Talk:Totalitarian architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Roma Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana BW.jpg[edit]

The file File:Roma Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana BW.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Roma Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana BW.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really a kind of architecture?[edit]

Is there really a kind you can call "Totalitarian architecture"? It's rather modernist and functionalist. Should we create an architecture article for every type of government? Even if the three countries had their styles....they weren't the same. Especially the Stalinist one compared to the other two (said fascist architecture).

They may have common things, but they then you could add say that modernist and functionalist are also totalitarian architecture by how they look compared to nazi/facist/stalinist architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:3030:88B8:748:93CB (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, any sources I can find on this are either about how architects coped in or served totalitarian regimes or citogenesis from this article. The most concrete thing I can find is an Oxford reference source that tentatively defines it as a type of neo-classic architecture. This seems to be a geopolitical flaunting more than anything. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of the above. The article should probably just be boldly redirected to fascist architecture. The idea that there's some sort of connecting thread between fascist architecture, Stalinist architecture, and the other examples (brutalism?!) seems to have very thin backing, and almost no "responses" to it, which suggests it's just Not A Real Topic. The Oxford link is quite shallow as are most of the GBooks hits IMO. SnowFire (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is well-known concept. See here [1] or here [2], for example. Please start an AfD or RfC if you disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Is a single 1990 Google Book really reason to think that there's a topic here? I highly doubt that book passes WP:NBOOK if we made an entire article that was just that book, which is essentially what we'd be doing here. I guess you can argue that this should be a disambiguation page that also offers Igor Golomstock as an option, but meh. I just suspect that if you Google Books search for any adjective + "architecture", you'll find something or someone looking at things from that angle, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of a Wikipedia article - it just means that's one person's take. I think that a soft requirement should be that others have actually responded to any alleged grouping - i.e. there should be criticism from others, not merely proponents, lest we end up with topics SJW video games or reactionary dancers or the like. SnowFire (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s certainly not enough content to build an article or prove this is an actual concept outside of fascist architecture. As far as I can tell there’s clear consensus for the redirect, but if you want me to go through the trouble of an AfD I suppose I will. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Web of Science search retrieves 83 refs such as [4] and so on, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said one source because the other source in your original two clearly wasn't really talking about the same thing. Again, "totalitarian architecture" is a valid English phrase, you can find hits on it in Google Scholar, but I'm looking for sources that SPECIFICALLY are talking about this idea of some "combined" architecture style, i.e. the claimed Wikipedia topic. The Vybiral link is clearly a source on Stalinist architecture in Czechslovakia, not totalitarian architecture "in general." The "Difficult Heritage" link isn't really about the architectural style, but rather preservation vs. destruction of old politics that happens to use the word "totalitarian" (but could probably equally extend to, say, demolition of Confederate monuments in the US). I can't read enough of the Tony Ward article to say for sure, but it just looks like a random article written in the Cold War. Here's a search for "democratic architecture", it has hits in Google Scholar, yet we don't have a democratic architecture article attempting to link architecture in the US, Japan, and India. Same with "capitalist architecture" or "conservative architecture". "Is an English phrase that has hits" is not enough of a criterion for relevance - if this really is a separate topic, it should be way easier to prove it. SnowFire (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, most of the sources above tell about totalitarian architecture as a concept, not a combination of words. That could be a lot more sources. Please check. These sources can be used on this page. I have no judgement about any other types of architecture; they are irrelevant here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take another look later, but I'm still very skeptical. Just to talk about the general point: It's very easy to do original research by synthesis and change what could and should be a redirect / disambiguation page option into a separate article. English has a lot of synonyms, I'm not questioning that these articles discussed fascist architecture or Stalinist architecture or the like (and happened to use the word "totalitarian"), just this page claims that there's a separate topic for an all-totalitarian hive mind architect, which seems to be about as likely as creating the democratic architecture article that takes real uses of the phrase to generate some sort of OR-y theory of architecture in democracies. Maybe this is more obvious with more sensitive topics like religion or gender - Women in architecture is a valid topic, individual women architects and their styles are valid topics, but Female architecture that claims that all women architects are essentially alike or drawing from some common font has a way higher bar to clear, despite having some hits in Google scholar. There's just no reason to think that wildly disparate architecture styles are that connected. SnowFire (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this page, it has versions in 8 other languages. Please check versions in Spanish and Russian. Looks good to me. I read about this concept a number of times. It can be also framed more generally as totalitarian art [5].My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We now have big separate sub-pages on Stalinist architecture, Fascist architecture and Nazi architecture, but the concept as a whole is well known. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "random articled" this page and added a short desc literally at the exact same time it was posted for AfD by @Paragon Deku: which is funny, but looking here this doesn't seem to be a "thing". Leaving aside the far more common use of the term as a synonym for Fascistic architecture it really just seem to be "big and imposing architecture, done by non-democratic countries". Even in the examples provided on the page you can see a variety of architectural styles from Classicism to Modernism to Brutalism, all of which have been used by non-totalitarian countries. Is the Hoover building "Totalitarian" because it's big and imposing and boring? Is the Arc de Triomphe? This term seems so broad as to be useless, and seems highly undercovered besides. BSMRD (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hell of a coincidence, life's pretty funny that way sometimes. Sorry if the ping to you for Afd was extraneous in that regard, I try to inform any editors for the past month and the page creator when able (although seems like the person who created this page self-blocked back in 2013). Paragon Deku (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communist mausoleums[edit]

[6]. I think these sources clearly support the statement as reflected in multiple RS used for the referencing. Note, that the figure was there all the time, I just provided the supporting references. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate exactly the quotes from the sources that support the gallery and statement, cause I fail to verify them.Anonimu (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start from first scholarly source [7]. It is available online, it is about architecture of "European totalitarian regimes", and it tells:
"There are three basic architectural typologies of religious structures (which have been emerged over time): a temple, a tomb and a monument. The temples can be small (or even movable) altars,exhaustive buildings and even compound ensembles. The tombs‘ typologies could include mausoleums,tombstones, cemetery complexes and more. ...The study explores the religious architectural forms, planted in secular, public buildings... Paradoxically the ancient typology of the tombs took also a new boost in the freethinking 20th century. There, mausoleums of the leaders of political movements, parties and others have been being built within the initiative of the fully secular State power. One of the first such buildings was Lenin's Mausoleum in Moscow located in the Kremlin complex, where many Russian kings were also buried previously.
And so on. It then say (pages 30-31) about Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum, Georgi Dimitrov Mausoleum in Sofia, etc. Does not it support the statement? If you think it was incorrectly worded, please suggest rephrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it’s another source referring to the architecture OF totalitarian regimes rather than an actual style? Paragon Deku (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on AfD page, "architecture OF totalitarian regimes" and "totalitarian architecture" is apparently the same subject. Besides, this is you who insert info not on the subject of this page [8]. Please do not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t cite Tony Ward and then not properly represent his thesis. Otherwise you’re cherry-picking. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source by Tony Ward [9] was NOT used in the diff above under discussion. But OK, Tony Ward does assert that the "architecture OF totalitarian regimes" is a part of the subject of "totalitarian architecture" which he consider something more general (unlike some other authors). Hence any content about "architecture OF totalitarian regimes" does belong this this page per the source by Tony Ward. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article's premise is that Totalitarian architecture is a particular architectural style. Is Architecture of totalitarian regimes considered to be the same topic? I'm not so sure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the dictionary you cited in section just below [10], it is an "international style" of architecture AND specifically say "Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Communist China" (which would be architectures OF totalitarian states). But some other sources may differ. For example, Tony Ward (see above) consider it something more general where the Architecture of totalitarian regimes is a sub-subject of that subject. Some others consider them to be essentially the same. So whatever sources say.My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit per Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture[edit]

I've adjusted the lead to reflect the source provided: diff. The source is:

It states:

Totalitarian architecture: Supposedly the officially approved architecture of dictatorships, over-centralized governments, or political groups intolerant of opposition, especially that of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Communist China, etc.

Emphasis mine. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but the definition must reflect what multiple RS say on the subject. Quoting it word-to-word per a single source in not the way. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why exclude the source that provides a concise definition? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggests to exclude anything, but the definition should be framed per multiple sources. Why "supposedly"? Because there are other definitions of this term or what? The source does not explain it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly because it’s not a widely accepted concept in architectural study. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the source does not say it is not widely accepted concept in architectural study. This is your interpretation. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not an architect, but we have multiple RS’s that cast doubt on it being a genuine field of architecture. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a single cherry-picked word from a single tertiary source. What it means is not really clear because the source does not explain it. My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of supposedly reflects the significant amount of confusion around the use of this term and avoids WP:CHERRYPICKING from this source. I think there is now consensus that 'supposedly' should be kept. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to WP:Verifiability, we must mostly rely on secondary sources. This is a tertiary one, and there is no reason to use that word, the meaning of which the source does not explain.My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - so why is this source (a dictionary definition - something in university I was told not to rely on) referenced three times in this article! Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture for a more detailed look at the secondary sources this definition relies on. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian language sources[edit]

Sourcing here seems to be very weak. A YouTube presentation. "art1.ru". Reading what they actually say ("Only in Germany there is a rule to condemn the architecture of Nazi, just as everything else under the rule of Hitler", etc. [11]"), those are sources and personal opinions I would generally avoid to include. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: The sources are from subject-matter experts. And I replaced YouTube source. By the way, it was the official YouTube channel of the Shchusev Museum of Architecture. --Renat 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. But I also do not think the views by Sablin are properly summarized. He tells in the beginning If that was not an article, I would just say ... [your quotation]. But since this is an article, I will say this ... So it is the article itself that needs to be summarized, including its second part [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I guess it means that the article may be expanded. By the way, we do not have the article Totalitarian art. If we will rename this article it can be expanded even more, because architecture is a form of art and there are reliable sources about totalitarian art. --Renat 15:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, architecture is only a small part of the art, so that would be a much more general subject. We are talking about an additional new page here, not about the renaming. Would it be a legitimate page? I am not sure. What RS do we have about the totalitarian art in general, in addition to the book cited on this page? My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I want to know is the outcome of the deletion discussion. --Renat 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics have pushed back against this definition"[edit]

@Vladimir.copic. [13] - this edit. Which critics (their names) have pushed back against this definition? How they pushed back? What they disagree with and why? My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That information seems evident in the body, although it would need to be clarified in the lede. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought providing a source would be enough seeing as it's in the introduction I didn't want to overshadow anything too much. At your request, My very best wishes, I've made this explicit. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course Neoclassicism was used in all countries, regardless to their political regimes. This is so trivial it does not deserve mentioning on the page. The definition (as taken from multiple RS) does NOT imply that it was used only in totalitarian countries. There is no any contradiction. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where any of these source say about "push back to the definition" provided on this WP page? Please cite this directly. The citation ("Neoclassicism [...] was by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems") does not contradict the definition. This is also newly included; you need consensus to include. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future of this Article[edit]

Since the AfD was closed with no consensus, it looks like this article is here to stay. In that case, we’re gonna have to do a lot of pruning to eradicate all the synth and clean up the sources. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to open up another AfD next week unless someone comes up to bat. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes (WP:OR)[edit]

I looked at new version, and do not know where to start. To begin from something, it starts from incorrect definition: "Totalitarian architecture is a term utilized to refer to broad trends between totalitarianism and architecture ...". Not only this is meaningless (what is "a broad trend between"?), but this is not what cited source says [14]. It says this is "the officially approved architecture of dictatorships, over-centralized governments" (and so on), which is something entirely different. I am reverting this recent change per WP:BRD. Welcome to make improvements, but you need consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The justification in edit summary was: I just went ahead and rewrote the page to clean up the Synth nonsense.. I am sorry, but based on the example above, this is actually bringing a personal interpretation (or WP:SYN) to the page. Nowhere the cited source says this "is a term utilized to refer to broad trends between totalitarianism and architecture". My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's meaningless, but the article was kept by the wisdom of AFD round 2? The topic really is such a vague hand-wave, hence merging / redirection being preferable, but apparently we're going to cover it anyway. I prefer Paragon Deku's version. For the Oxford reference, if you click the link, it opens with "Supposedly" which is a huge red flag. And it's a tiny, short reference anyway. We're allowed to use common sense here, and the "Supposedly" part is there for a reason - it's saying itself that the category is suspect. (Although sure, if it was left in as a reference for PD's version, it should be moved to a more appropriate spot or removed.) SnowFire (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m getting really tired of the same back and forth rigamarole here, and I’m especially annoyed very best wishes just went ahead and undid my complete rewrite of the page without informing me, acting as if this was some sort of act I did without consulting anyone (there were many many people asking for a rewrite on the AfD, and I provided one that I felt accurately reflected the sources).
I’m far too busy with work and life to bother debating this any longer, but I hope someone takes up the torch on giving this a proper write up or simply nuking it. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PD's version was an improvement over the previous version of the article and it's a shame it's been near-completely undone to revert the core of the article to the previous state despite no consensus being reached for the previous version of the article in the AfD discussion.
I've also notified MVBW that I believe their recent edits were made in violation of the recent topic ban. --PaulT2022 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I did NOT restore previous version, as one can see from the diff [15]. I only fixed a few remaining WP:OR issues on the page and made other improvements in the new version unilaterally created by Paragon Deku. You are welcome to suggest and justify any specific changes. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The core thrust of the article to claim that totalitarian architecture is a style, which was considered to be synthesis by multiple editors at the AfD and removed in the PD's rewrite, has been restored.
    I consider PD's version an improvement over both current state of the article and the version from 22 May. The 9 June - 13 June edits, taken overall, are not an improvement as they brought back the issues discussed at the AfD. Reverting them would be an improvement.
    Neither me, User:SnowFire or User:Paragon Deku expressed an agreement with your point of view on the OR issue brought up in this thread. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made 26 edits, none of which was a revert to old version [16]. Please say which of them you consider problematic and explain why. Or perhaps you would prefer to suggest specific changes in the current version? That would be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this page can be expanded by reusing materials fro other related pages, such as Stalinist architecture. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking more closely, nah, PD's version is fine. He wrote "often (though not always) in the context of alleged "approved styles" of architecture within totalitarian regime". Including the word "alleged" matches "Supposedly". I don't think he's misrepresenting the reference, for all that we should be using something better anyway. SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but the cited source does not say "it was used to describe broad trends between...". And what does it mean anyway? What "broad trends"? Can we just say what the cited source said, i.e.
Totalitarian architecture is "supposedly the officially approved architecture of dictatorships, over-centralized governments, or political groups intolerant of opposition, especially that of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Communist China, etc. As an international style, it often drew on simplified Neo-Classicism, and sculpture based on 19th century realism and Classicism for massive oversized State monuments."
A proper way to treat "supposedly" would be to say: The term "totalitarian architecture" was used to describe .... My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that was the first example of WP:OR (or at least poorly written text) introduced by PD right to the lead. As 2nd example, he included the following text:
The term "totalitarian architecture" was initially developed as a means of comparing the architecture of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to that of the Soviet Union.[1]
This is good RS, but where it tells that it "was initially developed as a means of comparing"? No, it says:
Обычно принято сравнивать сталинскую архитектуру с архитектурой Германии и Италии, где так же, как и в Советском Союзе, была мощная государственная идеология, хотя и с иной спецификой. В связи с этим в научной литературе появился термин «тоталитарная архитектура», которой присущи монументальные формы и идеологическая направленность [5, с. 21].
Great, let's include what this source actually say. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this text: Elizaveta Likhacheva, art historian and director of the Shchusev Museum of Architecture, noted that the concept of totalitarian architecture has become widespread in art criticism and journalism, but "not all serious researchers perceive it as a correct concept." [ref]. I checked it. Well, not exactly. She said that "totalitarian" in general and "Totalitarian architecture" is a widely used and legitimate terminology, but in her opinion, it belong to architecture described in terms of history/political science, rather than being a distinct single architectural style. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given no objections here to my suggestions above, I implemented these changes. My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors have actually made it very clear they object to pretty much every change you’ve been making. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Mzhelsky, Viktor (2019-08-28). "К Вопросу Об Изменениях В Стилистике Советской Архитектуры 1930-Х Годов" [Changes in Soviet Architectural Styles in the 1930s]. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Arkhitekturno-stroitel'nogo Universiteta. Journal of Construction and Architecture (in Russian). 21 (4): 125–137. doi:10.31675/1607-1859-2019-21-4-125-137. ISSN 2310-0044. S2CID 203300570.

What now?[edit]

After relentless defense at AfD (by editors who have made no effort to improve any of the massive, glaring issues with the article), and after my rewrite (which was completely nuked by wishes), this article is just as horribly filled with synthesis as it was a year ago. What is to be done now? Paragon Deku (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Totalitarian_architecture&oldid=1205736889"