Talk:Battle of Castle Itter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Allied victory?

In recognition of the involvement of French POWs and German anti-Nazis, is this more properly called an "Allied" victory, rather than an American one? I'm unsure, because the strange unique alliance that won the battle is difficult to describe in usual terms. Xoloz (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This subject would make an excellent theme for a movie

Strange that this episode has not yet been used as a movie theme, don't you think? Thanks to Wikipedia, at least some people are now aware of this historical rarity. Amclaussen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded.Kortoso (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

It's very likely Zvonimir, rather than "Zoonimar" Cuckovic. Google search (Zvonimir Cuckovic) seems to confirm it. I won't change it though, it would be best to double-check it in (other) sources first. GregorB (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, it's a typo. Thank you for spotting it. His name is Zvonimir Cuckovic.--Typing General (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

The article states

suicide of Eduard Weiter... ...left the facility two days prior to Weiter's escape

Did he escape or commit suicide? Or is "escape" a euphemism for "suicide"? Hamish59 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It was Wimmer that escaped, not Weiter. The mistake has been fixed.--Typing General (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, mate. Hamish59 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Great short article!

Reads wonderfully and of substantial interest. I hope it can be expanded further, but already a candidate for Good Article I'd imagine! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Werner Ostendorff

The Battle took place on May 5, 1945. The artice on Ostendorff states - "Werner Ostendorff died at a field hospital in Bad Aussee from gas gangrene on 1 May 1945, the same day Berlin fell to the Russians".

Besides, the Nazi SS forces engaged in the battle were only a part of the 17th Waffen-SS Panzer Grenadier Division. Surely their commander, whoever he was, was a more junior officer. Not the divisional commander.Catsmeat (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The claim is dubious and lacks a citation, so I've reverted the edits by User:Faunas.--Typing General (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

More Sources/References

This article needs more verifiable sources. As it has nearly all been taken from one book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.211.179 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Harding's extensive research is the only detailed English language source for the battle. Other sources are either primary sources, like the Hellcat News article written in 1945 for the 12th Armored Division, or contemporary newspaper articles reviewing/previewing Harding's book.--Typing General (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

number to tanks?

At one point it states that the Americans had two tanks, but everywhere else it says one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.236.124 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

One stayed to guard the bridge? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC).
Actually, the article is somewhat unclear about what happened to the four tanks. The article says, Lee had "four Sherman tanks of the 23rd Tank Battalion" at Kufstein, two of which he left there, so presumably he took the other two with him to that tenuous bridge. Now the article states that he left one tank there to guard the bridge; note that the list of units he took across the bridge does not list a tank, so I would assume he sent the other one back with the other reinforcements. The tank guarding the main entrance later on would then be the same tank that had previously guarded the bridge, ordered across it after they had secured positions at the castle. This seems to make sense: Presumably, both the party sent back to Kufstein and the advance party required armored support. Also, leaving a tank at the bridge temporarily to guard the rear seems reasonable, but leaving it there completely without support for a longer stretch of time seems risky. But of course that's just me interpreting the article.--95.157.26.136 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability

I have tagged this article for notability.

This article doesn't describe a battle but a minor skirmish that appears to have involved no more than a few dozen combatants. I imagine "The Skirmish of Castle Itter" doesn't sell as many books, however.

In any case there are several issues with notability. First the whole article is obviously a paraphrase of a single book by Stephen Harding. As someone else has pointed out this appears to be the only secondary source extent on the subject, and therefore clearly does not meet the "significant coverage" standard. It actually indicates the opposite - a lack of notability. There were many thousands of small engagements like this in the course of the Second World War and the vast majority do not justify stand alone article treatment. The fact that one writer happened to have written a book length treatment of this one does not in itself effect its notability. The article also fails almost all the tests for event notability relating to extent and depth of coverage, lasting effects and geographic scope. This event is in fact merely a historical footnote to the Second World War.

Harding's book appears to belong to a well established subset of works in the historiography of World War II - i.e. ones in which the writer takes a very obscure occurrence and sensationalizes its significance through book length treatment to push sales ("Germans and Americans fighting together!" "Maybe the only time in World War II! (Or maybe not, we really have no way of knowing!)" "French VIPs fight off former SS captors!" "Bizarre 'battle' occurs two days after Hitler's suicide!") The very obscurity (and hence lack of notability of the subject) is exactly its appeal. There isn't a whole lot left to be written about D Day or the Battle of Britain but minor incidents like this are likely to pique the jaded general reader's interest, and the lack of competing narratives and general obscurity of the subject leaves the field open for the author to make whatever sensational claims will move the most product. It's not likely that anyone is going to bother fact checking such a trivial incident, and even if they wanted to there's essentially nothing readily available on the subject.

I am making two suggestions for addressing these issues: first, this article should be changed to one about Stephen Harding's book rather than about the incident itself. Second, the treatment of the incident itself should be merged into the article on Castle Itter and the content explicitly attributed to Stephen Harding, since he is in fact the sole source. Also, the sensationalist epitath "The Battle of Castle Itter" should either be dropped or placed in quotation marks and explicitly attributed to Harding (I assume he coined it), as it is clearly not endorsed by accepted usage. Lexington50 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Lexington50, good suggestions. This "battle" is not notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. Notability for WP is defined by (reputable) external sources (and their use of language) and not us as individual WP editors. Whether a battle was in reality just a skirmish is irrelevant largely irrelevant to the question of notability and historical misnomers or names that may be inappropriate from certain perspective a common place in historic topics. It is NOT to correct or remove them, we simply compile and summarize how reputable sources use and describe them. It is also not our jobs to "correct" peculiarities of historical writings, which is focusing on minor events and potentially "sensationalizing" them.

An article about the book is completely different topic, which actually may have real notability challenges as you need to establish the notability on the book. And the content would be be different as aside from a short plot description, it has to deal with writing, publication, review, influence and legacy of the book.

I see no problem with having articles on minor historic events as long as there is sufficient reputable eternal sourcing on them. As far as the naming is concerned that should follow the terminology used in external sources, if no common name is used throughout eternal sources and hinges on a particular publication then it could be put in quotes and/or clearly attributed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As far as the notability of the event itself is concerned (rather than battle versus skirmish argument). Aside from Harding's book there has been international reporting on the story (probably triggered by his book though, the German magazine Der Spiegel carried an article for instance) and the peculiarities (US and German forces fighting together, lotsa celebrity involvement) of the case make it imho notable as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that whether or not this should properly be called a "battle" or "skirmish" or something else is entirely irrelevant to the issue of notability, the notability guidelines say that sources, plural, are generally required for notability. As far as I can see, secondary sources on this are limited to Harding (an article, and a book which was essentially an expansion of that article), and various news reports which take Harding as their source, which don't qualify as separate sources for the purposes of the GNG. (According to this article, there is also an account of the battle from the Saturday Evening Post in 1945, but I can't find a copy to check whether that's any good for satisfying notability). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC
I don't agree with that but that depends a bit how you read the guidelines. If an established historian writes a whole book on subject, then that is a clear indicator that the subject is notable. Now if he this publication would be the only and largely ignored by the general and academic media, I might agree with this one source (despite being a whole book is not enough) also if the sources weren't particularly reputable. However that is not the case we have various international reporting on the story, which imho is enough and fulfills GNG in my reading. The article you've linked might be also use as source (for the content) directly with or without the newspapers it references.
In addition beyond all arguing about formal notability, this is certainly a story of interest for readers and one readers might be interested to look up in reference work. In other words the content is noteworthy and given its scope it should be placed in article/page anyhow. If you place the content within another you probably end up createing a subpage or "outsourced" subarticle anyhow to deal with the scope.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Some further sources covering the story, not necessarily all of them well suited as sources for WP content, but providing notability:
--16:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This is why I don't waste more of my life editing Wikipedia.
ALL of the sources you cite are about Harding's book (or the German translation thereof), not about the incident itself. As Caeciliusinhorto has already pointed out these do NOT independently establish the incident's notability (although they arguably do tell to the book's notability).
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between Wikipedia policy and your personal opinion. Your personal opinion, e.g. "I see no problem with having articles on minor historic events as long as there is sufficient reputable eternal sourcing on them", or "If an established historian writes a whole book on subject, then that is a clear indicator that the subject is notable" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Wikipedia has an explicit policy on [Notability] precisely to avoid "notability is whatever I say it is" type self compliance, which is what you are trying to get away with. I have already gone to some trouble to indicate why I do not believe the article complies with this policy. If you disagree, can you please explain why you think this article does comply with the policy -as opposed complying with what you think the policy should be- and include specific references to the criteria specified therein. Lexington50 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all your claim that all those articles are just about the book is not quite true, true is merely that (almost) all of them use the book as their main source. Also note that "independent" does not necessarily mean wriiten completely unaware of each other, such a reading would be nonsensical in paticular with regard zo scholarly publication, which usually survey and use they already existing publications.
I'm not confusing the criteria with my personal opinion. However everybody has personal interpretation of the policy and there are reasons and instances where an all to strict formal and literal reading of a policy is contraproductive (that's why we have WP:IAR among others). Furthermore one needs to weigh sources in the given context. Let's assume for instance we have two newspaper article about some event A written completely independent of each other and a scholarly book on some event B. Then making a formal argument that A is notable (2 independent sources) while B is not (only 1 independent source) is imho nonsensical and a false reading of the policy. This approach essentially treats a newspaper article and a scholarly book as equivalent in terms of notability, which is false. Quality and scope of a source need to be considered as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe removing this article for lack of notability is a misapplication of that policy. I will agree that the article is poorly sourced, but that is largely due to people not having access to contemporary publications written on the topic. For instance, “We Liberated Who’s Who” "Saturday Evening Post", July 21, 1945 or "Freed: Daladier, Blum, Reynaud, Niemoller, Schuschnigg, Gamelin." NY Times, May 6, 1945 or any French publication. And those are just a couple of the major publications of that time whose articles are easily located if not read. Others seemed to comment on the overuse of the "Last Battle..." book as being proof that it is not notable. However, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."
Further, almost every aspect of "notability" policy's criteria is directed toward not allowing articles due to [Recentism]. This event occurred more than 70 years ago, was widely published internationally in major papers and magazines of the time (and of current times), and almost 70 years later was still a subject of major interest warranting both the publication of a book, and, thereafter, again subject to wide dissemination by major publications. As stated in notability policy, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." This was re-analyzed afterwards and not just in this book, but also by journalists writing on the subject matter of this article.
Regarding the provided quote, the freeing of TWO prime ministers of a contemporary world power, together with the many notable others, certainly had national impact in France and the events at Itter impacted their later trials. But, further, the international impact of the article is the fact that German resistance existed even within the ranks of the Wehrmacht and this is one of the few notable and documented instances where arms were actively taken up against the Nazi establishment by members of the Wehrmacht. Were there thousands of small battles during WWII that do not warrant inclusion? Of course, but this certainly is not one given the circumstances, the subject matter, and given the obvious continuing interest 70 years later. Keep in mind as well, when the NY Times decided to write an article, the names of the persons freed were in the headline (or the "Who's Who" as the Saturday Evening Post referred to them) and also keep in mind that it was not published because it was a slow news day. I doubt if there was a slow news day from in 1945, much less May 1945, since VE Day was after all 3 days later.
Finally, the book was and still is very popular, still on the NY Times Best Seller list today, and its popularity cannot be separated from the subject itself. This was not a "Citizen Soldiers" type book or general synopsis of WWII. It was a book about a specific event, this event, and saying this event has no significance or continuing interest (both criteria for notability) is like saying Unbroken was just a really good book and had nothing to do with interest in Louie Zamperini. Similarly, who under the age of 80 had ever heard of Louie Zamperini before Hillendrand's book? To be honest, I read Last Battle book and I'll say it's popularity is far more driven by the topic and researched facts than the author's writing skills. Then again, I've never had a book on the NY Times Best Seller list, so who am I to judge. BTW, a company recently announced they were making a movie on the subject matter of this article. Mdlawmba (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree and would suggest to remove the current tag after while unless currently split opinions change completely over the coming days.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, Der Ort des Terrors (2005; edited by Wolfgang Benz, Barbara Distel, Angelika Königseder), volume 2 (ISBN 978-3406529627) spends a couple of pages covering the history and nature of the prison, the flight of the SS, the occupation of the castle by US troops, and the evacuation of the prisoners to France on the 5th of May after the conclusion of combat. Volker Koop's In Hitlers Hand: die Sonder- und Ehrenhäftlinge der SS (2010) also spends a couple pages on the lead-up to and events of the battle, including Gangl's death fighting against the SS and on the 88 grenades SS troops threw at the castle while they fired on it, followed by the evacuation of the French prisoners to France in a several-day-long journey that started on 5 May. Our article is more detailed, but that is at least another two sources which cover the subject. (And per WP:GNG, sources are not required to be in English.) -sche (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. This discussion no longer seems to be ongoing, and personally I find the arguments for notability to be persuasive enough. There has been significant modern media coverage of this event, even if it was largely spurred by a single book (note that coverage of the event is not the same as coverage of the book). WP:N does not require sources to be contemporary to an event in order for them to make the event notable, and therefore this modern coverage is enough. I do worry about all data being drawn from a single source for WP:V reasons, but that's a separate conversation. If anyone believes this item does not meet WP:N, the right path forward is WP:AFD, rather than indefinitely leaving a tag on this page. Oren0 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Castle_Itter/Archive_1&oldid=1056238509"