Talk:Berlin/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Gay/lesbian subculture

No mention of the gay/lesbian subculture than thrived during the 1920's and was destroyed by the Nazis. Berlin had more gay/lesbian/trans bars and clubs in the 1920s than Toronto, Ontario, Canada does today. The movie Bent is about this, but I don't have a book or internet source to quote.

A very good point. We do have an article on Nollendorfplatz, which is still a gay neighborhood today as it was during the Weimar era. I expect if someone were willing to do the research, a very good article could be written on LGBT culture in Berlin. Angr (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New pics

So, I just got back from a short trip to Viktoriapark, where I took some pictures of the skyline of Berlin. They're not great art, and unfortunately there aren't too many icons of Berlin visible from up there, but here they are anyway in case anyone sees fit to include them.




I also took the photos that I just added to Viktoriapark. Angr (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

Making any article on a German subject into an article on the suffering of Jews is POV as well as anti-German racism. It is totally inappropriate to flood a brief history section with suffering of Jews, when other much more significant aspects of its history are only dealt with in a sentence, if adressed at all (all wartime destruction: one sentence. No mention of large numbers of refugees at all. No mention of massive Soviet war crimes against population of Berlin). This is an article about the city of Berlin. It is not an article about Auschwitz which is in Poland and not in Berlin. It is appropriate for a history section to mention that Berlin had a large Jewish population, and that it was for a large part destroyed. Details on Auschwitz etc. which is unrelated to the history of Berlin are to be left to the holocaust article.

The Soviet photo is a well known, staged war propaganda photo (perhaps one of the most famous from the war). It clearly needs to be identified as such, to not give the false impression that the photo was actually taken when Stalin's men actually entered the Reichstag, or taken by a neutral third party for neutral purposes. Just the way 21:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the photo is staged propaganda or not (and I'm far from convinced it is -- if it had been staged there would have been no need to retouch it later to remove the two watches, etc.) is completely irrelevant to this article. There is no benefit to this article for the caption for that picture to scream "Propaganda! Propaganda!" And the idea that the Reichstag was at that time a symbol of "parliamentarian democracy" is simultaneously laughable and revolting.
And yet you keep removing the entirely relevant sentence about Nazi propaganda during in 1936 Olympics in Berlin, replacing it with the nonsensical sentence "Berlin arranged the 1936 Olympics". Berlin is a city; cities can't arrange anything. You also continue to remove the entirely relevant sentence about Kristallnacht and the deportation of the Jews from Berlin claiming it to be "POV as well as anti-German racism". No, it's neither. It's a neutral description of the facts of the Holocaust as it affected Berlin. This is an extremely important part of Berlin's history and will not be left out of the article. Angr (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Your vandalism is reverted once again. You haven't even read my comment, or you are a fanatical anti-German POV pusher. It's POV to flood an article with disproportionate description of alleged wrongdoings, and you don't this in articles on the capitals of other countries, or their country articles. In the London article, the history section is not massively dealing with London's role as capital of a state that was responsible for horrible crimes across the world, trade of African slaves included. It would be POV because London is a city article. What happened in Africa or America is not relevant to the city history of London, just like what happened in Poland is not relevant to city history of Berlin. If you want to write about Auschwitz, then the Berlin article is nothing for you, because anti-German flooding and spamming will be removed. And no, it's not OK to claim that some government "used the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin for propaganda purposes", just as it would not be ok to claim that the Bush regime "used [sports event] for propaganda purposes". This is your opinion, not a neutral fact. The 1936 Summer Olympics was arranged in Berlin, end of story. If you want to describe it further, like some of the innovations, it should be done in a neutral way. You need to make yourself familiar with our NPOV policy. Just the way 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You want to use 76 words to describe wrongdoings against Jews. Every detail must be mentioned according to you, even what happened to the "last Jews". Similtanously, you want to use 0 words to describe a much higher number of refugees, and 0 words to describe massive Soviet war crimes. You want to use only 25 words dealing with the entire rest of its war-time history and horrible total destruction of a city (which your own country was responsible for). If you fail to see this is disproportionate and thus POV, I cannot help you further. The 20th century section is one page only, and either it must be extremely expanded (which is not a good idea), or everythings needs to be kept short. Just the way 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The mentioned paragraph about the extinction of the jewish community seems not disproportionate to me. There might be overemphasizing in other german related articles but rather not in this one. In this case the city itself (Nazi government) decided to murder a relevant part of german-jewish culture of their own city society. This cultural life had been built up over centuries and was then ended. It is of significance for world history and especially of the city´s history. Sashandre

The article is hardly "flooded" with "disproportionate description[s] of alleged wrongdoings" ("alleged"?!? Are you going to deny the Holocaust next?). It has a couple of sentences about what happened in Berlin making it extremely relevant to the article on Berlin. No mention of the slave trade at London, because the British never enslaved Londoners, while the Nazis did transport Berliners to death camps. Claiming that to say so reflects a "fanatical anti-German POV" is absurd, because those Jews were Germans! As for the 1936 Olympics, perhaps the neutrality of the sentence can be improved, but no serious historian denies that the Olympics were used by the Nazis for propaganda purposes. If you want to discuss Soviet war crimes that took place in Berlin, go ahead, but focusing on the propaganda potential of one photograph isn't achieving that goal. However, if any substantial addition to the history of Berlin is going to be made, it ought to be made at History of Berlin, not here, as the page as already twice as long as it ought to be. Angr (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You tell me British slave trade that was carried out from London isn't relevant to London, because only some Black "sub-human beings" were victims, and not the British "masters"? Again we see different rules for Germany-related articles than articles of all other countries. Crimes of the British doesn't need to be mentioned in the article on their capital, while the article on the German capital must mostly deal with wrongdoings.

When you use 75 % of the space to describe wrongdoings against Jews, and 25 % to describe the entire rest of it's war-time history, you are flooding. Appropriate would be, say 20 % of the war-time description, and only thing specifically affecting Berlin (it had a large Jewish community, which was 170,000 and not 160 as you are claiming, that was destroyed). This is not the holocaust article. Things that has nothing to do with Berlin should not be mentioned. What happened in Poland belong in other articles than the Berlin article.

You don't mention the expulsion, are you going to deny the expulsion next? You don't mention terror bombing, are you going to deny that too? If the page is already twice as long as it ought to be, you should be cooperating on shortening it. In your version, one aspect of history is given disproportionate attention. If you want to keep such a lengthy description of wrongdoings, I will have to write ten times as much as the current version on other aspects of war-time history. Just the way 10:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

Also, I see no reason why Image:Train station Berlin Friedrichstrasse 5.jpg should be on the top of the article. What is significant with that picture? I suggest the Brandenburg Gate should be kept (like this one). Just the way 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Prussia

Please stop changing 1918 to 1871. Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia for its entire existence, from 1701 to 1918, and continued to be the capital of the Free State of Prussia thereafter. Just the way 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic

Also please leave the link to the German Democratic Republic. The article is, after much discussion, located at German Democratic Republic, not "East Germany". German Democratic Republic is the correct name of the country. "East Germany" is 1) a colloquialism (just like "America" is for the United States of America), 2) POV, 3) ambigious. Just the way 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

no, no,that´s not correct. The word "Democratic" is ambigious, not "East". If you want to refer to the GDR in German, dann bitte, benutzt DDR, but in English use "East Germany" IsarSteve 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to support the "GDR" version even though it can be confusing to others. East Germany is colloquial and should be only mentioned in brackets and history section in need of explanation reasons. Sashandre
what tosh!! GDR is not the term used in any English-speaking country for the German Democratic Republic ..was FRG ever used when talking about West Germany ?? Of course not!! ..In fact GDR is only used by Germans, mainly East Germans, trying to speak English... IsarSteve 00:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
German Democratic Republic is the correct English name. The colloquialism "East Germany" was carefully avoided in all formal situations. "East Germany" is ambigious, because in Cold War West Germany, "East Germany" was the name reserved for the lost provinces, while the GDR was referred to as SBZ, Mitteldeutschland and finally as DDR. FRG was not used for reasons stated at the article BRD, the name used in the west was "Federal Republic of Germany", short: Germany, and informal/colloquial: West Germany. Just the way 11:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the "tosh" crowd on this. The GDR was perfectly happy to refer to itself as "East Germany" at the Olympics and elsewhere. It's irrelevant what ex-Nazis living in West Germany in the 1950s meant by "Ostdeutschland" in German. "East Germany" in English means the country that styled itself the "German Democratic Republic" — although, as many pundits pointed out, it was none of these things.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
With your racist remark (referring to victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing as "ex-Nazis"), you have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in this conversation. As a matter of fact, the term East Germany was reserved for the Stalinist Polish/Soviet-occupied areas by social democrats, liberals and christian democrats, by the German government and the German parliament. For this reason the term was never applied to the GDR in the English language by governments of English-speaking countries. Just the way 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The GDR was, by the way, never perfectly happy being referred to as "East Germany" (which it also wasn't). From the GDR point of view, this was a way to deny the GDR recognition as an independent state, implying it was part of another state. Just the way 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your position clear with your incivil personal attack. ("Racist" indeed. I should block you.) By their own choice, the two Germanies competed in the Olympics from 1966 as "Germany (Federal Republic)" and "East Germany." Your assertion that the term "East Germany" was never used to refer to the GDR is, quite frankly, nonsense. We are talking about English usage here, not German or French. Even so, here in Germany only neo-Nazis and their ilk refer to Poland as "Ostdeutschland" today.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You are the person who should be blocked for making racist comments against Germans. Please refrain from calling people Nazis. That is totally unacceptable behaviour. The term "East Germany" was never used in formal situations in the English language. Just the way 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I am a German. 2. I said there were ex-Nazis in West Germany in the 1950s who used the term "Ostdeutschland" differently than we use "East Germany" in English; where's the racism? 3. You are wrong; what were the Olympics, if not a formal situation? Enough troll-feeding for tonight.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You referred to victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and almost the entire German population as "ex-nazis". If you referred to all Jews living in Israel in the 1950s as "ex-Bolsheviks", that would be racism too. It is a complete lie on your part that Ostdeutschland was used by "ex-nazis in the 50s". It was used by social democrats, liberals and christian democrats, and it always meant the provincens under Soviet and Polish administration until the beginning of the 1970s when SPD changed its foreign policy, however the CDU opposed that change and the term was used until German reunification. Today it is mostly used by the victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide organized in the Bund der Vertriebenen. Just the way 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Olympics are not a formal situation, but a sports event. Just the way 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you are from Newcastle and your native language is English. Enough troll-feeding for tonight. Just the way 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous... is Just the way saying that ALL West Germans were victims?? Furthermore, is he saying that NO nazis lived in West Deutschland after 1945?? Both obviously not true. By the way, the "Formal Term" for the UK is <United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland>, luckily for us, the colloqiual form is used for Wiki purposes. That is my Maßstab!! IsarSteve 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed riciculous. The person holds that the term East Germany was only used in that sense by "ex-Nazis in the 50s", thus referring to the entire German population including victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing and even people who just had spent ten years in Nazi concentration camps like Kurt Schumacher as "Nazis". In German there is word for that: Volksverhetzung. Just the way 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


"commonly known in English as East Germany" taken from the GDR page of wikipedia .... (it doesn't matter what it is called in German) just the way, don't be offensive and bother people with your POV because it apparently isn't a NPOV (me=german) 84.189.204.155 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Klaus Wowereit

A more suitable image needs to be found. Just because a person is gay, his sexual orientation doesn't need to be primary thing he is associated with as a politician. Representing him with a drag queen is heavily POV. A politician should be represented with a neutral photo. Just the way 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We´ve been here before!! Although I agree with you in principle, other people seem to think it´s OKIsarSteve 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have a better free-use picture of him, put it in. But there is nothing non-NPOV about the picture of him with a drag queen. The picture does not place undue emphasis on his sexual orientation, as anyone is allowed to stand next to a drag queen to have their picture taken. Angr (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead picture 2

I try contacting these photographers [1] (my favourite), [2], [3] and how about this one [4] ?

Sashandre all the best

They're not bad, although I'd still prefer a daytime shot to a night shot. Also, be sure not to just ask for permission to use the photo in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia policy is that images can't be used "by permission". Rather, they have to be willing to release the image under a fair license, such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons License that permits commercial use and derivatives, for example CC-BY-SA-2.5. Angr (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like No. 5 the best, maybe Angr isn´t a night owl and doesn´t know what the city looks like in darkness?? IsarSteve 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I do know what the city looks like in darkness, but an encyclopedic picture ought to be fully illuminated. Angr (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As usual, I have to reluctantly agree.. LOL IsarSteve 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The perfect picture is a daylight panorama, I agree. I spent hours to find one at flickr, but none could meet the standard. The current one is very close to quality we want ,I think. Sashandre all the best

Sashandre, did the photographer of Image:Berlin TV Tower and skyline.jpg contact you and say CC-BY-SA-2.5 is okay? Because the image at Flickr still says "All rights reserved", which is not the same thing! Angr (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! Angr (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He confirmed with an e-mail the new licence written in the Wikipedia/Commons rules and by CC-BY-SA-2.5 Standard.Sashandre

To-Do-List

I agree on topic (1.),(4.),(5.). On (2.): A few more sentences in `setting´ may be in zoo,parks...are ok.Its not an important aspect. On (3.):LGBT is highly represented through picture and sentence,every other extention in new articles. On (6.): Citation has to be kept short. book template is not acceptable. On (7.): The lead is comparable to most of the city articles and covers the relevant parts. Details can be discussed. On (8.): Total disagreement.Length is widely tolerated because of exceptional article-status (also length of country-articles). Major City-articles vary from 50-80kb, Berlin has 63kb.The history section is very short in comparison and has very high relevance, especially 20th century Berlin. I´m going to delete this topic and (7.) from To-Do-List. Sashandre all the best

Perhaps we have different goals for the article. I would like the article to become a featured article someday, but it won't make it unless at least points 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are addressed. It could probably make it to FA without 2 and 3, and possibly without 4, although I personally couldn't support it unless all 8 points were addressed. But if featured-article status is not your goal (and given the crappy quality of a lot of recent featured articles I wouldn't blame you if it weren't), then you needn't worry about all the points. I would ask you not to delete anything from the to-do list, however, in case other people are interested in bringing the article up to FA standards. Angr (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

FA - Status is a desirable goal. I watch the development of around 40 global cities(city-articles) in engl.Wiki towards this aim.I also compare the development in 10 other Wiki-languages concerning city-articles.By now only 3 midsize cities/articles gained FA status ; Boston, Detroit, Michigan and Seattle. Given these ´models` (1.) and (5.)is a problem (6.) and (8.) is not,(7.) could be questioned. BUT, through my investigation I learned that FA status is very difficult to gain and to keep for the majority of global cities/articles for a number of reasons.One is a typical dilemma. How to present a city reasonable and based on facts AND show the relevance and the city´s character without exaggeration or disproportion. I like to develop a combination of both, without compromising one to much.To aim FA is not a contradiction. The Berlin-article is in many respects one of the very finest in the world of city-articles by now, with or without FA. I will support accuracy and expansion (certainly not more than 70kb) but will also keep the complex character of the articles content. Sorry, (7.) and (8.) can´t prevail. Sashandre all the best

Without 7 and 8 there is no hope of ever achieving FA status. If you insist on reverting all attempts to implement points 7 and 8, the rest of us may as well give up trying to improve this article. Angr (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It´s untrue .... watch the mentioned FA - cities, the current length is the smallest problem of all. Same for the leading 4 paragraphs ... what part is it exactly do you worry? Problem (1.),(4.)(5.) plus the not existing Economy-section seems much more urgent. Sashandre all the best

Watch the current FA candidates. People consistently object to articles that are too long (generally >50 kb) and whose leads don't comply with WP:LEAD. Angr (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have seen it for yourself ...The FA-Rules are hardly working on city-articles because of the special premises.Though it is fine goal... As I said, only aiming to FA-status in terms of length will fail in this case.Nobody would have the idea to cut NYC,Paris,Los Angeles down to 40 kb.Even though there is still many room to improvement.And by the way , we didn´t even request FA-candidate, so it doesn´t make sense speculate about the outcome. Sashandre

Version 0.5 tag / article nominee

The new tag has been added. Because of the recent grading debate I´d like to draw the attention to this page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. The next step of upgrading could be A-class-status. Sashandre

Boroughs of Berlin

At the very bottom of the page is a template named #Boroughs of Berlin#. How is it possible to modify it? Or, who is able to do it / or has access to it? The part 'Boroughs prior to 2001' needs to be deleted because it is outdated.Sashandre

No, it needs to be kept because Berliners still invariably think of the pre-2001 boroughs, and most articles are written about those, not about the post-2001 boroughs, which have no reality in the minds of locals. User:Angr 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Angr is right, the post-2001 boroughs are irrelevant to everyday life here, apart from administrative issues. --Johnnyw talk 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also Berliners who want back the Berlin wall, or count in D-Mark ... The phrase has at least to be renamed in #Neighborhoods# within a new template.Sashandre

The template is just fine the way it is. It has the post-2001 boroughs on top, and the real boroughs at the bottom. Renaming it "neighborhoods" would mean greatly increasing its scope, as it would then have to include things like Moabit, which were not boroughs before 2001 either. User:Angr 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What real boroughs ? Any other name is fine for me too.The division East/West has to be deleted as well.Sashandre

I was facetiously referring to the pre-2001 boroughs as the "real" boroughs. I would however also be in favor of keeping the East/West division, because that too is still very prominent in Berliners' minds, as well of being of tremendous interest to non-Berliners. User:Angr 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Nazi-Kaiser-Kennedy-Berlin, whatever. Everything is interesting to anybody ! The Berlin wall is down for 18 years now. I don´t want to be forced creating a new template only because I cant find this one. The last option would be deletion because of outdated facts. But this is not my interest ....Sashandre

If you don't want to "be forced" to create a new template, don't. Just leave this one the way it is. It's not outdated because virtually everyone in Berlin still thinks of Berlin as being divided up this way. User:Angr 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Berlin consists of 12 totally different Boroughs and even more different Stadtteile. Don´t speculate what Berlin thinks,just be factual correct, I know you are. Sashandre

Berlin consists of 23 different boroughs and even more different Stadtteile, as well as 12 figments of the government's imagination. That's factually correct. User:Angr 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hitler still in power ... don´t disappoint me! I´m not not discussing this one. Fact is, there are Boroughs and no East and West, please delete this from the template when you are able to ,or I have to delete the whole one, thank you ,last sentence! Sashandre

No, you don't have to delete the whole one, and if you do you will be reverted because you have no consensus to do so. User:Angr 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are 100 people who say East Berlin is the still existing capital of the GDR , its still wrong. If you really think so, which I doubt, you might be better off taking a break. Sashandre

Standardisation

Sashandre in your latest purge, you deleted a Stendahl quotation, Now I´m not against pruning things per se, the quotation wasn´t that important, but you have now suceeded in deleting both mentions of "Märkische Sand" in the article. You seem to have an obsession of standardising everything. I feel your deletions make the article faceless, Berlin is Berlin but Chicago oder "sonst wo" is somewhere else, the articles shouldn´t all be the same. Being built on sand makes Berlin special, what other inland cities have beaches like Berlin?? No mention here!! A polite request from me, when you decide to delete something, think about what has been lost and try and add the (compressed) information somewhere else... --IsarSteve 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi IsarSteve, good point. Please add a sentence on the inland beaches in #recreation# or about the sandy character in #Geography#. / I can´t share your opinion about standardisation or faceless´article,I feel the opposite. The article improves in complexity,character, quality and dephts in my eyes.Sashandre

OK, I´ll do that --IsarSteve 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

More photos

Well, at least one good thing came out of having the World Cup Final as well as other important games in Berlin: There are now lots more Berlin photos at Flickr! I have just uploaded the following to Commons:

Anhalter Steg over the Landwehrkanal in Kreuzberg

Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing

Tegel Airport from the air

Sunset behind the Berlin skyline

Apartment blocks in Gropiusstadt

Elephant entrance to Berlin Zoo

Berlin panorama

Konzerthaus on Gendarmenmarkt

Turmstraße

Which if any of these would we like to add to this article? User:Angr 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Design City Berlin

I've compiled a list of links to many design institutions in Berlin (mesuems, agencies, schools, magazines, etc.), it is here — http://bact.blogspot.com/2006/07/design-city-berlin.html . -- 172.182.55.93 11:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Berlin Wiki Meetup

Suggested date, time, location
Suggestion: Monday, August 7, 2006 - 7 p.m./19.00 h Schleusenkrug , in the Tiergarten.


Some of us English-speaking Wikipedians from Berlin are going to meet up in August. If you'd like to join us, sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Berlin. Lear 21 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/Talk%7EBerlin_Archive_4_df8b.html"