Talk:Baldur von Schirach

Sexuality

"According to Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler, page 229, von Schirach was bisexual."

Can we have some solid evidence, please. Even if true, is this of any value regarding BvS at all? John.St (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding sexual orientation category to this biography is a WP:CAT/R#Sexuality violation. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

The Source? Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler asserts that von Schirach was bisexual. One claim- is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such..

We need several reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour. User: Pgarret (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

The Hidden Hitler was widely derided.

In Oliver Rathkolb's book "Baldur von Schirach" (chapter 7), he mentions Schirach's affair with Katharina Dobbs. American psychiatrist Douglas Kelley interviewed Schirach many times at Nuremberg. "Kelley dismissed the rumours about Schirach’s alleged homosexuality; quite on the contrary, Schirach violently prevented homosexuality in the Hitler Youth while cautiously promoting heterosexual relations between HJ boys and BDM girls. Within the HJ, Schirach intensified the persecution of homosexuals via an internal observation apparatus from 1935 onwards." (Rathkolb chapter 13) cagliost (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Otto Strasser called Schirach "a young effeminate", and Walter Charles Langer in The Mind of Adolf Hitler wrote Schirach "is reputed to be a homosexual". But both sources are generally unreliable: Strasser was a "left-wing Nazi" who fled the regime, and Langer's book is a collection of rumours written in 1943. cagliost (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

From the current Jürgen Ohlsen article: "At the time, BBC broadcasts into Germany routinely spread scandalous stories about Nazi officials and other German public figures. One of these stories alleged that Ohlsen was a homosexual and the lover of Hitler Youth leader Baldur von Schirach. The rumor caught on in Germany and by at least the fall of 1938, the verb "quexen" (literally "to quex") had entered the Hitler Youth vocabulary as a euphemism for homosexual intercourse."

Henry Gerecke

Please examine my edit more carefully. I read the profile about the IMT chaplain, and that material is correct as cited. The other material, about BvS being confirmed, is marked with a "citation needed" tag. Unless you have information which shows that it is NOT TRUE, the CN tag is sufficient for the time being, and should be given some time for someone to come up woth a citation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you should examine my edit summaries more carefully! The claim Schirach moved away from the church is not true according to Rathkolb, who says he remained a Protestant. Source Miller says he was a Lutheran. The unsourced claim that Schirach was confirmed has been in the article for over two years, plenty of "time for someone to come up woth a citation." Anyway, unsourced information should not be added in the hope that someone "comes up with a citation" later. I don't need to provide sources that something is not true, you need to provide sources that it is true! WP:PROVEIT

The info about Schirach receiving communion from Gerecke is already in the article, with a better source. Furtherfore, you keep saying he was "waiting to be hanged", which is not true. Overall, your edit is careless. cagliost (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So sorry to have accidentally edited your article, I didn't realize that you had filed for WP:OWNERSHIP rights. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

An editor read a book about Baldur von Schirach, and has since added around 26K of material to this article, based on that one source, in doing so doubling the size of the article. These edits have skewed the article toward the views of the subject held by the author of that one book, which potentially violates WP:WEIGHT. I don;t believe that this is acceptable.

I'm not sure what the solution to the problem created by this editor is. One thing would be for other editors familiar with the subject to double check the material that has been added against other sources. Another, more radical approach, would be to revert back to the version of the article before the addition of the new material, and require the editor involved to double check every fact and opinion they wish to add against other sources before they can be added, citing multiple sources - it is, after all, that editor's actions which have created the current problem, and they should bear the bulk of the burden to fix it.

I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. This is a Vital level 5 biography article. Until recently, it was remarkably short, considering its importance. (It also contained a bunch of unsourced statements, some false, for which I have added citations and corrected where necessary.) In order to improve the article, I am reading what I believe is the only book-length biography of Schirach. There are no other similar sources we could rely on in the way you suggest, as far as I am aware. The source in question is impeccable, the idea that it would bias the article is unlikely. Requiring an additional citation for every fact is unnecessary, and requiring an additional citation for the occasional opinion of Professor Rathkolb's that I have included (and clearly signposted) is not possible. Reverting the article to its previous state would not be an improvement, it would be a serious regress. Do you have any specific criticisms of the source? Of course any editor or reader is welcome to check the citations against the source and cross-check against other sources. cagliost (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no policy against extensive use of a source, as far as I'm aware. Bias can be subtle, of course, but that means that vague accusations of bias can be made against any article. To make a persuasive accusation of bias, specific criticisms would be needed. WP:WEIGHT is not about excessive reliance on one source, it's about giving excessive prominence to viewpoints. A criticism relying on WP:WEIGHT would have to be specific about which viewpoints are being given undue weight. As an extreme example, to the extent that Rathkolb voices anti-Nazi viewpoints, I hardly think we should seek out pro-Nazi viewpoints, that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. cagliost (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Viktoria Benedikta

His sister Viktoria Benedikta died young, but it's not clear exactly when. Marjorie Mary Butler Harrison (1956) says born 1902, died 1902. Miller & Schulz (2021) say "(born 16.06.1899 in Hannover, died 15.04.1901 in Berlin [diphtheria])". cagliost (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Rosalind's religion

Rathkolb chapter 10 says Rosalind von Schirach left the church: "Schirach, who unlike his father and sister had consciously remained a Protestant and had not left the Church". But in chapter 14 he says she "never left the Evangelical Church." cagliost (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Article issues

This "Start-class" article could see immediate improvements that could result in elevation to C-class and beyond. Other than normal editing improvement there are some obvious issues.

• While not tagged there is a lot of unsourced content. Several paragraphs are left dangling with no sourcing. "Schirach was notoriously anxious about air raids." and the fact of being notorious means there should be sourcing.
• The "External links" section is bloated. 12 links are not necessary and it becomes a dumping ground for links that might be integrated into the article or that are unnecessary. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have expanded the article significantly. @Otr500:, you may wish to re-assess it. cagliost (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baldur von Schirach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):
   b (inline citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):
   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Cagliost, I see there are some citation needed tags on this article. Can you please address these? Having several outstanding maintenance tags is typically grounds for a quickfail, but I see that they were added after you nominated the article and would rather you had the opportunity to clear them up first. -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for looking at this. cagliost (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cagliost yikes, did not intend to leave this for a week. Please feel free to ping me if I appear to disappear! I'm looking at it now. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cagliost Alright, I've done a top-level review, with signatures at the end of each point for your convenience in replying. If you don't intend to ask any further questions, please let me know so I can close the review. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks once again. Please close the review, maybe I'll look at improving the article in the future. cagliost (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with it! -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS/style

1. Can the list of books be better explained? Even just full citation info in a cite book template would probably do. It's not clear at a glance why all of these are here. It may need to be retitled "publications"? -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Prose

1. Otto Strasser dismissively described Schirach as "a young effeminate". -- this doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. What's going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
2. "deep and raw, resonant like a cello." What's this from? A diary entry? The poem? -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
3. In October 1924, Hitler again visited Weimar, and visited the home of Schirach's father. -- no apparent relevance? -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Paragraph beginning Schirach was skilled at bureaucratic power struggles: these events aren't obviously linked. I assume this is a summary of ch5 of the source, but since readers of this article aren't readers of that book, we either need more to go on or less (ie, remove the less-relevant stuff). -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Paragraph beginning On 31 March 1932, Schirach married Henriette Hoffmann.: we already got some of this information in Early Life. In general I think a straight chronological order is not the right way to write biography articles, but in this case we have four entire paragraphs in this section, which appears to be chronological, before picking up at a time point already covered in a previous section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
6. Under Schirach, the Hitler Youth stewarded NSDAP events, and 21 members died in 1932. -- this definitely needs more context. It doesn't need to be extensive, but there's no indication before this that Schirach was involved in anything more dangerous than a couple of duels, and now we have 21 dead. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
7. Ok, in general this "Reich youth leader" section really needs a reorganization. Right now it appears to be chronological, but it's much too long for readers to clearly understand what's going on here. So far, I think the most useful paragraph is the one that begins As leader of the Hitler Youth, - I think it would be much better to give a chronological biography that hits the main points and orients the reader, then having other sections in the biography that go into more detail on, for example, his leadership of the Hitler Youth and his involvement in propaganda. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

   His opinions on art etc would be another good one. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

8. There are also a lot of paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long; try to avoid these. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
9. Paragraph beginning An incident at the Berghof on 24 June 1943: there are several different accounts of this conversation. It would be better to use summary style than to quote one of them. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
10. "Deportation of the Jews": better to reduce the quotations in here, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
11. Paragraph beginning On 16 August 1943: unclear if this is his recollection or based on some other evidence. At any rate this is the kind of thing that is probably better contextualized in the section on his trial. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
12. "Later life" section: needs consolidation and summarization. Also, it's not clear that all of this is relevant, eg the anecdote about the ring. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Since I think this needs a fundamental reorganization to bring it to GA standard, I'm going to fail this review. I'll leave it open for a bit to give you a chance to ask any questions. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.