Clarification requested: Two rejected appeals for historically significant graves in Bremen, Germany
Hello Wayfarer team and community,
I would like to request clarification regarding the official eligibility exception for gravestones belonging to historical figures or significant community figures.
I have submitted several historically significant gravesites at Riensberger Friedhof, a publicly accessible historic cemetery in Bremen, Germany. Some have been accepted, while others have repeatedly been rejected as sensitive locations.
Two cases are particularly difficult for me to understand because both nominations were rejected by community reviewers and their subsequent appeals were also rejected by the Wayfarer team, despite providing evidence of the historical importance of the individuals buried there.
The official criteria clarification states that gravestones of historical figures or significant community figures can be eligible when evidence of their historical importance is provided:
I fully understand that cemeteries should generally be avoided out of respect. However, I would like to understand how the stated exception is applied in practice.
Case 1: Grabmal Bürgermeister Carl Georg Barkhausen
Location: Riensberger Friedhof, Bremen, Germany
Appeal rejected: October 5, 2026
Community rejection reason: Sensitive location
Carl Georg Barkhausen (1848–1917) was a prominent Bremen senator and served multiple terms as mayor and President of the Senate. He played an important role in the development of Bremen’s and Bremerhaven’s ports and maritime infrastructure.
His historical significance is documented in the Neue Deutsche Biographie, a scholarly German biographical reference work:
The gravesite is directly accessible from a public cemetery path, as shown in the supporting photo.
In my appeal, I specifically explained his historical significance and referred to the exception for historically important graves. Nevertheless, the appeal was rejected with a generic explanation stating that cemeteries are ineligible locations.
Case 2: Grabstätte Arno Kunath – Pionier des Frauenturnens
Location: Riensberger Friedhof, Bremen, Germany
Appeal rejected: October 7, 2026
Community rejection reasons: Sensitive location; adult-oriented location or services
Arno Theodor Kunath (1864–1936) was an influential gymnastics educator and a pioneer of women’s participation in organized sports.
In 1892, he helped introduce women’s gymnastics at the Allgemeiner Bremer Turnverein, now Bremen 1860, which describes this as a pioneering development in Bremen and northern Germany. A street in Bremen was also named after him.
His contributions are documented by the sports club Bremen 1860:
The historic family gravesite still exists and includes a permanent QR-code information marker linking visitors to Kunath’s biography. His original memorial slab is now displayed at Bremen 1860, while the burial plot remains at the cemetery.
The location is accessible from a public cemetery path, as shown in the supporting photo.
My appeal explicitly referred to the historical exception and provided supporting sources. It also pointed out that the rejection reason concerning adult-oriented businesses or services does not appear applicable to a historic gravesite.
Nevertheless, the appeal was rejected with another generic reference to the rejection criteria.
Why I am requesting clarification
Other historic graves at the same cemetery, including those of Hermann Henrich Meier, Arthur Fitger and Emil Finke, have been accepted as Wayspots.
I understand that previously accepted Wayspots do not automatically establish eligibility for new nominations.
However, both examples above concern independently documented historical figures, and the appeal responses did not explain why their gravesites were considered ineligible despite the explicit exception.
Both nominations were subsequently resubmitted with a direct reference to the official historical-gravestone exception in their supporting information. Both were again rejected for being located in a sensitive area.
I would therefore appreciate clarification on the following questions:
-
What level of historical significance and supporting evidence is required for a gravesite to qualify under this exception?
-
Were the historical circumstances of these two nominations considered during their appeals, or was their location within a cemetery the determining factor?
-
Is there an additional eligibility requirement that these particular gravesites fail to meet?
I am not suggesting that every old or artistically designed grave should be eligible, nor am I requesting automatic acceptance of these nominations.
I would simply appreciate a more specific explanation of how the published criteria apply to these two cases. This would also help me and other contributors prepare better nominations and avoid repeatedly submitting ineligible locations.
I have attached the original nomination photographs, supporting photographs, nomination details and screenshots of both rejected appeals.
Thank you for taking the time to review these examples and clarify the criteria.
