Welcome to Wikipedia!
I've attached my advice to new editors below.
About your additions to Architecture of Germany, the thing to remember is to maintain balance.
So, if the Introduction of the article has six lines on the diverse nature of architecture throughout Germany, and you add six lines about one significant period when much was destroyed, then you are creating an imbalance.
This is not an article about WWII, or specifically about the Allied bombing of Germany. The article is about German architecture over a period of about 2,000 years.
The problem with that type of editting is that it is a) factual, b) overloaded. Most editors on most pages simply watch for vandalism. If something appears perfectly factual, (even if it is not referenced) they will leave it there, unbalancing the article.
The statements that many Germany cities were rebuilt in modernist styles is an important fact in establishing the character of architecture in Germany. The fact that the reason for this was the extensive aerial bombing of WWII is background and needs to be treated as such, rather than given tremendous weight.
You also have to be careful of bias. What you had written implied that historic buildings were deliberately targeted. However, the number of churches that were left standing, when all around was devastated, would seem to indicate that the opposite was the case. Note that Frankfurt Cathedral was indeed burned out. But the rest of the city around it was flattened, right up to its very walls, so it would seem that there was an order in place to spare the cathedral. It is clear that what was being targeted was the seats of local government and commerce, rather than specifically heritage, which is what your edits implied.
While the tragedy of the destruction of Germany's architecture in WWII looms large, the wholesale destruction of the towns and villages of France and Russia was also enormous. London suffered badly, with swathes of the city being mown down. Only a tiny fraction of the City's mostly 17th century architecture remains. These things are in each case, part of the background to the relevant architecture articles, but not the subject of the articles themselves.
Amandajm ( talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Levimanthys ( talk) 11:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Pages you need:
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style
When adding images
Amandajm ( talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
An associated problem
The "rebuilding" of German architecture has yet another dimension, which is rather unfortunate. During the 19th century there was this problematic notion of "purity". Certain styles of architecture were seen to be "pure" representation of the German artistic spirit. Many medieval churches needed restoration of course. But in the process of restoring them, the "restorers tore dow and replaced anything that didn't "match the ideal". This means that they demolished the baroque facade of Speyer Cathedral and designed an entirely new westwerk, based only loosely on the Romanesque westwerk, which they had a very good drawing of. I don't know why they didn't make it match exactly, but they didn't!
At another cathedral (it might have been Bamberg) there were original Romanesque towers which didn't quite match. They had never matched. So the one that was shorter was raised in height, and made to match, much to the annoyance of the townsfolk who loved their cathedral just the way it was! However, it is thanks to the same spirit of rectitude and exactitude that we can look at Cologne Cathedral and Ulm Munster and see them complete, despite the gap of several hundred years.
The main problem that I have is that I had a very long fight with someone who was not German, and insisted that no German building ought to be included on the page Romanesque architecture. This was followed up a few months later by a German editor who was furious at me for showing the excellent Romanesque revival architecture facade of Speyer Cathedral in the section on Revival architecture, because of the implication that it carried that Speyer was not actually Romanesque. Actually Speyer was quite a pioneering piece, and must be acknowledged as such, despite the fact that a third of it fell down and was rebuilt in the 19th century. But I do get cross that the purists demolished the Gothic chapels on the south side.
That sort of thing doesn't happen in England, where almost every cathedral is a total mish-mash of styles, and the Victorian architect proudly adds his name to a long list. Canterbury is typical: 1175 William of Sens, 1179 William the Englishman, 1363 John Box, 1379, Henry Yvelle, 1400 Stephen Lote, 1423 Thomas Mapilton, 1485 Richard Beke, 1505 John Wastell, 1834 George Austin, 1904 W.D. Caroe (restoration). And with all this building going on, they all worked in entirely different styles, with the exception of William the Englishman back in 1179 and George Austin who completed the north west tower to match the 400 yr-old south west tower in 1834. The only time we ever went through that purist stage was in the 1960s when they started ripping out Victorian fittings and replacing them with Modern ones!?
They also inserted a number of the most deplorable windows by famous modern artists. Salisbury Cathedral fared the worst. It got a range of windows (five I think) by Marc Chagall. (great artist of course). he did his own thing entirely. Maybe they sent him the measurements but no instructions. Anyway, it's not his design that is the problem; its the colour. All the colour in Salisbury is pale yellow, grey, and brown with hints of red and green and lots of white. Chagall's windows are intensely blue like Chartres by moonlight. The effect could hardly have been less suitable. They should have donated them to some parish church and started again, with the reliable firm of Hardman and Co who would have sent someone down from Birmingham and turned out something 100% suitable...... Somebody had more money than sense. I wish they would rip them out and put them in the Tate Modern...grumble, grumble grumble...... How good they would look in the Tate Modern!
Cheers! Amandajm ( talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!
I've attached my advice to new editors below.
About your additions to Architecture of Germany, the thing to remember is to maintain balance.
So, if the Introduction of the article has six lines on the diverse nature of architecture throughout Germany, and you add six lines about one significant period when much was destroyed, then you are creating an imbalance.
This is not an article about WWII, or specifically about the Allied bombing of Germany. The article is about German architecture over a period of about 2,000 years.
The problem with that type of editting is that it is a) factual, b) overloaded. Most editors on most pages simply watch for vandalism. If something appears perfectly factual, (even if it is not referenced) they will leave it there, unbalancing the article.
The statements that many Germany cities were rebuilt in modernist styles is an important fact in establishing the character of architecture in Germany. The fact that the reason for this was the extensive aerial bombing of WWII is background and needs to be treated as such, rather than given tremendous weight.
You also have to be careful of bias. What you had written implied that historic buildings were deliberately targeted. However, the number of churches that were left standing, when all around was devastated, would seem to indicate that the opposite was the case. Note that Frankfurt Cathedral was indeed burned out. But the rest of the city around it was flattened, right up to its very walls, so it would seem that there was an order in place to spare the cathedral. It is clear that what was being targeted was the seats of local government and commerce, rather than specifically heritage, which is what your edits implied.
While the tragedy of the destruction of Germany's architecture in WWII looms large, the wholesale destruction of the towns and villages of France and Russia was also enormous. London suffered badly, with swathes of the city being mown down. Only a tiny fraction of the City's mostly 17th century architecture remains. These things are in each case, part of the background to the relevant architecture articles, but not the subject of the articles themselves.
Amandajm ( talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Levimanthys ( talk) 11:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Pages you need:
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style
When adding images
Amandajm ( talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
An associated problem
The "rebuilding" of German architecture has yet another dimension, which is rather unfortunate. During the 19th century there was this problematic notion of "purity". Certain styles of architecture were seen to be "pure" representation of the German artistic spirit. Many medieval churches needed restoration of course. But in the process of restoring them, the "restorers tore dow and replaced anything that didn't "match the ideal". This means that they demolished the baroque facade of Speyer Cathedral and designed an entirely new westwerk, based only loosely on the Romanesque westwerk, which they had a very good drawing of. I don't know why they didn't make it match exactly, but they didn't!
At another cathedral (it might have been Bamberg) there were original Romanesque towers which didn't quite match. They had never matched. So the one that was shorter was raised in height, and made to match, much to the annoyance of the townsfolk who loved their cathedral just the way it was! However, it is thanks to the same spirit of rectitude and exactitude that we can look at Cologne Cathedral and Ulm Munster and see them complete, despite the gap of several hundred years.
The main problem that I have is that I had a very long fight with someone who was not German, and insisted that no German building ought to be included on the page Romanesque architecture. This was followed up a few months later by a German editor who was furious at me for showing the excellent Romanesque revival architecture facade of Speyer Cathedral in the section on Revival architecture, because of the implication that it carried that Speyer was not actually Romanesque. Actually Speyer was quite a pioneering piece, and must be acknowledged as such, despite the fact that a third of it fell down and was rebuilt in the 19th century. But I do get cross that the purists demolished the Gothic chapels on the south side.
That sort of thing doesn't happen in England, where almost every cathedral is a total mish-mash of styles, and the Victorian architect proudly adds his name to a long list. Canterbury is typical: 1175 William of Sens, 1179 William the Englishman, 1363 John Box, 1379, Henry Yvelle, 1400 Stephen Lote, 1423 Thomas Mapilton, 1485 Richard Beke, 1505 John Wastell, 1834 George Austin, 1904 W.D. Caroe (restoration). And with all this building going on, they all worked in entirely different styles, with the exception of William the Englishman back in 1179 and George Austin who completed the north west tower to match the 400 yr-old south west tower in 1834. The only time we ever went through that purist stage was in the 1960s when they started ripping out Victorian fittings and replacing them with Modern ones!?
They also inserted a number of the most deplorable windows by famous modern artists. Salisbury Cathedral fared the worst. It got a range of windows (five I think) by Marc Chagall. (great artist of course). he did his own thing entirely. Maybe they sent him the measurements but no instructions. Anyway, it's not his design that is the problem; its the colour. All the colour in Salisbury is pale yellow, grey, and brown with hints of red and green and lots of white. Chagall's windows are intensely blue like Chartres by moonlight. The effect could hardly have been less suitable. They should have donated them to some parish church and started again, with the reliable firm of Hardman and Co who would have sent someone down from Birmingham and turned out something 100% suitable...... Somebody had more money than sense. I wish they would rip them out and put them in the Tate Modern...grumble, grumble grumble...... How good they would look in the Tate Modern!
Cheers! Amandajm ( talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)