![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I'd suggest that this page be moved to Berliner FC Dynamo - obviously keeping the redirect from the current name. The name BFC Dynamo Berlin is tautologous - the B stands for Berliner. ArtVandelay13 20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nadia, You've cut out a ton of information without providing any explanation or justification. Or put in stuff that is just plain wrong (i.e. Dynamo's ten titles are not a German record. They are an East German or DDR-Oberliga record and to characterize them as "German" is incorrect.). It was Dynamo that led the way in seeing the championships stars policy updated - why cut all that material out. Less isn't more - please don't whitewash the article. Wiggy! 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Nadia, please stop making inappropriate edits to this page.
German language stuff can be run through the language tools at Google for a translation for English speakers.
Nadia, It is inappropriate and goes against established Wikipedia policy to remove relevant references and repeatedly place spam links on a page. It's clear you are a Dynamo fan, but you can't keep erasing relevant parts of the club's history and useful reference material. Please stop and put some effort into managing your POV. Wiggy! 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Look Nadia, I'm sorry but formatting lists column-wise as you've done at Berliner FC Dynamo makes it real tough to add to items to a list and is just not as readable as a simple list. There's a place for the use of tables like that, but this isn't it. Have a look at how the English club pages are formatted by way of example. Simple rows, clear links, etc. A similar approach is used on other club pages. Column formatting just doesn't work for some header categories. I've reverted the page to using standard row formatting. Thanks. Wiggy! 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Nadia please stop making inappropriate edits. You've done some good things with the various tables you've added, but a number of your current edits are inappropriate:
Wiggy! 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Nadia, you're quite capable of making useful contibutions, so why don't you stop wasting my time and yours (and that of other editors) by posting material that is incorrect, unlicensed or POV. You added some decent stuff with the various tables you've put in place, put persist in making petty edits. Give it up and stick to the valuble stuff. It looks likes you're able to add good material but can't bring yourself to rise above this other nonsense. I think everyone would appreciate it if you would just play nice. Wiggy! 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Nadia, but it isn't clear what you are trying to say. Pepe doesn't own exclusive rights. The logo that is currently displayed is the one in use on the club website with the addition of a championship star. My own feeling is that a simple Dynamo logo should be displayed without the star, and the championship version with a star displayed elsewhere with a proper explanation of what it is. But, of course, you have a different view.
Now I have reverted your addition of the logo because the caption or explanation you have attached to it is written in poor English, it is unclear, and doesn't significantly add to the article. There is no direct connection between this logo and BFC's European Cup appearance - its just coincidental.
Wrestling over this stuff with you is getting tiresome and I really do not want to be fighting over this all the time. I'm simply interested in seeing a well-written, factual article in place. Maybe we make some peace. How about we display a basic logo (with no star) in the info box and display a championship logo (with a star and an explanation) further below? That represents an accurate up-to-date position.
And do me a favor by not adding unnecessary tags to articles I have edited. While the articles may need sourcing tagging something just because I edited it is counter-productive and is a waste of everyone's time. Go out there and be a good, productive editor. Wiggy! 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You know Kay, there is a very clear reference in the Vereinslexikon as to the history of the name of this team and it doesn't include Spielvereinigung Dynamo. While the club was part of the larger sports association it was never simply SV Dynamo. Do you plan to apply this approach to every single club that played under the SV banner? This is perfect example of the stupidly single-minded approach to editing that repeatedly gets you blocked. Get a life. Wiggy! 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
the article is full of ridiculous mistakes and utterly biased and even wrong info on the club. it reads like being written by someone who seriously dislikes bfc and therefore lacking any objectivity on the subject.
just a few examples:
re. nicknames:
bfc dynamo has no official nickname. fans of other teams sometimes refer to them as "stasi-club", "schiebermeister" or "bullenverein" but these are no nicks but derisive hints at bfc´s past. the club´s colours are weinrot (which would be translated as burgundy, or claret, certainly NOT wine red!) and white. yet "die weinrot-weißen" is not seen as a proper nick for the club (unlike liverpoool/the reds, or leeds/the whites). hohenschönhausen is the part of berlin where bfc´s ground is so I suppose you can rightly call them "hohenschönhausener" but that´s only an attribute (just like e.g. "hauptstadt-club", "ost-berliner" or "rekordmeister") and no real nickname. btw, the club promotes itself as "der etwas andere club" (the somewhat/slightly different club)
re. bfc´s history/the stasi:
quote: "…and would soon become infamous under the patronage of Erich Mielke, head of East Germany's Stasi (the secret police) for the various means used to manipulate the outcome of the team's games and ensure its dominance…." this sounds' like it was written by someone who has a massive chip on his/her shoulder re. bfc. there have been various books/studies on that manner in recent years and there sure were some very dodgy decisions by refs at bfc matches but so far no-one has managed to come up with facts that could actually proof that bfc games were manipulated., and in what way. the main reason for dynamo´s dominance in the late 70s/early 80s was their outstanding academy that produced stars like thom, rohde, ernst etc.. btw, erich mielke was head of the sportvereinigung dynamo which means he was actually (technically) also the boss of e.g. dynamo dresden (and countless other dynamo outfits) but of course his main “object of sympathy” was bfc (that is the club, not the real fanbase, as you can read about in: http://www.amazon.de/Stadionpartisanen-Fans-Hooligans-Wolfgang-Engler/dp/3355017442/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218245364&sr=8-1.
quote: ”...playing in the DDR-Oberliga BFC won ten consecutive titles from 1979 to 1988 assisted by crooked referees[2]", (though “crooked” in their case certainly doesn´t mean “bent/corrupt” as there was no money paid.) i repeat: albeit it is very likely that it happened in some way there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that bfc´s victories were assisted by the refs, let alone that the victories in some matches that appeared to be won through dodgy ref decisions were the reason for bfc winning the league. the link then leads us to a dw article that claims "...It was rumored at the time that the championships that led to these three stars appearing had much to do with East German Stasi head, Erich Mielke -- the club's mentor -- and his blatant yet tolerated manipulation of games.” now this is utterly pathetic as the autor a) first refers to something that, and i quote: ”was rumoured at that time” while b) suggesting – in the very same sentence!!! – a “blatant yet tolerated manipulation” of games by head of stasi erich mielke. well, mielke was a c**t of the highest order but he certainly did never ever manipulate a football match. he might have told refs to do so, but as i said before, this is yet to be proven. that aside, the whole sentence is nonsense as something is either a “rumour” or it is “blatant” (as in obvious, and therefore proven), but definitely not both.
Quote: “…unfair player transfers from other teams and assorted other unsportmanlike practices.” this must have been written by someone who has absolutely no clue about how sports in general, and football in particular, was organised in the former g.d.r.. all over the country there were so-called leistungszentren (centres of excellence) where young talent were gathered. in football those leistungszentren were the “clubs” (magdeburg, dresden, jena, lok, bfc etc.) and all the good young footballers in a particular region would be gathered at those. dresden e.g. got the good players from smaller clubs like stahl riesa or sachsenring zwickau (pilz!), magdeburg got east germany´s best goal-getter achim streich from hansa rostock (when they got relegated), bfc got players from the smaller dynamo outfits in the north and from e.g. the cottbus region. lok leipzig got players from chemie leipzig etc.. however, most of the players who were “delegated” to bfc went there as youngsters and then went through their academy which was the best in the country and the main reason for the club´s success in the late 70s/early 80s (thom, ernst, rohde etc.). of course the betriebsportgemeinschaften (bsg) like chemie leipzig or smaller clubs like union (who btw got a number of players from bfc over the years who were usually much better than the people that came through their own youth system) were disadvantaged but you can´t blame bfc (who certainly benefited more than any other club from the structure) for this nor any of the other bigger clubs as that wasn´t their decision.
quote: ”...the cheating was so blatant that it incurred the unofficially expressed displeasure of the country's ruling Politburo. Manipulation of the 1986 championship match between Dynamo and Lokomotive Leipzig which ended in a 1:1 draw that handed Dynamo its eighth title led to nationwide protests, but resulted only in sanctions against referee Bernd Stumpf.[3] what regards the „schandelfmeter“ i´d propose you read this article which shows the whole story as what it actually is - a myth: http://www.zeit.de/2000/33/Der_Schand-Elfmeter_von_Leipzig. The article even mentions a video that clearly shows that the penalty was actually justified. It´s much a more balanced and closer to the truth piece than the crap propaganda drivel you chose to link. (http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2005/0324/sport/0005/index.html)
on the talk site here this article is linked http://www.abseits-soccer.com/essays/berlin-derby.html which was quite obviously written by someone who a) completely and utterly dislikes bfc and b) sympathises with their fiercest rivals union berlin. imho it´s not very useful to use that sort of “source” to make a point (note to paul scraton: just imagine i was taken to a match at anfield road by manu fans, and my view of Liverpool fc was shaped by that of said red manc filth, then i´d be likely to refer to your lot – probably much to your dismay – as “dirty, lazy, scrounging and thieving scouse bastards”. i suppose you wouldn´t be too amused if i manifested that viewpoint in an article. especially not when, like in said article, claims are made that are not only untrue but in large parts libellous.) first we get the usual clichés about bfc fans being ”drunk, shaven-headed, neo-nazi (allegedly) thugs” and then the author goes on to mention an incident the night before the match where a club in berlin was raided by german special police forces and where, allegedly (quote from the article): “180 'known troublemakers' were kept behind bars for the duration of the match”. which is a) a blatant lie (I know, as I was one of those ´troublemakers´ that got nicked that night) and b) one of the biggest scandals the berlin plod were involved in in recent years (and there were quite a few), in fact it was a brutal ambush on innocent people who had played a bfc football fan tournament during the day and were just having a good time with their friends (including mates from Sweden and Scotland!) and girlfriends that night.
re. the logo:
afaik its not in posession of the hells angels any more. however, who currently owns the rights - and what that means for the club - is a bit of a mystery.
re. the stadiums:
in the 70´s and 80´s (except for the 86/87 season) bfc played all their matches - not just european cup games, but also league and east german cup games (except matches against union and cup finals, which were always played at the stadion der weltjugend) at the jahnsportpark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.86.210 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
After this, find some reliable sources, German or English, and start editing! It might be useful to open a user account, too, as IP address edits are not always considered very highly by user users. EA210269 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
well, as i am a new user (and actually the one that deleted all the bile earlier yesterday) i´m not (yet) fully familiar with how one edits an article and/or adds links/sources etc.. i´ll try to get into that.
while i´m at it (and because i forgot to point that out yesterday): bfc have no official "fanfreundschaften", not even with hertha and/or bochum. some bfc fans have friendly links with some fans of hertha (but there are also many bfc who can´t stand the "old lady", and vice versa) and bochum (and aberdeen, malmö, göteborg, leeds, even st.pauli...) but these are personal contacts/friendships of certain people/groups at bfc and those clubs are certainly not seen as "friends" or "allies" of bfc by the majority of the bfc fanbase. the usual point of view of bfc fans is "us against everybody". i remember a bfc scarf from a couple of years ago that read "bfc fans - hated an feared". it´s a siege mentality that bfc fans adopted over the years (quite similar to that of fans of e.g. leeds united). the general attitude is that bfc neither wants nor needs friends/allies. many bfc fans revel in the hatred of other clubs´ fans and use the bad boys image the club has to distinguish themselves from the "opposition" (just like fans of leeds united wear the "dirty leeds" tag with pride) but on a personal level it´s often quite different and much more relaxed (there are even bfc fans who are friends with fans from union, believe it or not). what regards the "enemies" you could say that nearly all fans of the old g.d.r. clubs detested bfc (for a plethora of reasons) but a) you wouldn´t call that a "rivalry" (im many cases it was completely one-sided) and b)this has changed quite a bit over recent years. these days fans of e.g. magdeburg (their firm and that of bfc have btw been on friendly terms for years), lok leipzig and dresden send fan teams to the annual bfc fan tournament (while other fans of said clubs continue to hate bfc). many bfc fans these days dislike tennis borussia for various reasons, but mainly because a) they´re a direct opponent in the league, b) because a former bfc president switched sides and joined tebe and c) because bfc fans as a whole have been constantly vilified as "nazi thugs" by certain quarters of tebe´s fan base (and also that of babelsberg.). turkiyemspor are not seen as rivals (esp. not now as they´re a league above bfc), they´re disliked by certain parts of the bfc following but not by the majority (who just don´t care), let alone all bfc fans. the only real rivalry bfc have these days is that with union. tebe (and babelsberg) are disliked, but generally not considered important enough to be real rivals of bfc. --Berlinwhite (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
some valuable points here, wiggy. of course the club had connections with the stasi and it would be moronic in the extreme to deny that fact (although the normal fans in their majority had nothing to do with it. the bfc hardcore were - as most football fans in former east germany - in their vast majority against the state, many of them cut out the "d" of the club crest to show their resentment against their "patron", some even did time and/or left the g.d.r. before the fall of the wall. you can read about all that in "stadionpartisanen" as well as "bfc-der meisterclub"). the question, though, is: did the stasi really force officials to referee in bfc´s favour, and if so, how did they do that? and, most importantly, is there serious proof for that? and furthermore: did these (alleged) decisions make a difference when it came to bfc winning the league? even the staunchest bfc haters admit that most of the time the bfc team was so much better than the opposition that there was absolutely no necessity for help from the refs (just read the article on the "schandelfmeter" i linked above, which was published in "die zeit", a quality newspaper that is anything but fond of the old g.d.r.)
bfc were part of the east german sports system, as were all other clubs including (alleged) anti-state clubs like union. all sports in the former g.d.r. was financed and regulated by the state (or regime, as you put it. of which i am certainly no apologist, i´m just trying to have a more balanced view on the subject) or some of its institutions/companies. bfc undoubtedly benefited more than any other football club from these structures but the club (officials, players, fans etc.) can not be hold responsible for those structures as they were clearly not of the club´s making. the paragraph about "unfair player transfers from other teams" is therefore utter nonsense. talented youngsters were sent to the "centres of excellence" of which sc dynamo berlin/bfc dynamo was one (strangely enough that argument is never heard when it comes to clubs like magdeburg, dresden, jena, lok leipzig etc. who also got the prospects from their respective regions). the vast majority of said players joined bfc in their teens and then excelled in the academy, and those who were "delegated" at an older (but still very young) age like e.g thomas doll (who came from then relegated hansa rostock) were certainly not forced to join bfc but wanted to play there as it improved their chances to win titles and to play internationally (with both bfc and the g.d.r. national team)
and it certainly isn´t helpful when, in order to illustrate bfc´s somewhat shady past, it is done by using factually wrong info (e.g. that about the disputed penalty at leipzig, which has since been proven absolutely justified and regular by leipzig-based!!! public tv station mdr), or linking stories like the one by paul scraton who is only repeating old clichés about both the club and its fanbase)
my advice would be to take the very well written/researched and much more objective/neutral german wiki-article on bfc as a blueprint for the english version, erase the obvious mistakes (nicknames, ownership of logo etc.) and change the general style of the article(which so far is defined by a clear resentment towards bfc dynamo). --Berlinwhite (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI: The official Logo: de:Datei:Logo BFC Dynamo e.V. 2009.png reached WP by OTRS. --ST ○ 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the section on predecessor sides is slightly confused, but I could be wrong. The section states that SG Dynamo Berlin was renamed SC Dynamo Berlin in 1954. I am not sure that was the case. I thought that SG Dynamo Berlin and SC Dynamo Berlin were to separate clubs, that SG Dyamamo Berlin was formed in 1952 and renamed SG Dynamo Berlin-Mitte when SC Dynamo Berlin appeared in 1954. I also thought that SG Dynamo-Berlin Mitte was later merged with the reserve team of SC Dynamo Berlin to form the SG Dynamo Hohenschönhausen, and that SG Dynamo Hohenschönhausen was later merged with the football section of SC Dynamo Berlin to form the BFC Dynamo. Does anyone know what is correct? Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that this is balanced:
"The Dynamo fans are well known to be in the large majority skinheads, with right-wing and far-right political views. Since the 1970s and '80s, they have been known to have the strongest hooligan element in the country."
"Large majority"? And what exactly does "fans" mean here? Well. I haven't done any research, and I know that also in my country, BFC Dynamo is rumored to be a "right wing-club" and notorious for having violent fans with far-right political views, but the above sentence is quite categorical. I think it needs to be checked. The only source provided is: "To My Kibice, Winter 2014 No.4(46) p.38-39". What is "To My Kibice", a Polish football supporter magazine? Is "To My Kibice" a reliable source? If I read the above sentence in a magazine, I would honestly suspect that I was reading a magazine that is fascinated by hooliganism and far-right politics in football. /EriFr (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The periods chosen for the history seem a bit arbitrary, is there some reason why said dates were chosen, and not say one general history article created? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@EriFr: I see that the History section in this article comes out tosomewhere north of 300kb (i.e. three entire articles on its own). If you incorporated these into their own separate articles, might it be possible to just summarize them here in a couple paragraphs and refer to the main articles for them? The article is insanely long, is the reason I ask. jp×g 09:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is so long that it is broken and will not display correctly. References and templates do not display correctly. I think the best thing would be to reduce the excessively long history section - there are multiple articles about the history and this article should only therefore have a very brief overview. DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I've boldly split the history section to History of Berliner FC Dynamo, and the Supporters and Rivalries sections to Supporters and rivals of Berliner FC Dynamo. This article is still bursting at the seems, but it at least functions correctly now.
I'm in the process of correcting the issues caused by the splits, first here, then the history article, and then finally I'll do the Supporters and Rivals article. Once that's done I'll get round to trying to fix the pre-existing no target and multi-target errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)