Talk:Nuremberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Germany To-do:

Contents

[edit] "careful reconstruction"

I think your "careful reconstruction" addition is redundant, Michael. I re-wrote the original entry's "medieval" to "medieval-style" because I had exactly the same concerns as you ("Over here we have the authentic citizenry, who were imported via time machine shortly after the war. Mind the ones with the plague."). It's just in the style of a medieval town to some extent. -- Paul Drye

too subtle for my tired eyes to have caught. I was thinking of the specific parallel in the Warsaw entry, I suppose. --MichaelTinkler

[edit] History

I'm very disappointed. The article gives the impression as if the Nuremberg history was only Nazi history. It's a pity! To learn more about the actual history of the city of Nuremberg, please got to de:Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg (even if this article is unfortunately only in German) 14:10, 2005 Feb 09

[edit] Maps?

Ok, so we have the coat of arms of the city, but we don't have a map showing where it is inside Germany/in relation to Europe? Seems that would be the more useful than a coat of arms...

Done -- Chris 73 Talk 01:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Various Issue, Mostly About the Language Spoken in Nuremberg resp. Franconia

I flag this for someone else to fix, as I don't know how to. Although the edit box reads, correctly, "After Adolf Hitler came to power, Nuremberg was made a national shrine...", In the article "Adolf Hitler" appears as "Joseph Stalin".

I think that you mean the dialect is Frankisch (Fraenkisch?), rather than Bavarian. In English, we would say the dialect is Franconian, to differentiate from Frankish, i.e., having to do with the Franks. Both Franconian and Bayerisch are German dialects, not languages. Within those regions, there are also many other sub-dialects. I will add something about Franconia's present political location, since it would be nice to be accurate...of course, nice can also mean accurate, so maybe I just mean "nice"...JHK

Languages spoken within the same country are called dialects. Outside of the country it is called a different language. Sample: Dutch, Hollandish used to be a dialect of German, today it is classed as a different language.

This is incorrect. Dialects are independant of political entities such as countries. --Stephen Gilbert

The people in Franconia (Franken) speak Frankish (Fraenkisch). For some of the different dialects see: http://www.christusrex.com/www3/ethno/germ.html#FRK

and for Fraenkisch see http://www.christusrex.com/www1/pater/JPN-frankish.html

Franconia consists of Ober - Mittel and Unter-Franken and you will find different Frankish dialects. Since it belongs politically to Bavaria , you will also find Bavarian speakers mixed in . Since all remaining Bundeslaender of the 1949 Germany have 20 to 30 percent refugee inhabitants from Germany east of the Oder/Neisse and Standard High German is taught in school, you now have many more combinations of dialects spoken. This goes for all Bundeslaender.

I go back to what I first wrote in the first entrance, the people in Franconia tell you that they are not Bavarians, but they are Fraenkisch (not Franconian).

Somewhere earlier someone asked about Wittelsbacher. They are not Frankish, they are Bavarians. H. Jonat

yes, but was the ruling family of Bavaria in 1806 still the Wittelsbachs (notice the English language version of their name)?

Maximilian I Joseph Wittelsbach, born 1756 in Mannheim (today Baden-Wuertemberg) ,Germany acceded 1799 as King of Bavaria , was also Duke of Zweibruecken. Last Wittelsbach ,Ludwig III , reigned till 1918, when all German rulers had to resign , due to WW II .

When you translate the word "Fraenkisch" into English you get "Franconian". About the language the ethnologue site calls it Frankish but other sites call it Franconian. See http://www.orbislingua.com/ead.htm.

Ethnologue , Barbara F. Grimes, Editor Institute of Linguistics calls it Frankish , plus Mainfrankish (Franconian) .christusrex calls it Frankish , The Frankish people call their own language Frankish . Franconia is the latin version ,which is oftentimes taken over by English as in case of Pomerania (German Pommern, language Pommersche dialect).People used to, but today they do not call themselves in Latin titles any more. (People in Cologne (Koelln) do not call their language Colonia Agrippina , they speak Koellsch). My main point was to point out ,that the people do not consider themselves Bavarians, nor speak it, even though politically they belong to Bavaria .

From the comments, it is obvious that the wiki majority had no idea.

Callin it Franconian language in English would technically probably not be incorrect. However it is misleading. No other country calls John F. Kennedy Johannes Kennedy or Jan Kennedy.

When available the correct native name should be used with the English version, but this is my opinion. H. Jonat

Sorry, but in this case your opinion leads to the misapprehension that the dialect of German spoken in Franconia is the same dialect spoken by the Franks -- at least, that is what it implies in English. This is most likely not the case -- especially as there must be lots of dialects under the category of Fränkisch, including dilects of Upper Franconia which, under most, if not all, of the Carolingians (who were Franks), partially belonged to Thuringia. JHK The Bavarian question is beside the point -- in your first version, you neglected to mention the political connection to present-day Bavaria.

When you read my first entrance entrance Nr 5 you will see that I stated that under Napoleon Franken came politically to Bavaria . No one today speaks the same language that their ancestors spoke 1000 or 2000 years ago, not even 200 years ago. Language changes constantly. The Frankish know, why they call their language Frankish. H. Jonat

Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, would you mind terribly foregoing the obscure and circuitous arguments, and just trust those of us who know WHAT THE TERMINOLOGY YOU USE MEANS TO AN ENGLISH-SPEAKER? I don't doubt that there are many nuances that fraenkisch conveys to the people of Franken -- but they just don't exist in English. Most of what you write sounds to English-speakers like you are trying to prove that things that happened or existed a couple of millenia ago (or even 300 years ago) still hold true today. Please believe me -- Franconian is a better general term, unless you want to add a note saying that modern Frankish should not be confused with the language of the Franks.

Please don't say that it is -- we have ample evidence that the Franks spoke VERY different dialects -- even within one kingdom and one family. JHK

would it make the propaganda/war criminal trial issue clearer to say 'War crime trials of Nazi government officials', and let people draw their own conclusions about what 'war crimes' are. They certainly WERE trials. The idiom in English is 'trial of' rather than 'trial against'. --MichaelTinkler


if you are interested in the franconian dialect: wou dei hasen husen haßen und dei hosen husen haßen,do bin i dahoam means(more or less) i am at home where you say 'husen' for hasen(rabbits) and also 'husen' for hosen(trousers)

May I chip in as a Nuremberg born citizen (why denizen is used on your page is greek to me)? There's a little mistake in the nice sentence quoted above: It should read 'Wou di hasn hosn und di hosn husn hasn', meaning that the words for trousers and hares (not rabbits!) are not the same, even in frankish/franconian/närnbercherisch, but that confusion is possible, especially for people outside of Nuremberg. And, by the way, in our dialect we use a lot of sounds similar to English (or American?), as in 'mai mahdler, däi is fei schäi' (pronounce as 'my muhdler, day is fy shay). --Wpopp 23:42, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

I think the Nuremberg trials should probably be moved to "events associated with the town" and all that. I can't imagine that more than half of the people visiting the page are looking for Nuremberg and not the Nuremberg trials, so it should figure more prominently or at least be moved to that list mentioned. Mkilly 08:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, 'berg' vs.'burg'

The berg ("mountain" in German) part of the city's name is cognate to the English word borough.

Unfortunately, it has become a common error. Nowadays, even in books printed by respectable publishers, one can find Wittenburg instead of Wittenberg (these are two different cities), Teutoberg instead of Teutoburg Forest (Teutoburgerwald), Nuremburg instead of Nuremberg, etc. Berg is not cognate with borough, but burg is. I suggest to remove the whole sentence from the article. Any objections? --barbatus 17:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I did not really like this addition in the first place from earlier in the week, which is why I tried to streamline it yesterday. I'm fine with removing it completely. Olessi 17:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
OK. I'll count to 100, and if no one else will chime in, it's gone. :) --barbatus 18:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
The words berg and burg come from the same root, both essentially meaning 'high place'. The Anglo-Saxon language derived the burg/burgh/borough word from the fact that mountains (bergs) were a desirable place for fortification (burgs), and therefore settlements; both words have their origin in the Chaldean 'perach' (meaning growth, protrusion).

Keeno --Keeno 19:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Webster describes connection between burg and Old English beorg as probable, not definitive; and beorg, in its turn, is akin to Old High German berg (mountain) and Sanskrit brhant (high). Any references for the alleged Chaldean origin? --barbatus 19:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Still, if only to avoid the confusion I mentioned above, I'd prefer to remove that phrase. Nürnberg ≠ Nürnburg, and I've seen it (and other German names) misspelled that way too often lately.
Going once ... Going twice ... --barbatus 14:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Chaldean origin of burg/berg: see this article on Edinburgh, describing origin of the burgh element - http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map/early/blaeu/1004.html
Frankly, it doesn't sound very convincing to me. Any references to off-line literature? --barbatus 02:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Leni Riefenstahl

I thought "Triumph of the Will" was about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, not the rallies in Nuremburg. Maybe i'm wrong, but it might be worth someone researching.

The movies about the Olympic games were Olympia part 1 and 2. Both "Sieg des Glaubens" (1933) and "Triumph des Willens" (1934) are about the Reichsparteitag in Nuremberg.--Hhielscher 14:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Maiden

Comment seems inaccurate, given the contents of the article it links to, and overstates the significance. flux.books 01:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC) "Nuremberg is notorious for owning the first (and only during Medieval times) Iron Maiden torturing device."

Tend to agree, especially as there's no reference to having Europe's first paper mill, a much more important development. There's a strong hint of anti-German sentiment to several entries, sadly this is one of them. PhilipPage 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So why isn't this comment deleted yet? And why are there any 'anti-German sentimets'?

[edit] The Nuremberg Raid 30-31 March 1944

The raid on 2 Jan 1945 is mentioned even though it is not nearly as notable as the raid on 30/31 March 1944 which involved the loss of about 95 Allied bombers out of a force dispatched of 795. Not only was this a record (making it notable) but also it was a turning point in the war, and resulted in a number of significant changes in tactics by Bomber Command RAF. I suggest the inclusion of this, and am willing to write the submission myself if anyone else agrees it should be in the article. For more information Martin Middlebrook wrote an excellent book "The Nuremberg Raid" (Cassell Military Paperbacks) which I am relying heavily on for my information, and will continue to do so (citing the book as source) if the change is agreed on. CMIIW 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The loss of 95 bombers was notable for the Allied, but had nothing to do with the city. It's information for an article on Allied Bombing in WW2, but not for article on Nuremberg. I guess the raid on 2 Jan 1945 WAS notable for the 1800 people killed in the city. 141.13.8.14 13:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. 'Twas only a thought. PT 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/r/Talk%7ENuremberg_9fee.html"