Talk:Forest swastika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forest swastika was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: April 14, 2007
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 and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the 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.)

Contents

[edit] Date of the image

Can the picture be precisely dated? Circeus 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The source I got it from was the second reference listed [1]. I suppose that you could send an e-mail request for information on the photograph, but I presume that it was taken at some point in 2000 during the period of the year that it was visible. GeeJo (t) (c) • 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That image was taken on November 14, 2000 according to [2], who had it on display already on June 18, 2001. Lupo 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD pic

I tried finding this on NASA World Wind, without much luck. Does anyone know the precise latitude and longitude?--Pharos 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the newspaper articles I can find give the location that exactly. Also bear in mind that the thing only showed for a few weeks per year, and given that it's five years on and there's been no new mention, I assume that this felling attempt was more successful than the 1995 one, so it'll be pretty hard to spot. The fact that it went unnoticed for so long should give some indication of how hard it is to find. :) GeeJo (t) (c) • 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, World Wind has data from several different times of year and even one data set that goes back to 1990, so I thought it might be worth a shot. The database identified two Zernikows in Germany, one more-or-less north of Berlin and one northwest of Berlin. My best guess from the conflicting news reports was the first one, but I'm not even sure of that.--Pharos 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's Zernikow in the Uckermark/Landkreis Uckermark. Coordinates are 53.38N, 13.75E. See also [3] or [4] for maps. Lupo 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Utterly destroyed now, then?
That's the wrong area. The Berliner Zeitung places it in the Kutzerower Wald ("wald" means forest) near Zernikow. I believe that would be the large forest region here (see how the town of Kutzerow is nearby). I looked over this Google Maps satellite photo for a while, but couldn't find anything (it may be the wrong season, or it may have been taken after it was successfully removed). It's possible someone with keener eyes might have more luck. Unfortunately, NASA World Wind, which has PD photos, doesn't have nearly the detail level for this spot.--Pharos 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
My best bet would be [5] here. Obviously, if one'd fell the whole swastika, there'd be a _new_ swastika, so it makes sense only to trim part of it, making the structure unidentifiable. It looks as if the notable north-south gaps in the forest could've been the upper and lower arm of the swastika, so it makes sense. doco (☏) 03:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND reference?

This image has been the topic of the popular YTMND fad "OMG Secret Nazi Forest!" (www.ytmnd.com/wiki/Secret_Nazi) I'm considering adding a reference to it, however, I do not wish to compromise this artcle's "good article" status. Are there any objections? Ziiv 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to YTMND has been added and removed about a half-dozen times so far. I've no strong feelings one way or the other, but be aware that someone is likely to come along and revert it if its added again. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 05:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be me, then. YTMND fads are of pretty much no relevance other than to YTMNDers, and they have their own Wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying physics articles are of no relevance other than to physicists, video game articles are of no relevance other than to gamers, etc. Even if your statement is true, which I maintain it is not, YTMNDers use Wikipedia (me, for example) and if something I was interested enough to be reading about had also been the subject of a YTMND, I would be interested in knowing. The fact that you don't care for YTMND does not make the fact that a subject was popular on YTMND irrelevant. stufff 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to keep the debate going, I think it's worth pointing out that it was the YTMND site that caused a lot of people to gain interest in the subject to begin with. ShadowMan1od 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to stop the debate, you'd need reputable independent sources to back that claim. Guy 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Quit being an ass. I never would have known about this forest if not for YTMND, and I'm sure most of the internet would agree. 71.113.254.254 04:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you hate freedom? SockMonkeh 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Such is the problem with Wikipedia. ShadowMan1od 18:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

YTMND fads have basically no meaning to anyone other then other YTMND users, it would be pointless to add it to the page because it's yirreverent. Babrook 9:31, January 23 2007 (UTC)

I also first heard about it on YTMND. The question is whether YTMND is a big enough fad to justify mentioning it here. I think if the mainstream press talks about YTMND, specifically the forest, then it justifies the recognition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.67.193 (talk • contribs) 13:14, August 6, 2007.
"Yirreverence" notwithstanding, mentioning of the YTMND phenomenon would strengthen the article on the internet meme and its subsequent knowledge base; providing a clear example of an abstract subject benefits that pursuit of information. Professionalism dictates the inclusion of all relevant information while maintaining a currently forsaken paragon of objectivity. .Absolution. 12:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious statement

The article says "For a few weeks every year in the autumn and in the spring, the colour of the larch leaves would change, contrasting with the deep green of the pine forest. The short duration...". Is this sourced? I think it may be incorrect editorial speculation.

Larches go yellow in the autumn, and shed their needles. For the entire winter they look like dead trees - they are brown, the colour of their bark. In the spring, they gain new needles, and are initially a pale green, which slowly comes to a close match to other trees.

Hence, the pattern would be clearly visible from autumn to spring. (In Scotland, many winter visitors comment on the large numbers of dead trees in forestry areas). Notinasnaid 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement is from the CNN article, which states:
As the normally green leaves of the larches change color against their evergreen background for a few weeks each autumn and spring, they create a remarkably clear swastika shape in the tree tops. But it is only visible from heights above about 1,000 feet. (emphasis mine)
If they're incorrect, feel free to replace the duration with a sourced alternative. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it's possible that the swastika is only visible while the foliage is yellow, before it's shed and the larches become a non-descript brown that may not contrast very well against the surrounding trees. Since there don't seem to be any pictures remaining of how the forest looked at other times of year, it's difficult to say with any certainty. For now I guess we'll have to go along with CNN's description. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Forest Swastika in Eki Naryn

Does anyone think the source itself is jumping to conclusions regarding this second forest swastika? Just looking over the wiki page on the swastika you'll see that it was a popular religous symbol in that part of the world well before it was used by the nazis and that in it's original form it wasn't tilted 45 degrees and was reversed from the nazi version, which is exactly how the sourced article described the 2nd forest swastika. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.162.151 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting as GA

It's a nice article, but due to length issues, I don't really see this as being good article material. I'm delisting the article for now, and if there are comments, please respond here or at my user talk page. Nishkid64 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it was nice while it lasted :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size

I'm changing the size listed in the article. 60 m2 is a square with sides only about 7.75 meters long, and that seems awfully small, so I checked the sizes listed for the Brandenburg swastika in the sources used in the article:

Source Size given Area In m2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ "20 metres square" 400 m2 400 m2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ (Google cache) "60 sq yd" 60 sq yd 50m2
http://archives.cnn.com/ "200-by-200-foot" 40,000 sq ft 3,716 m2
http://www.berlinonline.de/ "60 mal 60 Meter" 3,600 m2 3,600 m2

The most likely number I can see from this is 3,600-3,700 m2, so I'm updating the article with 3,600 m2. WODUP 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)