing God's work (or Jimbo's) in purging Wikipedia of images of uncertain and perhaps indeterminable status, or where a theoretical replacement might exist, or where "well, that's near enough, hasn't it got a Jew/a Synagogue/ruins in Berlin in it?". I'm not entirely sure I agree with them (for the benefit of readers whose idiolect does not favour the use of litotes, that translates into the vulgar idiom as something like "Are you people fucking deranged or what?"). We want to increase the amount of free knowledge, not reduce it. We shouldn't give in to copyright paranoia. The copyfrauders will lie like drains and claim copyrights they do not own. The Disneys and MPAAs will buy up legislators and pass their Mickey Mouse Protection Acts. We should make some effort to defend the public domain. If we're not quite sure that something is free, then we're not at all sure that it isn't either. Anyone who looks at our "free" images is likely, if they are anything like me, to come across quite a few which leave them with a "WTF?" feeling, even if it isn't strong enough to send the thing to PUF/FFD. There is always wiggle room. So use it, even if you suffer from a little cognitive dissonance.

You can now return to arguing about the tangentially relevant NFCC. That'll really help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...on the subject of opening fire. I guess this issue can be a heated one. Angus, believe me, if you want to clean up the Transformer/Pokemon/that assorted happy crap, I am more than happy to help. It's unfortunate that WMF put the "identification" exemption in, since that exempts a lot of logos, album covers, etc., even when they really do nothing for the article and are pure decoration. So I don't know that there's much to be done there, unless we can change either our policy or the Foundation's resolution. On the other hand, a lot of TV shows, movies, etc., are way out of hand. I work on cleaning those up, too. But that doesn't change the fact that, on WP:NFCI, the very first thing it says is "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." For album covers, etc., that doesn't apply to them. For the case at hand, it does&mdash;it's not only replaceable but replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "reasonably". Both Angus and I agree that your rationale is formally correct but quite unreasonable. You de facto convert historic articles into a collection of photos from American, British and German archives, which makes Wikipedia biased. That is what your activity leads to. I fully understand that it was not your intention, because you simply didn't think about that. However, now, when I have informed you about this issue, you are aware of that aspect of your activity, and I expect you to seriously think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like you, Seraphimblade is a volunteer here. He does not have to do anything you "expect" of him. I'd (an I'm sure Seraphim) would love if it we had expectations for you to meet, but that won't happen either. Thus, impasse. In any case, your abstract case regarding bias is not appropriate to this particular forum to get the leniency of NFCC you're asking for. WT:NFC would be a place to start such a discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...you closed the discussion that was already started there. So which is it: here or there? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion went off rails, into a discussion akin to this one. There wasn't any point in having multiple threads for the debate that needed to be here. I of course have no objection to an abstract discussion regarding a special exception for Soviet Union photographs elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft. Wrong. Like me, Seraphimblade (and yourself) is a Wikipedian, therefore I expect him to adhere to major WP principles. Moreover, I have a right to request him to do that. This is a formal warning to you, Seraphimblade and other members of your project that one of (unintentional) consequence of your activity may lead to creation of biased content (which is explicitly prohibited by WP policy). I agree that this discussion should be moved somewhere, and now I am thinking about a better place for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell???? FORMAL WARNING? If you think there's need of a "formal warning", take your complaint to WP:AN/I. Good lord. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit dumbfounded there myself, but your warning, such as it is worth, is taken under advisement. Still, I fully disagree with you. While it is true NPOV is a fundamental concept, free content is as well. We can satisfy NPOV by giving proper weight to each side in the text of each article. Pictures are auxiliaries, not requirements. We are no more favoring one side over another because only one has free images, than we are saying one actor is better than another because we've only got a free image of one. If NPOV were implicated by excluding free content, surely the Foundation would have told the German Wikipedia that their exclusion of all nonfree content whatsoever is unacceptable. That has not occurred.
 * If you would like an exemption so that photos from certain "sides" can be used where more free content from other "sides" exists, you can talk to the Foundation about adding that exemption to their resolution, then, if successful, to the community about whether and when we would like to make use of that exemption. Until and unless you do, however, there is no such exemption, so your references to it are irrelevant. NPOV in no way requires we have the same number of photos from or of all sides, just that our articles neutrally present the factual information about them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course a blanket exemption is not what I want. I have no desire to request for any amendment of the Foundation's resolution, because everything is correct there, and I endorse every its word. What I cannot understand, and what I oppose to is the absolutely formal interpretation of this resolution. I have a feeling that everything (except the idea of free content) is auxiliary for you. Note, however, that for majority readers Wikipedia is attracting because it provide a good content. The fact that it is free plays auxiliary role for them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, why not just re-tag the image Template:PD-Ukraine? Presumably any image published in the Soviet Union would have been published in both Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Russia. Or am I missing something here? --Martin (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears it's moot at this point anyway. There's an image in the infobox of Soviet soldiers putting up the Soviet flag. So any assertion of irreplaceability would be...well, I don't know what you'd call it. But wrong is one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I already pointed out, a suterficial familiarity with NFCC is not sufficient for making such a judgement: one has to possess some minimal knowledge on the article's subject. As I already pointed out several times, the photo of the Soviet soldiers in the Reichtag is quite necessary, and the Brandenburg photo does not serve the same encyclopaedic purpose. (I already explained why)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's complex issues surrounding assumption of copyrights post-Soviet Union. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Martin. According to the current Russian copyright law, any work which had been published in Russia (RSFSR) within 30 day period after its publication abroad is covered by the Russian copyright law. Therefore, it is not completely clear for me how the same work can be in PD in accordance with the Ukrainian laws and copyrighted in Russia, and what is the actual legal status of these photos in the USA. That is why I try to avoid usage of PD-Ukraine photos. Moreover, all Soviet related WWII photos currently used in English Wikipedia are either from American of German archives or PD-Ukraine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This stonewalling discussion is becoming a major distraction to Wikipedia. I am just about to reach the the conclusion that it would be less harmful to just edit war the image back. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you linked that policy, I think you understand the consequences to you should you decide to do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus above for the removal of this icon from the start of the article. -- PBS (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In actuality, this is a part of much broader issue, namely, of absolutely formal interpretation of guidelines by a group of editors. In a situation when most satisfactory Eastern Front images are not in PD (and existing images are being constantly deleted from Commons) it is absolutely non-productive to treat these historical images in the same way as endless logos, album covers, etc. In addition, that simply goes against the spirit of WP policy. Since that problem affects many WWII related articles, I propose to move a discussion to some more general place. I already posted at the Military history page, and neutrality noticeboard , however we definitely need a broader discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We went round this loop earlier this year and provided sources that state that this is an iconic image for this battle. Therefore there is no strict interpretation that justifies removing it. Did the person who deleted the image read that previous discussion and why has it been deleted aginst the consensus here? -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo has been removed with the referenjce to the policy that states that the burden of proof rests with those who adds/re-adds a non-free image. The major argument against re-adding the photo was that the photo was not vital for the article (a universal argument, in my opinion; that makes it useless). The second argument was that free photos related to the article's subject are available, whereas the policy clearly says not about free alternatives, but about free equivalents (or the photos that serves to the same encyclopaedic, or educational purposes). Third arguments was that WP is aimed to create a totally free content which can be freely used for any purposes including commercial ones. However, this arguments is also flawed because I do not think to promote the use of the WWII or Holocaust images for commercial purposes is what we need. In addition, the share alike license also prohibit commercial use, however, images distributed under this license are used without any restriction in Wikipedia. Finally, during this discussion, a number of experienced administrators voiced their opinion against this ridiculous interpretation of the policy, and supported the use of non-free history photos in WP articles. However, since I believe that the issue is more general, we need to discuss it on some noticeboard, because the formal interpretation of the NFCC by some users affects many WP articles.
 * One way or the another, I planned to initiate this discussion in close future. What we need is a modification of the guidelines (not policy, because the policy is quite good) to eliminate a possibility of their uniform application to various contemporary commercial images and historical photos. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PBS - the issue of the use of the photo, (previously discussed and closed, as you point out) was resurrected again (see above); the small number wanting removal did not care it was "iconic" and followed what can only be described as a strict interpretation of the guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the guidelines, by contrast to the policy, are not something obligatory, and we don't have to observe them literally.
 * Secondly, the discussion should move to the guidelines talk page, because the guidelines are written in such a way that they allow so ridiculous and formal interpretaion of the policy. In addition, this problem is not limited with this article only: during last months important photos have been removed from the WWII article, Operation Bagration article, etc, and I would like to resolve the issue with non-free historical photos in general to avoid edit war over every separate article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If there were a 'small number' advocating removal of the image, we wouldn't be having this discussion, since obviously the implied great mass of people who want it included would have consensus. Further, the guidelines have been written over time with the effort of a great many people. To deride their efforts as something resulting in a "ridiculous" situation seems offbase to me. The guidelines exist for a reason. They exist because we are a free content resource, and we permit non-free content only when absolutely necessary. I don't dispute the image is iconic. That is why there is an article dedicated to the subject of the photo, and the photo is used there. As has been previously explained, its use here is not necessary, and other material conveys the meaning necessary for this article. We've debated this over and over again. No consensus for inclusion has been achieved, and that is the bar that needs to be exceeded, per WP:NFCC policy (not guideline, policy). --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One can try and spin it anyway they want, as an atty. I hear it all the time, however, the facts of the matter (as written above and in the archive) speak for themselves. Clearly the rule/"policy" is being defined and used in a narrow way. Paul, if you want to move this discussion, go ahead. I was answering a query by PBS who has in the past been responible for many additions and edits to this article (and was involved in the discussion of the first attempt to remove the photo). Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the the policy is being defined and used in a narrow way is completely irrelevant. What matters, and this is the fact that is most pertinent, is there is no consensus to include the image. Without that consensus, a non-free image does not get used. If you want to get the policy changed to allow this sort of use, WT:NFC is the place to begin such a discussion. I will say that it is unlikely to change, because of our Mission. We aren't just an encyclopedia. We're a free content encyclopedia, and that is why we have the WP:NFCC policy. If we were just an encyclopedia, then we could use non-free content as much as we like within the bounds of U.S. fair use law, and that law would clearly allow the use. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was there for a long time so the status quo is for it to remain unless you can show a consensus to remove it and to date there is not even a simple majority in favour of its removal. -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Current WP:NFCI guidelines contain two clauses that are being interpreted by some users as a justification of the removal of this image (as well as of many similar images) from historical WP articles. That is not what the policy (and the Foundation's resolution on EDP) state, and I initiated the discussion about modification of the guidelines. Although the RfC was closed after 2 days, many users do not support this closure, so I am intended to re-open this discussion, so you can join it. I don't believe posting that information here is canvassing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I initiated the discussion on the guidelines' talk page. Everybody is welcome to join.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)