Talk:Reichstag building

Comment

The body says that the construction on the Reichtag didn't start until "well after 1871". However, the caption on the first image claims to be of the Reichtag in about 1870. Clearly one of these is wrong...

--69.245.158.240 23:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)The article says: "Unfortunately, the cupola of the original building was blown up."

It's unclear to me whether this should read "the cupola had been destroyed during the war" or "the original cupola was demolished in the reconstruction process" or something else. Could someone clarify? --Beland 22:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clarified that. djmutex 15:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"A red soldier" -- Don't you mean a "Red Army soldier"? "Red soldier" sounds politically incorrect.

Cristo & Jean Claude

Should mention of their use of the Reichstag for their Art Projects be mentioned? I think it is an interesting fact.

I also think it should be added.

BonsMans (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Soviet flag over Reichstag

I've read an article on the Reichstag and noticed that some wikipedian wrote a passage on the red flag saying it was staged and stuff. I checked with modern Russian sources and they say that the daytime attack on the Reichsag began on April 30, 1945. Indeed, a couple of them say that the attack was unsuccessful, however, most of them say that it did happen and soldiers V.Provotorov and G.Bulatov attached the flag to the pediment at 2:25PM on April 30. Bulatov's awarding ceremony has been documented (order No.0121/н from June 8, 1945). The sources then say that soldiers M.A.Yegorov and M.V.Kantariya placed the flag on the cupola of the Reichstag at 9:50PM on April 30 (looks like a few hours later). Some sources say that by early morning of May 1, the flag had already been there. I just wanted to know your opinion on all of this. KNewman 15:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just removed the name of Mikhail Petrowitsch Minin, seems as if this is unclear who raised the flag. [1] says there a 95 different versions and [2] mentions various some soldiers that claim it was them. -guety is talking english bad 22:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It was always my impression that the flag planting was a bit like the Iwo Jima photo- a later posed staging of an actual event. It is definitely unclear who exactly lifted the flag however. On another note- During the Battle of Berlin in 1945, it became the central target for the Red Army for reasons not entirely clear, since it served no political, military, or strategic purpose at all. This is a strange sentence. I would have thought the propaganda and symbolic value of capturing the enemy parliament building (whether in use or not) would be obvious. I will alter this passage, unless someone can explain it. Badgerpatrol 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your impression of the Iwo flag raising is about 180 degrees off base. The second flag raising (the one Joe Rosenthall captured on film) was anything but "staged". Of the six in the second flag raising - five Marines and a navy corpsman, three of the Marines died before that "staged event" ended. While there is some truth to the phrase "only the winners write history", remember that only the whiners rewrite it.

[3] says Meliton Kantaria and Mikhail Yegorov were the ones in the famous Khaldei photo. No general consensus on who first raised the flag, but confirmation on the people in the photo. Note: There were many raisings of the flag, the first was at night. The photo is just a re-raising, like Iwo Jima. In other words, the photo was not the original flag raising.

Also, note, literally speaking, the flag in the photo was not the Flag of the Soviet Union, it was the Victory Banner. -The Red Baron 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sanssouci

Sanssouci is currently up for peer review here. If anyone has any comments to make to improve it, I would be very grateful. Trebor27trebor 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

DEM DEUTSCHEN VOLKE

I am told this means "For the German People" not "To the German People" as this article states. Adam 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The German word Dem is one the words for the, specifically for masculine and neuter nouns in the dative case. This basically means when the word is an indirect object. When standing alone, it can be interpereted as to/for (whatever), so either translation is correct. --Phantom784 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Phantom784 is right, it can mean both "to" or "for". But "(literally, 'The German people')" as it also was in the article, is wrong - I'll delete that. --FAThomssen (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that "To the German People" is better. In German, one would rather write "Für das deutsche Volk" if "For the German People" were intended, so I think we can remove the "for" translation. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that. "To the German People" is better in my opinion because no matter which verb you think "DEM" belongs to, you'd always translate it to "TO" ("gewidmet dem"/"dedicated to", "gegeben dem"/"given to" etc.) --91.21.114.88 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

DEM DEUTSCHEN VOLKE is DAS DEUTSCHE VOLK in the dative case (and if you're interested, it would be DES DEUTSCHEN VOLKES in the genitive case). The dative case by itself indicates the idea of motion towards, and is customarily used for dedications at monuments and suchlike (another example is DEN TOTEN DES DEUTSCHEN HEERES, seen at a war memorial in Koblenz-Ehrenbreitstein, where "den Toten" is "die Toten" in the dative case). So I would say that "to", in context, is a proper translation, since that is customarily used for dedications at monuments and suchlike in English. Kelisi (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Similarities?

WP:NCR logo

Acurate representation of the Reichstag? Dfrg.msc 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, I'm afraid, as proportions seem distorted. (Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man) -- Matthead ^discuß! O 15:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this pic of Reichstag

Nuremberg

Hello everyone I would like to know if the animated pic on right is that of the Reichstag. Legaleagle86 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this got mixed up with the similar named Reichsparteitag and shows the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg. The blast clip was already mentioned in the article, I added it. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Flagpoles

In front of the Reichstag, to the left of centre as you look at it are three flagpoles. Two of them have the German and European flags, but the one in the middle doesn't have one. You can see photographic evidence of this in Image:Reichstag_pano.jpg. Is a third flag ever flown, and if so, what is it? If not, why are there three poles? 79.68.216.39 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to honour important guests (ministers, heads of government, heads of state) from another country, their national flag is flown between the European and German flags. See this example (<---That link doesn't work) for an Tanzanian visitor to the Federal Chancellery. -- megA (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reichstag in 1945

This video: [[4]] has calling of Redarmy's veterans about the tooking of Reichstag in 1945.Agre22 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Red Army photo

The articles makes no mention of Yevgeny Khaldei's photo now. The text from Censorship of images in the Soviet Union#Flag on the Reichstag would fit quite well. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

History of the building

Made a minor edit to the header of the article to remove the phrase "traitors" and instead placed "Opponents of the Nazi Party" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRCarroll (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced by the footage seen on the clip seen below, the cupola was razed on November 22, 1954, not 1956: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675020794_Reichstag-Dome-Razing_Reichstag-building_Soviet-War-Memorial_Brandenburg-Gate --GovFilms (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

When the Cold War emerged, the building was physically within West Berlin, but only a few metres from the border of East Berlin, which ran around the back of the building and in 1961 was closed by the Berlin Wall.

How was it "closed" by the Berlin wall ? To do this the wall would have had to encroach on western territory which it didnt. 86.112.80.224 (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The border was closed by the Berlin wall, not the building. The pronoun "which" is the subject of both "ran" and "was", and its antecedent is "border". Kelisi (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency between quote and linked reference

Referring to the following line: [3] The Reichstag is now the second most visited attraction in Berlin

When I click the hyperlink embedded in this text I am taken here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Germany#Landmarks

That page says the Reichstag is the second most visited landmark in all of Germany... not just Berlin.

This seems to be an inconsistency.

Does anyone know which "claim" is correct?

Euro888 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup formatting

I've expanded the Reichstag disambiguation page to include all uses of the word Reichstag for buildings and parliamentary bodies. That way the multiple mastheads and duplicate references in this article on what Reichstag means can be shortened. New articles have been also created for Reichstag (North German Confederation) and Reichstag (Nazi Germany), so I modified a few wikilinks here and there. --- Ultracobalt (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Graffiti, architecture

Since we have a photo of the Soviet graffiti, I added a translation of the following from German Wiki:

Respekt vor der historischen Gebäudesubstanz war eine der Forderungen, die an die Architekten gestellt worden waren. Spuren der Geschichte sollten auch nach dem Umbau sichtbar bleiben. Dazu gehören auch Graffiti sowjetischer Soldaten in kyrillischer Schrift aus den Maitagen 1945, die nach der Eroberung Berlins angebracht wurden ("Hitler kaputt," "Kaukasus-Berlin"). Texte mit rassistischen oder sexistischen Aussagen wurden in Abstimmung mit russischen Diplomaten entfernt, die Übrigen werden im umgebauten Reichstag gezeigt.

There's nothing in this piece about the controversial nature of the Reichstag's mishmash of architectural styles. The German Wiki article quotes Kaiser Wilhelm II, not noted for his tact, as describing the building as "the pinnacle of tastelessness" and "a wholly unsuccessful creation" (Gipfel der Geschmacklosigkeit" und "völlig verunglückte Schöpfung"). However, Wilhelm was known for melodramatic and ill-considered pronouncements, and I don't think he's a good source. Someone with more knowledge of this architectural topic could add a paragraph. I think it would be worth doing since the building is such a widely known and much-visited site.

More pics would help, particularly one from the Cold War period when the building, partially restored, was open to the public. I went through it in 1971 and found it very interesting. At that time, no Soviet graffiti were in sight.

Sca (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. No agreement that this is really the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

---

--- Reichstag (building) → Reichstag – primary usage in English (the dab page should be at Reichstag (disambiguation) with a hatnote from Reichstag). -- PBS (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's close but Primary Topic ideally means more notable than all other topics combined. Although I'll agree that the building is the single most notable entity of that name, the combination of Reichstag (German Empire), Reichstag (Weimar Republic), Reichstag (Nazi Germany), and the Reichstag fire give it a run for its money. In addition, the building is not nor never was a Reichstag. It is the Reichstag building (though I suppose I'm influenced by the German name here). —  AjaxSmack  04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I think you are. The name "Reichstag fire" would never be referred to as "Reichstag" and the other meanings are obscure compared to the usual meaning of the word in English. Indeed that there is a "Reichstag fire" article that does not have building in the title ("Reichstag building fire") reinforces the point that in English the use of Reichstag is usually for the physical structure. -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't mean to say I thought the fire could be called "Reichstag" but that it might be a search term for one seeking an article on the fire. Excellent point about the fire not being called "Reichstag building fire". I'm wavering. —  AjaxSmack  21:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—it's about a building, with a foreign-language name that doesn't tell me what it is. English-speakers could easily mistake the meaning when searching, so please don't remove a meaningful part of the title. Tony (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  You suggestions for unnecessary disambiguation just for descriptive purposes was discussed in detail on the talk pages of WP:AT and rejected. If this was an obscure usage then there might be some justification for it but we do not used dab descriptions for iconic buildings such as this eg the article is named Colosseum not Colosseum (amphitheatre); Tower of London not Tower of London (castle). -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  In practice is someone puts in the search "Reichstag" they will end up at this page (it is the most likely search as most people will not be aware of the more obscure meanings). If the page is move to Reichstag then a search on "Reichstag building" will still send them to this page. The big advantage of Reichstag over the current name is that people writing articles about the Reichstag are most likely going to link to Reichstag not knowing it is a dab page (as the other meanings are obscure). Moving the current article to that name fulfils the WP:AT policy of Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. -- PBS (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that "Reichstag (building)" is quite an unnatural title and it's got to move - practically anything would be an improvement. However, I do have some sympathy for Tony and AjaxSmack's points. Perhaps moving it to something like Reichstag building may be better...? Quite a few sources refer to the "Reichstag building" (unlike the current, parenthetical name). bobrayner (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The building may be the primary meaning today (since the legislature is no longer called the Reichstag), but it certainly isn't in historical documents, where the primary meaning is the legislature itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  As there is more than one meaning for an historic assembly, no one who use the term "Reichstag" in such circumstances is going to link directly to an article called "Reichstag" and expect it to be the article they are looking for, but in a modern context because it is only used for the building and the historic usages are an obscure ones (in many cases other terms for those assemblies are commonly used in English language publications) the primary meaning is the building, so by leaving a dab page at "Reichstag" AT policy is not being followed Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. -- PBS (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think you're making far too great an assumption that the legislatures are obscure and the building is the most likely thing to be searched for. Just because something does not exist today does not make it obscure or less likely to be searched for. Contrary to your claims, the parliament of Germany to the end of the Second World war is always referred to as the Reichstag. That is not obscure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd probably go with "Reichstag building" as well. Any parentheses avoided are good ones, but it's too ambigious to not disambiguate it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Reichstag (building) → Reichstag building – per WP:NCDAB #1 (use natural disambiguators). —  AjaxSmack  19:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This was suggested by User:Bobrayner and User:The Evil IP address in a previous request above.

• Support; natural disambiguation is so much nicer than parenthetical - more natural, closer to what sources use. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose common name is Reichstag. Natural disambiguation should only be used if it is a common name which it is not to call it the "Reichstag building" implies that it is not commonly called the Reichstag. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you explain? "Reichstag building" is used by some english-speaking sources (including DB's own English-language pages) so it would seem to be a perfect fit with our article title policy. Since "Reichstag" is already taken that would leave us with no other alternative but to append something in brackets; of course that's not a likely search term and it's not used by sources. bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed form must be at least somewhat common or it wouldn't ngram. Kauffner (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this simply looks much better and it's not a made-up title, so this should be fine to use. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is certainly an improvement over the current title, and has examples of actual usage. -Kai445 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sustainable redesign by Foster

Someone should add a sub section about how the building runs on bio fuel and stores excess heat in water reservoirs to heat the building at night

"The building provides a model for sustainability by burning renewable bio-fuel - refined vegetable oil − in a cogenerator to produce electricity: a system that is far cleaner than burning fossil fuels. The result is a 94 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Surplus heat is stored as hot water in an aquifer deep below ground and can be pumped up to heat the building or to drive an absorption cooling plant to produce chilled water. Significantly, the building's energy requirements are modest enough to allow it to produce more energy than it consumes and to perform as a mini power station in the new government quarter." from the projects official page on Fosters website linked below see:- [http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/reichstag-new-german-parliament/ this Vivosims (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rather than say someone shoukd do it; be bold and do it yourself, You obviously know about it, so start the ball rolling. :-) ~~

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reichstag building. 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/20150502022352/http://www.berlin.de/orte/sehenswuerdigkeiten/reichstag/index.en.php to http://www.berlin.de/orte/sehenswuerdigkeiten/reichstag/index.en.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Weimar Republic

The building continued to be the seat of the parliament of the Weimar Republic (1919–1933), which was still called the Reichstag. I thought the parliament was in Weimar?--95.90.17.204 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the Weimar Constitution was promulgated there. That's all. Kelisi (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Reighstag 1945

Hello!

I was invited to make a note here on the talk-page.

Basically, as you may see [5], I propose a better quality foto of raising a Victory flag over the Reichstag in 1945.

This foto represents an effective end of World War II - the Victory of the Soviet Red Army in the World War II and the ultimate capturing of Berlin (Nazi capital) by Soviet Red Army in 1945.

Any questions? Stalin Strait (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The original should be used, not this one that your or your sockpuppet created and qre pushing on the wiki. You are literally only editing articles to add this one edited photo that you created. Use the original!69.193.60.158 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with 69.193.60.158, the original photo would be much better than the colorized version, as the colorized one does not really help with anything rather than distracting readers. SeanTVT (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See my question here. It seems that "the colorized one isn't an improvement and kind of hurts my eyes to look at it". So yes, it should be replaced with the original. SeanTVT (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the question.

Lets face facts: true color is red, and colorized foto is of better quality.

As I see, no policies prihibit colorised version, except that someone's eyes may be hurt by the red color. I guess, old man Adolf is in that group of hurted victims.Stalin Strait (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the point of using the partially colourised version of the photo. You've also been reverted by several users in the past few days, so you will definitely need a stronger argument if you want the original photo to be replaced by the one that you are insisting to be used in the article. Considering that you've been blocked for 31hrs for edit-warring, you should continue discussing here instead of edit-warring. Vacant0 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

@Courcelles: informs on my talk-page, that one of the reasons of the block is a "personal attack".

Actually, my statement about Adolf is rather straightforward if you find out where and how old fellow decided to exit in spring 1945. Stalin Strait (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)