Talk:Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Broken Links[edit]

The "Photos of the construction progress, by Dr. Lars Hennings" link doesn't work anymore, nor does the "Panorama photography from within the memorial" link.

Style[edit]

I have tried to make this sound a little more idiomatic to a native speaker of English. Contractions do not really belong in the somewhat formalistic style of an encyclopedia. Futher, while the term "daughter company" is not unacceptable in English, the gender-neutral "subsidiary" seems preferable in the context. If someone interprets this as a pro-American v. European stylistic bias, please feel free to comment but know that was not the intent. Rlquall 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

incorrect date[edit]

There is a line stating, "The jury met on January 15, 2005 in order to pick the best submission." This date must be incorrect. Perhaps jan 15 1995?

still incorrect date[edit]

"In April 1996 a competition for its design was announced in Germany's major newspapers." few lines later is says: "The jury met on January 15, 1995 to pick the best submission" it's contradiction, isn't it?

according to this site: "http://www.war-memorial.net/Memorial-to-the-Murdered-Jews-of-Europe-1.104" I guess the proper date should be 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalavariandris (talkcontribs) 13:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

inconsistent plural of stele[edit]

the article variously uses "stelae" and "steles" - either arguably acceptable, but using both is annoying. can someone pls decide and edit for consistency? thx Coughinink 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I made it "stelae". As a Berlin-based translator, I had to pick one years ago, and that's what I settled on, although I can't remember what my reasons were then. Wegesrand (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Degussa incident[edit]

A review of German newspapers shows that the decision in favour of Degussas anti-graffiti substance was not heavily criticized in general, but only by parts of the Jewish community. The German public advanced views similar to that of Eisenman (which was published on October 30, 2003 in Die Zeit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.248.218.109 (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Other controversies[edit]

How about people relieving themselves there? http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,462801,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.230.155 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


The fact that someone wrote this: "According to Eisenman's project text, the stelae are designed to produce an uneasy, confusing atmosphere, and the whole sculpture aims to represent a supposedly ordered system that has lost touch with human reason, which entices more Europeans to surrender money to the conniving jews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.112.143 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Symbolism[edit]

The quote in the introductory paragraph from a pamphlet that reads “the design represents a radical approach to the traditional concept of a memorial, partly because Eisenman did not use any symbolism” works as a contrast to the designer's own interpretation (“the whole sculpture aims to represent a supposedly ordered system that has lost touch with human reason”), but is not readily understandable. If this passage is going to be left standing, it should be explained more or use more precise language. How could a memorial like this fail to symbolize anything? In what sense does Eisenman "not use any symbolism"-- i.e. what kinds of symbolism are avoided by the memorial?

"Jewish victims of the Holocaust"?[edit]

"Jewish victims of the Holocaust" is a tautology. holocaust is jews only. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims#Ethnic_criteria please educate yourselfFSAB (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions about scope of memorial[edit]

Intro sentence:

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe …
… is a memorial in Berlin to the Jewish  victims and other victims of the Holocaust …

(Emphasis in italics mine.) Unless we can come up with one or more sources that document that the memorial is — despite its name — intended to also memorialize non-Jewish victims, I suggest removing “and other victims”. —ThorstenNY (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed “and other victims”. See this FAQ entry on the memorial website for an explanation why the memorial is “dedicated only to the murdered Jews” (translated from German; emphasis mine). —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


Number of Stelae[edit]

The article opens by saying there are 2,711 stelae, 'one for each page of the Talmud' From what I gather there are that many pages on the Babylonian Talmud, not the Jerusalem Talmud and it is implied that this connection was deliberate. However, Eisenmann originally wanted a lot more but had to shrink the size of the stelae-field and reduce the number of stelae to a random number that just happened to be 2,711. Eisenmann had no idea about the Talmud coincidence so it's misleading for us to imply the connection. (Per1892 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

Abuse of the memorial[edit]

Someone should really put in a section on how people are abusing the memorial as a place of entertainment, lunches, etc. I even saw a news reportage about people doing just about everything possible on those stones. Dollvalley (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I was there two weeks ago, walking through it on a fine summer day, and saw nothing of the kind. The stelae and the passages are clean, free of any kind of graffiti, beer cans, shreds of plastic, pee or cigarette stubs or whatever.83.254.151.33 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The memorial is clearly kept under constant close surveillance, and cleaners quickly remove what little litter is left. If there is 'abuse', it is children playing hide-and-seek: I must admit I am not quite sure what to think about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.196.24 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Judenraspel[edit]

Due to its shape it's also commonly known as "Judenraspel" (Jew rasp). That should be mentioned in the article --105.237.20.47 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Got a source for that bro? 2001:4DD7:4B04:0:F5FD:6F3E:4A70:B4E3 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone approve?[edit]

I know nothing about the subject, but on reading the article, it appears that the memorial is a source of near-universal controversy.

If this is true, then fine. If it isn't, perhaps some indication of the site's popularity would be good? Manning (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that these are the opposing options. Popularity is not a measure for controversy. -DePiep (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)