Talk:Rudolf Wolters

Time to improve

As the lead editor of the Speer article, I'm distressed by the condition of this article. I'm going to work on improving it, using material from the bios of Speer, especially the Sereny book. I think there is potential here to get it to G.A.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the split between Wolters and Speer in later years, Speer told Sereny that it was for Wolters own protection. He thought it would be risky for for Wolters to be identified as having for 20 years contravened the law by assisting a convicted war criminal.H owever, Sereny plainly didn't believe Speer and describes his decision not to acknoweledge him in print as "unforgivable". p 36. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I've been trying to decide how to work that in. I agree it is bull, because after all, Speer told everyone once the first book was published that it had been smuggled out, and as far as I know, no police investigation ensued. I doubt it was ever much of a secret; after all, who was it who was always on the phone on Speer's behalf?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he got a kick out of the whole "clever prisoner" thing, defeating the stupid guards, smuggling out all those writings. There's a photograph of him surrounded by all the scrappy bits of paper he wrote on. I suspect he didn't see acknowledging Wolters as important because he thought the devoted attention of his erstwhile employees and supporters was no more than he was due. After all, he was one of the top Nazis who assumed for quite a time that they would be needed by the allies to form a post-war government in Germany because they were so good at running things. I'm not sure if Sereny puts it quite like that anywhere though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As for "working it in" - I think you could just put it in straight. Sereny is quite clear about what Speer said to her and why she doesn't believe him. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan Van Der Vat

What about that last bit from Wolters letter to Geisler (the other architect) regarding Speers confessions of guilt and repentance. He himself called them tricks to my face. Wolters kept a copy of this letter and it formed part of his archives. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the letter to Speer that Wolters wrote better illustrates the point that Wolters is disaffected because he feels Speer is a hypocrite, we have more of the Wolters/Speer letter, they are roughly contemporaneous, and Van der Vat gives us almost nothing of the Giesler letter. I'd avoid that. What we have now, I think, adequately shows how the two grew apart, and the Wolters/Giesler letter really doesn't take us further down that road.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. If that's the the letter where he calls him a "national rent-a-penitent", anger gave Wolters an effective turn of phrase. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The one on page 684 of Sereny (ref 53). I have all the books, in hardcover or trade, if you cite a page number it always helps. I do not have Schmidt, but I have it on order.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes - same letter. There's an extra bit of it about the 'tricks' etc on p. 347 of Van Der Vat. Its the paragraph that starts "In this letter, dear Albert...". Maybe Van Der Vat is so interested in this bit (which Sereny leaves out) because of the link with the Geisler letter but this is really Van Der Vat's speculation I suppose. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yes, I see what you mean. What Van der vat is doing is what we would consider to be WP:SYNTH if we were doing it on Wikipedia. He is relating the word "tricks" (which we don't know if Wolters expressed in English or German) in his letter to Speer with the word "tricks", in English, in Wolters' letter to Giesler. It's his book, I guess he can do it. But I'd leave it out of this article. Always feel free to edit, by the way. The more eyes and fingers on this article, that is, experienced Wikieditors, the better.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Righty ho. I've mainly only got the same sources as you though. I'll have a dig around and see what else I've got. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've also ordered Tales from Spandau, which seems to have an unsympathetic look at the way Wolters and Speer tried to spring Speer, judging by the Google books preview.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I got it, but it isn't terribly helpful. I will hold it in reserve in case GA or FA reviewers want a source which isn't just about Speer. Also have on order a book about the reconstruction of Germany, which seems, from the limited preview available on Google books, to have info on Wolters' role in same, which is this article's most pressing need in my view (plus images).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pity. I've hunted through about a dozen sources but really Wolters is only cited as a source for Speer except in those sources you already have. Nothing really on him personally except in sources which analyse the post release Speer. I did note though that Speer actually says in the Secret Diaries in the preface that he's not naming names in order to protect people. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article's looking good by the way. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What about a bit about him falling out with Annemarie Kempf for years and having an argument with her a week before Speers release about cutting Speer some slack on his release rather than tackling him about his volte face? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be worth a paragraph, I guess. Wanna take a shot at it?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. My prose is not as elegant as yours though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll polish.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotation

Is this a direct quote: "My academic freedom began, one might say, to the sound of drums; the Hitler Putsch and its consequences to us students, most of whom were in agreement with it."? The reason I ask is that the second clause is not a complete sentence but is punctuated as such. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a colon, not a semicolon. It is a full sentence, though, it ends with a four dot ellipsis.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Old article

This old article;

Title: old article

Rudolf Wolters (August 3, 1903 - September 1, 1983) was a German architect and Nazi sympathiser who believed that Adolf Hitler was the supreme builder and wrote several architectural based books including a biography on Albert Speer. Wolters believed: "It is the queen of the fine arts and a self-justifying necessity for powerful epochs; races and their leaders feel an inner duty and compulsion to document themselves and their age in stone monuments. If a race is strong, healthy, beautiful and gifted, then its architectural garment will show it." The architect must believe, he must be prepared to give his utmost for the volk and the Völkisch movement. Wolters believed the monumental architecture of the Third Reich was the best German style; it was original and had no predecessors. Its singularity was found in the spirit it expressed. Wolters wrote that, while things like traffic regulation, slum clearance and creation of parks were important, Germany's vital task was the creation of new city centres: "new archtectural focii of a size, which will outshadow any private buildings." Books Wolters, Rudolf. Neue deutsche Baukunst, Berlin: Volk und Reich, 1943. Wolters, Rudolf. Albert Speer, Oldenburg: Stalling, 1943. Wolters, Rudolf. Vom Beruf des Baumeisters, Berlin: Volk und Reich, 1944.

(before you rewrote it from sources Wehwalt) does contain some rather interesting quotes from Wolters on architecture - if only we could verify them! I'd be surprised if those books of his have been translated into English though. Any ideas? I've found some very limited material on his postwar activities but there's really very little. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't verify them so I didn't keep them. And I did check google books and so forth. Incidently, that eBay book you pointed out to me is listed. I think it was a coauthorship whith Speer. Probably written by a summer intern or something, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I had the bright idea of asking the original editor but look. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is kinda contradicted by the work of the Arbeitsstab. Although according to Diefendorf's book, Wolters sent a deputy to many of the meetings. The Arbeitsstab stressed traffic flow above development of the city center.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideology running into practicality? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Most of the members of the Arbeitsstab weren't top level ideologues. Geisler sent a deputy to the meetings. According to the book, a number of the members became important city planners in the reconstruction period whereas Geisler was blackballed from any official position (though legally he was not barred, somehow, someone else was always appointed.) So their approach was very professional, taking their lead from Speer, who saw an opportunity to update German cities for the age of the automobile. According to Diefendorf, by the late 70s, though, this philosophy again reversed itself, as having automobile friendly cities became less of a priority.

Anyhoo, since Wolters is mentioned on a grand total of seven pages in Diefendorf, we're back to square one. We got the GA, which is great, but this article still has needs, which I pointed out. Maybe we can scan a photo of Wolters from a Speer biography and try to get it in under fair use, merely to identify Wolters?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Worth a try. I asked Grahamec if he could help but I couldn't find one in the Bundesarchiv. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA by the way. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember that Wolters was definitely a couple of levels down from Speer, thus he wouldn't have been photographed with the bonzen. Probably he's one of the faces in the background on some of the "Hitler inspecting a captured Russian toilet" sort of photo, but who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo taken by Wolters

Fellow architect Walter Brugmann

For what its worth.--Grahame (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe Wolters passed the camera over to Brugmann and we'll find it someday.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cat at commons with some photos of the Generalbauinspektor at commons:Category:Generalbauinspektor.--Grahame (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Listed as a source on German Wikipedia

Fritz Wolters: Wolters [Architektenfamilie aus Coesfeld]. In: Bauwelt. - 75 (1984), S. 670-671

This may be an appreciation of Wolters' work, by his son. Any thoughts on how we can get it?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Bauwelt and asked if they can provide it and the cost. Their online archive only goes back to 1996. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on order. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What now?

Well, we have a GA. I can't nominate for FA until my FA nomination of Woodes Rogers is disposed of over there, so that gives us time to decide what to do next.

• Option 1: Go for FAC. We will soon have a pic of Wolters under fair use, hopefully it will survive the image hawks. We can probably scrounge another image or two of some relevance. That means the article's greatest lack is in non-Speer, post 1945. There are a couple of sources cited in the German Wikipedia, I'm having the book on German architects sent to me, and with my limited German and google translate, we may scratch through on that one. As I indicated above, Wolters' son Fritz did some sort of article in Bauwelt (Building World) the year after his dad died, but I have no idea how we could get that. Without more material, I think we would be judged noncomprehensive and fail FAC.
• Option 2: Rejigger the article to something like "Relationship between Rudolf Wolters and Albert Speer". I'm kinda reluctant.
• Option 3: Rest on our laurels as a GA.

Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dig up what we can on non-Speer - but lets face it - if he wasn't Speers best buddy, amanuensis and nemesis, would he be notable? Probably not. If its his relationship and activities with Speer that make him notable, whats wrong with that? Is your german good enough to go over to the German Wiki and see if anyone there can help on getting hold of that article or anything else on him. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesthis help? Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a more interesting picture from Coesfeld. The trouble is - we don't know which buldings exactly he built. I cannot find a picture of the bridge at Hoxter anywhere. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my German is not that good, and the German Wolters wikipedia article isn't very good. I agree, the Speer thing is the only thing that makes him notable. Problem with, as the peer review suggests, running pix of his universities, is finding photos that show buildings that have lasted since the 1920s. That German book is being sent from the UK, and it will take me some time to work on it. We do have the Embassy here at Wikipedia, at which we can ask for help from German speakers.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, if you run Google maps on Hoxter, which bridge it is, is clear, as there is only one bridge in Hoxter as far as I can see. But from the satellite view, it looks a bit too modern (four lanes, for example) to have been built in 1945. Best bet if we want one of Wolters' works is the Industriekredit (sp?) Bank building in Dusseldorf. There are nonfree images out there on the Web. Wish I was going to Germany sometime soon. Possibly late spring, but I'm not sure yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats this one I think. We could always ask them to free it I suppose. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All the tourist stuff talks about an old bridge having been reconstructed but there are no pictures.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the building. Do you think they would? Trying to get a German authority to do anything, from what I have heard, is difficult. I can't think where the Hoxter bridge would be if it is not the one bridge that I see on Google maps, that spans the river right by Rathaus Bahnhof.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The bridge is in the right place too - just opposite St Killian church which is what the Wiki Hoxter article says. There's a railway bridge at Corvey if you go up the river a bit but that looks like iron. The Hoxter Bridge could be the right one you know. If you look here at Waterloo Bridge which was built in 1942-45 its not that different. I'd just assumed when they said "reconstructed" an old stone bridge it meant more like restored rather than just built a modern one in the same place! Fainites <sup:::::>barleyscribs 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, especially given what limited building materials they would have had in 1945. I find it hard to believe Wolters would have had the materials and luxury to build a four lane bridge such as shows on the Google image.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can just see myself next time in Germany going all over the place to gather Wolters and Speer related photos ... dig this Google map, btw[1]--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see them building one new bridge in 1945 and then another a decade or so later. I found a picture of the old bridge which was a rather plain, two lane affair with wooden railings. My guess is the current one is Wolters bridge - but we need confirmation and a picture. I think a picture of other buildings may prove easier to get in the long run. Mayber your awaited book will reveal all! Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) here we are. Now we need to ask swatmeyer if he will release it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, IS it the same bridge? I don't doubt it is in the same location and all that But would the municipal authorities of a small German town, reeling from WWII, have had the luxury to construct a modern looking (by our standards) bridge with four lanes in 1945. Wouldn't there have been a torchlight procession to burn them at the stake for wasting money on a luxury when people's houses are in ruins? Definitely that is a bridge essential to commerce in the town, it is their only decent connection to the east, but two lanes would have done fine, and it could have been reconstructed ten or fifteen years later. Wolters was rather a modernist, so he probably would not have been building it as ye olde covveredd bridge, vintage 1732, so historical preservation might not have twigged.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking closely on Google, there's two lanes for traffic and the spaces at the side seem to have people walking in them. Hard to see though. As for money - wasn't alot of reconstructon done with Allied money? Tell you what - hows your german? Lets just contact the Hoxter tourismo or whatever and ask them! Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Composing in German is not my forte, I read it better than I speak or write in it, but we can simply ask them in English, most tourist people speak at least some English, not only for dumb Americans but because it is a common language.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Seen this? Maybe it is old enough for Wolters to have built after all. I've sent off an email to info(at)hoexter.de. I don't think money was the major issue after the war, but the critical shortage of building material. I've read a good (but could have been better) book called After the Reich the subject of which is self evident and runs to about 1950, and many Germans more or less made a living by going through the rubble and picking out usable bricks and blocks. Hoxter, however, may have not been bombed by the Allies (I mean, just look at it!) the source makes it clear that the damage to the bridge was in obedience to Hitler's Nero Decree. So, undamaged town maybe, need the bridge for commerce, etc, yeah, I can see it getting rebuilt fast, Allied money or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen that webcam. In the day it wanders around. As its the only bridge they'd have had to have built it fast for general life not just commerce. They're miles from any other bridge.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, as soon as Lane clears the FAC page, I would suggest nominating with the three of us as conoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lane is off the page, it failed with one support to no opposes and I guess it is time to let it sit for a while. Shall we nominate Wolters?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for FAC—if you are ready to go through that again, and don't need somewhat of a rest first! Wolters is an innately interesting man. The article seems ready. The last changes I made, you changed back, so I conclude it has evolved to the point where FAC is the next step. I think the subject will draw more attention than Lane did. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC doesn't bother me. I will nom sometime Sunday or Monday unless Fainites objects, as I will be away from the net for a bit the rest of today and into tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We are live on FAC. Go team!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow i missed this! Yay! Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I found another picture of Wolters - at an exhibition in Lisbon in 1942. The only problem is, the next picture should be on the left but the section's not big enough. Hopefully when there's more stuff about his architectural work it will be. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Book was mailed from the UK today. We should definitely move that image to the left, apparently there is a MOS thingy that say they don't people facing towards the margin of the article. Here is the response I got from the people in Hoxter:

Hello Mr. -----,

here is a press release about the weserbridge from the Westfalen-Blatt http://www.westfalenblatt.de/nachrichten/regional/hoexter.php?id=23505&artikel=1 . Unfortunately, we have it only in German. I can tell you, that the bridge was destroyed in 1945 and has been rebuilt in 1956. But I can´t tell you if Rudolf Wolters built the bridge.

Regards, Im Auftrag

Theresa Drüke ______________________ Kreisstadt Höxter Tourismus und Kultur Weserstr. 11 Historisches Rathaus 37671 Höxter Tel.: +49 5271 963-4240 Fax.: +49 5271 963 9 4240 E-Mail: t.drueke@hoexter.de Internet: www.hoexter.de

--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the date seems about right and we have other sources that say he built the bridge. On the pictures, they're supposed to alternate but also not be immediately under a heading! I haven't heard back from Bauwelt about that article yet. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I can't believe it took Wolters 11 years to build that bridge. Maybe I should ask Ms. Druke what they did for a bridge for 11 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Little boats? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a picture of pre-war Technical University of Berlin. What do you think? We could have one picture of Speer perhaps. Maybe walking in the garden to illustrate Wolters Spandau role. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a free picture, and I doubt we could justify fair use, I think it is part of Speer's personal archives. I am desperate for a free or justifiable fair use shot of Spandau, for both articles. There is one in the Bundesarchiv of the changing of the guard there, but it was not among the ones donated, and the version on the Bundesarchiv web site is tagged.

You mean the one of him walking in the garden? I got the university one from commons buts no guarantee. [2] this is interesting by the way. About two thirds down. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be a great one for the Speer article. Really weird.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article the people in Hoxter sent me, with the help of Google translate, I find it says "1945 saw the Holznotbrucke, which stood until 1956". Brucke is bridge (I'm skipping the umlauts) but I'm not sure what Holznot means. Holz doesn't seem to be a word. "not" can mean emergency, so it is possible I'm missing something here. But clearly there was a structure which stood for 11 years, and that no doubt was built by Wolters. So the current bridge is something else entirely, and a photo of it does us no good. I'm really getting up a list of things to do next time I go to Germany!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, we can't use it for the Speer article, because we already have one showing both this and the Russian pavilion. And the Russian pavilion is part of the story, if you go look at the Speer article (under First Architect of the Third Reich subsection).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Berlin Tech photo sounds good. My favorite Speer photo is this:

--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a bother about the bridge. Its extremely unlikely that we will find a photo of the emergency bridge when its almost impossible to find a photo of the current one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Still, we know three buildings he built. All three are still there. The Hotel Konigshof has a website in fact, [3]. Looks very pleasant. Rather pricey though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference desk here at WP that we can seek help at on German translations once Fainites gets his article and I get that book. I'd suggest Google translate as a first resource though. I'd like to see us nominate this for FA once my Franklin Knight Lane article clears the page one way or another.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is winging its way in the post! I'm hoping though, that if I scan it, it may still go through googletranslate. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The article has arrived. (They actually sent an original of the whole issue). Now I have to turn it into a word doc. and google it. Its two pages of what seems to be a "Vater und Sohne" series. How about the book? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably in my mailbox, like I told you. Email me a copy of it when you can. Preferably .doc, but if it is pdf, OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Righty ho. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've run it through google translate. I'll e-mail the somewhat bizarre but charming result to you. Disappointingly there's not much about architecture or the buildings he built but some personal bits and pieces that may be of use.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. So it is all coming down to that book which is hopefully waiting for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A better translation is e-mailing its way to you. It looks a bit more interesting now it makes more sense. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I got the book. I thought it would have a biographical sketch of Wolters, tops, instead it has dozens of refs to him. It is a gold mine, I think, though the German is a bit dense and it may be hard to pick out the nuggets. Part of it is about Speer, and about the Arbeitsstab, but much of it is about the postwar years. It is almost an embarrassment of riches, with too much to translate. I guess I will start looking at the most likely potential passages, and either transcribe them or scan them, and run them through Google translate, then seek a better translation if they are good, either through your resouces, Fainites, or at the embassy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Scan a likely looking bit and I'll have a go at transcribing too if you like. Also, my neighbour (who is retired) claimed to enjoy the intellectual exercise of a bit of translation. At least - thats how google translated "scheisse" when I ran it through. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My fax/scan/printer doesn't scan for some reason. Maybe if I can't work that out, I can mail you some pages. But first I'll try the local Kinko's, maybe they can can it and put it on a flash drive.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There isn't as much as I thought about the specific works. I strongly suspect that looking at this book is how the German wikipedia author (and possibly also the Speer und er people) got the info about the buildings we know about. I'll keep plugging along. I'm going back out of town again and so it will have to wait. I'd like to nominate this for FA once Lane clears out, and we will simply say what you said, Fainites, that since his association with Speer is what he is known for, that is why the bulk of the article is about that. The book seems mostly about the professional relationships among the various German architects.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bother. Well perhaps we could use a bit from the article - like about his combativeness, his desire for the "whole" in architecture, his fondness for "epoch-making" projects and functionalism.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We can do that, and if you feel comfortable, add it in. I am still going to do some scans from that book. I may need to replace my scanner, sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a go when I have a moment. Feel free to rewrite or remove - I shan't be offended! I often think that when an article has primarily one author, they have a better feel for the "shape" of the thing. I'm also mildy grammatically challenged having been educated at a time in the UK when grammar was considered elitist.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. An article should have a consistent style, it is easier on the reader. Write it in and I'll go over it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go. Its a bit vague - but then the articles a bit vague.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, if we get grief about the quality of the photo, suggest we crop the Lisbon photo to just show Wolters and use that. It is a commons photo, though we should still give credit to the Bundesarchiv and can ask reviewers for advice on proper format there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be sorry to lose the Portuguese Prime Minister though. The expression on his face is priceless. On the original portrait, it could be argued its reasonable quality for what it is - a genuine Nazi era ID card. Much more atmospheric than a studio photo. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. It's the President. Quick! Edit! Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Speer

In the FAC, someone asked why Wolters was not prosecuted. On a related note, I have wondered why Wolters was so angry at Speer for not mentioning him in Inside the Third Reich, as the explanation of Speer (that he sought to protect Wolters) seems valid. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sereny simply didn't believe Speer's explanation on this and described Speers action as "unforgiveable". Van der Vat says the book was going to be dedicated to Wolters but Speer changed his mind. He says "Wolters did not resent this or even his total absence from the text anything like as much as Speer's refusal to take his advice on the tone of the book, especially the 'Gregorian chant of mea culpa,' as we have seen." As he resented the latter to the point where he destroyed Speers carefully constructed historical reputation, this begs the question of quite how much did Wolters resent it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was part hurt and anger for Speer never publicly recognizing Wolters' role, and part feeling that Speer was letting down the side. In addition, in 1966, Speer took back the role of "Minister" and expected Wolters to play lackey again, whereas Wolters had been boss for the past twenty years, both in his firm and in the relationship with Speer, because Speer had power only because Wolters let him. That's my 2 Reichpfennigs worth anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hum. Probably that last part that did it. Wolters seems to have been a person with many "issues". Regarding the "Speer released" vs. "Deterioration of relationship", I prefer the latter as it allows the focus to remain on Wolters. He shouldn't be second fiddle in his own biography. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just purchased the 1971 Playboy with the Speer article in it on eBay. I will read it for the article. It will mostly be valuable for the Speer article, but I might choose a choice quote to include in the Wolters one since it really ticked Wolters off. Probably he didn't like the centerfold.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay

Congrats on the FA Wehwalt. And thanks for the generous co-noms. It was your baby really. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's contributions were needed to make this FA, and that is no guff. We had no reserve had anything been seriously challenged. I think your bringing the bio up to the 70s saved us from a possibly impossible comprehensiveness problem. And Mattisse was always there with editing and noting problems. It was all deserved.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Those pictures of yours really complete the article Wehwalt. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we needed them, and I was the one who happened to be going there first. I plan to nom this for TFA for August 3, Wolters' birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How about October 1st - Speers release date - or is that too Speery rather than Woltersy?Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage? Yet featured article? Huh?

A featured article, yet the article doesn't even known when he was married? Only that he was? Did he have kids? Come on. This can't be a featured article with such basic information missing.

Focus of this article is way, way too heavy on the relationship to Speer. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted on this page, were it not for the relationship with Speer, no one would care about Wolters very much. His son is mentioned several times in the article. The focus, of course, is on what makes him notable. We're always looking to improve the article, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• If his relationship with Speer is the only thing that makes him notable, then pray tell why does he have an article about him? Merge with Speer. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to his architectural work and writings, he is notable in his own right, but I doubt he would ever have gotten past a stub here were it not for Speer. I don't think a merge would be appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then focus on architectural work and writings. I'm still astonished this made it to FA status with the article so obviously lacking in serious ways. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should we so focus and lose what people are interested in?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because if the 50% of this article that is the relationship between the two, and it is of such interest to people, then it should be its own article. Yes, I checked. removing the infobox and notes, ~50% of this article is devoted to the relationship. This article is highly unbalanced. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe it is, but let's wait for input from other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although 50% of the article may focus on the relationship between Speer and Wolters, it represents a description of the experience of Wolters, the references are primarily based on information about Wolters etc. For an article to be on the topic of the relationship, it would have to incorporate much more about Speer, his experience and point of view, I think. In other words, the article would have to be entirely rewritten, in my opinion, and would be a much different article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Transition

Very interesting article about a person little known in the English-speaking world. One editorial observation: After the heading, "Deterioration of relationship," it seems that Wolters' relationship with Speer suddenly shifted to a negative one. One suspects that there must have been a more gradual shift in his attitude toward Speer, and transition seems lacking. But overall a very good piece of work.

Sca (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There were signs of it in the Spandau years section; as Speer got into his confessional mode, Wolters was increasingly negative--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

the lead

the lead seems to cover the same information twice, in particular the deterioration of his friendship with Speer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.89.161 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TFA day

Congrats fellow noms! Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness issues

This 2016 book is a biography of Wolters and covers his life more broadly. I'm not able to access it but based on descriptions it seems to contain infomation missing in this article, such as how he used Nazi connections to build a career in West Germany, and received favorable review. There's also an entire book about his role in the exhibition Neue Deutsche Baukunst. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you do about non-English language sources that don't seem to have gotten translated?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but I personally judge comprehensiveness based on all sources available in any language. The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law is not a FA because some of the sources I would have needed were in Hebrew. (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly the reviews will provide a bridge until they come out in English.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect these books necessarily to get translated, since they're both a few years old and haven't been already. There are a ton of valuable books on German history that are only available in German... (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)