Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch/1

Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept The main reason to delist was the broad criteria and these appeared valid. The page move has fixed that issue enough to satisfy the GA criteria. The list of issues provided by Smerus include reasons not covered by the criteria such as notability, stabilty which is not a good reason to delist any article and others relating to the previous title. At its current title it is of a sufficient standard to qualify as a GA. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a community re-assessment of this GA. The recent AfD revealed that this article does not cover most of the subject's life and is in fact focused on Hitler's infatuation with her. I posit that this article is not Broad in its coverage as required. Because I voted delete in that AfD I imagine my objectivity would be questioned so I'll leave it to the disinterested community. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good article. It is a highly problematic article, based almost entirely on the late-life memoir of a childhood associate of Hitler with all the usual difficulty of the unreliability of childhood memory compounded by the complexity of a Hitler associate writing in a post-war world that disapproved of Hitler and Nazism. Almost all of the other sources are the work of writers basing their assessments on that unreliable memoir. As far as I can tell, no evidence that a relationship between Rabatsch exists, and even the memoir claims only that Hitler admired the girl form afar without ever speaking to her. I voted to redirect to the article on the memoirist at the AFD, to at least put this mountain of footnoted speculation in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no particular reason to reassess the article. It is indeed mainly about the young Hitler's infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch and scholarly opinions about the infatuation rather than about Stefanie herself, for whom biographical details are scanty. It is broad in its coverage of the infatuation, reflecting what a wide variety of sources have said without going into unnecessary detail. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but that would be silly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails significantly on a number of issues as regards the GA criteria.

It is not well-written. Clumsy , repetitive, including in the texts long lists of people who may have commented on the story without adding anything to our knowledge of the subject. It does not make absolutely clear that not a single aspect of the story has any supporting evidence apart from the unreliable memoirs of a third party written many years after the alleged events concerned. And more specifically, the article is entitled 'Stefanie Rabatsch' but contains startlingly little information about her which is reliably sourced. In fact on strict criteria, the subject of the article fails WP:NOTABLE.

Verifiability - the whole article is structured around a story (by Kubizek) which no one has ever been able to verify except by reference to Kubizek himself. Rabatsch is on record as saying that she had no knowledge of Hitler's supposed infatuation with her. Hitler is no evidenced as ever having mentioned Rabatsch (except by Kubizek). It seems agreed that Hitler and Rabatsch never even exchanged a single word.

Broad in its coverage - it is not. it is entirely concerned with one aspect of the subject's life, for which there is no objective evidence.

Neutral. No. By simply listing lots of people (some of whom of doubtful significance as reliable commentators) who advance Kubizek's story, it implies that it has some basis.

Stable - it has not been stable over the past few weeks as editors (including Aymatth2 and, I admit myself), seek to add or remove material which they believe to be appropriate or inappropriate. In any event it is now substantially different from its status when it was originally awarded GA.

Images. The images illustrating the article do not have appopriate copyright status and/or fair use rationales.

Therefore comprehensive fail as regards GA standards, and the article should be delisted as a GA. Smerus (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly not a comprehensive biography of Stefanie Rabatsch. Relatively little is known about her, and she did nothing of any particular significance. The article is about Kubizek's story of Hitler's infatuation and the interpretations of that story by historians. It makes it very clear that the only basis for the story is Kubizek, writing long after the event, and that some historians are skeptical about its accuracy or its relevance. The article does a good job of presenting the scanty biographical information on Stefanie, presenting a summary of Kubizek's story, and presenting a neutral sample of the diverse views of historians. Again, the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but a change of title should not change the quality assessment. The present short title, "Stefanie Rabatsch", is the most natural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree (as seems to be the case) that it is not a bio, then I would suggest that the material in the aeticle might have a place in an article such as Fantasies given circulation by August Kubizek. But in any case your concession indicates that it cannot qualify as a GA. Smerus (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article presents a notable subject, the alleged infatuation, which has been discussed by many reputable historians. It gives an excellent overview of the subject and the views of the many historians who have written about it. Yes, the biographical material on the supposed target is slim. Yes, Kubizek's story has been questioned. It does make the young Hitler seem a bit ridiculous. None of this means it is impossible to write a good article about the subject. "Flat Earth" could be made into a good article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My main issue with this article is that it is not actually a WP:BIO. The overwhelming majority of the content is about: *Scholarly reactions and *Kubizek's Hitler book and *not about the stated subject of the article. Also, the images are problematic - they are both sourced from the "1973 Austro-German television documentary called, "Ein junger Mann aus dem Innviertel, Der junge Adolf Hitler"." A couple of issues: *neither image is a verified/confirmed photo of the woman and *both images were contained in a media-production from 1973 so there could possibly be a copyright problem (since the photos weren't published in any sense until 1973). Shearonink (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: It is indeed not a bio, but I cannot think of a good alternative title. I think WP:PRECISE is the guideline. Any suggestions? As for the pictures, the first one is fair use, since the subject is no longer living, but perhaps the second should be removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least the article should be given a different title, something along the lines of "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stephanie Rabatsch" - that is as to the point as we could probably get.

This article is not actually about the woman, it's about matters having nothing to do with her actual life, it's about theories based on a recollection about an asserted teenage infatuation that wasn't referenced in public form until Kubizek mentioned it vaguely in his 1938 Nazi propaganda booklet Reminiscences...some 30 years after the alleged facts, that Hitler loved some girl named Stefanie, supposedly writing her many love poems that were never sent.

Re: the images - So far as I know there is no stated reliable source verification that either photo is of Rabatsch. Shearonink (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Hitler and Stephanie Rabatsch"? That seems precise enough to identify the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The title does not have to be a summary. If ZDF and ORF say the picture is of Rabatsch, that is surely as reliable as it gets. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken and mis-read the parameters for the File - you are correct. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, Shearonink, I'm moving the article to "Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch", since "Stephanie" is not how her name is spelled in the article. This will, I expect, heal the break with this reassessment page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I agree in principle with your move, but to conform to WP standards the article should be entitled Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch (see here for examples of other articles involving Adolf Hitler) - will you move it again, or shall I? In fact I wonder now whther it would not be better to consider a merge of this article with Sexuality of Adolf Hitler - as the content of the present article 'Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch' is actually very slight, and is only in fact of any interest in the consext of the sexuality article. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, my move was only made to correct the spelling of "Stefanie", which was rendered incorrect in Aymatth2's move. I've had nothing to do with the article myself beyond that. If you feel that a different title better meets Wikipedia guidelines, I don't see any reason not to move it to that name, though let us know here so I can again do the necessary repairs to keep this page connected with the article talk page. If you want to open a merge discussion, that's also fine with me; among other things, if the consensus turns out to be merge, then this reassessment becomes moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2:, @Shearonink:, is my proposed retitling OK with you? And do you by the way have any feelings about my suggested merge? Best, Smerus (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus:. Titles should be precise enough to identify article scope, but no more precise. Adding "Adolf" seems over-precise. Were other Hitlers involved with Stefanie Rabatsch? But I would not strongly object. I would oppose a merge proposal. The supposed infatuation is mentioned the article on Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, as are the other women he was linked with. Merging in all the material on these women would make the Sexuality article very unbalanced. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia for an article devoted to this mildly ridiculous aspect of Hitler's adolescence. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is for the same reason that the article Adolf Hitler is not titled simply 'Hitler', although we all known who that would refer to. As you imply, the subject of this article is really Hitler (and people's theories and/or fantasies about him), rather than Rabatsch.--Smerus (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a lot of experience with Good and Featured articles. In my opinion this article looks sufficient and has acceptable coverage for GA. The Scholarly reactions section demonstrates notability, making it unfeasible to merge into Sexuality of Hitler article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]