Talk:Berlin Palace

Lead Text

The Palace of the Republic was not "the central government building of the GDR", that was the State Council building, but the seat of a sham parliament that was not freely elected and an entertainment venue.

Moreover, the palace was not "demolished by East Berlin authorities" but was blown up on the orders of the Politburo of the SED (Socialist Unity Party of Germany); the minutes of the meeting have been preserved.

--Konstantindegeer (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Innards? Gutted?

".......and its innards were gutted...." this sentence should be rephrased, it makes the building sound like a butchered animal

---

I don't believe there is a definite plan to rebuild the Schloss. It would cost billions, it would be totally useless, and it was notoriously the ugliest building in Berlin. Can someone cite a source on this? Adam 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be able to find something from these sites [3] [4] [5]. The palace would not be useless... The facade would be baroque from the original design but the interior will be modern with some of the state rooms restored. My opinion is that the hideous Palast der Republik is far uglier than a baroque royal palace ever could be. Charles 05:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the Schloss in its time was generally regarded as hideous. There is a lobby to rebuild the Schloss, but there is also still a lobby to retain the Palast. I was in Berlin in May and the signage around the Palast was strongly suggesting that no decision had been made about the future of the site. Adam 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In a time where comparision between numerable palaces in the vicinity was possible, sure, the palace may have been seen as ugly. It was huge, had an oversized dome and was clumsily extended from the old palace complex on the River Spree. However, the opinions of today seem to look favourably upon the palace, even if some do not want it to be rebuilt. My understanding is that when/if money is available, the City Palace will be rebuilt. Charles 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, but I will do some research. In general I think this is a mediocre article which needs rewriting. I am also dubious about the title. My recollection is that schloss equals castle, while palast equals palace. I am inclined in any case to use the German title, as we do for Berliner Dom and Neue Wache, for example. I think it is better known than the English, which sounds rather commonplace. Adam 02:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Schloss is more of a "fence-sitter"... It's not unlike château, I'd say. There was Schloss Friedrichskron (Neues Palais)... Certainly not a castle, but a palace. There is Schloss Nymphenburg as well. In English, I have always heard the formal name as Berliner Stadtschloss... But there is no mistaking that it is a palace. Charles 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of moving it to Berliner Stadtschloss? Adam 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would fully support it. Charles 21:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

New text

I have rewritten and retitled this article. Adam 05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

English name please

Is there a sound policy reason why this isn't at "Berlin City Palace"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Because "Stadtschloss" is a very common name for it in English. Charles 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Castle/Palace

I'm tempted to take out "(literally "castle") is usually translated as "palace","

Why? because it detracts from the article, German has the word "Burg" for a fortified castle, and in English the abiguity is well understood. Many Palaces or Stately homes in Britain have the name of castle (castle howard is but one typical example), as they also do in Germany eg Schloss Charlottenburg

I suggest simply "Stadtschloss means 'city palace' ...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdownie (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Took out all that. This is not an article about terminology. We'll call it a palace because it is one, not because the German name has some obligatory translation (which it doesn't). Wegesrand (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Update needed

The article states that demolition "is scheduled to be completed in mid 2008." Could someone with the appropriate knowledge please update (and then reference!) this bit? 86.132.138.248 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________

There was an inscription in the lower part of the dome, I think that info would be useful in a detailed paragraph regarding the dome. Does anyone knows what exactly it said? --201.230.240.52 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The inscription just below the dome was an excerpt from the Bible (Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:10). The text in German was ' Es ist in keinem anderen Heil, es ist auch kein anderer Name den Menschen gegeben, denn der Name Jesu, zu Ehren des Vaters, dass im Namen Jesu sich beugen sollen aller derer Knie, die im Himmel und auf Erden und unter der Erden sind' , in golden letters.

Greetings, --201.230.4.64 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article

The re-construction section has some serious problems with it and may need a complete re-write. Much of it seems to read like a personal reflection and narrative of an individual on what is a somewhat controversial topic (WP:NPOV), and the section is completely devoid of sources (WP:V), which results in it being full of weasel words, and possibly original research. Some of these problems apply to the entire article, but the re-construction section seems particularity bad, so I'm adding the POV tag. CT Cooper · talk 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'm tagging the entire article with all the issues I've listed, as that seems more appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 09:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It lacks refs, but these can no doubt be easily found as this seems a reasonable account of a long-running local row. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The POV tag was definitely justified when I added it, but much of the worst content has been removed or edited since then. I will therefore remove it now. CT Cooper · talk 15:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for reconstructed building?

I think it would be better to have the reconstruction and future use covered at something like Humboldt-Forum. After all, it's not really a New Stadtschloss, but rather a museum/convention center with a historic facade but otherwise modern interior. What are your thoughts?--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that would make sense once the project is complete, or nearly so. If it's going to house "collections of African and other non-European art," it will have nothing to do with the Prusso-German history embodied in the old Schloss, so cavalierly razed by Walter Ulbricht et al. Sca (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Although these comments are already a couple of years old, I believe they are still valid. When the building is finished, we should maybe have a new article. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berlin Palace. 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/20141207211822/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/berlin-palace-rebuilding-begins-63-years-after-explosion.html to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/berlin-palace-rebuilding-begins-63-years-after-explosion.html

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) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The debate

I oppose underscoring the role of individuals in the reconstruction process too much. It is fair to name and to credit but we should not evaluate and make claims like "the driving force was", just because this is stated in a source (such as the FT-article recently added). Other sources on the history of the reconstruction do not name any individuals for example. It can also amount to a NPOV-BLP violation if the individuals, as it is presumably true in the case of von Boddien, are still alive. Furthermore, I oppose adding background information about individuals that played a relatively minor role in the long history of this building. wikitigresito (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitigresito Just because one or two articles don't credit Von Boddien as the principal driving force, doesn't mean the majority don't. And the fact is, they do. As indicated by the authorative citations provided. And just because it is your personal ideology not to credit individuals in the reconstruction process, doesn't alter that fact. Yes, the Palace would't exist wihout the efforts of hundreds of people. But no one -- apart from apparently yourself -- and certainly not anyone in the Förderverein Berliner Schloss, disputes that the Alpha and Omega of the reconstruction story has been von Boddein. Not to credit him as such contradicts every major written telling of the story, and to suggest otherwise is to falsify history. That you would even propose it clearly indicates that you are only barely acquainted with it. All I can suggest is that you go and do some serious reading. I'm presuming by your lack of knowledge of the history that you don't read German, which may prove a handicap, but there are certainly plentiful materials out there.ClearBreeze (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@ClearBreeze: You should really refrain from making personal attacks. On the content: The article credits von Boddien. It is just a bit optimistic to say that he was "the ultimate driving force". I agree that the additional source you added supports your point, which is why I do not object on the basis of BLP anymore but I still consider it not very encyclopedic style to make these judgements. Also, we should not give too much space, additional personal information would be WP:UNDUE. wikitigresito (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitigresito:"which is why I do not object on the basis of BLP anymore" THANK Christ! "It is just a bit optimistic to say that he was "the ultimate driving force". NO, it is NOT. As outlined in yet another article, "Berlin’s Stadtschloss and the trouble with history", in the Financial Times, the palace is "a German monument built in a very un-German way". Why? Because it wasn't initially the result of state planning – it arose from the dream of a single individual. As the article states (in the manner of ALL official histories of the reconstruction, and in language that mirrors the disputed text):"the driving force for reconstruction came from outside the official and cultural establishment in the form of Wilhelm von Boddien, an agricultural machinery salesman from northern Germany." Yes, as he says, "he was inspired and supported by eminent conservative cultural thinkers" and "von Boddien started collecting money and working his networks in Germany and abroad", BUT he was Numero Uno: "A bold early move came in 1993, when he managed to finance the construction of a mock-up of one of the Schloss façades on its original site." THAT'S what makes the story so unique. When such authoritatively sourced facts are placed under someone's nose but they repeatedly question them, THEN it becomes a matter of pure stubborn ego. Now, acceptance of the repeatedly bleeding cited obvious having been granted, hopefully we can move on!!! ClearBreeze (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit useless but I will try one last time: Please do not attack me or other editors personally. I refuse to debate like this. Regarding the article, I don't see an alternative to resolving this dispute other than getting outside help such as a WP:3O. wikitigresito (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

"The building will house the Humboldtforum museum and congress complex, and is scheduled to be finished 14 September 2019"

- so we say. Let me guess, this didn't happen? Can someone update. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we remove the "Destruction" information from the infobox yet?

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I think it should stay permanently. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Terrible article

Hitler a cousin of Wilhelm? Violent coup in 1943 Germany?

What’s going on here? 76.71.134.204 (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)