Talk:August Kubizek/Archive 1

Machtan's claim removed

I have removed the following for now since this article is a stub, Machtan's claim is wholly unsupported and its inclusion throws off the article's balance. If this where a substantially longer article, with more detail and context relating to Gustl's life, a rather spurious, book-selling allegation like this could be relegated to a rumours section or whatever but not in a stub. Wyss 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Lothar Machtan speculates that they may have had a romantic relationship, although there is a lack of evidence to support this theory.

Readers are reminded that no major biographer of Hitler has ever taken seriously an assertion along this line. Wyss 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also stored here for now, the following reference section which is wholly focused on this claim. Although a later reprint of AK's bio is included, I'm sure the earlier editions contained no such claim, etc:

References

Machtan, Lothar, "The Hidden Hitler" (Basic Books) 2002
Koch-Hillebrecht, Manfred, "Homo Hitler" 1999
Kubizek, August, "Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund" 2002

Unsupported content

Since the article was expanded by Karl Schilke, I would say it is now long enough to include the speculation that Kubizek and Hitler had a relationship. Karl and I have provided ample sources for this theory and I think it is particularly relevant considering the percentage of scholarship having to do with Kubizek that broaches this issue.

While it is still contentious, the amount written about this by credible authors raises it above the level of "gossip" in my opinion. And contrary to Wyss's contention, it is far from "unsupported."

~Frasor

First, please sign your posts with four tildes, thank you.

Nevertheless, your edits are wholly unsupported and dismissed by serious historians. They amount to "docutabloid" clutter and truth be told, are IMHO on the line of vandalism.

"Apprentice interior decorator"? In 1905 Linz, Austria? That's beyond fabrication and would be funny if only these edits weren't so damaging to WP's credibility. Wyss 16:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond fabrication?" - It is repeated twice in the Professor Lothan Mactan book and also in historian Brigitte Hamann's]] book. - Karl Schalike 18:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mixing up "support" with "proof." Is there absolute incontravertable proof that Kubizek was gay? No. But, there is some evidence, including the assertion by Kubizek himself that they shared a bed and that Hitler avoided the advances of female affection.

While that is not proof, it is support, making the claim that Machtan's assertions are "wholly unsupported" demonstrably false. Frasor

No, I'm not confusing the concepts of proof or support. There is zero, and I mean zero support or verifiable evidence that Gustl Kubizek was gay, never mind AH. It's all speculation and psychological inference based on air, likely for the purpose of selling books to the gullible. As for young men of modest financial means sharing beds (if they did- I've forgotten if I've ever read that or not) in 1900s Austrian and German rooming houses, this was unremarkable at the time and doesn't imply they were having sex. Moreover, the "interior decorator" thing is appallingly transparent fabrication. Before his military service AH was very attracted to women (and they to him) but he was terrified of them, again, unremarkable for Austria at the end of the Victorian/Edwardian age and not so unusual for guys in their 20s even today. Meanwhile AH got over that and his heterosexual interest in and relationships with women during the 1920s are widely documented. Wyss 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did truth and verifiability dictate whether or not speculation should be included? If a significant amount of scholarship on the issue focuses on that topic - regardless of what one thinks of the scholarship - then it should be mentioned (even if mentioned as controversial speculation). To do otherwise is arbitrary censorship. The entry for Loch Ness mentions the Loch Ness Monster, and I don't see how this is any different. MattR.R.

Last I heard, the notion of AH being gay was not a tourist attraction. Wyss 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but August Kubizek's alleged homosexual relationship with Hitler, whether true or not, is an attraction considering that that's practically all he's known for. Frasor

There is room in the article to report on the speculation, but it has to be clear that it is just that - speculation - and that it is not widely accepted by historians (which is a fact, like it or not). Karl has twice removed such a sentence.

As for Kubizek - no, he is not known for being Hitler's homosexual boyfriend. He is known for being Hitler's friend during his youth and for writing a book on that. He is known for providing anecdotes about Hitler at that time, including AH's love for Wagner ("I myself will once be the people's tribune!") and the first occurences of AH's disdain for parliament (the bad example being the Austrian Reichsrat). The homosexual allegation is far more recent and, in the end, totally unfounded. Str1977 14:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The interest in Kubizek nowadays revolves around Machtan's allegations far more than it does Kubizek's own book, from what I've seen and heard of him. In the first version of the stub that I wrote, I said, "It is somewhat speculated that the two carried out a homosexual relationship." I made it perfectly clear that this was mere speculation, but this sentence was removed and refered to as "smear" by Wyss, although I don't see how an unfounded allegation of someone being homosexual is any more of a "smear" than an unfounded allegation of someone being left-handed or claustrophobic.

I have added this sentence to the article: "It has been speculated by some historians, like Lothar Machtan, that Kubizek carried out a homosexual relationship with Hitler, but this claim is unanimously dismissed by mainstream scholarship." Hopefully this will be satisfactory. Frasor

Truth be told, I'm totally ok with mentioning it that way. Thanks so much for working with me to keep the article encyclopedic and credible for readers. Wyss 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"but this claim is unanimously dismissed by mainstream scholarship." This is not encyclopedic and is a personal opinion of trhe writer. Please foillow Wikipedia policy and insert the names and source of their quote where these "scholars" dismissed Professor Machtan's work.

"Speculated by some historians" is not encyclopedic when you have an accredited work by a highly qualified academic along with support from others of equal academic standing. Karl Schalike 18:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyss - You are in violation of your Wikipedia:probation (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone) that forbids you to edit any article content related to homosexuality. Karl Schalike 19:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder has already said that RfA probably needs to be fixed. Meanwhile your sources are, in scholarly terms, worthless. Wyss 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts

Karl Schalike is attempting to insert wholly unsupported "tabloid" type material into Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, August Kubizek and Rudolf Hess. This includes categorizing AH as homosexual. The sources he cites are not based on verifiable documentation and are not recognized by historians. In one or two cases I have reverted this material as straight vandalism - disinformation.

I am adhering to my scholastic principles and believe I am editing within WP written policy. Some admins will agree with me but others may not. A request on my talk page (User_talk:Wyss) from an admin will be sufficient to stop me from reverting this material as vandalism. I will respect any such request and if it is received, following WP policy I will then take this issue to the RfC level instead. Thanks. Wyss 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Machtan

I'm not going to get into a revert war over this but Machtan's assertions are so spurious and unsupported they shouldn't even appear in this article. The only reason they are is because an insufficient number of general interest editors are even aware of Kubizek's existence. We can keep this codswallop isolated in a separate section as a compromise. Readers are strongly cautioned that this editor is not asserting, "Hitler was not gay." This editor is asserting, "There is zero documented evidence to support assertions that Adolf Hitler was gay and the notion is rejected by all serious Hitler biographers and historians." Wyss 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call it anything you want, but a University of Bremen professor and qualified historian is a most credible source. And, whether or not you agree is immaterial. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth that says:

"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false"

The nature of relationships is a common reference throughout Wikipedia and is relevant in Braun's biography. Please feel free to insert any contradictory writings from relibable sources. Karl Schalike 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Karl...."Univ of Bremen Prof" and "qualified historian" do indeed carry weight. But thats about it. It carries some weight. "Most credible source" is misleading. Real sources rely on original, definitive, verifiable facts. Machtan does not present these; he speculates ad nauseum...let's face it, even PhD's indulge in conjecture and play fast & loose with history. Engr105th 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misinterpreted WP sourcing policy. Wyss 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says pretty clearly that even if the source is dubious, important claims (even if they're totally erroneous ones) should be included as long as the source is clear. According to the instruction regarding dubious sources:

"Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ..."

So even if the claim falls under the "docutabloid" category, it is still worthy of inclusion if it is an important claim. Frasor

It's not an important claim. Lots of cranks with degrees have written codswallop about AH for the purpose of making money on book sales. Wyss 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Hitler, sure, and since that's the case, Machtan's theories probably don't belong in the Hitler article, however, considering the amount of attention AK has gotten since this claim was made, (most of the interest in Kubizek nowadays is specifically because of this claim no matter how false it may be) I'd say it is extremely important and relevant to the Kubizek article. Frasor

As I said already, it isn't up to you to decide who is credible or who is not. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth that says: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false" Professors at the University of Bremen don't write "codswallop" and respected historians such as Dr. Brigitte Hamann don't endorse "codswallop. " Professor Machtan 's book The Hidden Hitler was given credibilty by the Washington Post, The Sunday Telegraph and other prominent publications. And, a peer review by the Library Journal says: - "Machtan is able to provide evidence for his assertions as well as a nuanced and readable study of Hitler's sexuality." – Evidence is not "codswallop. " Karl Schalike 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Karl Schalike was later hard banned as a sockpuppet of User:Ted Wilkes. Gwen Gale 15:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]