Talk:Frauenkirche, Dresden

message: *Since the Dresden Frauenkirche and Munich Frauenkirche are both equal in notoriety and historical significance, both articles need to be split off and the main Frauenkirche namespace should be a diasmbiguation page redirecting readers to the two main articles.  The disambiguation page would also allow for the listing of other minor Frauenkirche as the name is somewhat popular for churches throughout Europe.  --Gerald Farinas 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: I request the last sentence to be striken from the article. No doubt this is a way to describe the outcome, but it's pathetic and therefore not suited for a dictionary which should base on facts. Madayar, --80.171.188.176 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: Is there a reason why Guenter Blobel and his contribution needs to be mentioned twice? It's very redundant. Zeus1233 09:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guenter Blobel

message: I found a copyright violation from The Boston Globe:Boston Globe article.  The following parapgraph appears word-for-word in the wikipedia text: The project employed a small army of architects, engineers, stress analysts, acoustics designers, woodworkers, art restorers, surveyors, musicologists, computer modelers, and other specialists. Team leaders had only three incomplete -- and maddeningly imprecise -- sets of schematic drawings of the church to serve as rough building guides. - 66.69.144.142
* Well spotted, 66.69.144.142. In addition to that paragraph, there are several others contributed by 24.180.147.71 that are taken from that Globe article, and from other sources, such as the New York Times.
From the Wiki article: At the time, the effort seemed quixotic. The project caused controversy and neither the Dresden city government nor the state-related Lutheran Church of Saxony supported the plan. Western Germans advised Dresden to leave it as a war monument, much like the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, which was partly rebuilt, with its tower left in ruin. People argued that it was more important to have new hospitals, schools, roads and houses.
From the NYT: At the time, it seemed quixotic. Neither the city government nor the Protestant church supported the plan. Western Germans advised Dresden to leave it as a war monument, much like the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, which was partly rebuilt, with its tower left in ruins. "People argued that it was more important to have new hospitals, schools, roads and houses," said the mayor of Dresden, Ingolf Rossberg, who, as deputy mayor in 1990, was an early supporter.
By entering passages into Google, other sources that can be identified include , , , , , , and .
It's going to take some major revision to sort out what is copyvio and what isn't! - Gobeirne 17:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: "Reproducing a facsimile of the original" - tautology?
Dan --80.42.208.53 05:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reproducing a facsimile 

message: *Move request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Halibutt, please do not violate WP:POINT as you mention above. Rob Church Talk 02:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: A lovely article. I'd never heard of the Frauenkirche before, and am horrified at the damage it took. It truely brings home the horror of the Dresden firebombing. It could be beefed up some more, but nice work. More, please! Fergananim 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and well done everybody.  As soon as the hubbub and vandalism has died away, I'll pull some photos of the equally-staggering interior across. (The German language page is growing nicely too - they are rightfully very proud - If I see anything there that would be nice here, I'll translate it across). ChrisRed 22:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: I dropped the word "miraculously" from the description of the church surviving two days of firebombing in WWII; somebody reverted this edit.  A comment was made above:
:Hmmm, I think that the minor edits are getting a bit pedantic now. Inanimate objects can wait (trains can wait at signals, and there's a grave waiting for us all), and if I had stood in the open air for two days and nights during the bombing of Dresden, I would consider it miraculous beyond opinion if I was still alive. It's O.K. to use 'colour and mood', lets not make Wiki language too dull and sterile. ChrisRed 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedantry

message: I see there's some reverting going on about the phrase "a British goldsmith whose father, Frank, was a member of one of the aircrews who helped to end the terror of national socialism by / took part in the bombing of Dresden"
The question is not whether or not the Nazi regime was one of terror. Instead, the reason this is a NPOV problem is that some people believe the purpose of the bombing was mainly to end the war, and others believe it was mainly to get revenge for the bombing of Coventry. See Bombing of Dresden. Using the phrase "helped to end the ..." assumes the first of these two points of view is correct, thus it is not NPOV. This controversial subject can not be summed up in one or two sentences here, but it is discussed at great length at Bombing of Dresden so the "helped to end..." can be left out here. Saint|swithin 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a lot of people it is Terror that a nazi building in nazi germany was rebuilt almost completely with good American money.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.181.219 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For even more people Morons can be Terror as well.79.205.107.223 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Terror

message: This monument should be listed under  a new category for replica buildings. See St Mark's Campanile discussion page. Roberrt Schediwy 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a difference between a 'replica' and a 'Reconstruction'?  Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral is a replica, this is a reconstruction, Like HMS Victory.Sigma-6 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replica Building

message: The presence of a criticism section seems appropriate but its current contents are far from objective and border on stupidity.  The stones were "placed, to a large extent, arbitrarily around the building with the help of a computer program"????  Computer-aided design is one of the most mature of computer sciences and I'm sure its contributors would be curious, to say the least, to hear someone call it "arbitrary."  Let's lose this section until we can get some supported content for it.
::Agreed.  The first question that comes to mind is, who has these criticisms "about what it means actually to 'reconstruct' old buildings"?  There are no references or any factual basis for these particular "criticisms." Musiclover (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding.  It's full of weasel-words and inaccuracies, and it's amazingly poorly written.  The conclusion is patently absurd; the building is a beautiful restoration, and it recreates the building (I've long loved the Canaletto print) gorgeously.  Obviously the 'image being created here' is, as near as possible, the Frauenkirche, lovingly, by a community that was sad to lose it. I'm going to delete the section, feel free to revert. Sigma-6 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "raised interesting philosophical questions about the status of this building and its embedded memory." Oh, please, tell us these interesting question about a building's memory! – Does that sentence make any sense? No, seriously, these are vague philosophical ramblings about reconstructing in general and should have no place in this article...-- megA (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: But the 'reconstructed' church has 1) a modern public lift going up halfway to the top and 2) quite a lot of steel and glass construction in the dome for visitors to walk around and look down in safety ... I am pretty certain that neither was there in the original. It is simply not true that is a reconstruction that is 'as close as possible', despite all the sentimental gush you might want to apply to it. There must be an accurate account somewhere of the non-historical aspects of the 'reconstruction', of which there are many. --Tdent (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion, Tdent, and you may have good reasons for it, but this article needs verifiable facts and quotations, not opinions. I have stripped the section down to a quotation from Jarzombek and (I hope) an objective summary. I think that's quite generous to an author who can't spell and writes titles like Urban Heterology: Dresden and the Dialectics of Post-Traumatic History. --Heron (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism"

message: Why do you call the Frauenkirche a "cathedral"? It has never been one. The responsible Evangelical Church in Germany bishop for Dresden seems to consider a church in Meissen to be his cathedral http://www.landeskirche-sachsen.de/landeskirche/index.html Mk4711 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cathedral

message: "The Dresden Frauenkirche survived the firebombing of Dresden during World War II but was totally burned out and collapsed the next day."
If it was totally burned out and then collapsed, then clearly it didn't survive the bombing. The fact that it took a few hours actually to collapse dooesn't change that. This sentence should be changed. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: quibbling over a few hours seems pointless when we're talking about an historic building. I've rewritten the intro. --Heron (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening section

message: The cost of the reconstruction is given in Euros and then in GBP and Dollars. I think the cost should be given ONLY in euros, since the exchange rates change every day. --Karljoos (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost of Reconstruction

message: Are these Links useful for this article?
its not english, but there are nice pics… --Gsälzbär (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  virtual tour 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Aerial photo Dresden re-construction of the Church of Our Lady Frauenkirche photo 2008 Wolfgang Pehlemann Wiesbaden Germany HSBD4382.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dresden Frauenkirche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030202195356/http://www.loc.gov:80/exhibits/dres/dres10.html to http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dresden Frauenkirche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407012039/http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_16_dresdens_frauenkirche_restored.php?print to http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_16_dresdens_frauenkirche_restored.php?print
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Munich Frauenkirche which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Is the use of the word "holocaust", in the section Destruction, appropriate? Kiwigpz (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it appears to be some vandalism that I have reverted.  Feel free to delete this comment though I imagine the bots will undo my change. Kiwigpz (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust of Dresden?