Jump to content

Talk:IG Farben Building

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleIG Farben Building is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 27, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Hessen

[edit]

It is Hessen not Hesse. There is no Bundesland called Hesse in Germany. I am correcting this now.

Hesse is the term for inhabitants of Hessen: I live in Hessen, I am a Hesse. Plural: We live in Hessen, we are Hessen.

Comments post-FA

[edit]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to read and comment on this article before it received its Featured Article status. But here are some comments that I hope will be of help. The article is certainly good but there are a few lingering problems that I think should be addressed.

  • 1. The section "Early history" describes the future site of the building, and so this section is not an early history of the building itself. I recommend renaming the section: The site.
  • 2. The section "Inter-war years" is a description of the early history of the building, and should be so renamed.
  • 3a. The section "Second World War" includes the following sentenced: "The building was the headquarters for research projects for the development of wartime synthetic oil and rubber, as well as the production administration of magnesium, lubricating oil, explosives, methanol, and Zyklon B, the lethal gas used in concentration camps. The building served its intended purpose for 15 years." but I am pretty sure the original purpose of the building was not to produce Zyklon B, etc. In fact, the article indicates that the original purpose was to serve as "corporate headquarters" (there is no mention of any research projects in the pre-Nazi era).
    • The brief changed during the construction of the building to incorporate laboratory facilities. It served its purpose as corporate headquarters, research projects and production administration. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it stands, it suggests that the building was built to serve a Nazi agenda, which is obviously not correct. So I'd suggest rewording the sentence to something like: "The building served these purposes.." or something similar. Pinkville 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you clarify - is it "the building served it's intended pupose" that you have issues with? Whilst the building was complete in 1930 and the nazis came to power in 1933 their interests were already converging before the nazis came to power. I'll amened the "intended purpose" part though.--Mcginnly | Natter 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with "intended purpose" is that presumably, Poelzig didn't intend the building to be used for the functions to which the Nazis used it - and possibly IG Farben didn't (orginally) intend the building to be used for research, etc. But regardless, the article states the buiolding was built as corporate headquarters, and makes no mention of research until the Nazi era, so this needs to be clarified. If IG FArben during the construcuction already intended to use the building to create synthetic oil, rubber, and Zyklon B, and/or to operate in conjunction with Nazi policy, then that should be more clear. At the moment it just seems confusing chronologically (e.g. "wartime synthetic oil..." and "intended purpose"). Ah, i see this has been changed. Better. Pinkville 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3b. In the same section, the description of Eisenhower's "former" office is confusing - the events mentioned should be listed in chronological order, especially as some of the events occurred after Eisenhower had vacated the office. I would also suggest a wikilink (even if a redlink) to "Hesse consitution" rather than to Hesse (which is wikilinked too often - and which should probably only be linked at its first occurrence in the article).
  • 4. "Following German reunification, the US government announced plans to fully withdraw its troops from Germany by 1995, at which time control of the entire site would be restored to the German Federal Government.[1] What it would be used for was at first unclear;..." This is first a little odd, then informal and fuzzy. Why not describe what happened rather than what the US announced would happen (unless those events never took place)? And instead of "What it would be used for", how about "Its new function...", though "unclear" is still fuzzy. "Its new function had not been determined"? A little wordy. This might be best: "It was suggested that the building become the location for the European Central Bank."
  • 5. There are too many variants of Nazism, National Socialism, etc. in the article. I suggest "Nazism" throughout (anyway, that's the name of the Wikipedia article) with, perhaps, one inclusion of "National Socialism" if deemed necessary.
  • 6. In the "Recent years" section, this phrase "misuse of Hans Poelzig" (precise German translation) is ambiguous. I think it means that the original German says "misuse of Hans Poelzig" but the addition of "precise German translation" acutually confuses the issue. How about "misuse of Hans Poelzig" [siç], with a footnote providing the original German text.
  • 7. In the section "Building", another way of handling the quotation "A symbol, in iron and stone..." would be to place the original German text - and the reference - in a footnote. The quotation marks aren't necessary when the quotation is in italics and presented as a block quote.
  • 8. "Thus, the building looks taller to the external viewer from some vantage points." This is peculiar and doesn't really make sense.
Probably best to remove this altogether. I reckon you're right, that it just has to do with different ceiling heights, but it's weird enough to distract and adds nothing. Pinkville 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what it's saying is the variation of storey height on the ground floor is reflected in the roof line of the top floor. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. If you can demonstrate that, then reword it to reflect that fact. Otherwise, leave it out, I'd say. Pinkville 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9. "...the largest and most modern of its type in Europe" What type? Office building, construction method, architectural type?
  • 10. "block land" If this is a translation of a German architecurual term, use the German and explain in a note. As it stands, this is not a term in English, but translating it obscures its origins and meaning.
This is still simply perplexing. Pinkville 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11. "The entrance is at the axial centre of the building (apart from a few emergency exits)" Probably means "The entrance (apart from a few...", but it's better to remove any mention of the emergency exits, since they're of no importance. Also, how about "central axis" or "main axis" rather than "axial centre".
  • 12. "Concave" might be better as "crescent".
  • 13. The portico "stands in front of it"... of what? The entrance? The building? Isn't the entrance through the portico?
  • 14. "Walls in a zigzag pattern" suggests the shape of the walls themselves, not the pattern on the walls. Which is correct?
Your changes to 11-14 are so much better! Pinkville 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15. "After the recent restoration, the university has pledged to preserve them." Presumably the paternoster lifts were at risk of removal during the restoration, not after.
  • 16a. The section "Myths" should be renamed. No myths are described. The first paragraph describes connections and associations with Nazism, noe of which are myths or even runours. The trivia listed after are sometimes factual, sometime rumour or allegation. This section needs to be substantially cleared up.
  • 16b. "... has the memory of the Third Reich receded." Not the memory, but the taint.
  • 16c. Was Poelzig or was he not favoured by the Nazis. This note should make the situation clear.
  • 16d. The "underground" (as opposed to...) tunnel note suggests there is more than one reference source but only one is given. Rewording needed. A fact is given, then doubt cast on it.
    • Amended, but the list starts with "A number of unconfirmed rumours concern the complex:" and then states (implicitly) that one of the rumours concerns the tunnel to the station, but that rumour is denied by another source that states only the two buildings are linked--Mcginnly | Natter 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16e. Is the name of the statue "Am Wasser" or "Nymphenskulptur" (Nymph sculpture)?

I think that's everything. Please let me know if anything doesn't make sense. These are suggestions, so use what you can, etc. Pinkville 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good changes. Your most recent changes regarding the renaming controversy makes much more sense and no longer suggest that the memory of Nazism has faded but that the association of the building with Nazism is less significant. A worthy Featured Article. Pinkville 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One error that occurs more than once is the description of Zyklon B as a gas. According to the Wikipedia article, Zyklon B was a solid which gave off a gas upon exposure to air. Alan Pascoe 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing

[edit]

This is a big conspiracy theory here. You have the biggest office block in Europe, helping the Nazis big time, and the Allies never actually bomb it? --MacRusgail 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,MacRusgail, The IG Farben Bldg also had a large CIA Station, where my father worked in the 1950s. It was often said by him and colleagues that the building was not bombed so that the Allies could use it. There was also much talk (by Americans in the intelligence community) of steps taken by German industry leaders to protect their ability to rebuild after the ever-more-inevitable looking WWII defeat. (In the endgame, they hid key engineers in the country, not materiel or machines.) You are writing from the early 2000s, after the economic excesses of the 1990s and the military excesses of the Iraq war. It seems natural to press for total destruction. In another time, the emphasis was on extinguishing an abberation, a deviation into totalitarian dictatorship and the restoration of our normal, shared culture, which we can label Western Civilization, The Enlightenment, whatever. As my father's son, it seems we are today destroying these values in our own country, and so we are unable to project Western values abroad, but that's off-topic. -- Jerry-va 01:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood your point, you said that the allied military leaders did not want to destroy the building, because they wanted to use it after their victory. This is a good explanation. However, the Allies did not act like that because they wanted to surgically destroy the Nazi regime. They bombed Dresden and other cities, which was perhaps necessary. But maximum damage is one of the aspects I'd associate with the war against cities (esp. Dresden). I do not want to start a discussion about this topic here, but I think your explanation is partly invalid. Let me answer a question which might have gotten into your mind in advance: I do not want to countervail horrible actions taken in WW2. But I don't think one can say the allied bomber command wanted to spare less relevant structures.

Hi, jerry-va again. I have researched the IG Farben building where Dad worked, and the IG Farben cartel, so important for Jewish holocaust literature, but haven't had time to help with possibly strengthening the Wikipedia articles. I hope I'm not violating community standards by giving the article URL, which you are welcome to check for additional IG Farben material.
Jerry-va (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Can we have a map for the "rumours" section, showing the location of the IG Farben Building, Grüneburgpark, station and anything else that may be relevant? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - go for it.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less - go for your life if it makes you happy! --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building

[edit]

The windows of the building decrease in height with each storey. Does anyone have a citation to why? I added that this is the case as you can see it if you go there an from the photos... But I heard it was to make the building look bigger. Anyone know of a book or site that discusses this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthisd (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IG Farben Building and the European Central Bank

[edit]

I have deleted the sentence that states that the European Central Bank's possible use of the building was blocked by the British Government, which was attempting to have the ECB based in London. The reference backing this statement is itself not accurate. By the time that the question of a possible use of the I.G. Farben block arose, the EU Council had already decided to locate the ECB in Frankfurt, but without any decision as to where its premises should be in that city; that matter was left open until the ECB itself decided several years later to build its own custom-designed premises at Frankfurt's Großmarkthalle, which site the ECB then purchased from the City of Frankfurt. In the late Spring of 1994, the ECB's forerunner, the European Monetary Institute, was already operating out of what is now known as the Eurotower, that it had rented on the Willy-Brand-Platz pending a decision on its permanent home. The then Mayor of Frankfurt am Main, Andreas von Schoeler, publicly suggested during a re-election campaign in 1995 that the I.G. Farben complex would make a good site for the future ECB, given that the US Army were in the process of withdrawing from Frankfurt and the City could have used the proceeds of its sale to the ECB. This proposal - from my first-hand knowledge as a senior official of that Institute and the ECB - caused considerable annoyance to the Management of the EMI precisely because of the building's historical associations (and for other, practical reasons), and because the very premature question of the permanent premises of the ECB had not even been discussed by the EMI Council (composed of the governors of the EU national central banks). Von Schoeler lost the mayoral election and the issue sank without trace. Giving the site to the Goethe University was a far more appropriate and indeed excellent solution! (Further information can no doubt be gleaned from the morgues of the Frankfurt press of that period.)

Ironically, the ECB's eventual choice of its permanent premises raised a similar issue. The Großmarkthalle, the city's main wholesale fruit and vegetable market and also a famous listed building of high architectural merit, had been used during the Second World War as a concentration and deportation point for Frankfurt's Jewish population. Deeply conscious of this, the then President of the ECB, Wim Duisenberg, approached the city authorities and Frankfurt's Jewish community jointly, even before the purchase of the Großmarkhalle had been concluded, in order to obtain agreement that this part of its history should be commemorated by the construction of an appropriate memorial at the site. Following a design competition, such a memorial is being incorporated into the structure of the ECB's new premises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingramip (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHAEF

[edit]

According to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force article, this organisation was disbanded on 14 July 1945. Official documentation on SHAEF supports this. This article states: "From 1945 to 1947, the IG Farben Building was the location of the Supreme Headquarters, Allied European Forces." I'm assuming that the Supreme Headquarters Allied European Forces is the same thing as Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (if it's not then correct me, I can't find any evidence for these two being separate organisations however). So how come this article states SHAEF was located here until 1947 when the organisation was disbanded in 1945? BabyNuke (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IG Farben Building. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on IG Farben Building. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CIA? Pentagon

[edit]

"The IG Farben Building was also the headquarters of the CIA in Germany, which led to its sobriquet 'the Pentagon of Europe'." Why so? The CIA isn't based in the Pentagon, at least not officially. Surely, the sobriquet must come from its association with the US Army (or US forces in general).146.227.230.1 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largest office building?

[edit]

Derzhprom, which is also in Europe, seems to be superior in both volume and office area. Ncpie (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA in need of review

[edit]

This featured article was promoted in 2006 and has never been reviewed since. The main contributor has left Wikipedia 10 years ago and there seems to be no one actively maintaining the article, as the unanswered questions left on the talk page show.

  • there's uncited text in the article;
  • the "Future" section does not make sense, since it's about events in 2018 and in 2020;
  • In Further Reading:
This article incorporates translated material from the German Wikipedia page de:I.G.-Farben-Haus which references the following books.(in German) - if those German books were used at some point to write this article, then the article should reflect this with inline citations to them;
  • References need work (bare urls, The Demon under the Microscope needs a page number);
  • Something is wrong with reference 3, it looks like an index of some kind so I can't check its info;
  • Ref 21? "Translated from "Ein eisernes und steinernes Sinnbild deutscher kaufmännischer und wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskraft"", is this a book, an article?
  • What makes angelfire.com a high quality reliable source?
  • The lead has details about IG Farben's industrial production (the dyes, the oils, the explosives, the development of synthetic oil and rubber during World War II, the first antibiotic) that are not mentioned in the body of the article;
  • I'm not sure about the "Rumours" section; for instance, Hans Poelzig was not favoured by the Nazi regime and was banned by IG Farben from entering the building after its completion., if deemed relevant/supported by a better source, should be mentioned in the construction phase. The same for the other rumours. The way it is now, it looks like a list of very diverse unconfirmed trivia, from Einsenhower to the existence of basements(?).

The article needs work to rise to current FA standards. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that this article no longer meets the FA criteria. A future section should probably not be in any article, per WP:CRYSTAL, and it is outdated. I am also concerned about the references, and I think the sources in Further Reading should be assessed and included in the article. @RetiredDuke: are you interested in bringing this article to FAR, as I have already nominated an article this week? Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Z1720:, sorry for the delay. I've been holding off from nominating articles at FAR because I don't know if I would be able to carry on with the nomination if the article gets picked up for improvement (coincidentally, my nominations do tend to get picked up). I've been busy lately, but I'll be back to active business at FAR whenever I can. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it RetiredDuke. I hope you will be able to return soon. One option might be to nominate one article at a time, and if another editor starts working on it, you can ping me and I will conduct a more thorough review. That way there's still some articles going through FAR, but it won't get too busy. Z1720 (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IG_Farben_Building&oldid=1218142606"