Talk:Berlin

Criticism

Could we have a "Criticism" headline? I think there is lots to put in there. 84.128.232.7 (talk)

lol --217.83.35.226 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because it is bad policy to separate "criticism" from everything else. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

JFK

In the quotes JFK thought he said he was a citizen but a mis translation went awry and he said he was a doughnut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.66.109 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what he said was just fine. Please read Ich bin ein Berliner. —Angr 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In some parts of Germany "Berliner" means both a citizen of Berlin and something like a doughnut. However, when saying "ich bin ein Berliner" ("I am a Berliner"), it is screamingly obvious that he is talking about the city. 85.178.51.86 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct and if yot watch film material, you'll see that the people who were present at Rathaus Schöneberg, understood Kennedy's words as meaning 'I'm a Berliner citizen'. It was only later that the Doughnut thing came about.--IsarSteve (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Soccer matches in berlin 27th April - 29th April

I am going to be in Berlin between the above dates, I really would like to experience a game whilst there. Can anyone help? i know football is played m,ainly on a saturday but was wondering if the are teams from lower leagues playing on other days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.122 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can find at http://www.berlin.de/special/sport-und-fitness/events/ is a team handball game on the 27th. —Angr 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give your opinion about Proposal II which will define Central Europe

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it. It's very important. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent copyedits

Seem fine to me, the difference between 105 citations and 118 is not really worth discussing, in any case the quality, not the quantity is important. I'd rather a section be cited by two journal articles than 10 blog posts. One thing that is odd though, why was the image of "Berlin in ruins" changed for one of "Prisoners of war" ? I'd say the former was more appropriate for an article about the city. - Francis Tyers · 05:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate chart

Berlin
Climate chart (explanation)
J F M A M J J A S O N D     42     3 −2     33     4 −2     41     9 −1     37     13 4     54     19 9     69     22 12     56     24 14     58     24 14     45     19 11     37     13 6     44     7 2     55     4 0 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C █ Precipitation totals in mm Source: worldweather.org 2007-07-26
Imperial conversion J F M A M J J A S O N D     1.7     37 28     1.3     39 28     1.6     48 30     1.5     55 39     2.1     66 48     2.7     72 54     2.2     75 57     2.3     75 57     1.8     66 52     1.5     55 43     1.7     45 36     2.2     39 32 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F █ Precipitation totals in inches

I converted the weather data to the climate chart template. Maybe someone can exchange it with the old table. Entengruetze (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizens?

Is there a link to a list of notable citizens? I didn't see one... Malick78 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information that Berlin was created by Slavs?

What's the reason for omitting this important information in such a long and otherwise detailed article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I love these kind of statements. In 1192 that land was already under the control of the German Askanier, so it is not sure who founded Berlin and Cöln. --217.83.22.240 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Berlin

I find this revert rather strange. We have a lot of historical pictures of Berlin that should be in the article, not a pseudoathentic von Werner painting that can be found in other articles as well (and that does not take place in Berlin). Crucial moments there are a lot.--Ziko (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also strange that an IP comes with the same argument but does not use this talk page.--Ziko (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The proclamation of Berlin as capital city is a significant historic event influencing the development of the city. It needs visual representation. The introduction of two images of the same central area (Unter den Linden) seems an unconvincing duplication. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ziko is right, The said image has nowt to do with Berlin.. Let's see if you can drum up some support L21.. if not .. I'm for a delete.. --IsarSteve (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More generally, Lear, you're back to your bad habit of refusing to let anyone else edit the article but you. You shouldn't be edit-warring at all, but if you must revert other people's changes, at least only revert the ones you actually disagree with. Lazily restoring an old version just means that other intermediate edits you don't have an issue with get reverted too, creating collateral damage that other people then have to clean up after you. —Angr 13:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The two pictures of Unter den Linden show the development of Berlin in the time. Lear does not answer my arguments about the Werner-painting.--Ziko (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that also the Frederick-picture has been restored. Fritz build Sanssouci in Potsdam and prefered to live there, not in Berlin. It is really strange to use the little space in the history section for pictures that only secondarily relate to Berlin, instead using images of Berlin itself that cannot easily used in other articles but are perfect for this one.--Ziko (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange, normally Lear or that 'unknown' person 217.83.xxx.xx are so quick to reply.. I suggest we give him until 6 Jan 2009 to reply.. what do you think? --IsarSteve (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be no problem to introduce one new image to the 17th-19th century section. But I certainly suggest to keep the "Proclamation" image. It is true that it is not located in Berlin but the following developments after the Proclamation are inevitably bound to the fact that Berlin became the capital of a newly found nation state. It is almost irreplaceable. BTW, 2 pictures of the same location with almost the same visual content does not make sense.

Frederick the Great is one of the most famous citizens born in Berlin. It is no mistake to have him at display here. Lear 21 (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The image of Unter den Linden fits in, IMO, much better than the previous image..--IsarSteve (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Berlin is NOT the 3rd most visited tourist destination in EU

Check this or endless other stats about the same topic. It's a common urban legend, which I don't know where it does comes from, sometimes is even quoted by reputable media, it's nevertheless totally groundless and always unsourced. I then remove that claim, until sourced figures are provided. --Fertuno (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very unreliable source. An cherrypicked commercial organisation in London advertises travel to London. You mentioned the quotes by reliable media sources, we should stick to them instead. --217.83.16.148 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just checked that page, numbers are wrong. The actual number of guests is 7.59 Mio in 2007, not 2.3 as stated in that page. That gives Berlin the 3rd rank. See the official numbers: [1] --217.83.16.148 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Those in the link I provided are just international tourists. Even if you take into account domestic tourists, 7.59 mil guests over one year are far from making Berlin the 3rd most visited city in the EU. I can collect data from at least thee or four EU cities other than London and Paris with higher figures (nominally Rome, which have 11ish million guests per year, and Barcelona - which have 8ish million guest per year, and possibily others too). To make such a claim some sort of official document is needed where all EU cities are compared with real figures. Until then, that claim should go since it's absolutely unscientific. --Fertuno (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your link is dubios and contains wrong number, I dont see how you can rely on that while calling the official numbers absolutely unscientific. Even worse you just gave numbers of Rome and Barcelona which contradict to your page, Bareclona just doubled the number of guests from 4 to 8 Mio...? Maybe you are are confusing guests (smaller number) and overnight stays (larger number) but you didnt give any source so that is unsure. Berlin has 7.6 Mio guests and 17.3 overnight stays, which makes an average time of 2.2 days per guest in 2007. And yes pelase get the exakt numbers of Rome, Barcelona, Moscov an Madrid from the national departments of statistic (and nothing else). The statement in the article is properly sourced and should not be removed unless you can provide a reliable source for your theories. --217.83.15.167 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Official number are not unscientific. It's claiming Berlin is No.3 tourist destination in the EU which is. 7.6 miln guests mean Berlin was visited by 7.6 million people, not that Berlin is No.3 tourist destination. This is an official document from the Rome Mayor's Office that state (page 26) Rome has had 10.070.377 guests and 25.911.925 overnight stays in 2007, and it is just an example out of many. Anyway I don't see why I should post them. It's YOU who are claiming Berlin is ranked No.3 in EU so it's YOU who should provide a source to that claim, finding the exact number for all majour EU touristic destinations that clearly demonstrate Berlin is No.3. The burden of demonstration is always upon the shoulders of the positive asserter. --Fertuno (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Transport in Berlin

The article Transport in Berlin offers the opportunity to cover this subject in detail without cluttering the Berlin article. It is difficult to maintain both articles therefore I have created a summary. This is common practise in Wikipedia Transport in London. Articles continually develope and change. Inwind (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The subarticle is very much appreciated. But the main article needs to present the decisive parts of all transport modes. This is a standard content of almost all city articles. Lear 21 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the more general article needs to present a brief summary of the more specific article, especially when the main article is already around 90 K big. The more stuff that can be moved out of this article and into subarticles, the better. Nothing that you keep returning to this article is particularly earth-shattering anyway: a sentence about bikes in the U- and S-Bahn, a table about how many people take which form of public transportation each year, and a paragraph about Tegel's location and the fact that Tempelhof is closed. Hardly "decisive parts of all transport modes". And once again, you just reverted to an old version rather than only re-adding the content you're interested in, meaning you also restored typos that had been corrected and deleted info that had been added in the meantime. —Angr 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The new version excluded all information about public transport, which is clearly basic standard content of city articles. It must be maintained. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a sentence about the BVG and the U-Bahn, Straßenbahn, and buses. Info about the S-Bahn was already there, but it's disproportionately long; most of it should be moved to Berlin S-Bahn if it's not already there. —Angr 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Klaus Wowereit addition

While on RC patrol, I stumbled across this edit, which at first I reverted thinking it was of the 'X is gay lol' variety. After discovering it to be (sort of) correct, albeit poorly worded, I put it back in. Perhaps editors who are more involved with the article than I am could decide whether to keep it there and if so how to re-word and source it. AlexiusHoratius 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. While it's true Wowereit is openly gay, he hardly "declared his passion for homosexuality"; he merely said, "For anyone who doesn't already know, I'm gay, and that's a good thing." His sexual orientation is appropriately discussed in the article Klaus Wowereit, it's hardly relevant to this article. —Angr 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I thought about it, the more I thought it should probably be removed. I was hesitant to revert it as simple vandalism, but I agree that the wording was very poor and it probably wasn't notable enough for this article. AlexiusHoratius 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

I've made some changes to the translations of the quotes at the end of the entry, which got reverted. I've inserted them again--there's no reason to use "come down" instead of "fall", which is much closer to the German "fallen" and also retains the meter of the original phrase. The last quote is a lot trickier, yet the old version is almost non-sensical and thus bears little resemblance to the original. "Condemned" is not the right verb here and using infinitives as in the original here may be a better way to go--that is not to say that it's perfect at this point, but the previous version was definitely worse. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The wall will fall" rhymes in English, while "Die Mauer wird fallen" doesn't in German, and since this isn't poetry and "the city will live" doesn't rhyme, having the rhyme in the translation sounds awkward. Also, in English, "fall" sounds too accidental, like he was predicting the wall would fall in an earthquake or otherwise of its own accord, while "come down" better suggests that it was to be torn down by the people. "Verdammt" really means "condemned" or "damned", but certainly not "jinxed", which implies some sort of magic spell (in German, "jinxed" is perhaps "verhext" but not "verdammt"). And since "condemned to" is followed by a noun in English, not an infinitive (cf. "condemned to death" vs. *"condemned to die"), "condemned forever to becoming and never being" is appropriate. Finally, "to change eternally" is really not a good translation for "ewig zu werden" as the implications of changing are totally different from the implications of becoming. —Angr 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Angr, thanks for your explanations. You're right, the statement is not classical poetry, but it's a poetic and meaningful phrase with an inherent rhythm that should be retained. The endings in "leben" and "fallen" do rhyme and the words contain two syllables--"live" and "fall" do not rhyme, but they both are monosyllabic and thus retain a similar meter. Moreover, while prompted by popular unrest by the initial opening of the wall was quite accidental, and it did have the same finality that is contained in "fall". Besides, commonly people speak of the "the fall of the wall", as in several places in this entry. Lastly, condemnation implies an official action such as in "condemned for demolition"; so while similar in origin, "condemned" and "verdammt" carry slightly different meanings, and, as you pointed out, "condemned to" requires a noun, so it further alters the original phrase significantly (I did not recognise the original phrase in the earlier translation). I'm not in any way claiming that my changes have nailed it, but I'd like to urge you to take them into consideration rather than simply reverting them. Malljaja (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"2,000 years of German-Jewish history"?

The first authentic document relating to a large and well-organized Jewish community in the regions the Romans called Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, and Germania Magna and within the current borders of Germany dates from 321. (W. D. Davies, Louis Finkelstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.) The information given: "2,000 years of German-Jewish history" is Historically Incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.21.11 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates removed

The articles no longer displays coordinates, can someone restore them? Angr removed them and keeps reverting. Thanks. -- User:Docu

Very coy. The only reason the article doesn't display coordinates any more is that you edited {{Infobox German Bundesland}} so it no longer accepts the parameters lat_deg= |lat_min= |lon_deg= |lon_min=. But the coordinates should display correctly now. —Angr 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you just broke 15 other articles. It looks like you mainly go through pages to revert people. Please take care and look at edits in detail.

BTW I'm ok if you reduce the precision to 4 or 5 decimals, it's more close to the given precision. -- User:Docu

Per WP:GEO#Precision, precision should be no more than 1 decimal for a city of Berlin's size, but actually, coordinates should be given in the human-friendly degree/minute/second format rather than the decimal format. —Angr 08:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

Unverified statements, e.g.:

• West Berlin was now de facto a part of West Germany with a unique legal status (if it had legal status then surely it was de jure as well as de facto?)
• Migrant numbers
• third most-visited city destination in the European Union.
• it was the only major opera house in West Berlin (how do you define "major"; so, there were others?)
• Europe's largest zoo in terms of square meters; most visited zoo in Europe; presents the most diverse range of species in the world.

Counter-intuitive claims, e.g.:

• Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British and French airlines.
• East Berlin's partnerships were canceled at the time of German reunification and later partially reestablished.
• Eleven synagogues (active or historic?)
• While these buildings once housed distinct collections, the names of the buildings no longer necessarily correspond to the names of the collections they house.
• Berlin is known for its numerous beach bars along the river Spree (never heard of them before)
• holds the Qatar Total German Open annually in the city. Founded in 1896, it is one of the oldest tennis tournaments for women (Qatar Telecomm didn't exist in 1896!)
• City authorities aim to establish a European aviation hub with a gateway to Asia (just Asia?)

Poor prose/grammar, e.g.:

• In 1989, pressure from the East German population brought free across the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, which was subsequently mostly demolished.
• Oranienburger Straße and the nearby New Synagogue were the center of Jewish culture before 1933, and regains being it today.
• which are traditionally renowned for highest academic standards
• It also rus the Airport express, as well as trains to intercountry destinations like, Moscow, Vienna, Salzburg, e.g. (not a complete sentence)

Idiosyncratic phrasing, e.g.:

• The previously built-up part in front of it is the Neptunbrunnen, a fountain featuring a mythological scene.
• The design of little red and green men on pedestrian crossing lights, the Ampelmännchen, are also rather spread in Eastern parts.

Maybe the quotes should be spread through the article to illustrate specific points rather than bunched up at the end? DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Air transport

"The city serves as a continental hub for air and rail transport". Rail transport, yes, but air transport? Until some years ago, the city could hardly serve it's own needs. The capacity is higher now, but it is a stretch to claim that Berlin serves as a air transport hub, even though the city aspire to be one (which large city doesn't). Frankfurt is clearly the German hub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.188.26 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Berlin is the main hub city for Air Berlin, and may be a hub for some other airlines as well. +Angr 15:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cityscape

A picture of a so called "Buddy bear" has been recently introduced to the section. In fact, temporary initiatves can not be considered to be part classical Cityscape content. The image was removed. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Temporary initiatives"? Those Buddy bears have been around for years and are definitely part of the current Berlin cityscape. +Angr 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A cityscape is largely dominated by built, longstanding architecture and infrastructure. Buddy bears are not part of this definition. The section seems to be overcrowded after the addition of the BB image as well. Lear 21 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

With exhibitions on all 5 continents, the Buddy Bears have become a distinctive and unique symbol of Berlin, promoting tolerance, international understanding and peace. Buddy Bears in many foreign embassies in Germany represent their different countries and Berlin in equal measure. The Buddy Bears and the Brandenburg Gate - symbols of the free spirit of Berlin. Carlos A. Rubinstein, Buenos Aires - Berlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.20.39 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The buddy bear does not even show the Bear in a real Berlin environment. It looks artificial without a built cityscape around the statue. Lear 21 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The new image still produces the impression of an overcrowded section. The Bears are not even identifiable. In the end, the Bears have not enough relevance to have an image placed at Cityscape or Architecture. Lear 21 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

At least you've stopped comparing them to dogshit. +Angr 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you use the "new" Cityscape image taken in 2009 in better quality instead of the old cityscape picture ? Link: http://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Datei:Berlin_skyline_2009.jpg --85.178.215.156 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)