Talk:Weimar
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Untitled edit
OK. Not good: Nietzsche's wikipedia page says he is buried in Rocken, not Weimar. Going to delete statements that it is in Weimar (I was just there this summer and don't recall seeing his tomb).
The missing coat of arms makes an unsightly hole at the top of the page... Does anyone have one to fill up the hole ? -- PFHLai 01:54, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
"A visit to Weimar would not be complete without a tour of Goethe's home or gardenhouse, a stroll through the picturesque and expansive Park an der Ilm, a sampling of Thüringian Bratwurst from the local vendors at the Markt Platz, or a taste of any of the many decadent (and cheap) ice cream flavors that line the main scenic street, Schillerstrasse."
Why must articles discussing a city and it's salient history always devolve into travell blrbs? More to the point, this is an article about the city of Weimar, and not about travelling to the city of Weimar. I'd like to remove this entire paragraph - leave a note with your feelings on this. Dxco 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This problem could be fixed simply by changing the language or attaching relevant facts. Right now it looks like a "travel blurb," but the points in that paragraph could be useful to some. Someone who knows something about WEIMAR should make these ideas relevant by editing the language. ABresnahan 22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"Visitors today can view areas used for shelter, medical experimentation, cremation, and labor. A somber, disturbing experience, yet one that must be endured." Uhm...? Should not be in an Encyclopedia. It also borders on moral prescriptivism.
According to the page on Hummel, Johann Georg Albrechtsberger, Haydn, and Antonio Salieri were the tutors of Hummel. No mention of Mozart there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.110.22 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
External Links edit
These two links are commercial and should maybe be replaced in the future:
KaiKemmann (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
City edit
By what standard is Weimar termed a city (I would say town), and what is the meaning of full-value-city? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- In 1410 Weimar received its city rights (Stadtrecht & Stadtfreiheit): "1410 The Wettin lend Weimar city charter and city freedom along the lines of Weissensee, confirming older city statutes, which date back to 1348." - here (Weimar was declared a town in 1254 and was chartered [city statutes] in 1348; here) --IIIraute (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I probably don't have to understand by which logic it's "declared a town", but "city rights", while we have an article Town privileges, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- "City" is used with a much wider meaning in America.
- The consensus for German settlements is:
- For settlements with town rights (Stadtrechte) and populations under 100,000: translate as "town"
- For settlements with town rights (Stadtrechte) and populations of 100,000 or more (i.e. a Großstadt): translate as "city"
- --Boson (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, helps. Population when? The discussion came from the Schloss, last version built around 1800. Today's "city" could have been a town before. Weimar is not even a city by that standard today, with 63k+ population. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since we are not talking about America, the article is written in British English, and the population is less than 100,000, I would definitely say "town". "Stadtrechte" do not justify use of "city", but I suppose the word might be justified in a historical context if there were a source that classified Weimar as a Großstadt at the relevant time. --Boson (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, helps. Population when? The discussion came from the Schloss, last version built around 1800. Today's "city" could have been a town before. Weimar is not even a city by that standard today, with 63k+ population. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- City of London, population: 7,375 --IIIraute (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Boson, the City of London is a city within London. It holds city status in its own right. Monaco has a population of 36,371 and is a sovereign city-state. I think you are getting my point. Let us ignore WP:RS, such as Encyclopædia Britannica here for a while:
Not only was Weimar the capital of the grand duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach until 1918, and the capital of Thuringia from 1920 to 1948 - but much more important, Weimar also is one of the Independent cities of Germany, a Kreisfreie Stadt; i.e. a municipal corporation with town privileges of city status. --IIIraute (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you understand mine. City has several meanings. American usage is to call such independent settlements cities, whereas British usage is to call them towns. Because of the problems of inconsistent usage of such classifications, WikiProject Germany recommends reserving the term "city" for the German Großstadt. We try to follow the classifications of the country concerned. The German Stadtrecht distinguishes a Stadt (town) from a Dorf (Village), and "city" is ued for Großstadt. Weimar was declared a town in 1254. This is not to say that we could not use term "city", based on some defined criteria, but we need to be consistent in order to avoid misleading the reader, so we should reach consensus at a higher level. In this case, I would say the appropriate place is WT:GER, where the present consensus is to reserve "city" for Großstadt. It might make sense to suggest using "city" for "kreisfreie Stadt", but that might open up a can of worms because of differences between different Länder. With "city states" of course, there is the issue of sovereignty, but that is not especially relevant for Germany since the federated city states are all the size of Großstädte. I don't think it makes sense to apply a differing local consensus for each article. Another point is that in (British) English, a town with the right to call itself a city can still be referred to as a town, so it is seldom incorrect to use the word "town". --Boson (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is a textbook example of WP:AINT. Since the creation of this article 12 years ago the article calls Weimar a "city". German Stadtrecht is much more complicated, than having a division between "Dorf" and "Stadt", e.g. Große kreisangehörige Stadt, Große Kreisstadt, Kreisfreie Stadt, Mittlere kreisangehörige Stadt, Bundesstadt, Stadtstaat, etc. As Kreisfreie Stadt, Weimar is a communal Gebietskörperschaft: "eine Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, die die Gebietshoheit auf einem räumlich abgegrenzten Teil des Staatsgebietes besitzt." - therefore has a sovereign status similar to that of city states. I love how the WP likes to make up its own truth, ignoring constitunional laws, and WP:RS, such as Encyclopædia Britannica or The American Desk Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press whether contemporary, or from 250 years ago And all of this for what? because one editor, for whatever reason - e.g. not liking the term "City Castle" or "City Palace" - doesn't want Weimar to be a "city" - what a waste of time. Enjoy your gift. --IIIraute (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps Weimar should be called a city, but your differentiation looks rather like the American differentiation. Personally, I can see arguments for both sides, but I think it needs to be discussed at a higher level than the individual article. It looks as if you agree that there should be some consistency between different articles on German settlements, though I'm not sure how to understand your argument about it being a city on the basis of it having sovereign status like a city state because it is a Gebietskörperschaft. As I understand it Ruhpolding is also a Gebietskörperschaft. This also looks like a misleading translation of "Gebietshoheit" leading to a confusion with the sovereignty of a state (including the limited sovereignty of a federated state). --Boson (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cannes, Versailles, Bath, City of London, etc. - please change articles accordingly. --IIIraute (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not really my areas. Please feel free to propose changes on the appropriate talk pages. I did happen to notice that the Versailles article is written in American English. --Boson (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, right! That's just what I was thinking. Btw, Ruhpolding is a municipality of the Traunstein district, and not one of the Independent cities of Germany - so much for that. --IIIraute (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I will take that as support for my point: that it has nothing to do with being a Gebietskörperschaft, which Ruhpolding and Weimar both are, as I understand it. But perhaps I misunderstood; did you not mean that Weimar is a city by virtue of being a Gebietskörperschaft and therefore possessing Gebietshoheit (like a city state)? In any case, I don't think this is the best place to discuss where to draw the line between a town and a city in Germany. If Weimar is to be classified as a city, someone needs to change the text at WikiProject Germany. --Boson (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, I think you still didn't get it: we are talking about the Gebietskörperschaft of a Kreisfreie Stadt. The Oberbürgermeister of a Kreisfreie Stadt, is at least of equal level in the hierarchy than a Landrat. Does Ruhpolding have a "Oberbürgermeister" or a "Landrat" - no, it's a municipality of the Traunstein district.
"Teile des Staatsgebiets können gleichzeitig verschiedenen Gebietskörperschaften auf unterschiedlicher Ebene zugewiesen sein. Bestes Beispiel hierfür sind die kommunalen Gebietskörperschaften Gemeinde und Landkreis." --IIIraute (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- We seem to be in total agreement on the facts. Just to test if we are talking at cross purposes: do you agree that all "kreisfreie Städte" are Gebietskörperschaften and that all other Gemeinden are also Gebietskörperchaften? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why you introduced the concept of a Gebietskörperschaft, since being a Gebietskörperschaft or not has no bearing on whether a municipality is like a city state. Perhaps you could reword your argument where you wrote
- "As Kreisfreie Stadt, Weimar is a communal Gebietskörperschaft: "eine Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, die die Gebietshoheit auf einem räumlich abgegrenzten Teil des Staatsgebietes besitzt." - therefore has a sovereign status similar to that of city states."
- From what you have written since I understand you to have intended something like
- "As a kreisfreie Stadt, Weimar is a special type of communal Gebietskörperschaft: "eine Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, die die Gebietshoheit auf einem räumlich abgegrenzten Teil des Staatsgebietes besitzt." - with much greater powers than a simple Gemeinde, powers that can be compared with the those of a city state. "
- --Boson (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Boson, it does matter, that a Kreisfreie Stadt also is a Gebietskörperschaft - because if it wasn't, it would not have "much greater powers than a simple "Gemeinde"". I mean, I did provide a link to the Independent cities of Germany article, assuming you are having a look at it. There it states, that "Kreisfreie Städte are comparable to independent cities ... in the English-speaking world." That's the reason why I put emphasis on the fact that a Kreisfreie Stadt is also a Gebietskörperschaft. Are you following me? I was not the editor introducing some irrelevant facts about "Ruhpolding" to this discussion. --IIIraute (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think we have located the problem. You are basing your argument on the belief that Ruhpolding is is not a Gebietskörperschaft (and Weimar is).--Boson (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Or, to word that differently: You are basing your deduction on the premise that not all Gemeinden are Gebietskörperschaften (and, of course, that all kreisfreie Städte are Gebietskörperschaften). --Boson (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Boson, I think you are a bit confused now. Why don't you re-read this section; i.e. my last comment, and then rethink the comments you have just posted. --IIIraute (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I give up. Your logic does confuse me. As I understand your comments, either (1) they mean what I have suggested, or (2) the conclusion you draw is a non-seqitur and there was no earthly reason to mention Gebietskörperschaften). If there is a third way of understanding what you wrote, perhaps you (or someone else) can explain it to me using something like logical propositions. It might help if you answered a simple question: Is the municipality (Gemeinde) of Ruhpolding (in your opinion) a Gebietskörperschaft (perhaps we should call that a "territorial corporation")? I don't want to get on your nerves, so feel free to say "Forget it!". --Boson (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Boson, I think you are a bit confused now. Why don't you re-read this section; i.e. my last comment, and then rethink the comments you have just posted. --IIIraute (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Or, to word that differently: You are basing your deduction on the premise that not all Gemeinden are Gebietskörperschaften (and, of course, that all kreisfreie Städte are Gebietskörperschaften). --Boson (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think we have located the problem. You are basing your argument on the belief that Ruhpolding is is not a Gebietskörperschaft (and Weimar is).--Boson (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Boson, it does matter, that a Kreisfreie Stadt also is a Gebietskörperschaft - because if it wasn't, it would not have "much greater powers than a simple "Gemeinde"". I mean, I did provide a link to the Independent cities of Germany article, assuming you are having a look at it. There it states, that "Kreisfreie Städte are comparable to independent cities ... in the English-speaking world." That's the reason why I put emphasis on the fact that a Kreisfreie Stadt is also a Gebietskörperschaft. Are you following me? I was not the editor introducing some irrelevant facts about "Ruhpolding" to this discussion. --IIIraute (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- We seem to be in total agreement on the facts. Just to test if we are talking at cross purposes: do you agree that all "kreisfreie Städte" are Gebietskörperschaften and that all other Gemeinden are also Gebietskörperchaften? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why you introduced the concept of a Gebietskörperschaft, since being a Gebietskörperschaft or not has no bearing on whether a municipality is like a city state. Perhaps you could reword your argument where you wrote
- No, I think you still didn't get it: we are talking about the Gebietskörperschaft of a Kreisfreie Stadt. The Oberbürgermeister of a Kreisfreie Stadt, is at least of equal level in the hierarchy than a Landrat. Does Ruhpolding have a "Oberbürgermeister" or a "Landrat" - no, it's a municipality of the Traunstein district.
- I will take that as support for my point: that it has nothing to do with being a Gebietskörperschaft, which Ruhpolding and Weimar both are, as I understand it. But perhaps I misunderstood; did you not mean that Weimar is a city by virtue of being a Gebietskörperschaft and therefore possessing Gebietshoheit (like a city state)? In any case, I don't think this is the best place to discuss where to draw the line between a town and a city in Germany. If Weimar is to be classified as a city, someone needs to change the text at WikiProject Germany. --Boson (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, right! That's just what I was thinking. Btw, Ruhpolding is a municipality of the Traunstein district, and not one of the Independent cities of Germany - so much for that. --IIIraute (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not really my areas. Please feel free to propose changes on the appropriate talk pages. I did happen to notice that the Versailles article is written in American English. --Boson (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cannes, Versailles, Bath, City of London, etc. - please change articles accordingly. --IIIraute (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps Weimar should be called a city, but your differentiation looks rather like the American differentiation. Personally, I can see arguments for both sides, but I think it needs to be discussed at a higher level than the individual article. It looks as if you agree that there should be some consistency between different articles on German settlements, though I'm not sure how to understand your argument about it being a city on the basis of it having sovereign status like a city state because it is a Gebietskörperschaft. As I understand it Ruhpolding is also a Gebietskörperschaft. This also looks like a misleading translation of "Gebietshoheit" leading to a confusion with the sovereignty of a state (including the limited sovereignty of a federated state). --Boson (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is a textbook example of WP:AINT. Since the creation of this article 12 years ago the article calls Weimar a "city". German Stadtrecht is much more complicated, than having a division between "Dorf" and "Stadt", e.g. Große kreisangehörige Stadt, Große Kreisstadt, Kreisfreie Stadt, Mittlere kreisangehörige Stadt, Bundesstadt, Stadtstaat, etc. As Kreisfreie Stadt, Weimar is a communal Gebietskörperschaft: "eine Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, die die Gebietshoheit auf einem räumlich abgegrenzten Teil des Staatsgebietes besitzt." - therefore has a sovereign status similar to that of city states. I love how the WP likes to make up its own truth, ignoring constitunional laws, and WP:RS, such as Encyclopædia Britannica or The American Desk Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press whether contemporary, or from 250 years ago And all of this for what? because one editor, for whatever reason - e.g. not liking the term "City Castle" or "City Palace" - doesn't want Weimar to be a "city" - what a waste of time. Enjoy your gift. --IIIraute (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you understand mine. City has several meanings. American usage is to call such independent settlements cities, whereas British usage is to call them towns. Because of the problems of inconsistent usage of such classifications, WikiProject Germany recommends reserving the term "city" for the German Großstadt. We try to follow the classifications of the country concerned. The German Stadtrecht distinguishes a Stadt (town) from a Dorf (Village), and "city" is ued for Großstadt. Weimar was declared a town in 1254. This is not to say that we could not use term "city", based on some defined criteria, but we need to be consistent in order to avoid misleading the reader, so we should reach consensus at a higher level. In this case, I would say the appropriate place is WT:GER, where the present consensus is to reserve "city" for Großstadt. It might make sense to suggest using "city" for "kreisfreie Stadt", but that might open up a can of worms because of differences between different Länder. With "city states" of course, there is the issue of sovereignty, but that is not especially relevant for Germany since the federated city states are all the size of Großstädte. I don't think it makes sense to apply a differing local consensus for each article. Another point is that in (British) English, a town with the right to call itself a city can still be referred to as a town, so it is seldom incorrect to use the word "town". --Boson (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Boson, the City of London is a city within London. It holds city status in its own right. Monaco has a population of 36,371 and is a sovereign city-state. I think you are getting my point. Let us ignore WP:RS, such as Encyclopædia Britannica here for a while:
Schloss edit
English differentiates between castles, palaces, and mansions. I think "castle" is generally used only for buildings with battlements (typically on a hill, and built for armed defence). --Boson (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the Weimarer Stadtschloss, please note that it used to be a medieval moated castle and that the own website refers to the Stadtschloss as "castle", here --IIIraute (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- There may indeed be reasons to call it a castle rather than a palace, but I strongly suspect it is a simple (and quite common) mistranslation. I note that the English text does not say it "used to be a medieval moated castle" but that it was "originally constructed on the site of a moated castle", which the German text calls a "mittelalterliche Wasserburg"--Boson (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC).
- "... [die] Anlage ging aus einer mittelalterlichen Wasserburg hervor und wurde ...", but it doesn't matter.
Check this out - Πάντα ῥεῖ, --IIIraute (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- "... [die] Anlage ging aus einer mittelalterlichen Wasserburg hervor und wurde ...", but it doesn't matter.
- There may indeed be reasons to call it a castle rather than a palace, but I strongly suspect it is a simple (and quite common) mistranslation. I note that the English text does not say it "used to be a medieval moated castle" but that it was "originally constructed on the site of a moated castle", which the German text calls a "mittelalterliche Wasserburg"--Boson (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC).
- It still looks like a mistranslation to me, though the boundaries are sometimes fluid. Could you explain why you think this particular Schloss is a castle rather than a palace? The change from -burg to Schloss in German would also tend to suggest that the new building was not a castle. --Boson (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You mean like Neuschwanstein Castle (Schloss Neuschwanstein)? And I don't mind whether this particular Stadtschloss is a castle or a palace - since it is both, and some of the castle/Burg structures are still existent and incorporated in the new building - however, this still makes it a "City Palace" or "City Castle" --IIIraute (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
perhaps i'm mistaken but..... edit
This entire article seems to be stolen from the Oxford New American Dictionary.
Arydberg (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
No I looked it up in the New Oxford American Dictionary that was supplied with my copy of Apple OSX 10.9.5 & don't know how to go to the ISBEN number.
Arydberg (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds rather odd that the New Oxford American Dictionary should have a long article on Weimar, but the Apple Dictionary app does have Wikipedia articles. Can you quote the sentence following "The city walls were laid down in 1757 and during the following decades, Weimar expanded to all directions." in your Apple version? --Boson (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry my bad. The online book has 4 sections.... dictionary, thesaurus, Apple .... and guess what wikipedia I jumped too soon
~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Weimar. 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/20071013163821/http://buchenwald.libsyn.com/ to http://buchenwald.libsyn.com/
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) 07:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
what shock-freeze stands for? edit
the section "since 1945" ends with description of a library fire and concludes: "A number of books were shock-frozen in Leipzig to save them from rotting. The library was reopened in 2007". theres a WP article on "flash freezing", could it be the preservation method refered to - if so, perhaps the wording could be changed to reflect that (and a link added)? 89.134.199.32 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC).