Talk:Frauenkirche, Dresden

Paragraph copied from U.S. government web page

 * The second paragraph is directly copied from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html - I haven't done this sort of thing before, but I have heard rumours that unless they specify otherwise, US government (".gov") webapges are in the public domain. Please remove the second paragraph if I have misunderstood this. -- Oliver P. 23:39 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Proposed split

 * Since the Dresden Frauenkirche and Munich Frauenkirche are both equal in notoriety and historical significance, both articles need to be split off and the main Frauenkirche namespace should be a diasmbiguation page redirecting readers to the two main articles. The disambiguation page would also allow for the listing of other minor Frauenkirche as the name is somewhat popular for churches throughout Europe.  --Gerald Farinas 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other issues
I request the last sentence to be striken from the article. No doubt this is a way to describe the outcome, but it's pathetic and therefore not suited for a dictionary which should base on facts. Madayar, --80.171.188.176 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Guenter Blobel
Is there a reason why Guenter Blobel and his contribution needs to be mentioned twice? It's very redundant. Zeus1233 09:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I found a copyright violation from The Boston Globe:Boston Globe article. The following parapgraph appears word-for-word in the wikipedia text: ''The project employed a small army of architects, engineers, stress analysts, acoustics designers, woodworkers, art restorers, surveyors, musicologists, computer modelers, and other specialists. Team leaders had only three incomplete -- and maddeningly imprecise -- sets of schematic drawings of the church to serve as rough building guides.'' - 66.69.144.142


 * Well spotted, 66.69.144.142. In addition to that paragraph, there are several others contributed by 24.180.147.71 that are taken from that Globe article, and from other sources, such as the New York Times.

From the Wiki article: ''At the time, the effort seemed quixotic. The project caused controversy and neither the Dresden city government nor the state-related Lutheran Church of Saxony supported the plan. Western Germans advised Dresden to leave it as a war monument, much like the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, which was partly rebuilt, with its tower left in ruin. People argued that it was more important to have new hospitals, schools, roads and houses.''

From the NYT: ''At the time, it seemed quixotic. Neither the city government nor the Protestant church supported the plan. Western Germans advised Dresden to leave it as a war monument, much like the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, which was partly rebuilt, with its tower left in ruins. "People argued that it was more important to have new hospitals, schools, roads and houses," said the mayor of Dresden, Ingolf Rossberg, who, as deputy mayor in 1990, was an early supporter.''

By entering passages into Google, other sources that can be identified include, , , , , , and.

It's going to take some major revision to sort out what is copyvio and what isn't! - Gobeirne 17:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've worked from the assumption that everything that 24.180.147.71 submitted was a probable copyvio, and therefore requires removal. I've reinstated changes made since 24.180.147.71's last edit, but more work is required to sift through the intervening contributions to see what is salvagable. Perhaps some passages may be included if relevant references are cited. Talk about frustrating! - Gobeirne 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

reproducing a facsimile
"Reproducing a facsimile of the original" - tautology? Dan --80.42.208.53 05:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
Is it really appropriate to have the page under a name -- the English translation -- by which few people know the church? --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, put it back under 'Frauenkirche'. It's embarrassing to think that someone feels he must translate 'Frau' and 'Kirche' into english before I can understand it.  ChrisRed 08:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I think that the minor edits are getting a bit pedantic now. Inanimate objects can wait (trains can wait at signals, and there's a grave waiting for us all), and if I had stood in the open air for two days and nights during the bombing of Dresden, I would consider it miraculous beyond opinion if I was still alive.  It's O.K. to use 'colour and mood', lets not make Wiki language too dull and sterile. ChrisRed 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Use English rules are pretty clear on this case and we should move this article to an English name. Besides, there's a wikipedia convention of translating the names of the churches. See for instance the St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk, St. Mary's Church, Kraków, Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul, Poznań, Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar, Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Belgium, Saint Stephen's Basilica, Sanctuary of Our Lady of Licheń, Basilica of the Holy House, St John The Baptist Church, Bombay, St Mark's Basilica, Church of Intercession upon Nerl, Church of St. John the Warrior, Church of St. Nicholas of the Weavers, Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, St Volodymyr's Cathedral, Church of All Nations, Church of the Holy Sepulchre and hundreds of others.


 * So, we have two options now: either translate this name to English, or move all the articles on other churches to their local names. Halibutt 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Option three - Change the rules. Even the BBC news calls it 'The Frauenkirche in Dresden'.  If we apply the rules over-zealously, what are we to do with Notre Dame Cathedral, the Taj Mahal, the Bundestag, the Côte d'Azure, Mont Blanc etc. which English-speakers all refer to in their original languages?. The German language entry for St.Paul's Cathedral, for example, is called "St.Pauls Cathedral", because that's what the Germans call it.  I agree that I would not translate any of your good examples above back into the original language on the 'English' page, but we need to relax (or ignore) the rule for things which are universally known to English-speakers by their name in the original language.  (ChrisRed) 09:25 01NOV05)


 * Sorry, Halibutt, but you just moved it with no consultation. As native English speakers, I'm afraid we will have to 'pull rank' on you.  Please leave this page under the heading which is universally known as to us.  (p.s. Love your home page. Please stop using better English than like wot we do :-)


 * The rule says use the English name, not an uncommon English translation of the Name. From the discussion and from the official website, it seems that the name used in English materials is "Dresden Frauenkirche", that should be the title, and there's no violation. --Vsion 08:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, the "Use English" rules also state
 * If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language
 * which seems to apply here. I have never heard it called anything but the Frauenkirche. This is about as silly as that guy going around changing all the monarchs to "so and so of country", as if ordinary people ever use such honorifics. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop moving this article on your own !!! Use Requested moves if you feel this should be moved. --Denniss 09:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move Why isn't Notre Dame in Paris under "Our Lady"? Because that's a silly thought. Keep the current name. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I listed this German-language title on the requested move page. However, take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names. Either we obey the rules in all cases or we don't obey them at all. Is that satisfactory to all? Halibutt 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is not. There is no hard and fast rule on the way a church in a foreign land is called in English. But the more outlandish the language the more likely it is to be translated, so common English language usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Frauenkirche" follows WP:UE conventions - to quote:Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in "Torino" even though most English texts still call the city "Turin". However newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world never do this and still say Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article.  and also the rules on WP:NC - Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. (my use of bold letters) Saint|swithin 17:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The example on Turin seems very unlikely, and a bad basis for comparison. I have only seen Frauenkirche; but Google results suggest the two usages are about tied. Weak Keep. Septentrionalis 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. The German name was used over the weekend in the media reports I head and read of the reconsecration. Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. (Do we have to do it here?) Most articles in English write "The Frauenkirche (Church of Our Lady)" and then go on to use "Frauenkirche" alone. This is why "Church of Our Lady" gets so many Google hits. Turin is only an example of how we should use judgment as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article (WP:UE). Saint|swithin 08:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the move. I guess most of the respectable wikipedians so far missed the point. The problem is that the exact translation of the German name is available and it was done already in the case of numerous churches - I believe that for good. However, if we decide that the term Frauenkirche (pronunced Froon-ker-chee, apparently) is an English word, then we should also accept Kościół najświętszej Marii Panny as an English term. Absurd, but that's what results from this. As I said, the rules should apply equally to all languages, otherwise we'd have POV-pushing. Halibutt 09:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NC Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. I've listed some examples of how "Frauenkirche" is used in English here. Saint|swithin 09:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose the move. Why, exactly, should this be named any other way? I think there should also be a common usage test that applies here, like for other names--Dresden Frauenkirche is clearly the predominantely used term among English speakers and publications. There is no reason for a translation. Zeus1233 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As already mentioned, "Our Lady's Church" is not the term used in English to refer to the church- Frauenkirche is. On Dresden's English webpage, the church is referred to as Frauenkirche and is not translated, unlike other buildings promoted on that page. In comparison, on Kraków's English webpage, Bazylika Mariacka is translated into St. Mary's Church, as the Polish name for it is not widely used in English. I agree with Dhartung and Saintswithin's interpretation of the Naming Conventions. Olessi 00:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'd have to stop and think to work out what the "Church of Our Lady" referred to, but Frauenkirche makes immediate sense. I have a suspicion that it should perhaps be under Dresdner Frauenkirche, however… --Stemonitis 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dresden Frauenkirche differs from the also famous Munich Frauenkirche because the Dresden church is Protestant. That separates it from all of the other Catholic churches sharing the name.  Thus, Dresden's Frauenkirche is mostly refered to as the Frauenkirche, not the Church of Our Lady because it is unique. Jazz1979 07:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * To 'Halibutt'. Just accept that English-speakers 'steal' foreign words into English.  When we say 'The Frauenkirche in Dresden' we are still speaking in English, otherwise we would switch to German and actually say 'Die Dresdener Frauenkirche'.  To us the thing is called 'The Frauenkirche'. (Pronounced 'Frowen-kirsh' by the way)....there is no alternative English word for it.
 * I think the best solution would be for you to write an excellent Polish-language article about this church, and call it whatever you want to. We promise not to meddle or interfere with it.  There was no problem here until you created one, and I regret to say that what you are doing now almost borders on trolling.
 * Your 'threat' "take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Oh!, Oppose, by the way, otherwise we will need to change the English entry for Gdansk to 'Town on Gdania River', then get busy on Los Angeles, Casablanca, Deja-Vu, Michael Schumacher and Ursa Major :-) ChrisRed 10:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, although I seriously doubt that most of English speakers pronunce it the way you suggest as most of them do not speak German. Also, do not assume my bad will, I did not make any threats to anyone. I merely pointed to the fact that we should be consistent in applying (or not, as in this case) the rules of Wikipedia. If German church names are ok, so are Japanese or Polish. Halibutt 12:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, I find it funny that most of those to take part here are actually Germans... Halibutt

Well, I am English, but I (now) speak reasonable German. Any English speaker who saw the word 'Frauenkirche' would pronounce it roughly as I said, but a few would mis-translate it as 'wifes-church'. (The problem is of course, I have no way of knowing how a Polish-speaker pronounces 'Frowen-kirsh' :-) Most English speakers know plenty of German words, we just find grammar is a nightmare, especially if words such as 'weil', 'obwohl' etc. make an appearance. Somewhere near the Brenner Pass, a shopkeeper is probably still wondering why - 20 years ago - a scruffy English student walked into her shop and said "Haben sie (oil for) fruhstuck kuchen?" ("Have you owl before breakfast cake?"), before buying a bottle of Mazola. ChrisRed


 * I noted the wrong pronunciation as Froon-ker-chee because I actually hear it in the BBC radio (channel 5) some days ago. Of course I know how it should be pronunced in German, but I doubt most of the English speakers do. In fact I have yet to hear any Brit to pronunce it the German way you suggested. But perhaps it's just me... Anyway, I started moving the churches to where they apparently belong. Halibutt 14:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are bound to meet the exception, but most Brits can still read German off a page, even if they don't understand it, because the 'sound' of our language is based (in part) on Old German (or rather Saxon, which I suppose makes us saxophones). Of course, the last time large numbers of Germans came to England, they were flying at 8000 metres, so we didn't really get a chance to talk :-).  ChrisRed 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree because most English speakers do not know where to break up the boundaries of long German words. They can only do it if the recongnise some of the sub words in a long German words. As to how this word is pronunced I suspect that the word Kirche will as often as not be pronunced by Scots and some others as Kirk. Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I was referring to people who speak English. How the Scots pronounce it (and their motive for deliberately mis-pronouncing 'church' if it happens not to be a 'papist' one) is definitely outside the scope of this article. ChrisRed 10:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, have you read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?
 * What has the way British people pronounce Frauenkirche got to do with how the article should be named? Saint|swithin 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (British and living in Dresden since 1992.)


 * Well, it's quite helpful in determining whether it is indeed an English name or just a foreign name used by some journalists in the titles for the sake of brevity. As to the rest of your comments - I did read it and have no intention to break it in any way. I intended to prove my point here at the talk page, but apparently I failed to convince anyone and I'm fine with it, no wikistress involved whatsoever. Also, apparently there's a consensus to use local names for churches and such an option is also supported by a number of articles on churches (most notably German and Italian), so I'll simply move some of the articles to conform with that convention. I see nothing wrong with that, it's all a matter of consistency. Halibutt 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As was written above:
 * Ok, I listed this German-language title on the requested move page. However, take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names. Either we obey the rules in all cases or we don't obey them at all. Is that satisfactory to all? Halibutt 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is not. There is no hard and fast rule on the way a church in a foreign land is called in English. But the more outlandish the language the more likely it is to be translated, so common English language usage should be the guide. Philip Baird Shearer 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibu are you sticking to "However, take note that if there is a consensus not to obey the WP:UE in the case of churches, I'll also move all the abovementioned articles to their native names." or do you now accept from the arguments given above, that whether this page is moved or not moved, it does not set a general rule for all foreign church names. Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Also, apparently there's a consensus to use local names for churches and such an option is also supported by a number of articles on churches (most notably German and Italian), so I'll simply move some of the articles to conform with that convention. I see nothing wrong with that, it's all a matter of consistency. Halibutt 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"

As I said above "But the more outlandish the language the more likely it is to be translated, so common English language usage should be the guide." Polish is more outlandish than German, (because French and German are the root of English), so it is more likely that names of Polish Churches will be translated. You should not draw infrences from this debate that any rule exists for all churches in all languages. Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to stop and think to work out what the "Church of Our Lady" referred to, but Frauenkirche makes immediate sense. I have a suspicion that it should perhaps be under Dresdner Frauenkirche, however… --Stemonitis 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No it should not be under "Dresdner" because it is not a German name it is an English name and just as it is Westminster Abbey it is the "Dresden Frauenkirche" Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Outcome

 * Move request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Halibutt, please do not violate WP:POINT as you mention above. Rob Church Talk 02:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
A lovely article. I'd never heard of the Frauenkirche before, and am horrified at the damage it took. It truely brings home the horror of the Dresden firebombing. It could be beefed up some more, but nice work. More, please! Fergananim 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and well done everybody. As soon as the hubbub and vandalism has died away, I'll pull some photos of the equally-staggering interior across. (The German language page is growing nicely too - they are rightfully very proud - If I see anything there that would be nice here, I'll translate it across). ChrisRed 22:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedantry
I dropped the word "miraculously" from the description of the church surviving two days of firebombing in WWII; somebody reverted this edit. A comment was made above:


 * Hmmm, I think that the minor edits are getting a bit pedantic now. Inanimate objects can wait (trains can wait at signals, and there's a grave waiting for us all), and if I had stood in the open air for two days and nights during the bombing of Dresden, I would consider it miraculous beyond opinion if I was still alive. It's O.K. to use 'colour and mood', lets not make Wiki language too dull and sterile. ChrisRed 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's OK to use colorful language, but I think one should be very careful when decribing something as "miraculous," especially when the building at issue is a church.

I've changed "miraculously" to "impressively." Let the reader decide for him/herself if he/she thinks this does, in fact, represent some kind of miracle. Scrutchfield

Terror
I see there's some reverting going on about the phrase "a British goldsmith whose father, Frank, was a member of one of the aircrews who helped to end the terror of national socialism by / took part in the bombing of Dresden"

The question is not whether or not the Nazi regime was one of terror. Instead, the reason this is a NPOV problem is that some people believe the purpose of the bombing was mainly to end the war, and others believe it was mainly to get revenge for the bombing of Coventry. See Bombing of Dresden. Using the phrase "helped to end the ..." assumes the first of these two points of view is correct, thus it is not NPOV. This controversial subject can not be summed up in one or two sentences here, but it is discussed at great length at Bombing of Dresden so the "helped to end..." can be left out here. Saint|swithin 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For a lot of people it is Terror that a nazi building in nazi germany was rebuilt almost completely with good American money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.181.219 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For even more people Morons can be Terror as well.79.205.107.223 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"650,000 incendiary bombs"
I know next to nothing about the bombing of Dresden or anything related to it, and I haven't checked any sources, but that number seems absurdly high, doesn't it? That would be 5 bombs per inhabitant of Dresden, 200 or so bombs per second, or -- I don't know -- a few thousand? -- bombs per RAF plane, or roughly one bomb per plane and second. Maybe somebody confused this with the total number of bombs dropped on Germany in WW II? Multi io 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)




 * It does sound a lot, but it's probably true. The incendiaries were glorified fire-lighter sticks using phosphorus, that spewed-out from a casing when it left the bomber (see Incendiary device).  On a typical bombing raid: the first bombers were 'Pathfinders' who marked the target, the second wave would then blow all the roofs off with high-explosive, then later bombers dropped huge numbers of incendiaries into the de-roofed buildings. A grim business ChrisRed 07:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, after checking your link and some sources I think the number may indeed be correct. Thanks for the insight. Multi io 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The RAF dropped 80,000,000 (eighty million) 4lb incendiaries - see image - in the period 1939-45.

Replica Building
This monument should be listed under a new category for replica buildings. See St Mark's Campanile discussion page. Roberrt Schediwy 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a difference between a 'replica' and a 'Reconstruction'? Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral is a replica, this is a reconstruction, Like HMS Victory.Sigma-6 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"
The presence of a criticism section seems appropriate but its current contents are far from objective and border on stupidity. The stones were "placed, to a large extent, arbitrarily around the building with the help of a computer program"???? Computer-aided design is one of the most mature of computer sciences and I'm sure its contributors would be curious, to say the least, to hear someone call it "arbitrary." Let's lose this section until we can get some supported content for it.


 * Agreed. The first question that comes to mind is, who has these criticisms "about what it means actually to 'reconstruct' old buildings"?  There are no references or any factual basis for these particular "criticisms." Musiclover (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No kidding. It's full of weasel-words and inaccuracies, and it's amazingly poorly written.  The conclusion is patently absurd; the building is a beautiful restoration, and it recreates the building (I've long loved the Canaletto print) gorgeously.  Obviously the 'image being created here' is, as near as possible, the Frauenkirche, lovingly, by a community that was sad to lose it. I'm going to delete the section, feel free to revert. Sigma-6 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "raised interesting philosophical questions about the status of this building and its embedded memory." Oh, please, tell us these interesting question about a building's memory! – Does that sentence make any sense? No, seriously, these are vague philosophical ramblings about reconstructing in general and should have no place in this article...-- megA (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But the 'reconstructed' church has 1) a modern public lift going up halfway to the top and 2) quite a lot of steel and glass construction in the dome for visitors to walk around and look down in safety ... I am pretty certain that neither was there in the original. It is simply not true that is a reconstruction that is 'as close as possible', despite all the sentimental gush you might want to apply to it. There must be an accurate account somewhere of the non-historical aspects of the 'reconstruction', of which there are many. --Tdent (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, Tdent, and you may have good reasons for it, but this article needs verifiable facts and quotations, not opinions. I have stripped the section down to a quotation from Jarzombek and (I hope) an objective summary. I think that's quite generous to an author who can't spell and writes titles like Urban Heterology: Dresden and the Dialectics of Post-Traumatic History. --Heron (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral
Why do you call the Frauenkirche a "cathedral"? It has never been one. The responsible Evangelical Church in Germany bishop for Dresden seems to consider a church in Meissen to be his cathedral http://www.landeskirche-sachsen.de/landeskirche/index.html Mk4711 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening section
"The Dresden Frauenkirche survived the firebombing of Dresden during World War II but was totally burned out and collapsed the next day."

If it was totally burned out and then collapsed, then clearly it didn't survive the bombing. The fact that it took a few hours actually to collapse dooesn't change that. This sentence should be changed. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree: quibbling over a few hours seems pointless when we're talking about an historic building. I've rewritten the intro. --Heron (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cost of Reconstruction
The cost of the reconstruction is given in Euros and then in GBP and Dollars. I think the cost should be given ONLY in euros, since the exchange rates change every day. --Karljoos (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

virtual tour
Are these Links useful for this article? its not english, but there are nice pics… --Gsälzbär (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was there to see the collapse of the church?
The main article here says the following: "The temperature surrounding and inside the church eventually reached 1,000 degrees Celsius. The dome finally collapsed at 10 a.m. on 15 February. The pillars glowed bright red and exploded.." Now, and realistically, if the temperature had reached 1,000 degrees, then who was still alive there to see this and then live to related that the "pillars glowed bright red and exploded"??

The article then proceeds to state: "The altar, a relief depiction of Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives by Johann Christian Feige, was only partially damaged during the bombing raid and fire that destroyed the church." How can any delicate relief, painted of course--or even a fresco, survive 1,000 degrees celsius, where the solid stone pillars around it "glowed bright red and exploded", with only partial damage?

Are all the dramatic details like this not just myths? I wonder what else about this church and the fate of the city has just been made up by subsequent generation of people who were not even there to see the apocalypse that befell the poor beautiful city?


 * The temperature of the pillars must have reached around 1,000 degrees Celsius. Nobody will have measured that at this time. There are plenty of eyewitnesses of the bombing of Dresden (in fact, my grandmother traveled through Dresden after the bombing, want any details about how the city looked like?). Also, the pillars didn't have to be right next to the altar (which was in a OK state after the bombing, a big part of it was later used for the reconstruction of the church). How can you criticize historical facts without even researching them? I didn't research them either and could easily invalidate your theories with my own. Sgo.ger (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This page says:
 * Der von Johann Christian Feige geschaffene Altar wurde wie durch ein Wunder unter den Trümmern vor der gänzlichen Zerstörung bewahrt: Herabtropfendes Zinn der schmelzenden Silbermann-Orgel konservierte den Altar und die Holzteile der Orgel milderten die Wucht der herabstürzenden Kuppeltrümmer ab. -
 * Created by Johann Christian Feige, the Altar miraculously survived complete destruction. The tin of the melting Silbermann organ preserved the altar and paintings, and the wooden structure of the organ moderated the damage of the falling cupoula debris
 * BTW, thats also what they tell visitors on the tour thru the building. Maybe this could be integrated. --Captndelta (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dresden Frauenkirche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030202195356/http://www.loc.gov:80/exhibits/dres/dres10.html to http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dresden Frauenkirche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407012039/http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_16_dresdens_frauenkirche_restored.php?print to http://www.dresden.de/en/02/press_service/press_texts_in_various_languages/english/c_16_dresdens_frauenkirche_restored.php?print
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Munich Frauenkirche which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust of Dresden?
Is the use of the word "holocaust", in the section Destruction, appropriate? Kiwigpz (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it appears to be some vandalism that I have reverted. Feel free to delete this comment though I imagine the bots will undo my change. Kiwigpz (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)