Talk:World War II/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Suggestions

i joknokkl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.213.12 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I've just started going over this article in consultation with a friend who's a non-Wikipedian but a big WWII buff (seriously, every conversation with the dude ends up being about WWII, and he's read some big percentage of the books that exist on the subject!). This is the same guy that I did the Winter War GA review with. We aim to do this GA review, but I'm not sure we can since it's going to take some time and it's a big job. If someone else beats us to it that's fine. I figured I'd list the objections I've come up with so far here as peer review-type suggestions; if I end up doing the GA review they're what I'd bring up (although some may end up being minor and not deal-breakers for GA status and most would just be suggestions there too).

Background

• Trouble with this sentence: In 1931, an increasingly militaristic Japanese Empire, which had long sought influence in China[9] as the first step of its right to rule Asia, used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria; the two nations then fought several small conflicts, in Shanghai, Rehe and Hebei until the Tanggu Truce in 1933.
  • The lay reader isn't going to know what Mukden is; you'd have to either have a short parenthetical explanation or take it out. I recommend the latter in this case. My buddy says the word 'small' is not appropriate for a conflict where like a million people died. He recommends something like, "In 1931, an increasingly militaristic Japanese Empire invaded Manchuria as the first step of its right to rule Asia; this led to several conflicts, in Shanghai..."

• Awkward: Adolf Hitler, after an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the German government in 1923, became the Chancellor of Germany in 1933.
  • 1933 is well after 1923, so this reads funny. How about the more general "... Hitler, after a long struggle for power, became chancellor..."

• This campaign worried France and the United Kingdom, who had lost much in the previous war, as well as Italy, which saw its territorial ambitions threatened by those of Germany
  • My buddy says that the idea that Mussolini was worried by Germany is possibly true but not appropriate at this level of detail. In the broader treatment, Italy was trying to be friends with Germany. He recommends pitching this sentence altogether, saying that the fact that France and the UK were worried is not unique or surprising: everyone was worried.

• Before taking effect though, the Franco-Soviet pact was required to go through the bureaucracy of the League of Nations, rendering it essentially toothless
  • My buddy says this is not a very important detail, I'm wondering if it's important enough to be in a summary section in this general of an article. Also, it sounds like an opinion.

• The United States, concerned with events in Europe and Asia, passed the Neutrality Act in August.
  • My buddy say the US was concerned, but the concern was that we were going to get involved, not that that the events were happening in general. He suggests, "The United States, fearing entanglement in the events in Europe and Asia, passed the Neutrality Act in August, which prohibited aid to any belligerent in the conflict." Still, this generalization represents the US as a monolithic whole, but congress was split and Roosevelt did want to be involved. But I guess that kind of thing is difficult to avoid in an article about this broad of a topic!

• Contradictory: "To secure its alliance, the French allowed Italy a free hand in Ethiopia, which Italy desired as a colonial possession. ... In October, Italy invaded Ethiopia, with Germany the only major European nation supporting her invasion." Also, the second sentence is a bit awkward; 'with' is an awkward additive link. How about this; To secure its alliance, the French allowed Italy a free hand in Ethiopia, which Italy desired as a colonial possession; it invaded in October. and remove the second sentence.

• Chronology, Prewar events, and Course of the war are separate sections; this seems like it doesn't work. I'm aware of the unpopularity of using level 4 headers, though.

War in China

• My buddy says that the end of this section should mention the effect of the pact, namely that the Japanese never attacked the Russians; this had a big effect on the war, because Germany couldn't count on Japanese support. He says this is more important than Manchuko etc.

Well, that's what we've got so far! Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about these suggestions! I'll do more whenever my buddy and I have time if you like. delldot ∇. 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you delldot, as I was the one who nominated the article (and seeing that I too love ww2, I'll get right to it)--Coldplay Expert 13:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. Thanks for raising it. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

<Moving suggestion that wasn't mine>

• Needs proof/support: "The Soviet Union, concerned due to Germany's goals of capturing vast areas of eastern Europe, wrote a treaty of mutual assistance with France." ... How could soviet union know 'goals' of Germany which was just rising after the WW1 collapse. This statement needs refactoring or some improved reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingjog (talk • contribs) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: 'March 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed'

This review is transcluded from Talk:World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Coldplay Expert 21:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing the nomination on hold to allow contributors time to address the below concerns. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page should you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns that I feel have been adequately addressed have been struck. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost there, just a few more fixed (grammar and duplicate ref and I think that Everything will have been fixed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Some of the section headings are problematic. Headings shouldn't start with "The" and should avoid repeating "war" so many times (although appropriate in some places, "Impact of the war", for instance, could be "Impact"). Cliches like "the tide turns" should be avoided

Still some issues with "The", and some of the section titles are still rather cliched

Feel free to fix any other cliches that you see

I would suggest changing the header "The tide turns" to something like what Coldplay Expert did here, or at least something along those lines. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 13:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Spelling should be consistently either British or American

I cant really do this with any degree of success as I only know American English if anyone else can help with its problem please do.

What's the consensus on this? Is consensus to change the British English to American or to change the American English to British? Let me know and I will gladly change it for you. @Kate (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

omg well thank you on your willingness to do this..I would say British English as the war starts LONG before the Americans official entry the conflict.Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. If no one objects by Monday, I'll make the appropriate changes. @Kate (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support the change to British English, even though im american this article should be british per the reaons stated above.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate spelling changes are  Done, though I would appreciate it being looked over once again as it has been quite some time since I've used exclusively British spelling and it is possible that I may have missed one or two. Let me know.:) GwenNovak ^{talk to my master} 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've more or less finished it (see article history), though there may be one or two Americanisms I've missed, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For those that don't know, the accepted way of deciding the variety of English that should be used (in an article that does not have a clear national association) is to follow the choice of the first major editor - see WP:RETAIN. In this case though, the oldest edit has both "criticised" and "harbor" in it so it is unclear. Anyway, I guess it's ok if consensus has been reached on this page with no objections. Also, I am fairly sure that perimetre is not a correct spelling in any variety of English. SpinningSpark 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done...looks good to me ...lets let the reviewer add the <s> When she is happy with it all Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost perfect, but could someone quickly change "counterattack"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed I changed one instance of "counterattack" and one instance of "counteroffensive" to "counter-attack" and "counter-offensive" for the sake of consistent BE spellings. @Kate (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per this tool, there are 4 dab links to be fixed

 Done

I fixed a couple a while ago, and someone else's fixed the third since then, but I'm not sure where Japanese Occupation should go, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I solved the problem by unlinking it, although arguably it could be a reasonable exception to the "links to dab pages are bad" rule as most of the entries there comprise the set of Japanese occupied countries. SpinningSpark 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I realize that the minimum lead size is 3 paragraphs, but for an article of this magnitude IMO 3 is not sufficient to give an overview of the entire text

 Not done IMO I think that 3 is enough. I will hoever see what I can do but right now it is at the bottom of my priority list.

• Article linked in the text or as "main articles" for certain sections should not also be linked in See also

 Done removed all 8-9 extra links in the see also section

• "they did not become a World War until they merged in 1941; at which point the war continued until 1945" - punctuation is incorrect as written

: Done reworded the sentence to say "Both wars did not become a global conflict until they merged in 1941; at which point the war continued until 1945."

Semi-colon should be a comma, still a bit awkwardly worded

 Done I changed this a while ago to say "Neither war became a global conflict until they merged in 1941, at which point the war continued until 1945." Is that okay?

Better, but still not great...what if you took out the negative? Something along the lines of "The two became a global conflict when they merged..."

I've re-changed it to say "The two wars merged in 1941, becoming a single global conflict, at which point the war continued until 1945." How about that? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• "on October 1935" -> "in October 1935"

 Done

• "The end of the War also has several dates" - grammar and clarity issues Dont know where it is. Will fix once I find it.

Start of second paragraph under Chronology

Y Possibly done. I changed it to say "The exact date of the War's end is not universally agreed upon.", but I don't know whether this will be satisfactory or not, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Avoid wikilinking the same term more than twice in the article text (no more than once in the main text, i.e. excluding the lead and infobox)

 Done Yep there are no dup links anymore expept in pictures and other places that they are required

 Done: Got rid of all the duplicate links.--Twilight Helryx 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest putting "Chronology" before "Background"

 Done switched places

• Mukden Incident is first mentioned in Background, and thus the parenthetical explanation should appear there

In Background, Japan "used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria"; in Invasion of Ethiopia, you mention "Mukden Incident in 1931 (the Japanese annexation of three Chinese provinces)". Since background comes first, the stuff in parantheses should appear there instead

 Done Fixed wording.

• Date formatting should be consistent - the standard seems to be Month Day, Year, so all dates should be formatted that way

: Done Dont see any mistakes there, I could be wrong though...

There's one under Invasion of China

 Done Fixed it.

• Avoid one- to two-sentence short paragraphs

 Done: merged all such paragraphs with corresponding paragraphs.--Twilight Helryx 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• All measurements should have conversions (use the convert template)

Im not sure how to do this so if anyone else wishes to, go right ahead.

Check here for information on how to do this with the template

 Question: I don't see any measurements in the article; can someone point them out for me?--Twilight Helryx 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a couple "kilometres" in "The war become global", and some currencies under "Impact"...might be more that I'm missing atm. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I see them now. Getting to work on them. Thanks!--Twilight Helryx 14:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've converted all measurements for distance and barrels of oil. However, Reichmarks (under World War II#Occupation still needs to be converted. Does anyone here know how to convert that to USD and/or £? --Twilight Helryx 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Should be consistent in using either "percent" or "%" in article text

 Done: I think I've gotten them all.--Twilight Helryx 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Check for proper use of commas and hyphens

Y maybe done Twilight fixed many of them.

Better, but could use another quick run-through

• Commas should not be used between months and years, but only between days and years Another big task.

 Done I went through every mention of a month (eg. January, February, etc.) in the article and fixed where appropriate (eg. "in June, 1944" was changed to "in June 1944"). I hope I did it right, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is it properly called "the Holocaust" or "The Holocaust"? Should be consistent

 Done Worded it to say "The Holocaust"

• "hosted by the University of North Texas Libraries'" - grammar

 Done What is wrong with thats sentence? I dont see any grammar problems. I may be wrong though...

" Libraries' " - either you're missing a word or the apostrophe is misplaced

Deleted the whole link as it was dead. See below (ref's)

• "during the 2nd world war" - capitalization I will have to find this sentence once I read the entire article. Where is it?

It's part of a description in External links

 Done. Changed it to say "during the Second World War", Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Footnotes should come immediately after punctuation, not before

Ypossible done I dont see any issues but I may have overlooked them.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Sorry to butt in, but could I suggest using AWB? If you set a regexp to find </ref>, etc. it should be pretty quick. Let me know if you need help. delldot ∇. 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, in the comming days Ill try to fix them.--Coldplay Expert 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't/can't use AWB, even the Ctrl+F function would work probably work okay, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I looked pretty thoroughly, and I think I've fixed them all, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Might consider reformatting the notes section to have columns instead of the long list

 Done {{reflist2}}Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Citation needed tag should be addressed

 Done

• Citations needed for:

• making it the deadliest conflict in human history.

 Done...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria

Please look could be Wikipedia:Copyright violations

The text from that site is identical to a large portion of the text in this article. Therefore, either we copied them or they copied us. Since the copyright date on their site is after this article first appeared, I'm inclined to believe the latter, but you might want to ask someone over at WP:CP to take a look just to be sure.

 Done replaced above reference Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the greatest source, but okay...Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I aggree it is a copy of a news article in German..i will look for a better one

• Chinese volunteer forces continued the resistance

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The situation was aggravated in early 1935 when the Saarland was legally reunited with Germany and Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, speeding up his rearmament program and introducing conscription

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ethiopia never capitulated or surrendered

Resolved

Statement removed What i have found is that the government fled and was replaced by a puppet government...so yes they never technically surrendered as they were not there to do so...but statement above implies the government fought on ..but it was independent tribes that resisted....Buzzzsherman 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Kiev offensive was overwhelmingly successful, resulting in encirclement and elimination of four Soviet armies, and made further advance into Crimea and industrially developed Eastern Ukraine (the First Battle of Kharkov) possible

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• triggered a successful coup d'état

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• On the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered specifically to the Soviets on May 8. A German Army Group resisted in Prague until May 11.

 Done + copy editOn the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered to the Soviets on May 8. A German Army Group resisted in Prague until May 11. the army did surrenderer to the Soviets on May 8 {this is that the solderers on the Eastern Front actual physically were handed over to the Soviets} Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, as a common standard of achievement for all member nations

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• divisions, usually for ethnic or religious reasons, occurred following European withdrawal

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Figures on the amount of total casualties vary to a wide extent because the majority of deaths were not documented.

 Done Removed statement just does not fit in ...after you read all the numbers then we say PS there all wrong ...dont think so

Yes, but you might want to say something about why estimates vary so wildly

• According to Mitsuyoshi Himeta, at least 2.7 million died during the Sankō Sakusen implemented in Heipei and Shantung by General Yasuji Okamura

: Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is identical to the ref - possible copyvio. Also needs page number, and this isn't a book.

Resolved

Copy edit and fix ref Mitsuyoshi Himeta reported 2.7 million casualties occurred during the Sankō Sakusen. General Yasuji Okamura implemented the policy in Heipei and Shantung.Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The U.S. and Canadian governments interned 150,000 Japanese-Americans, as well as nearly 11,000 German and Italian residents of the U.S.

 Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The assault rifle, a late war development which incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun, became the standard postwar infantry weapon for nearly all armed forces.

: Done Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also not a book, needs page number, the work is not called "Amnesty International". Also does not support "incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun".

Resolved

fix ref to link to Amnesty International and second ref for first statementBuzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another important aspect of military intelligence was the use of deception operations, which the Allies successfully used on several occasions to great effect, such as operations Mincemeat and Bodyguard. which diverted German attention and forces away from the Allied invasions of Sicily and Normandy respectively

 Done Copy edit removed text above in bold

• notable examples being the British ULTRA and the Allied breaking of Japanese naval codes

 Done

• Other important technological and engineering feats achieved during, or as a result of, the war include the worlds first programmable computers (Z3, Colossus, and ENIAC), guided missiles and modern rockets, the Manhattan Project's development of nuclear weapons.

: DoneBuzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Supports only programmable computers. Also. there should be an apostrophe in "worlds"

Resolved

have used this ref for whole paragraph + typo fix done on above ref Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Referencing format should be consistent per WP:CITE

 Done fixed most ref's

There are still some inconsistencies in formatting

• "Tucker's own view is that 191 is most convenient" - is that a typo?

 Done Removed fake ref..was added almost a year ago...book is right but all like author and page etc,,is fake....Second ref still ther Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• All book references need a date and publisher; all web references need an access date and publisher/author (where available). Some are currently missing this information

 Not done

• At least one of your references (Hsiung) is duplicated in notes

 Done Two separate pages in the book. No longer duplicated I belive.

• What makes note 257 (faqs.org) a reliable source?

 Done Note 257 is not faqs.org but a japanesse site.

That's because you've added refs since this comment was made. The ref I'm referring to is now 259, but that might change again if you change the references

Lost it again

It's called "Deported Nationalities", and is currently 261

Well Im not going to remove the source but I do agree it is not the best source. Ill leave it for now as a secondary source (now I just need a primary source)

• Note 266 leads to a site about a documentary on an IRA bombing

 Done Note 266 talks about the Eastern Front.

See above comment; the problematic ref is currently 268

Lost it again

It's called "The warlords: Joseph Stalin" and is currently 270

Note: To find the ref # that is mentioned here ..I just look at a copy that was there before review that i know reviewer saw Revision as of 08:24, 5 November 2009 ,by Nikkimaria. Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done removed the citation but not is may need to have a "citation needed" tag.

You're right, it needs to be cited

• Notes that appear more than once should be named and appear using the proper multiple-ref formatting

 Not done Im not sure how to do that.

On the first appearance of a particular reference, you cite it fully, but insert a name: <ref name="xyz">ref details</ref>. On the next appearance of the same ref, you can simply use <ref name="xyz"/> to lead to the same source.

• Tertiary sources should be avoided when reliable secondary sources are available

 Not done

• University of North Texas poster collection is a dead link; Daily German action reports is a dead link

 Done removed dead link on german reports. and north texas poster collection.

• Per WP:EL, some of the external links need to be culled

 Not done

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• Does a fairly good job with encyclopedic tone, but there are a few momentary lapses - be sure to maintain neutral and academic language
• Look at WP:WTA
• Per WP:WEASEL, don't use the phrase "some sources" or synonyms
• Words like "notable" and "important" should be used carefully and should be qualified and supported judiciously

 Done Looks good to me, Feel free to prove me wrong though.

One example: "scored a much-needed public morale boost" is colloquially worded and IMO unencyclopedic as written. There are several instances of this type of problem throughout the article, although the majority is well-written.

Stability

• Stable, semi-protected

Images

• Most of the images in the infobox are duplicated in the main article - why was this done?

 Done Im keeping this as not done but I belive they are duplicated in the article becasue they are..well really good images. I can go back to an old version of the infobox if you want me to. Replaced the infobox image

• Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg needs publisher/creator and source
• Source link on El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg appears to be broken

 Done Fixed link.--Staberinde (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken. Also, the permissions for that image require a photo credit

Why dont we go back to this set of images. They are not used in the main article.

As we have now new infobox image I think that this issue and two next ones are now solved.--Staberinde (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox image lists only two source images but incorporates six. Though it is asserted that all are in the public domain, without sources this cannot be verified

 Done --Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)See below.

Since most of the source images are in the article, you can simply add those photos as source images on the file description page

• One of the source images for the infobox image describes the emaciated figures simply as "prisoners", while the caption asserts that they are "Jews" - without a source, that statement is not verifiable and may not be accurate

 Done Not sure how to fix the infobox images. :This fix can be done without changing the infobox images - you just might need to change the caption if you cannot find evidence that all of the people in that photo are Jewish.

I couldn't find evidence that all the people in the photograph were Jewish, so I changed "Jews" to "prisoners" on Template:WW2InfoBox as Jews were not the only group of people to go to concentration camps, and without a source to back up the assertion that they are all Jews, I believe "prisoners" is more accurate. @Kate (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• The source link for Reichsparteitag_1935_mod.jpg is broken

 Done replaced the image

• According to the terms of the licensing tags used for Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg‎, its description page must have a source, author and location of first publication

 Done removed image

• "Common parade of German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army on September 23rd 1939 in Brest, Eastern Poland at the end of the Invasion of Poland. At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein." - should use "23" instead of "23rd", last sentence doesn't make sense, there are three people in the picture (if the third is unimportant, should specify which one the label applies to by saying "at right is...")

 Done fixed the date problem and specified who is where.

• Source link for Kyiv-Prorizna_1941.jpg‎ is broken

 Done replaced image.

• Permissions link for Japanese_troops_mopping_up_in_Kuala_Lumpur.jpg is broken and it is tagged as lacking author information

 Done Replaced the image

• Source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken and the permission information requires a caption/photo credit

 Done replaced the image with another from the battle of stalingrad

Is the one you added German pows stalingrad 1943.jpg? It uses a deprecated license tag

Replaced the image again.

Is the new one M3_Tank_Stalingrad.jpg? It's missing author info, which it must have under that licensing tag

You know as much as I do that there is no why we will be able to find the author. He was probably killed in the fighting. Oh well I guess Ill have to find a new image (again).--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I replaced the image with one that is all set (no issues as its from the german federal archives) I hope this one is ok as its from the same area and timeline (stalingrad).

• The information page for Prokhorovka.jpg‎ says is was taken at the Battle of Prokhorovka, while the caption says Battle of Kursk. Which is correct?

 Done Battle of Prokhorovka was part of the greater and more well know Battle of Kursk.

• The higher-resolution source link for File:Approaching Omaha.jpg is broken

 Done No longer broken

• VE-day-parade-moscow.jpg‎ is tagged as lacking source and author information

 Done Removed the image as the author has not yet responded to my request for a source.

• File:Wuhan 1938.jpg needs a source
• File:Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada.jpg says it is public domain, but there's no PD tag. The Creative Commons tag is contradictory to the PD claim. Also, no source
• File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG says it's PD in the US, but it obviously wasn't published before 1923.
• Can you find an author for File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG?
• File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg needs a stronger fair-use rationale
• File:Holocaust123.JPG should be replaced with another image illustrating the same point

I don't know why, I just felt a need to comments. Images aren't my strong point, so please forgive me if I sound like a moron. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK in order:

1.I guess Ill have to move the Wuhan picture (again)

2.Same as above

3.Uh...Ill have to look that up it does seem confusing. (May have to replace that image too)

4.There is no way that we can find a real life author to that image. More than likely, the author was killed in the fighting around stalingrad or elsewhere on the eastern front.

5.Why does it need a stronger fair use rationale? It looks fine to me.

6.Ill see what I can do, the image is graphic a bit. Although there may be concerns over downplaying the holocaust in this article. It was after all one of history's darkest chapters...

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd doesn't seem impossible to fix. Permission should be changed to reflect actual permission [1] and it should be fine.--Staberinde (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I think that I fixed it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re #4: if you could track down the listed source for the picture, it will likely either give credit for the photo to someone or it will say "photographer unknown", in which case per the copyright info linked from the description page, the publisher qualifies as the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

About number 6: I understand these concerns, but it is a fair-use image, meaning it is essential for the reader to understand the Holocaust. This exact image isn't the only one that can be used to illustrate its purpose. Also, some might take issue with the POV it gives, but that's another discussion. Perhaps look through Commons:Category:The Holocaust. Mm40 (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Would it be possible to contact the original uploaders for these images. For some of the broken links, a Google search may yield an updated link. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks and BTW, is there a certain amount of time that this has to be done in?--Coldplay Expert 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Strict GAN rules say 1 week, but I tend to be a bit more generous, especially in cases like this where there are lots of things to be addressed. Usually, so long as issues are being addressed, I will allow a month to complete the review. However, if for whatever reason the review stops progressing, I usually decline to list after one week of inactivity. To sum up, so long as you keep working at it, you've got plenty of time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, then ill be sutre to make the occasional edit. (Or a lot more) To be honest if I knew about all of those problems, I would have not nominated this ariticle.--Coldplay Expert 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

dont give up Cold... i will help were i can ..i will also give a shout out to the war project guys...if we get 3-6 people working on this it should break down the work... Nikkimaria is very good at pointing out all things wrong and in most cases after what she has mentioned is done ,,it will pass with no problems... Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks extra help would be nice.--Coldplay Expert 11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Psst...guys, this has been open for over a month, and I haven't seen any striking recently. Are we still working on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Yes, we're still working on it; it's just that many of us got busy or don't know what to do about certain sections. Speaking of which, is the comme/hyphen thing cleared up now? I've recently corrected a couple of sentences but am not sure exactly how many are left. And for new section names: So far, nobody has any idea what a suitable replacement for "The war becomes global" should be and you might want to take a look at this discussion for "The tide turns" because it stopped all of sudden and the attention went elsewhere so we're left hanging.--Twilight Helryx 02:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are but we all got caught up in the discussion at the talk page. Now back to business. I want this done before the end of the year. Can you repost anything and everything that are still issues? Its kinda hard to find whats left. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consolidation

Remaining issues:

• Some of the section headings are problematic. Cliches like "the tide turns" should be avoided

 Done well we had a discussion on the talk page as to changeing the names but to ne concensus. Ill try again and in there are no good oposes ill make the changes in a few days.

The sections have been renamed.

• I realize that the minimum lead size is 3 paragraphs, but for an article of this magnitude IMO 3 is not sufficient to give an overview of the entire text

 Not done well As you are still demamding more than 3 paragraphs, ill have to fix it. Once all other problems are fixed il see what I can do.

It's not a deal breaker, but I really do think it would be better to have four paragraphs.

Couldn't something about the first and only uses of A-bombs (against an enemy) be mentioned here? And isn't the holocaust worth a mention here to? I realise this may be a ridiculous and outlandish suggestion, sorry if it is, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both are probably worth a mention in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Currencies, especially historic ones, should be converted

As User:Twilight Helryx pointed out, all the currencies have been converted with the exeption of the Reichmark. Seeing as we have exausted all efforts to convert it, its your cal as to what we should do next.

This site and others like it might help.

 Done I have found out the correct conversion. 69.5 Billion Reichmarks in 1939-1941 = 27.8 billion UDS

• General final copy-edit for clarity and fluency

 Done Long overdo but done.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Re-done. I did a second copy edit, just to confirm it (a few spelling and grammar issues had been missed, should be okay now), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Say something about why estimates vary so wildly for death toll

 Done

• Referencing format should be consistent per WP:CITE

well I thought that that was fixed but I guess I was wrong. can you give me an example as to what else needs fixing?

Some are missing ISBNs, some are missing dates, some vary in italicization, some have extra punctuation marks, some are missing punctuation marks, some books have date in parathese after author while others put it after publisher...Compare (for example) current refs 28 and 29 - same source (different pages), completely different formatting.

Say I was to go through every ref and use a WP:Citation template on it (the ones that don't have them). Would this help? I think I could manage this. It'd take some time, but I could do it... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you also added in some of the missing information (especially dates), then that would work well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've finished. I've went through every citation at least once, mostly twice. I've more or less done your job for you Nikkimaria :) Almost everything (I think) that needs it has a publisher, ISBN (if it has been assigned one), year/date, accessdate, or whatever else it should have. They also all have citation templates (i.e. {{citejournal}} {{citeweb}} {{citebook}}), so the formatting should be okay, eg. correct italicization, word order. The exceptions are; ref 103 (NY Times article), 106 (possibly attributed to the wrong author), 163 (dead link, not sure what to do with it), 220 (same as 163), 283, and 285. Some of those should be okay but could do with another check, and some I just couldn't figure out. Hope this helps. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed 103. I think that 106 might be this book, but if it is, both author and page number are wrong (and if it's not, I have no idea what is). I fixed the links on 163 and 220 using the [archive.org Internet Archive]. Not sure what to do about the last two...Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you're definitely right about 106. I added the details with page 425, which seems pretty relevant. 283 is apparently a journal, maybe it's okay the way it is. It has everything but page numbers, which isn't really essential or is it? Now it's just down to 285...if nobody can figure it out, maybe another reference could be found, and/or the info tweaked slightly to accomodate it? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Finished the last one (ref 285)! It took the better part of today, but it's done! Here's the diff. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• All book references need a date and publisher; all web references need an access date and publisher/author (where available). Some are currently missing this information

well I almost finished it but I had to stop somewear aroung ref 250. Ill finish the rest soon.

I'm working on it (see above), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything except ref 285, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, at least it should be. May have missed one or two...but probably not, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 267 (Deported Nationalities) needs to be replaced

 Done gone.

• Notes that appear more than once should be named and appear using the proper multiple-ref formatting

 Done for some reason I keep on messing this up. Ill see if Twilight Helryx is up to the challenge.

No more duplicates that I can see. A set of fresh eyes may be helpfull though.

 Question: Can someone point out which refs are dupes for me? Because, I'm having a hard time picking them out.

I think I may have fixed all of those, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Tertiary sources should be avoided when reliable secondary sources are available

 Not done can you give an example? Im sort of confused about this one.

SecondaryTertiary sources include encyclopedias, dictionaries, and most textbooks. For example, current ref 56 (an encyclopedia) is a tertiary source.

Wha!? I think you may have made a mistake in that sentence, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:EL, some of the external links need to be culled

 Not done I have no idea what this means.

Again, what does this mean?

I think it is a reference to the proliferation of external links at the end of this article. There are way too many of them, of insufficient importance to be there. I will cull some of them to give editors an idea of the issue. Some of the issues to be borne in mind: we should avoid links to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Also avoid links to content aggregators etc (such as directories - hence a couple of my deletions). I have also removed links that are to individual country or theatre-specific areas. If these should be anywhere, they should be in sub-articles of this top level article. For example, the link to Canada and WWII should only be in the Canada in World War II article, not here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have completed a clean-up, though i have my doubts about at least one of hte remaining links (propaganda leaflets). However, in that particular case i could not identify an alternative sub-article to which it should be moved. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Does a fairly good job with encyclopedic tone, but there are a few momentary lapses - be sure to maintain neutral and academic language

 Done Well I think this is done. I myself dont see anything that is POV but thats just MO.

The concern here is both neutral and academic language, which I do feel is still a problem. Perhaps you can ask someone else to go through?

Would you say it's okay now? I've read over the entire article, and fixed a lot of things. But maybe it's still an issue... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Look at WP:WTA
• Per WP:WEASEL, don't use the phrase "some sources" or synonyms

 Done I think that I fixed the last WP:WEASEL.

• Words like "notable" and "important" should be used carefully and should be qualified and supported judiciously

 Not done Well I guess this needs fixing.

• Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg needs publisher/creator and source

 Done Replaced.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Source link on El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg appears to be broken

 Done I fixed the broken link on wikipedia commons (where the file is located) but for some reason it still shows up as dead on the English Wikipedia even though It was fixed...

• The first source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken. Also, the permissions for that image require a photo credit

 Not done Same as above.

Non-free images

I appreciate that I'm not the reviewer here, but I wanted to leave a note about the non-free image use. The Holocaust image could surely be replaced by a free image of the Holocaust- it's not illustrating anything in particular, and the photo itself is not discussed. In fact, the file has been nominated for deletion. The other non-free image in the article is a little more iconic- however, that is not important, as what the photo shows/the photo itself is not mentioned. It is used only as a general illustration of the fall of Berlin- we would presumably have free images of this, and, even if we don't, it wouldn't matter too much if there was no illustration- the image is fairly decorative. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust image has been removed, and I had removed the other image, but someone has decided to edit war to keep it in, truly jepordising this review. This should not be promoted until that image is removed completely. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the image being referred to by J Milburn is the one of the flag raising over the reichstag, but if so, this is more complex than s/he is making out (see Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#RfC:_Is_the_non-free_Reichstag_photo_permissible_in_the_infobox?. While i support its removal from this article (and it is currently removed), i understand there are different views in this debate. Hopefully, however, the matter has already been resovled. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact there are "different views in the debate" does not mean that it is any less clear-cut than I imply. The image needed to be removed, and now has been. As you say, it is resolved. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but i can't let that go. You believed it was clear-cut; so did some others; others again did not. But as we agree - it appears to have been resolved for World War II at any rate. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact others claimed it wasn't clear cut doesn't mean it wasn't. The fact some people believe Queen Elizabeth is a lizard doesn't make us any less right when we describe her as human. This issue, as anyone who knows the first thing about our NFCC, was clear-cut- neither of those images should have been there. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read NFCC and have had to work with it in the past, so i hope i know at least "the first thing" about it. I don't know what the second image is to which you were referring, but as i have indicated at the Battle of Berlin discussion, in that particular context i thought the flag raising image was consistent with NFCC. As far as i can see, opinions are split more or less 50-50 at that RFC, so obviously there are arguments on both sides. But i don't think anyone is suggesting it is NFCC compliant for WWII, so we'll leave it there. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

I understand there's a lot to do on this since it's such a major topic, but can we start to wrap up the review on both sides? It's been under review since November so it's had a lot of time to be worked on. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Quick summary: WTA, tertiary sources, possibly the lead. Haven't checked pictures recently, have those been dealt with? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think pictures are OK. But re tertiary sources: I just read the Greenwood encyclopedia entry (note 57), and it isn't really even an accurate reference for the facts of the cited sentence (duration of blitzkrieg attack in the low countries). Not sure whether 'common knowledge' might apply, though, esp. at GA. So that one at least i would just delete if a secondary replacement source isn't to hand. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for it to come to an end people. 3 and a half months is too long. All of the citations have been fixed and all the image issues have been addressed. I can't really think of anything left for us to do. Nikkimaria, time for you to pass (or fail, well probably fail) it. It's been a fun time and if it passes then We've made a huge step in promoteing a major article on this site. If it fails, then we can always come back to GAN once the remaining issues have been addressed. I'de like to thank User:Spongefrog, User:Buzzzsherman, User:Twilight Helryx and anyone else that I've issed for halping out soooo much. I hope that your combined efforts are not in vain.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Before we hit the big finish, would you mind addressing the ref problem raised by hamiltonstone above? Shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(And Wuhan 1938 IJA.jpg still has no source, and source for File:El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg is still a broken link...) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the link on commons is fixed. (I fixed it a month ago) I still can't seem to understnad why it showes up as broken here and as for the source and other image, I'll get to them now.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and replaced the images with to new ones that have a source and are both in the PD. I've also replaced that one source (#57) that you mentioned.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Will this ever end?--Oneiros (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

March 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed.....Moxy (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Outbreak 3rd September

World War II began on September 3rd. No other date can possibly be accepted in this article. Simple question that proves this: Imagine that the Uk (with France) had not acted and declared war on September 3rd after Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1st. The action between Germany and Poland would have been known as "a conflict" or "a struggle" or even a war, but in no way would it ever have been called a World War. If at some later date, say January 1940, the Uk and France had declared war then this would be seen to be the date. The only reason some see September 1st as the date of the start of the war is because it is only 2 days before the actual outbreak. I also feel this is an American view which somewhat belittles the efforts taken by the UK, France, etc before America entered the war. Please correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.75.234 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"War crimes of the Wehrmacht".

Dear Paul Siebert, in the discussion above You said 5 December 2009: "Wehrmacht itself committed numerous war crimes (especially in the eastern Front or Yugoslavia, generally as a part of anti-partisan warfare)" I think You should say more precisely what You mean. Could it be that You have meant Reprisals? It is a horrible fact that these were not forbidden by the The Hague Convention of 1907 which was valid during wwII. Article 50 of part II of this convention forbade "collective punishment" but not reprisals. And the soviet partisans were no "private individuals" in the sense of II Art. 41 of this convention. Please consider in this context that the soviet partisans were constantly violating II Art. 23 and were acting without mercy against prisoners and against their own compatriots. See: the latest book of Bogdan Musial "Sowjetische Partisanen". User:Jäger 01:10, 6 December 2010 (CET)

Whether or not the "War crimes" of the Wehrmacht can be justified through the Hague conventions, the Wehrmacht did commit war crimes against civilians. Remeber, the goal of the Nazi party (The one's who ran the Wehrmacht) was to exterminate the slavs.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article, not World War II history in general. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Consequences

I believe that in an article one must state the consequences of historical events, and in a summary article, one must summarize the consequences. My edit, stating that "as a result of the Franco-British action on Czechoslovakia, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed" is a factual statement. This is not "Stalin's arguments" this is not a "Soviet Apologist stance" this is a direct and undeniable consequence of said event. In the Spanish Civil War the Red Army fought side by side with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Prior to the Franco-British assisted Nazi Sudetenland Grab, relations between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were icy. When the Nazis were declaring war on Czechoslovakia, the USSR was hard at work putting together an anti-Nazi coalition. Only after seeing the British and French backed down in the face of naked anti-Slavic aggression, did the Soviets begin to look for other allies. There is no mass conspiracy here, as the search began right after the event. This is not a motive, it's a statement of facts. If there are no more objections, I will reinsert the statement into the article, as it is merely cause and effect. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The statement "as a result of the Franco-British action on Czechoslovakia, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed" pretends to describe a casual linkage, although in actuality, the linkage was not so obvious, and the scholars' opinion on that vary dramatically. One school thinks that the only and sincere Soviet Union's desire was to establish a collective security system and an anti-Hitler's coalition. Another school believes that the only Stalin's aim was the alliance with Hitler. The third version (the most reasonable, in my opinion) is that the USSR was almost equally suspicious and hostile towards most European powers (that was, at least partially, justified), and considered all possibilities to avoid a direct war against Germany with other major powers playing a role of neutral observers (and, to expand its territory). The statement you tried to introduce into the article is a POV of the leftist part of the first group scholars. We cannot present it here as a sole interpretation of the events. We have either to tell a full story (that is impossible because of space limitations) or to abstain from any interpretations.
Interestingly, your statement may be even simply incorrect, because, according to my sources, Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia lead to rapprochement between the USSR, UK and France, and could lead to signing of Anti-Hitler triple alliance. In only a month after occupation of Czechoslovakia these three powers started consultations that lead to full scale political and military talks. Had Chamberlain and Stalin have a little bit less prejudice against each other, and had Ribbentrop been little bit less active, WWII could be prevented.
Re: "This is not a motive, it's a statement of facts." No. All these facts had already been in the article before your edits. Your wording looks like a description of motives, not statement of facts.
If you still disagree, try to propose another wording that takes into account all what I wrote. In addition, a consensus exists among those who edit this article that all significant changes are being discussed on the talk page before they are introduced into the article. Try to follow this unwritten rule. That saves a lot of time and efforts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As there are multiple different interpretations of most key events of World War II and Wikipedia's guidelines require that all non-fringe views be given equal weight, it isn't feasible for this high-level article to discuss casual links between events. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What Nick said, also the USSR wanting to be neutral argument falls apart, because historical evidence clearly shows that had France honored its alliance with Czechoslovakia, USSR would have intervened as well. USSR secured a passage from Romania in order to assist Czechoslovakia. USSR placed all of its divisions west of the Urals on High Alert. After the seizure of Czechoslovakia, the USSR held the UK partially responsible, and frankly did not trust them, or the French, as allies. If France failed to uphold their defensive treaty with Czechoslovakia, why would a defensive treaty with USSR be treated differently? Your claim is that "well France broke its defense treaty with Czechoslovakia, but just because there's the Nazi bully, we should treaty with France" doesn't make any sense. If you fail to defend an ally, you lose your credibility. That's the very reason for Stalin to be hostile towards the UK. Additionally, had the UK and France intervened to defend Czechoslovakia, no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would ever be signed.

The way you introduce the views, as one, two and oh look there's view number three in the middle, is incorrect. You try to portray views one and two as two extremes, and the third view, which is your point of view, (POV,) as a middle-ground. In order to do so, you present a fringe viewpoint. No serious scholar would state that Stalin's only aim was to ally Hitler, because Stalin was hard at work building an anti-Hitler coalition! Stalin's "master plan" to ally Hitler would require knowledge of Hitler's attack on Czechoslovakia and knowledge that the West would bail out ahead of time. The very fact that USSR opposed Nazi Germany in Spain, and opposed Nazi Germany's ally, Japan, in Mongolia, shows that there was no love lost between Hitler and Stalin. There is a single view here, that Stalin wanted an anti-Hitler coalition and a buffer zone from Hitler. What pro-Hitler actions did Stalin take prior to Nazi Invasion of Czechoslovakia, that weren't forced upon him? The only reason that Nazis and Soviets conducted trainings together, was because no one else would train with them. When you create Pariah states, they tend to get along. However USSR was willing to conduct military training with anyone; they even conducted military trainings with Mongolia, as soon as they got the chance. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page should be used only to discuss the article, not different interpretations of history. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The way you introduce the views, as one, two and oh look there's view number three". In contrast to you, I at least presented three different groups of opinions. I didn't say that more weight should be given to the third one, however, I believe, I have a right to express my own opinion on these POVs on the talk page.
If you seriously want to re-add your text into the article, be ready that other editors will add a text (supported by a large number of best-sellers) about simultaneous secret Nazi-Soviet talks that the USSR allegedly conducted in parallel with Anglo-Franco-Soviet triple talks, the text about alleged Soviet plan for an alliance with Germany in 1938, or even in 1937, the text about Soviet attempt to join the Axis in 1940, and other similar information.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have no problem with all significant views going into the article, whereas you intend for the article to just keep your viewpoint, the status quo. I'm open to compromise and to adding all viewpoints that are significant. I still hold that Stalin wanting to ally Hitler, prior to 1938 is a fringe viewpoint, and should not be included. However the other two viewpoints have merits, and both should be included into the article. I am open to compromise. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, we can all agree that had the Franco-Brits not turned tail on Czechoslovakia, no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would be signed, as the USSR and Nazi Germany would be at war with each other. And not anticipating that Ribbentrop would serve his country to the max is a bit silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is simply not feasible for this article to seek to cover all views on all the major events of the war - this has to stay a high level summary or it would become vast and entirely unreadable. If there's a debate on a topic, it belongs in the dedicated article on that topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So we should just leave out one of the main reasons that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands mentioned in beginning of article

Hello, Not a big thing, but should really the Netherlands be mentioned in the second paragraph of the article? "...and subsequent declarations of war on Japan by the United States, the Netherlands,[3] and British Commonwealth." Surely the actions of little Netherlands is relatively insignificant in this context, and one suspects that it has been added by a person from the Netherlands? This could cause someone who is new to the subject of WW2 to think that the Netherlands had a larger impact on the war than they had? But I'm no historian, please correct me if I'm wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avl (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it had a very big impact. Be sure to remember that the Dutch still had colonies at the time of the Second World War, the most important of which were the Dutch East Indies (modern-day Indonesia). The loss of oil from the East Indies in August 1941 (when the Dutch joined the United States' embargo) would have crippled Japan's economy and military, given a little time. The declaration of war meant that the Dutch would not retract that embargo, although I suspect that the Japanese would have invaded in any case to secure their supply. See Dutch East Indies campaign for more. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Historiography

A few years ago, an impressive historiography of WWII section was part of the World War II article (last section of article). I see now that it is no longer part of the article but has become a wholly separate article, and that separate article is a total mess. Can anyone tell me the rationale behind the decision (if any) to treat the historiography of WWII as a separate entity? The discussion page of Historiography of World War II is blank, so I'm asking here. Communicat (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)communicat

Russia/Communist

I love soaking up as much as I possibly can about WW11 but there is one issue that I have trouble find facts on. Though the United States and Russia were Allies during the war it seems kinda grey to me how Communism became so deeply rooted in Russia. After all in almost every documentary I read or watch tells of Russia really wanted to defeat Germany because of the communist Government. It seems that nobody wants to really wants to uncover the truth about what happened there. All that is pretty much said is how we went right out of the second world war right into the cold war. I would love some details on exactly this happens especially to two countries that just prior were fighting for each otherXxxshane67 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article talk pages should be used only to discuss improvements to the article - they are not a forum for general discussions. If you'd like some leads on investigating this topic, I'd suggest that you post at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody help me straiten out this ref?

This ref (currently number 299 from section 6.3) seems to be two separate sources. I can't track down the Zhiefen, Ju source, and the second one, from the Library of Congress conflicts with the article. (It says that 4-10 million people were made slave laborers, opposed to 16 million)

Any help with this would be appreciated!ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that didn't work the way I thought it would... here is the ref without the tags:

Zhifen, Ju, "Japan's atrocities of conscripting and abusing north China draughtees after the outbreak of the Pacific war", 2002, Library of Congress, 1992, "Indonesia: World War II and the Struggle For Independence, 1942–50; The Japanese Occupation, 1942–45" Access date: February 9, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfromButtonwillow (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Axis advance stall section

The last revert [2], and, especially, the explanation ("too much details") is quite obscure for me. The para Kleiner tried to extend tells about the greatest and the most important and decisive WWII battle. In my opinion, the fact that the article tells so little about Hitler's strategic goals during Blau, about the scale and implication of this battle is one of critical omission that may affect a GA nomination.
It is quite necessary to tell that Blau's success would lead to loss of ca 80% of the USSR oil supply, Germany's breakthrough to Caspian sea (and cessation of Lend-lease through Iran), India (with subsequent establishment of land connection between Japan and Germany, that would have a devastating effect on Allied efforts both in Pacific and Atlantic), and eventually, to Japan's attack of the USSR. It is necessary to tell that Stalingrad was a huge industrial centre and transport hub that connected Caucasus, Caspian Sea and Central Russia, and its loss would be fatal for the USSR. It is necessary to mention German counter-attack that ("Winter storm"), by its scale exceeded both El-Alamein battles, and, in the case of a success, would be able to turn a fortune to a German's side.
This, and, probably, something else should be added to the Stalingrad story, because the details of these titanic events deserve to be described even in such a summary style article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Two paragraphs are used to explain in details the Allied counter-attack on Pacific, two paragraphs are used to explain in detais the Allied counter-attack on North Africa, and just one paragraph is explaining all the major plans and battles of the Eastern Front from early 1942 to mid-1943. This is clearly unproportional, as very well explained above by Paul Siebert. The German summer offensive of 1942 and the Battle of Stalingrad were two major points of World War II, and they deserve as much space as the action on Western European Front and Pacific Theatre (for some specialists, even more). If the section are too large, then it's better to shorten the other paragraphs (not that I agree with that).

And sorry for my possible bad English... I'm quite a good English reader, but no so well when writing... =P Kleiner (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

People Killed

Why does this article say 73 mill people were killed? I've heard considerable lesser numbers of people than that. Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.2 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You heard wrong then, I'm afraid. SGGH ^ping! 14:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've heard 50 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.208.30 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's probably been heaps of different figures quoted by various people, simply because of how well-known WW2 is. Chevymontecarlo. 17:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Combatants and leaders in the infobox

This is pretty much a cosmetic change : I feel it would be more reader-friendly to list in the infobox the major countries involved and possibly their respective political/military leaders, under "Allies" and "Axis". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done (somebody got the good idea to add Poland, which I had shamefully forgotten). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An iconic image removed

An iconic image has been removed under a pretext that a free image of the same historic event exists. This is not the case, however. The picture of a Berlin street is not as good as a famous Khaldei's photo. I believe, all aspects of this issue has already been discussed there[3].--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree, you need to add a fair use claim for this article to the image's record. On a related topic, I think that we're overdue for another reevaluation of this article's images - the number seems to have grown and some of them are of pretty marginal value (the number of photos of German troops seems excessive, for instance, and this photo of Australian troops doesn't accurately portray the Malaysian campaign, which was an utter disaster for the Commonwealth forces (what's happened to the photo of Japanese troops in Kuala Lumpur?)) Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Initially this image has been uploaded by me and a fair use claim has been done explicitly for that article. Probably, someone has removed it later. I'll restore it in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Interestingly, a fair use rationale seems to have been deleted [4] few days before the image has been removed from the article. Is it correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul. This image is non-free. The image is adding nothing to the article. Why, precisely, does it matter what this particular image looked like? Do you really think we can't have a full understanding of the topic of World War II without knowing what this image looks like? This is an incredibly simple NFCC#8 claim. I advise you do not reinstate the image. If you genuinely feel the use of the image is within policy, I advise you learn a little about our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I second J here. That image would be better, but NFCC takes precedence in here and probably the Eastern Front article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see two omissions in J Milburn's arguments: a first one comes from redundantly strict interpretation of NFCC, and the second one is a result of underestimation of the importance of this concrete historic event. Let me analyse these two issues separately.
1. J Milburn seems to interpret the #1 NFCC clause as follows: a non-free image can be used only if it is the article's subject (i.e. when the article discusses the image itself). However, in actuality the criteria are somewhat different. The clause #1 states that non-free media cannot be used if
(i) either non-free content can be replaced by a free version that has the same effect, or
(ii) the subject could be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all.
Had the words "the same" and "adequately" been missing in these formulae, I would fully agree with J Milburn. However, if we omit these words the use of non-free media becomes absolutely banned in WP: obviously, every non-free image can be either substituted by a free image (having a smaller effect) or replaced with a verbal description (even if that description is less adequate). I believe it is obvious nonsense, so the first J Milburn's mistake stems from the fact that he didn't pay attention to the words "adequately" and "the same effect".
In connection to that, will anybody insist that the photo of devastated Berlin streets is not an adequate replacement of the Khaldei's photo? The street photo is faceless and lacks any individuality (the same picture could be taken almost anywhere in Europe in 1942-45), whereas the Khaldei's photo is expressive, carries enormous emotional charge and simultaneously depicts two XX century symbols: the Reichstag and the Red banner. Obviously neither another picture nor a verbal description cannot be an adequate replacement, so the Khaldei's photo successfully passes a #1 test.
2. J Milburn seems to completely miss the importance of Reichstag's (not Berlin's) capture. That is another critical omission. Capture of Reichstag was an extremely important political goal. Thus, Donald E. Shepardson starts his article "The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth". (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-154) with the words:

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

Note, he explicitly writes about the Reichstag (although the building was abandoned since 1933 and had no military value), not about Reich Chancellery (where Hitler spent his last hours) or, e.g. about flack towers that were much better fortified and posed a more serious military treat. Why?
Chris Bellamy (Chris Bellamy. Absolute war: Soviet Russia in the Second World War. Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. ISBN 0375410864, 9780375410864) devoted a separate chapter of his book to the analysis of this question. He concluded that since the moment of 'victory' in a big war is hard to define, the seizure of Reichstag had become a primary Soviet target because that would be the best way to let the world know that they won the war against Hitler. The cry 'on to the Reichstag' first became widespread after Kursk, it was an ultimate goal of millions men, so rising the red flag on the Reichstag's roof became both an act of enormous symbolic importance and the military necessity. So the photo depicts a unique historic event that marked the actual end of WWII, and no adequate free replacement is available.
To summarise all said above, I believe I persuasively demonstrated that removal of this picture was a result of misinterpretation of the NFCC criterion #1 and of underestimation of the importance of the Reichstag's capture the removed photo depicts.
I am waiting for additional arguments, and if no such arguments will be provided I'll restore the image.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. In addition, let me point your attention at the fact that the resolution of this image has been reduced by me before uploading to comply with the clause #3.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS. I understand J Milburn pursues a noble goal to protect Wikipedia from all possible lawsuits, however zeal should not prevail over a common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really any point in me reading all of that? I see your last point is utter bollocks. Am I really going to learn anything new, or is it just more of the same? J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly I know nothing about the legality or rights or ownerships of pictures and using them here. If it cannot be used for legal reasons, so be it, but I fully support Paul in saying that this picture belongs to the core of the visual memory of WW2. No rubble in a street could be said to "replace it" in any way. JurSchagen (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We all accept that. This is a technical, administrative issue relating to our non-free content criteria, not an editorial issue. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the words "the same effect" and "could be adequately conveyed" are present in the rules implies the decision on removal of a non-free image cannot be made based on some formal procedure. Therefore, it is not an administrative issue.
With regards to bollocks, the argument is really strong, unbeatable and persuasive. Could you please, nevertheless, be a little bit more specific? In particular, (i) can you explain me if I presented your point of view correctly in my previous post, or I my understanding of your arguments is wrong? (ii)Can you explain me why the words the same effect and could be adequately conveyed are not as important as I believe? (iii)Can you also explain me why the additional facts and sources demonstrating the importance of the Reichstag's capture are not relevant to this discussion? And, finally, why didn't you pay attention that during the image uploading I took special measures to meet a minimal usage criterion?
I believe these questions deserve more detailed answers.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Upon some meditation I realized that —Ed (talk • majestic titan)'s post in actuality supports my point of view. He writes "That image would be better". I believe that means that the new image is worse, or, in other words, it doesn't have "the same effect" as NFCC require. Therefore, the clause #1 cannot be used as a pretext for the image removal. What concretely is wrong with this argument? (Of course, "utter bollocks" would be too general to serve as a counter argument).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't. I'm sick of reading your posts. If you genuinely still believe that the image should be in this article, your understanding of the NFCC is probably broken beyond repair. I've explained the concept of replaceability, I've explained how the image adds nothing to this article. Go and do something useful, and stop wasting my time. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot and I don't want to force you to read my posts, however, you must refute them to prove that I am wrong. The arguments like "I am sick" do not work here. If you believe my understanding of NFCC is broken, please, demonstrate what concretely do you mean. With regards to your own understanding of NFCC, let me point out that since Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way, the stress you made on the technical interpretation of NFCC may fit WP:wikilawyering criteria and, therefore, hardly serves to WP purposes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) Might I suggest posting to WP:Non-free content review or another board to generate a wider community discussion on this issue? You both make good points, and it seems like those are getting lost in the rising heat of the discussion. I'm no expert in NFCC, so I won't presume to judge who's right, and would also appreciate a second (or third) opinion to clarify the situation. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to post on a board like that if you like, but it's a bit of a forgone conclusion. Paul has already showed that he's not interested in listening to the advice of people who know about non-free content (myself, Hammersoft, various administrators) and has continued to argue the toss here and elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So the only choice you left for me is just to listen what the people who allegedly know more say? If you know more, please, convince me. Did you try to look at the issue from another point of view: ff you are unable to convince me then, probably you are not such a big expert as you think? BTW, I found that the same questions are being risen by other Wikipedians here[5]. Please, correct me if I am wrong but your behaviour may resemble a "Copyright paranoia".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. We all agree that this image is non-free. All I'm doing is enforcing the non-free content criteria. If I was going out of my way to try to prove free images as non-free, or deleting something because there was a minute chance it was copyrighted, that would be closer to copyright paranoia. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you try to enforce non-free content criteria as you can see them. However, before doing that you have to be sure that your vision of these criteria is correct. I have serious reason to doubt in that, because you seem to be unable to refute my arguments. Your last posts can be summarized in few words as follows: "Shut up and listen what real experts say". However, it is not how Wikipedia works. The fact that you are administrator and I am not means nothing in that situation. You must prove that you are an expert, and your last arguments ad hominem suggest that you are probably not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time refuting your "arguments" and you have continued to ignore the key points. I am not here to entertain you, nor do I have to write essays for you. This is not a "last word wins" situation, so the fact I'm now asking for action does not mean you have dropped some kind of fantastic argument I can't even comprehend. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've just realised which page this is. Please explain precisely how knowing what some Soviet troops raising a flag looks like is adding significantly to reader understanding of World War II. In what way is reader understanding lacking when that image is not used in this article? What does the image add to this article? These are simple questions that you will have answers for if you are so sure that the image meets NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Please explain precisely how knowing what some Soviet troops raising a flag looks like is adding significantly to reader understanding of World War II." The explanation is obvious, and I devoted a second part of my initial post to this subject. However, thank you for asking. It became clear for me that:

1. You seem not to read that my post (the sources presented there demonstrate persuasively the extreme military and symbolic importance of this historic event).

2. You seem to be unfamiliar with basic WWII history.

3. You nevertheless believe you are able to decide which image is more appropriate for this article.

I believe, besides knowledge of NFCC rules an editor who starts to work on the article should read something on the article's subject. Decisions made solely based on NFCC rules (understood formally) have a detrimental effect on Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll try to explain again. The Eastern Front as a theatre of war exceeded all other WWII theatres taken together: more troops fought there than in all other theatres, more Allied, and, more importantly Axis' losses were sustained there that in other theatres. European theatre was much more important than Pacific one, at least for two reasons: firstly, Allied troops would be redeployed in Pacific after a victory over Germany, and, secondly, and more importantly, the USSR would enter the war against Japan. The latter meant immediate loss of Manchuria and Korea, the most important Japanese continental possessions, and immediate change Japanese vulnerability from low/medium to extremely high.

The Soviets needed in some symbolic landmark that would serve as a message (both for the Germans and for the rest of the world) that the war had been won, and that it has been won by the USSR. They chosen the Reichstag and after that it had become both a military and symbolic goal. The fact that the article tells nothing about that means only that the image plays not only a general illustrative (as the present street image) but also plays an important informative role.
The capture of the Reichstag was a symbolic end of the major WWII theatre of war, and the fact that only a non-free photo of this unique historic event is available does not prevent this unique and extremely important historic event from being depicted in this article.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Decisions made solely based on NFCC rules (understood formally) have a detrimental effect on Wikipedia." - well, they're also policy, so you're going to have to live with them. Being a WWII buff myself, I fulli understand your points about the symbolism surrounding the Reichstag's capture, but that isn't enough to satisfy NFCC IMHO. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "you're going to have to live with them" Look at the words in parentheses. A major WP policy requires to make all decision (including interpretation of policy) based on common sense. Formal interpretation of policy violates the WP spirit.

Re: "I fulli understand your points about the symbolism surrounding the Reichstag's capture, but that isn't enough to satisfy NFCC IMHO" The #8 example explicitly allows "Images with iconic status or historical importance". (WP:NFCI)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the capture of the Reichstag is important. Yes, absolutely, talk about it in the article. That does not mean that it needs to be illustrated- we do not need a non-free image illustrating absolutely everything in the article. We use non-free images when the article could not be fully understood without them. Will somebody reading the article stop and think "hmmm, I wonder what the Soviets looked like when they caputered the Reichstag"? No. This article is not in any real way lacking without that image. Do not cite WP:NFCI, that is a list of types of images which may meet our non-free content criteria, not anything to do with our non-free content criteria themselves. Yes, we do allow common sense to precede our policies, but just shouting "OMG COMMON SENSE" does not mean we should ignore policies, just as saying "ignore all rules" is not an argument against enforcing policy. You have to demonstrate why. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot understand you. You asked me to explain why the historic event depicted on the photo is so important, and after I did that (persuasively) you maintain that it is not an argument. The way you conduct a discussion suggests that you were not prepared to listen other side's arguments from the very beginning. It is not a way WP works.
Try to understand that the major flaw of this your argument is that it is universal: it can be applied to every "image with iconic status or historical importance". There is no absolute need in such images in WP (as well as in the images at all).

Re: "Do not cite WP:NFCI, that is a list of types of images which may meet our non-free content criteria, not anything to do with our non-free content criteria themselves" Interesting point. Please, explain me under which circumstances a non-free iconic image of historic importance can be included in WP articles?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. I asked you to explain why the appearance of the event was important. Quote- "Please explain precisely how knowing what some Soviet troops raising a flag looks like is adding significantly to reader understanding of World War II". If an event is important, discuss it. Illustration is not required. You're going to have to justify why illustration is required separately. As for your second point- iconic non-free images may be used when they meet the non-free content criteria, as with any other non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's do it in another way. Please, explain me when a usage non-free iconic image of historic importance meets the non-free content criteria? (Of course, according to you, the image that depicts a unique historic event, for which no adequate free replacement is available, does to meet NFCC, so, please, give me another example.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying, or quite what the point is, but as I think you say, I have already given an example- an article on the very specific event the photo is of, when no free photos exist and no free images could be created. Other examples- the article on the photographer is a possibility, as there is likely heavy discussion of said image, the article on the photo itself would certainly require the image, and the article on the subject (especially if the subject has been made famous by the photo) could be another contender. Articles on artworks or products influenced by said picture could benefit from it, depending on how much discussion there is of the original image- it's entirely possible there would be a whole section of the article which would be meaningless without the image. Of course, these are vague ideas- non-free images should generally be used entirely on a case-by-case basis. J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to explain your point of view. Your major argument is that the images in the American Gothic and Khaldei articles are a subject of extensive discussion. However, obviously, it is impossible to expect that substantial space can be devoted to any separate image in such a summary style article. Therefore, if even one sentence is devoted to the image's subject, that already means a heavy discussion (of course, I mean this concrete article only). To save an article's space, the relevant information was placed into the image's caption. From this caption a reader learned that the central event of the battle of Berlin was the Reichstag taking. However, during this discussion I realised that the caption is not sufficient to explain a reader a military and political importance of this event. That is why I decided to add the text that explicitly does this, so now the article pays even more attention to the event depicted at the Khaldei's photo.
However, a verbal description is not sufficient. I believe, it is not possible to chose another single event that would symbolise a military defeat of Germany better than the Red Banner on the Reichstag roof. Therefore, it is highly desirable to let a reader see how it looked in actuality. Unfortunately, both photographers who made photos of this event, Khaldei and Grebnev, were Soviet citizens and, as a result, their works are not in public domain in Russia. Therefore, it is impossible to find a free equivalent of the image of this event. Can it serve as a justification of usage of the Khaldei's photograph in this article? Let's see.
Since the policy cannot provide an unequivocal answer, let's look at the guidelines. You yourself provided two examples when the usage of non-free images in justified: American Gothic a Khaldei articles. If I understand correct, you used a guidelines' example #7 (Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.) I agree with you that these two images are being used for commentaries, and these commentaries are critical for these articles, so their usage corresponds to what the example #7 tells. However, the next example (#8) explicitly mentions historic or iconic images (Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.) Note, whereas the guidelines recommend to use paintings and other artworks only for critical commentary, no such strict limitations are set for historic or iconic images. ("As subjects of commentary"). Moreover, the image we discuss is both historic and iconic image, and it is used as a subject of commentary. That is exactly what the guidelines recommend. An adequate substitute for this image cannot be found, and other editors on this and another talk pages agree with that, therefore, the policy requirements are met. A minimal usage requirements are met too. In other words, I see no obstacles for usage of this image in the article.
Please, explain me what is wrong with my arguments.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the first few lines, and I'm not going to bother with the rest. That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. That is precisely the reason why these summary articles do not need non-free images, as a rule- they never go into enough detail for them to be warranted. As such, we certainly do not need less stringent methods of judging whether non-free images are warranted in articles with broad subjects- if anything, we should be more careful about including them, as it suggests we may have gone into too much detail on a specific topic. If every event, person or item that is given a line's description warrants an image (let alone a non-free image) this article would be cluttered beyond belief. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. In future I'll restrict the posts addressed to you with few lines. With regards to my previous post, that you haven't read fully, I nevertheless recommend you to read it. You will see that, whereas policy tells nothing specific in the subject, the guidelines tell that, by contrast to artworks, iconic or historic images may be allowed just "as a subject of commentary", regardless of how heavy these commentaries are.
One way or the another, we seem to be unable to understand each other. Since per policy I cannot restore the image you contested I propose to follow the standard procedure of dispute resolution. Do you agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since over a dozen books on the subject that I own alone include this picture, all those authors and editors seem to agree that the image *does* tell something that the text can't. This is the single most famous picture of the entire WW2 collection (with the possible exception of the American marines raising the US flag at Iwo Jima). OF COURSE it is iconic, it symbolizes the entire hardship of achieving victory for two world-wide generations. I cannot believe anyone says it is NOT iconic, except someone totally unfamiliar with the subject, or even with history in general. JurSchagen (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From our very own WP for iconic: "A cultural icon can be an image, a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, or building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group. A representation of an object or person, or that object or person may come to be regarded as having a special status as particularly representative of, or important to, or loved by, a particular group of people, a place, or a period in history."

I rest my case. JurSchagen (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This article's sole purpose is to give an overview of the major events of World War II. The image in question is the iconic image of one of the most notable events in that war. It is clearly relevant, and irreplaceable. Hohum 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, taking into account that J Milburn left some commentary on other talk page today, he definitely read this posts. Unfortunately, per NFCC policy we cannot restore a contested non-free image until the issue is resolved formally. I proposed to go this way, but J Milburn seems to ignore this proposal. My similar proposals on another talk page[6] and on my talk page were clearly rejected by [User:J Milburn|J Milburn]]. Does anyone have any idea what should be our next steps?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Has the formal process started somewhere? If so, where? Hohum 16:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, J Milburn clearly rejected my proposal of arbitration (or something of that kind) and ignored a similar PBS proposal. I personally have no idea on how the dispute resolution procedure works in reality, because I was able to resolve all my previous disputes on talk pages. Do we need to wait until J Milburn agreed on mediation, or something of that kind?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I've just noticed that J Milburn clearly rejected RfC, arbitration, and mediation.[7] He proposed to ask for a second opinion on the NFC talk page, but it seems to be useless, since it is not clear if this will have any effect on his position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have to take part in an RfC, but you can still start one. WP:NFR is an additional option. Hohum 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In additional, I note that he's called what you say "utter bollocks", which hardly conforms to WP:CIVIL. Hohum 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting WP:NFR. That may be a solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Capture of the Reichstag deserves a separate mention

The sources presented by me in the above section demonstrate that the Reichsrag's capture is at least as important as the meeting of American and Soviet troops on Elbe. In addition, that would restore the chronological sequence of the events: the battle of Berlin lasted even after the Elbe meeting.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)