Talk:IG Farben Building
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
IG Farben Building is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
IG Farben Building has been nominated for Selected article, at the Architecture Portal. For more information, visit WikiProject:Architecture |
 |
This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
 |
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. |
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-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.) |
 |
Supported by WikiProject Frankfurt |
Contents |
[edit] Hessen
It is Hessen not Hesse. There is no Bundesland called Hesse in Germany. I am correcting this now.
Hesse is the term for inhabitants of Hessen: I live in Hessen, I am a Hesse. Plural: We live in Hessen, we are Hessen.
- Before you do, please check out Hesse which says that Hessen is the german for Hesse (implicitly english).--Mcginnly | Natter 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments post-FA
Unfortunately I wasn't able to read and comment on this article before it received its Featured Article status. But here are some comments that I hope will be of help. The article is certainly good but there are a few lingering problems that I think should be addressed.
- 1. The section "Early history" describes the future site of the building, and so this section is not an early history of the building itself. I recommend renaming the section: The site.
- 2. The section "Inter-war years" is a description of the early history of the building, and should be so renamed.
- 3a. The section "Second World War" includes the following sentenced: "The building was the headquarters for research projects for the development of wartime synthetic oil and rubber, as well as the production administration of magnesium, lubricating oil, explosives, methanol, and Zyklon B, the lethal gas used in concentration camps. The building served its intended purpose for 15 years." but I am pretty sure the original purpose of the building was not to produce Zyklon B, etc. In fact, the article indicates that the original purpose was to serve as "corporate headquarters" (there is no mention of any research projects in the pre-Nazi era).
- The brief changed during the construction of the building to incorporate laboratory facilities. It served its purpose as corporate headquarters, research projects and production administration. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- As it stands, it suggests that the building was built to serve a Nazi agenda, which is obviously not correct. So I'd suggest rewording the sentence to something like: "The building served these purposes.." or something similar. Pinkville 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could you clarify - is it "the building served it's intended pupose" that you have issues with? Whilst the building was complete in 1930 and the nazis came to power in 1933 their interests were already converging before the nazis came to power. I'll amened the "intended purpose" part though.--Mcginnly | Natter 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with "intended purpose" is that presumably, Poelzig didn't intend the building to be used for the functions to which the Nazis used it - and possibly IG Farben didn't (orginally) intend the building to be used for research, etc. But regardless, the article states the buiolding was built as corporate headquarters, and makes no mention of research until the Nazi era, so this needs to be clarified. If IG FArben during the construcuction already intended to use the building to create synthetic oil, rubber, and Zyklon B, and/or to operate in conjunction with Nazi policy, then that should be more clear. At the moment it just seems confusing chronologically (e.g. "wartime synthetic oil..." and "intended purpose"). Ah, i see this has been changed. Better. Pinkville 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- As it stands, it suggests that the building was built to serve a Nazi agenda, which is obviously not correct. So I'd suggest rewording the sentence to something like: "The building served these purposes.." or something similar. Pinkville 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The brief changed during the construction of the building to incorporate laboratory facilities. It served its purpose as corporate headquarters, research projects and production administration. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 3b. In the same section, the description of Eisenhower's "former" office is confusing - the events mentioned should be listed in chronological order, especially as some of the events occurred after Eisenhower had vacated the office. I would also suggest a wikilink (even if a redlink) to "Hesse consitution" rather than to Hesse (which is wikilinked too often - and which should probably only be linked at its first occurrence in the article).
- Partially amended--Mcginnly | Natter 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely better, but this: "During this period, Eisenhower received many important guests..." is still a problem because you earlier mention events (the signing of the Hesse constitution) that happened after Eisenhower left the building. Pinkville 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Partially amended--Mcginnly | Natter 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 4. "Following German reunification, the US government announced plans to fully withdraw its troops from Germany by 1995, at which time control of the entire site would be restored to the German Federal Government.[1] What it would be used for was at first unclear;..." This is first a little odd, then informal and fuzzy. Why not describe what happened rather than what the US announced would happen (unless those events never took place)? And instead of "What it would be used for", how about "Its new function...", though "unclear" is still fuzzy. "Its new function had not been determined"? A little wordy. This might be best: "It was suggested that the building become the location for the European Central Bank."
- 5. There are too many variants of Nazism, National Socialism, etc. in the article. I suggest "Nazism" throughout (anyway, that's the name of the Wikipedia article) with, perhaps, one inclusion of "National Socialism" if deemed necessary.
- 6. In the "Recent years" section, this phrase "misuse of Hans Poelzig" (precise German translation) is ambiguous. I think it means that the original German says "misuse of Hans Poelzig" but the addition of "precise German translation" acutually confuses the issue. How about "misuse of Hans Poelzig" [siç], with a footnote providing the original German text.
- 7. In the section "Building", another way of handling the quotation "A symbol, in iron and stone..." would be to place the original German text - and the reference - in a footnote. The quotation marks aren't necessary when the quotation is in italics and presented as a block quote.
- 8. "Thus, the building looks taller to the external viewer from some vantage points." This is peculiar and doesn't really make sense.
-
- Probably best to remove this altogether. I reckon you're right, that it just has to do with different ceiling heights, but it's weird enough to distract and adds nothing. Pinkville 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think what it's saying is the variation of storey height on the ground floor is reflected in the roof line of the top floor. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. If you can demonstrate that, then reword it to reflect that fact. Otherwise, leave it out, I'd say. Pinkville 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think what it's saying is the variation of storey height on the ground floor is reflected in the roof line of the top floor. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probably best to remove this altogether. I reckon you're right, that it just has to do with different ceiling heights, but it's weird enough to distract and adds nothing. Pinkville 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 9. "...the largest and most modern of its type in Europe" What type? Office building, construction method, architectural type?
- 10. "block land" If this is a translation of a German architecurual term, use the German and explain in a note. As it stands, this is not a term in English, but translating it obscures its origins and meaning.
-
- This is still simply perplexing. Pinkville 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 11. "The entrance is at the axial centre of the building (apart from a few emergency exits)" Probably means "The entrance (apart from a few...", but it's better to remove any mention of the emergency exits, since they're of no importance. Also, how about "central axis" or "main axis" rather than "axial centre".
- 12. "Concave" might be better as "crescent".
- 13. The portico "stands in front of it"... of what? The entrance? The building? Isn't the entrance through the portico?
- 14. "Walls in a zigzag pattern" suggests the shape of the walls themselves, not the pattern on the walls. Which is correct?
-
-
- Your changes to 11-14 are so much better! Pinkville 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- 15. "After the recent restoration, the university has pledged to preserve them." Presumably the paternoster lifts were at risk of removal during the restoration, not after.
- 16a. The section "Myths" should be renamed. No myths are described. The first paragraph describes connections and associations with Nazism, noe of which are myths or even runours. The trivia listed after are sometimes factual, sometime rumour or allegation. This section needs to be substantially cleared up.
- 16b. "... has the memory of the Third Reich receded." Not the memory, but the taint.
- 16c. Was Poelzig or was he not favoured by the Nazis. This note should make the situation clear.
- 16d. The "underground" (as opposed to...) tunnel note suggests there is more than one reference source but only one is given. Rewording needed. A fact is given, then doubt cast on it.
- Amended, but the list starts with "A number of unconfirmed rumours concern the complex:" and then states (implicitly) that one of the rumours concerns the tunnel to the station, but that rumour is denied by another source that states only the two buildings are linked--Mcginnly | Natter 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 16e. Is the name of the statue "Am Wasser" or "Nymphenskulptur" (Nymph sculpture)?
I think that's everything. Please let me know if anything doesn't make sense. These are suggestions, so use what you can, etc. Pinkville 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very good changes. Your most recent changes regarding the renaming controversy makes much more sense and no longer suggest that the memory of Nazism has faded but that the association of the building with Nazism is less significant. A worthy Featured Article. Pinkville 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- One error that occurs more than once is the description of Zyklon B as a gas. According to the Wikipedia article, Zyklon B was a solid which gave off a gas upon exposure to air. Alan Pascoe 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bombing
This is a big conspiracy theory here. You have the biggest office block in Europe, helping the Nazis big time, and the Allies never actually bomb it? --MacRusgail 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,MacRusgail, The IG Farben Bldg also had a large CIA Station, where my father worked in the 1950s. It was often said by him and colleagues that the building was not bombed so that the Allies could use it. There was also much talk (by Americans in the intelligence community) of steps taken by German industry leaders to protect their ability to rebuild after the ever-more-inevitable looking WWII defeat. (In the endgame, they hid key engineers in the country, not materiel or machines.) You are writing from the early 2000s, after the economic excesses of the 1990s and the military excesses of the Iraq war. It seems natural to press for total destruction. In another time, the emphasis was on extinguishing an abberation, a deviation into totalitarian dictatorship and the restoration of our normal, shared culture, which we can label Western Civilization, The Enlightenment, whatever. As my father's son, it seems we are today destroying these values in our own country, and so we are unable to project Western values abroad, but that's off-topic. -- Jerry-va 01:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understood your point, you said that the allied military leaders did not want to destroy the building, because they wanted to use it after their victory. This is a good explanation. However, the Allies did not act like that because they wanted to surgically destroy the Nazi regime. They bombed Dresden and other cities, which was perhaps necessary. But maximum damage is one of the aspects I'd associate with the war against cities (esp. Dresden). I do not want to start a discussion about this topic here, but I think your explanation is partly invalid. Let me answer a question which might have gotten into your mind in advance: I do not want to countervail horrible actions taken in WW2. But I don't think one can say the allied bomber command wanted to spare less relevant structures.
[edit] Map
Can we have a map for the "rumours" section, showing the location of the IG Farben Building, Grüneburgpark, station and anything else that may be relevant? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
