Talk:Neo-Nazi marches in Dresden

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Germany

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Somebody who s more able/capable can add more pictures. I just added pictures from the other article on the 2010 mobilization which were online already (the author)

This article reads like a self-congratulatory account from those who protested against the marches and I am therefore concerned about bias. Additionally, it leans towards the journalistic rather than encyclopaedic. In light of these two issues I am inclined to call for significant alteration of the article, if not a total rewrite.118.210.89.115 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I added the POV tag. Reasoning follows (although many of the problems are not simply due to POV problems but rather references):

Parts of the article have been written in a peculiar style, in some parts almost like a battle report even in section titles "Celebrating the antifascist victory" and "the defeat of the neo-Nazis". Why not use wording like that the marches were not organised, for instance?
The last section has a heavy POV in a particularly controversial issue, even stating that the city and police acted in an "aggressive and authoritarian way". And for that it uses the Dresden-Nazifrei.com website as source.
Some other sources are problematic as well, for example using a blog called " http://dresden1302.noblogs.org" as a reference (ref. numbers 9, 10, 19, 20, 25, 27, 30, 33 and 60).

--Pudeo ' 01:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All very good points, unfortunately very little has changed in 5 months. 132.198.38.239 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Or indeed, 5 years. 80.42.131.34 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Or indeed 10 years 92.195.76.166 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gedenken an den 13. Februar 1945

This German article would be worth looking at - it's scope and approach is rather different. - Snori (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See de:Gedenken an den 13. Februar 1945. In 2020, I tried to provide some context. Thanks to the people who corrected my English. Minoo (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laguage "bombing" versus "destruction"

It is strange to refer to February 13, 1945 as just a “bombing.” Every major German city was bombed during World War II. Apart from local historians, no one talks about the “bombing of Aachen”, although around 2,600 people died. Aachen is just a random example, the first entry on the list. Today in the German Wikipedia there are two sentences about the bombing of de:Aachen: In the Second World War, Aachen was heavily damaged; 65 percent of the living space was destroyed. The first of five air raids took place in July 1941. That's it. In the main article about Aachen and the Second World War de:Schlacht um Aachen the bombing is not mentioned at all (8. Novenber 2023). It's not worth mentioning because everyone knows that this happened to every German city.

The “bombing” of Dresden has a different dimension, there was such a big Firestorm that it started rotating, like in Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II, where even the rivers were burning as the phosphorus floated on the water. There is no way to extinguish such a fire.

That's why it is called “Zerstörung Dresdens” and not “bombing of Dresden”. I understand that the term The Destruction of Dresden is occupied by the Holocaust denier David Irving, but I would tend to reclaim it, because it is trivializing to speak of just another bombing. Minoo (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]