Talk:Stolperstein

message: Have stolpersteins in the U.S. ever been installed.
Has legal liability (of people getting injured when tripping over stolpersteins) been a notable issue regarding installation of stolpersteins in the U.S? (Are there any links?)
--85.165.229.54 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the name, it seems that they actually lie flush with the surrounding surface and do not present any trip hazard; see in particular the video of one being installed. — 94.173.131.163 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installations in the U.S; legal liability relating to responsibility for injured pedestrians 

message: This claim is not sourced and therefore removed from body of article: ".. installations that have raised criticism of why victims of racist killings in Norway (of non-Jews and non-ethnic Norwegians) have not been commemorated with plaques at the site where they were killed." Erik den yngre (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway 

message: What is "TEDxKOELN"? --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  TEDxKOELN 

message: The article repeats to a certain extent the List of cities by country that have Stolpersteine. Can the list be removed or summarized here? Kattiel (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kattiel that the list here should be removed or summarized. I started the List of cities by country that have Stolpersteine because the list in this article was incomplete, was not organized and did not present an accurate picture of the vast scope of the stolperstein project. I thought then that the list section in this article should be summarized in one or two sentences and direct the reader to the list page for a fuller sense of the number of cities and countries where stolperstene can be found. Marrante (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation with List of cities by country that have Stolpersteine 

message: German Wikipedia article mentions taxation issues by German Tax Office of Cologne. If the reduced 7% is applicable (as an installation of art) or 19 % (as a mass product) and the decision by Finance Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia to apply the 7% tax rate. 87.78.72.16 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxation issue missing here 

message: "Munich has rejected stolpersteine, following objections raised by Munich's Jewish Community and particularly its chairwoman, Charlotte Knobloch, then also President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. "
:could someone please clarify, thank you 11:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ms Knobloch finds it unbearable to read the names of murdered Jews in stones inserted in the pavement, that people will step on with their feet. (See the Suddeutsche Zeitung.) Kattiel (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What objections have been raised Munich's Jewish Community ?  

message: Rather than just translating from :de:Stolperstein, I've chosen to expand major parts of the English text by adding, as appropriate, information which was already available on the German page. The German text was, however, not just translated. New information and references were included.
The new sections on "Locations" and "Stolperschwellen" were directly translated from :de:Stolperstein. As this work comprised, altogether, a day's work, I hope it'll be okay if I dedicate my edits to the person whose name is written on the stolperstein next to my home. One name – of so many – which will never be forgotten; one neighbor – of so many – whose rights have been restored, if only symbolically, to live in the last place which they had chosen when they were free. --HajjiBaba (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello- While I'm sure Wikipedia appreciates your desire to expand this article, your contributions introduce translation and style issues that call for review by native speakers of English. It might be better if you asked for help from native English speakers before you add large amounts of text to articles here. Eric talk 03:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sorry about that - any corrections by native speakers would be highly welcome. --HajjiBaba (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having another go at improving the translation, style, and content of the article. Thanks again for making me aware of the issue. Any further corrections are highly welcome. There will be one exception, though, as far as my edits are concerned: The English translation (in the notes) of the Auschwitz decree, as inscribed on the first stolperstein, intentionally aims at reproducing the Nazi German language. With regard to an English-speaking audience, I hope the translation provides an example of the language of bureaucratically organized inhumanity. In the special context of this article, I suppose this makes sense.--HajjiBaba (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations from de:WP 

message: Someone should change "black" in para. 3 to "Black," as that use has been growing and is now the consensus usage in English (at least in the U.S.).
p.s. I agree with folks that say the title should be plural, and left in German--"Stolpersteine." Search engines would still turn it up when people searched in the singular, I think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLohe (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Isn't this word essentially the same as "stumbling block/stone", derived from the Old and New Testament words (NT Greek, skandalon)? The section on the background of the German word and its links to both pre-Nazi antisemitism (stumbling on a spot where "a Jew must be buried") and the notion of half-hidden traces inviting recovery seems to put it very close to the multiple senses of stumbling stone, an irksome fact or memory that hints at a buried truth or a buried problem, or something that was supposed to be troubling but should not be so. 192.121.232.253 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical connection? 

message: Okay, what is the prevailing consensus as to how to format this word? Is it capitalized or not? Is it italicized or not? Every combination of using capitalization and italicization occurs in this article. I was going to harmonize them, but was unsure which way to go. I did not see any "s" plurals, so that question seems to have been settled (though contrary to my personal preferences, I will respect that consensus and make sure all the plural usages are with "e"). --Khajidha (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final decision on how to format the word 

message: What is the point of mentioning some photoshoped right wing propaganda in this article? And the New Yorker is severely misinformed to say that this was in any way viral or relevant...
If you want to pick that topic up mention it under a section with other vandalism and abuse of this object of holocaust remembrance by right wing and facist groups - for this you can refer to the german Stolpersteine article.
93.236.71.126 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use for new purposes? 

message: "Public discussion in Germany
[...]
Starting in 2009, 23 Stolpersteine for the Belgian city Antwerp have been produced but could not be placed due to local resistance against the project. They have been stored in Brussels where they are regularly exhibited.[50]"
The title of the section "Public discussion in Germany" could be changed to just "Public discussion". --2003:F6:2714:AC00:EC10:6ED7:3459:4AEF (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium is not in Germany 

message: Early in the article, under the first subsection, "Origin of the name", it flatly states that Munich has banned the commemorative placings. In later sections of the article, there are statements that seem to indicate otherwise. Seems incongruent. Shouldn't the 'Munich has banned' statement be edited/corrected/deleted?
The statement:
"Some German cities like Munich still do not accept the setting of Stolpersteine, and look for alternative ways of commemoration instead.[9]"
68.111.65.18 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion stems from the fact that the city doesn't have jurisdiction to stop people installing whatever they want on private property. It was mentioned in passing but easy to overlook, so I've added a sentence making it explicit. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Munich: Accepts or does NOT accept? 

message: Six placed in June 2022, per RTÉ: https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2022/0601/1302393-stumbling-stones/ Perhaps this could be reflected under 3.5 Other countries?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin789 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: Please change "freely chosen by the person before he or she fell victim." to "freely chosen by the person before they fell victim."
38.34.85.84 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  He or she 

message: As a semi-fluent (but non-native) German speaker, I wonder about the sentence that says that one meaning of Stolperstein is "a potential problem".  The footnote to Duden does not support this assertion.  The meaning of Stolperstein in normal German conversation (aside from the special meaning of this project) -- as far as I know and can tell -- is exactly equivalent to the English "stumbling block"; "potential problem" is something distinctly different.  Can a native German reader please enlighten us?  If the sentence is incorrect it should be changed or deleted.  The article should state clearly that a Stolperstein in German is a stumbling block in English.Ajrocke (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolperstein = "potential problem"? 

message: On May 26, 2023, Demnig laid the 100,000th Stolperstein in Nuremberg.
source:  https://www.nn.de/nuernberg/in-nurnberg-liegt-jetzt-europas-100-000-stolperstein-1.13285583?referrer=https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg Qwertzu111111 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualcpscm (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2023 

message: 'Transgender women'should be added as a category of person for whom stolperstein have been placed, as recently the first stolperstein (under the person's real name, anyway) has been placed. https://chrissie.berlin/place/stolperstein_kate_rogalli.html 104.222.113.110 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: :Category:Transgender women is for people rather than things related to transgender women. Other transgender-related categories exist, but the article currently doesn't mention anything about transgender. You could create Draft:Käte Rogalli, which would go into that category. A sentence about her could also be added to this article, with reliable sources. That source you've added above is a blog, but I can see WP:Reliable sources about her: , , , etc. If you do decide to create the draft, please feel free to ping me when you think it's ready, if you'd like me to review it. Wikishovel (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023 

message: Please, add the hyperlink to Ukraine on the list of countries where the stones are present. It has hyperlinks to all the other countries but Ukraine is written in plain text. Thanks. 140.180.240.71 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023 

message: The location of each  is currently described as  and . However, this wording does not completely agree with the steps for laying a , which besides dwelling includes places of education, working, practicing and living, and is open to exceptions in individual cases (although these need to be discussed and considered with the project). That is, there is more flexibility than currently stated. It also doesn’t seem to be true for (at least some of) the six  in Dublin, Ireland for example. Upon her marriage, Ettie Steinberg moved to Antwerp for a year, presumably of free will, and her son Leon was born in Paris in 1939. (I must stress that I am questioning the current wording in the article only.)
As a suggestion to initiate discussion, should the phrasing be reworded to ? Betterkeks (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable, but I'd rearrange the sentence to avoid the long parenthesis in the middle, e.g., "aims to commemorate individuals at the last place that they freely chose to reside, work, or study (with exceptions possible on a case-by-case basis)." Furius (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (with two very minor changes). Betterkeks (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording around Location 

message: Was she Ada von Dantzig or Ada van Dantzig? Our article uses both. Various news sources use one or the other. Even if we can't resolve which one it was, we should be internally consistent. Marnanel (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: (Replying to self) Presumably if her family were from the Netherlands she'd have used van (Dutch) rather than von, which is German. Dantzig is a German word (for Gdansk); the Dutch appear to call the city Gdansk. So I suspect "van" is correct— but this is OR. Marnanel (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ada v?n Dantzig