This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
I heard the Wartburg was used by the Stasi for many years, perhaps as a training headquarters. Can anyone confirm this?? (RM21 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
I did not hear anything about the Stasi during the tour of the Wartburg, see anything in the museum, or read about it in any literature. Though that isnt definite proof that it was not a Stasi headquarters, i would not be keen on writing it unless we had further information O'Donnell 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"According to a humorous myth, the castle (Burg) got its name when its founder first laid eyes on the hill upon which the Wartburg now sits; enamored with the site, he is supposed to have exclaimed, "Warte, Berg--du sollst mir eine Burg werden!" ("Wait, mountain--thou shalt become a castle for me!"). The humor in the story hinges upon the fact that the German words for "castle" (Burg) and "mountain" (Berg) sound similar."
This is American fakelore, and by someone who can't tell myth from legend from anecdote. Can a German language telling be found? Burg and berg only sound similar in an American pronunciation. This isn't good enough for Wikipedia. --Wetman 03:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not so, the myth is originally German, it has nothing to do with American or English pronunciation. The citation probably has been in existence in German folklore before the United States came into existence. Sorry about that. Dieter Simon 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Just add a note to any place where it's been recorded, and that will silence all doubters. --Wetman 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent citation, many thanks. Dieter Simon 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Poor old Wetman. Constantly astonished at what people believe.--Wetman 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we did say it was a myth, didn't we, but a very old myth. Even myths have a value as they are being spread, over the centuries but that still doesn't make them an American myth. Dieter Simon 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
What I should have said was that the sheer fact that a myth is in circulation is in itself a fact and needs citing. I might dig out a photo of the painting plus caption on a wall in one of the rooms of the Wartburg, lovely (pseudo)- Middle High German and all. Dieter Simon 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Schilderung is meant figuratively, I think: "legendary descriptions". The myth is traced to the 19c (with "elements" in a 13c chronicle, but I cant tell which elements). The phrase "natürlich nicht von Ludwigs Ausruf her" makes it clear to me that the writer doesnt take it at all seriously. Sparafucil (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a legend, and legends are tradition, even part of heritage. However, if it is just a legend which is merely based on a German play on words then it is patronizing to call it "humorous", readers don't need to be told, they can figure that out for themselves. Yes, of course, Hilmar Schwartz doesn't mean it to be taken as gospel. No German would dream of naming it humorvoll, witzig, or even komisch, let alone as the modern "facetious", calling it witzelnd, spöttisch or even mokant. There really is no need to tell people it is humorous. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should go into this slightly deeper. I said we are being patronizing by judging it to be "humourous". Yet, Wikipedia is here merely to describe things as they are, facts as they are, give stories and legends as they exist, not for us to give our judgment, telling readers how they ought to feel about what we describe. Patronizing in this case means asking readers to think it "humorous" when it is up to them to make that judgment, it just wouldn't be encyclopaedic. Dieter Simon (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)