Talk:August Kubizek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Cleanup
It's seems to me that there is less said about Kubizek's life in this article. Can we discuss the homosexual idea on some other article? I am sure it can be mentioned briefly here, but I am interested in knowing where kubizek lived after the war, where he died, did he have children, how is Kubizek viewed in Gemany. A link concerning a potential homosexual affair between HItler and Kubizek should be created, and then discuss it all you want about that topic, there. But that's just my opinion. Skibofilms 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Unhelpfully worded post by anon rm'd but can be read here.
-
- I certainly concur that this article should be about AK, not AH's alleged homosexuality. There is simply no proof of a sexual relationship between the two, and any "evidence" is quite spurious and speculative.
- Far as Machtan's book, it does not matter that he's a professor. The concensus of what I've read is that that particular book is pure speculation and is weak scholarship, based on a lot of loose interpretation of letters and documents, and ignoring more likely conclusions.
I'd steer clear of Machtan in this article about AK.... just my opinion... Engr105th 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly concur that this article should be about AK, not AH's alleged homosexuality. There is simply no proof of a sexual relationship between the two, and any "evidence" is quite spurious and speculative.
I've rm'd the Machtan material as per this consensus along with WP:RELIABLE and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale 03:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thorough cleanup, org and rewrite. Gwen Gale 14:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The Machtan claims appear spurious, perhaps intended only to generate book sales, are not supported by most historians and have been removed by consensus. If an editor later wishes to include these assertions, I would first strongly suggest asking for comment here from experienced editors and second, if a new consensus subsequently supports inclusion, these isolated claims could be more helpfully described in a separate section called "Machtan claims." Best to all. Gwen Gale 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Machtan
Regardless of the quality of Machtan's scholarship, the amount of interest in Kubizek that has been raised by Machtan's speculations makes it worth mentioning. There's no more reason to delete acknowledgement of Machtan from this article than there is to delete any mention of Clifford Irving from the Howard Hughes article. Frasor 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Irving's forgery is not a meaningful comparison at all. Unsupported, spurious claims about famous historical figures are common and not notable. Meanwhile, please don't remove comments from talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- In this case the spurious claim makes up a significant portion of the scholarship about this subject, and is therefore worth mentioning. Should we remove all references of the Loch Ness Monster from the Loch Ness article too? I added the reference in a way that complies to your recommendations.
-
- The article's content is not at all spurious. AK's life is thoroughly documented. Comparisons with a widely circulated, tourist-drawing pop myth like the loch ness monster are not meaningful. Gwen Gale 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was refering to Machtan's claims being spurious, not the article, and the comparison with Loch Ness is proportionate. The amount of interest in Kubizek that has been generated by these claims warrants mention. Machtan's book is far more "widely circulated" than Kubizek's or any other book that gives Kubizek as much focus, if that's your standard of significance.Frasor 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's not my standard, it's WP:WEIGHT along with WP:RS. I should add, not including the unsigned and unhelpfully worded post, three editors on this page have expressed a strong opinion that this material does not belong in the article and I see no consensus for including it. Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I was refering to Machtan's claims being spurious, not the article, and the comparison with Loch Ness is proportionate. The amount of interest in Kubizek that has been generated by these claims warrants mention. Machtan's book is far more "widely circulated" than Kubizek's or any other book that gives Kubizek as much focus, if that's your standard of significance.Frasor 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article's content is not at all spurious. AK's life is thoroughly documented. Comparisons with a widely circulated, tourist-drawing pop myth like the loch ness monster are not meaningful. Gwen Gale 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- In this case the spurious claim makes up a significant portion of the scholarship about this subject, and is therefore worth mentioning. Should we remove all references of the Loch Ness Monster from the Loch Ness article too? I added the reference in a way that complies to your recommendations.
- Irving's forgery is not a meaningful comparison at all. Unsupported, spurious claims about famous historical figures are common and not notable. Meanwhile, please don't remove comments from talk pages, thanks. Gwen Gale 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
Also, how are racial slurs in talk pages to be dealt with exactly?Frasor 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've rm'd the slurs, thanks for mentioning them. Gwen Gale 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A separate article about Machtan, his claims and published reactions to them would be ok IMHO. Such an article could be linked to this article in a see also section. Gwen Gale 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
