Blitzkrieg

I nominated it once (see here for past FAC discussion), but - long story short - it didn't pass, although I adressed the objections during the FAC procedure. Peer Review seems positive (if sparse). It was good earlier, it has been improving steadily and I think it is much better now. Your comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A lot of very constructive work has gone into this article. —thames 14:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Comprehensive, follows all wikipedia conventions.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, at the risk of being a bore. Some of the pictures don't have source information, and some (such as the one to my right) claim PD on the basis of a misunderstanding of copyright law: see [1]. Mark¹ 08:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object until picture copyright is cleared up. Harro5 04:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You can't have Blitzkrieg in Peer Review when it is on FAC. Please archive the Peer listing.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think the image controversy is a tempest in a teapot. These images in question clearly appear to be from Nazi era Germany and therefore are more than likely PD.  ALKIVAR™ 07:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images from the early 1940s are most likely to enter the public domain c. 2050. The assumptions here are that the photographer is in his/her 30s and died aged 70 c. 1980. 75 years from creators death still gives us another fifty years to copyright expiry. --Theo (Talk) 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. German pre-nazi era stuff (til like 1936 i think?) is still validly copyrighted. however once the nazi regime took over (new govt... new rules...) copyright is free and clear from everything i have read in my research. Copyright afterwards was split depending on east/west (most east german stuff til 1965ish is also free of copyright, whereas west germany was copyrighted up through). obviously anything post reunification is under copyright. Due to the way Nazi Germany was an "empire" as opposed to an actual political "state" there are severe ambiguities in the copyright conventions. The way its been interpreted by me and by several others I have discussed this with, is that there is basically a short 9 year span of a copyright loophole. Doing more research will likely find you agreeing with this, (I had to, i'm writing a non-fiction novel on Colditz Castle now ;)  ALKIVAR™ 19:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in several places - I'd apreciate a FAQ clearly answering what is the deal with Nazi copyrights, this problem is recurring again and again. Please use the artcle talk page to list copyvio or problematic pictures, so we can start dealing with them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. This is brilliant prose with just one exception: "drastically superior German military doctrines" in the second paragraph. Doctrines are beliefs or fundamental principles. Asserting the superiority of beliefs or principles is POV; the 'drastic' modifier makes it more so. In this case I imagine that what is meant is that the German army was more effectively organised than its opponents (such organisation being a consequence of its doctrines), but I recognise that I may have misunderstood. --Theo (Talk) 11:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. I removed 'drastically', should read better now. Are there any more grounds for this objection?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'drastically' was only part of the problem. Asserting the superiority of doctrines is to assert the superiority of beliefs or fundamental principles; it is essentially POV. The German doctrines differed from those of their opponents. Reporting the consequences of those differences is NPOV. --Theo (Talk) 13:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]