Talk:Raising a Flag over the Reichstag

Original research

The caption:

"The original photo (top) was altered (bottom) with the removal of watches on a soldier's wrists."

is dubious. Firstly, the conclusion about wrists is controversial, because if you change the brightness and contrast of the top picture to the same level as on the bottom one, you will see that the left wrist looks identically on both pictures. We can talk only about the right wrist.

Since the contrast of these two pictures are different (that may be just a result of the difference in the digitalization procedure) the contrast of smoke on the second picture is higher. Although it is well known that Khaldei added smoke afterwards, it is incorrect to say that the smoke was added to the second picture only.

And, finally, these captions, as well as the collage seem to be a original research of some editor and, it the evidences for the opposite will not be presented in close future, they should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard from some Russian sources that the photo indeed was altered, but that was overcensorship. In fact the second soldier was officer, and the second watch on his wrist was not a watch at all, but compass - it was typical for an officer to have compass for orienteering. Greyhood (talk)

Leaving the issue of watches and alterations beyond the scope, the conclusions drawn by comparison of these two images (smoke and two watches) seem to be drawn by the wikipedian who have written this article, not by the sources he used. Therefore, the captions and the montage should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick glance at the sources shows the following:

In reality the soldier who is supporting his comrade with the flag had a watch on each wrist. The Soviet soldiers had looted their way through Berlin when they arrived. Khaldei admitted later that he had scratched out the watch on the man's right arm in one of the negatives using a needle. [1]

In the picture you can see that the second soldier, who holds the statue for balance bears a watch on each wrist. The fact that looting was present shortly after the invasion of the capital, was obvious, but it should not just be presented to the world. So Khaldei removed these items from the photo.[2]

Censors at the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) noticed that on the wrists of the solider in the picture there was not one but two watches indicating a common practice by all parties during World War II, looting. The officials thought the sight of looting members of the Red Army would look badly and told Khaldei to edit them out.

[3]

Maybe you didn't see the sources? I'll make it more clear in the article. -- Esemono (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I saw the sources. You simply didn't understand me. It is not clear from the images that File:Reichstag flag original.jpg is the unaltered image whereas Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg is the altered one. Another possibility is that they are two different digitalisations of the same photo. Let me explain you it in the following way. The caption says "Raising a flag over the Reichstag, by Yevgeny Khaldei but with smoke enhanced". That is your own conclusion, that was made based on the well known fact that smoke on this photo was taken from quite different photograph of some industrial landscape. Khaldei didn't enhance smoke (there was no smoke on the Grebnev's photo of the same event taken from almost the same point; the "enhancement" you mean is a result of higher contrast of the second image), he added it. And, obviously, you conclusion about enhancement is a pure OR. Similarly, if you try to play with contrast of the File:Reichstag flag original.jpg to make it similar to that in File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg, you will see that left hands look identically on both images, whereas the right ones differ in 1 or 2 pixels. Are you sure it is sufficient for making a conclusion you made?

Again, I do not question what the source say. My points are (i) the sources probably mean another image (there is no ground to claim File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg was altered), and (ii) some of the conclusion allegedly made in sources were made in actuality by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I get what you're saying. So you agree with the sources that Khaldei removed the watch from the photo and enhanced the smoke (The German source says he used the smoke from this photo) but you don't the think the edited result was the this image. In other words you agree with the sources that there are two pictures; A)The original with the watches and B) The edited version which Khaldei, "using a needle" removed the watch and added more smoke from this photo -- Esemono (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So does this article help? The Daily Mail online talks about adding smoke and erasing the watches while showing the image used in the article. Here too the image is displayed while talking about, "This is the retouched version with billowing smoke added in the sky and the second watch on the officer's wrist removed. Khaldei was instructed to remove the second watch as it suggested "....conduct unbecoming of an officer..." Signed on verso and dated 1945 in pencil" -- Esemono (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Two years later, I, too, can't see any sure difference between the two pictures except a different contrast level.

• Image:Reichstag flag original.jpg
• Image:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg

Correction: Okay, now when I've looked at the original size images, I can. But the description of the second image is still wrong, cause no source says anything about "enhancing" the smoke. The smoke was "added" according to some sources, not "enhanced". The use of the images in the article is an original research, since there are no sources that say anything about these particular images being some specific before/after versions. They are both "after" in my opinion. And any of them could be altered using Photoshop. I think if there are no reliable sources for these exact images being some specific versions, only one image should stay in the article. (The first one is better quality.) Moscowconnection (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do what you're suggesting which is original research. Wikipedia doesn't care and is forbidden from adding your opinion. You might think there are no changes but the sources disagree. Original research like you're suggesting is NOT ALLOWED! The sources say the image was altered so that is what should be in the article. -- Esemono (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a discussion on a talk page. Wikipedia:ORIGINAL discusses articles. Why are you writing in all caps? And I'm not suggesting adding anything to the article, I'm suggesting removing. The link says "retuschierte" which means "retouched", nothing about "enhancing" clouds. The images used in the article are from unreliable sources. Below I suggested replacing them with the ones that were published in Time and Guardian. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Adrianov compass

The article says:

On the other was an Adrianov compass, which resembled another watch and one could infer that Ismailov had looted the pieces or otherwise acquired them illegally.

But the source at the end of the sentence (Sontheimer, Michael (2008-07-05). "The Art of Soviet Propaganda: Iconic Red Army Reichstag Photo Faked". Der Spiegel.) says

It tells of how Khaldei flew to Moscow that very night after taking the photograph. When the image appeared in the magazine Ogonjok on May 13, 1945 one detail had already been changed. In reality the soldier who is supporting his comrade with the flag had a watch on each wrist. The Soviet soldiers had looted their way through Berlin when they arrived. Khaldei admitted later that he had scratched out the watch on the man's right arm in one of the negatives using a needle.

It does not support the Adrianov compass theory and so it should be removed. This seems to me that it could be another propaganda exercise, so unless it is the common view among none partisan publications, if it is only in some publications then it should be placed in a footnote not in the main body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The compass detail was added with this edit (Revision as of 08:11, 11 April 2011 George Serdechny) without any additional citations. So it is a point of view not backed up with any in-line cited sources in the article. -- PBS (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been over two years since the addition, I've removed it. Uirauna (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it has been repeatedly removed see for example see this edit Revision as of 19:53, 7 June 2012 .. PBS (rv sockpuppet edits by banned user User:George Serdechny). It was most recently reinstated by user:MtulliusC @ 21:15, 28 October 2012. -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move/name change

I propose moving this page to Raising the flag over the Reichstag to fit better with the other article, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, and because the current title sounds a little awkward.

If there are no objections, I will move it.

Imperator Sascha (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it could be argued that the other article should be moved to "Raising a Flag on Iwo Jima" as presumably more than one flag has been flown on Iwo Jima. We should follow what the sources use. So I suggest that if you want to move it you put in a WP:RM as this could easily be a controversial move. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the flag raising though, more famous than others. The current title would be better for something like common flag rasings. Imperator Sascha (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the article explains why "a" is probably more appropriate. Also this is not a pile of rocks and so it probably should have the word Soviet in it as Germans are known to place flags on the building as well. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title is intuitively clear, however, since we all have been deeply involved in this issue, our previous editing history (and familiarity with the subject) may affect our judgement. I think this is a typical situation when the outside opinion is needed, so the users who are less familiar with this story should decide which title will be more clear for a totally uninformed reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a clear and concise title would be: Raising a Soviet flag over the Reichstag. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Both are attested as titles for the photograph. I don't see any reason to change it. FWIW, the proposer of this move/rename has been proven a sock of User:Anonymiss Madchen. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sascha Kreiger -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Raising the Flag over the Reichstag or Victory Flag over the Reichstag or Raising the Victory Flag over the Reichstag. The Russian title is "Victory Flag over Reichstag" (capitalized like this). So it's definitely "the". It's not "a flag", but "the Victory Flag", even though there are no indefinite or definite articles in the Russian language. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a descriptive name. See the image above more than one flag. -- PBS (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The photograph officially depicts the taking of the Reichstag, not a random flag-raising. I don't understand the argument about another photo with many flags, the image above is not from 1945. How many flags are there on Iwo Jima now? Moscowconnection (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not the first flag raised and this one was only symbolic as to the taking of the Reichstag, victory over the Germans in the Battle in Berlin and the Ostfront. Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations

I'm going to do this:

1. Upload this photo from TIME: [4] as the original photo as it is known
2. Upload this photo from Guardian: [5] to illustrate the part about watches

In my opinion, the photos that are in the article now could be have been faked. I don't understand how a photograph can have both smoke and watches. The unaltered photo should have had no smoke at all. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your original research doesn't matter. The sources say the image was altered, therefore this is reflected in the article. If you can find sources that say the opposite other than your original research then the article can be adjusted. -- Esemono (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The description of the second photo is wrong and can't be sourced from the link you provided. Sorry, I undid your edit: [6]. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You probably didn't understand me. I'm just saying that the images that are used in the article now are taken from unreliable sources. The articie is okay except the images and the description of the second image. The words "but with smoke enhanced" can't be sourced from an article that says "added". Moscowconnection (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both File:Reichstag_flag_original.jpg and File:Soviet_flag_on_the_Reichstag_roof_Khaldei.jpg have been tagged with "contradict-other" long ago. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Reichstag_flag_original.jpg is listed for deletion. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Qoshqarbaev

On 4 January 2015 an anonymous user had changed the names of Mikhail Minin and Mikhail Yegorov to Rakhimzhan Qoshqarbaev. I've put Yegorov back in the "official version" (as this is well known) but have no idea what to do the with the Minin/Qoshqarbaev case, as I don't see any accessible reliable sources for either of them. Can anyone investigate? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Opening para

I propose to change the 2nd sentence in the opening paragraph as shown below:

Original:

• Raising a flag over the Reichstag is a historic World War II photograph, taken during the Battle of Berlin on 2 May 1945. It is symbolic of the Soviet victory and occupation in east Germany in the closing months of the war; several Soviet troops are shown raising the flag of the Soviet Union atop the German Reichstag building.

Proposed:

• It is symbolic of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany; several Soviet troops are shown raising the flag of the Soviet Union atop the German Reichstag building.

Rationale:

The paragraph goes on to state that the photograph has been reprinted in hundreds of publications and is one of the most recognizable of WWII; I believe it's recognizable as a symbol of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, not for the occupation of East Germany. That's why it's been reprinted that many times.

Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to changing the blue-linked "Soviet victory and occupation" to just "Soviet victory" (with or without the link). However I added the link as a pointer to more on the topic of the Soviets moving into Germany. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No objection. Kierzek (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I found a source that supports the change: "The photo became an iconic image of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany." -- The Guardian. I will go ahead and edit the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure it is the flag of the Soviet Union? The star is not solid on the actual USSR flag. I thought I had once read that it was a Red Army military unit flag, but I cannot locate that information. The German Wikipedia page mentions the flag being of the "150th Protective Division."Cospelero (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Cospelero (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is the star filled in?

Why is the star on this flag filled in, when it’s usually an outline? Lbc07 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"punishable by execution"

The article states that Ismailov apparently wearing two watches was edited out because it implies looting, which was "an action punishable by execution". The source linked to for that line says nothing of the sort. I personally find it very hard to believe. --MQDuck (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The fake colorized photo does not belong here

See also: Talk:Reichstag_building § Reighstag_1945

It's ironic that the fake colorized photo is used in the section all about the manipulation conducted on the original photo.

The original photo is the entire point of this article. It should be corrupted by one editor pushing his own fake colorized image. It's distraction and does nothing to improve the article. 74.75.98.224 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles:: pinging you to highlight the start of discussion after you locked the page. Although it's a shame you locked it after the contentious edit was reinserted, rather than the status quo without the image being pushed by the presumed author (sockpuppet of the one who uploaded it to the commons) who only business on the wiki is to insert their own work into articles.74.75.98.224 (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My dear friend!

The main idea of the article and the foto, to which the article is devoted, is the historical memory of the Victory of the Soviet Red Army in the World War II and of the ultimate capturing of Berlin (Nazi capital) by Soviet Red Army in 1945.

As you may see [7], I propose colorised version of foto, which is inline with the main idea of the article, and highlights it.

By the way, I am a bit surprised, that despite main idea of the article, 20-25% of the foto versions, which are presented in the article, are devoted to the "couple of watches/compass" story. Besides probable undue weight, the "couple of watches/compass" story was published in yellow press.

How do you think, my dear anonymous friend, is it correct or ironic to try to distract attention of the reader from the main idea of the article, i.e. from Victory of Soviet Red Army over Nazi in World War II? Stalin Strait (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a whole lot of nothing to support why this fake colorized photo should be used on this article, an article about the iconic original photo and a discussion about the manipulation of it. It does not belong here.2603:7080:9207:AD00:D5A3:532B:CC57:CA1 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets face facts: true color is red, and colorized foto is of better quality.

As I see, no policies prihibit colorised version, except that someone's eyes may be hurt by the red color. I guess, old man Adolf is in that group of hurted victims. Stalin Strait (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Dont you think so? Stalin Strait (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusing info

Two points I've noticed as problematic in the article. The article mentions Kovalev as one involved in the flag raising, and that he's "from Kiev." When you click on his article, however, it says he was a Russian from Kazakhstan. Second, I clicked on other people named in the article (ie, Kantaria and Yegorov), and their articles all include someone named Alexei Berest was involved with them, but he's not mentioned on this article at all. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You noticed it - you fix it. But, before making changes, can you please check sources? As far as I know, this issue is very convoluted. Several groups raised a red flag in different parts of Reichstag during the battle, and the Khaldei's photo depicts a totally different event (it was taken after the battle ended). "Yegorov and Kantaria" seems to be a purely official version, but if you know how to figure out a full list of those who were actually involved, please, do it. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag - Restoration.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 2, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-05-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 03:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Raising a Flag over the Reichstag (Russian: Знамя Победы над Рейхстагом, romanized: Znamya Pobedy nad Reykhstagom, lit. 'Victory Banner over the Reichstag') is an iconic World War II photograph, taken during the Battle of Berlin on 2 May 1945 by Yevgeny Khaldei. The photograph was reprinted in thousands of publications and came to be regarded around the world as one of the most significant and recognizable images of World War II, but, owing to the secrecy of Soviet media, both the identity of photographer and the identities of the men in the picture were often disputed.

The Reichstag was seen as symbolic of, and at the heart of, Nazi Germany. It was arguably the most symbolic target in Berlin. After its capture on 2 May 1945, Khaldei scaled the now pacified Reichstag to take a picture. He was carrying with him a large flag, sewn from three tablecloths for this very purpose, by his uncle. The official story would later be that two hand-picked soldiers, Meliton Kantaria (Georgian) and Mikhail Yegorov (Russian), raised the Soviet flag over the Reichstag, However, according to Khaldei himself, when he arrived at the Reichstag, he simply asked the soldiers who happened to be passing by to help with the staging of the photoshoot; the one who was attaching the flag was 18-year-old Private Kovalev from Burlin, Kazakhstan, the two others were Abdulkhakim Ismailov from Dagestan and Leonid Gorychev (also mentioned as Aleksei Goryachev) from Minsk.

Photograph credit: Yevgeny Khaldei for TASS; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured: