Talk:Schloss Fuschl

Owner sent to concentration camp?

In "Hitler in Hell", Martin van Creveld writes "After the Anschluss he [Ribbentrop] took over beautiful Schloss Fuschl, near Salzburg, by sending its owner to the Dachau concentration camp, where the man later died."

Does anyone know who that was? At present the article makes no reference to this or to any of the castle's history between the 16th century and 1938.

Cagliost, I saw something on this in the German-language article on the castle when I was rewriting here. It has "Als der rechtmäßige Eigentümer, Gustav Edler von Remiz, ein Freund von Ribbentrops Schwager Stefan-Karl Henkell, gegen die Enteignung protestierte, wurde er (auch wegen seiner aktiven Zugehörigkeit zur „Vaterländischen Front“) im Konzentrationslager Dachau interniert, wo er am 29. August 1939 verstarb." It's unreferenced like most of the rest of that page and I didn't look further into it. The source I read, Arthur Mitchell, was clear that use of the place was given to von Ribbentrop by Hitler, but perhaps that is not the only version of the story? It's certainly at variance with the source you cite. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Revisions continually being reverted

Twice now, on Sept 12, 2022 and Dec 27, 2022, I have updated this page with purely factual information, and twice now Justlettersandnumbers has entirely removed all of my updates. The first time, the user claimed my updates were poorly sourced, although I cited multiple sources. This time, I found even more sources, so the user instead claimed they were "Promotion." As anyone who views my version of the page in the page's "History" can see, I was very careful to only include historical factual information. There was nothing that was advocacy, opinion, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising, the criteria set out here for "Promotion." I also have no connection to the hotel. I do not work there and have never even visited there. It's true, some of the historical information this time was sourced from a booklet about the castle's history published by the hotel, but again, it was all simply historical, factual information, there was nothing suggesting any positive qualities about the business itself that would qualify as Promotion. I used that booklet simply because it offers the most detailed history of the castle available online, though many of the facts are also mentioned in the other articles I cited. I do not understand why Justlettersandnumbers feels the need to entirely remove all this factual historical information, or the factual information that the hotel has recently changed management companies, and the associated link to the new company's website for the hotel.Jamesluckard (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I should add that it appears that almost every historical fact I wrote is already present on the linked German Wikipedia page for the castle, and none of it even has citations there at all.Jamesluckard (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Jamesluckard, I don't understand your determination to promote the interests this (and apparently other) hotel companies in Wikipedia, which does not tolerate WP:PROMOTION of any kind. With this edit you changed the first words of our article from "Schloss Fuschl is a castle ... " to "Schloss Fuschl is a luxury hotel ... ". That is simply untrue – it's a castle; it may have a hotel operating in it (though apparently it doesn't, please see WP:CRYSTAL), but it is still a castle with centuries of history. Your grasp of that history seems to be even weaker than mine – based on publicity materials put out by a design company in Munich (not a WP:RS), you wrote that "The surrounding property had been the property of the Prince-Archbishopric for 700 years at that point [1461] ...", but according to our article on the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg the archbishops did not acquire princely status until 1213 (and indeed your source does not support the claim).

Just as an aside, when adding to an existing article it's good manners to follow the referencing system in use in that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I truly don't understand your continued use of the term "Promotion" to describe what I have written. The definition page for "Promotion" here at Wikipedia is very clear. It lists the criteria for something to be considered promotion - advocacy, opinion, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising. Nothing of what I wrote could be described as any of those. I have never done anything to promote the interests of any hotel company. To promote something, a person must have a stake in it. I don't work in the hotel industry or have any connection to any of these companies. I simply love old hotels and enjoy adding useful historical information on their pages here, like countless other contributors. Adding legitimate factual information about a historic site is not promotion. As for specifics: 1) If you truly object so much to the first sentence saying it is "a luxury hotel located in a historic castle," even though it's a true statement, we can also say it's "a historic castle, in which a hotel has been housed since 1947," or something like that. But that really is splitting hairs. 2) There is nothing requiring a "crystal ball" to know that it will remain a hotel. The Crystal Ball definition here that you linked to says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The hotel is simply closed for renovations, as has happened many times since it became a hotel. A new operator has already been chosen, and has been publicly announced, as has also happened multiple times in the hotel's history. The hotel will reopen next year, following the renovations. That is "almost certain to take place." 3) As for the claim that the castle had been the property of the Prince-Archbishopric for 700 years at that point, it was sourced directly from the booklet I cited, but I'm fine deleting that particular statement.Jamesluckard (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, almost everything in the existing article is actually unsourced, and has notes about that fact. The existing historical events in the article all appear to be drawn from the extensive German Wikipedia page for the castle, which seems pretty clearly to be drawn mostly from this same booklet, because it has most of the same facts. I don't see why you deleted all my additions to this page, but left all the unsourced statements in the existing article.Jamesluckard (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Piping in - I respect @Jamesluckard as a hotel savant and as a positive, well-informed contributor to these pages and other online platforms. I believe his additions to the Schloss Fuschl page are perfectly valid, especially as they are sourced to the best of his ability and are cross-referenced against the inevitably stronger German page. As for splitting hairs: yes, it’s a castle, but it’s currently operating as a hotel so I would consider it a hotel, the same way a skyscraper operating as a hotel is a hotel and not just a building. With the forthcoming renovations and announced conversion of the Schloss Fuschl to a Rosewood property in 2023, it will remain a hotel barring some unforetold circumstance, and I don’t see an issue with referring to it in its entirety as a hotel since that is, ultimately, what it currently is and will be. A well-written section on the property’s history can communicate the castle aspect and build on its storied ownership, but as it stands, I and many others know this place as a fabulous, historic hotel.

Wikipedia suffers too much from unsourced and anecdotal material, and as someone who has been picked at for constantly sourcing material, I think his contributions should remain active - particularly as they come from direct sources. Khabah (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion on my talk page; however, these comments are entirely my own opinions. From what I can tell, there is a fine distinction to be made between a detailed article and an overly promotional article. This is especially true of WP:HOTELS, where Jamesluckard is an active contributor. For hotel articles, it can sometimes be difficult to pick out the weeds from the chaff. I think it's a little unfair to say that Jamesluckard is determined "to promote the interests [of] this (and apparently other) hotel companies in Wikipedia" - the hotels wikiproject, by its very nature, is trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hotels.

In any case, looking at this version of the article, many of the newly added references seem to be press releases. These references may be suitable for WP:ABOUTSELF coverage, but I'd be more comfortable if there were secondary sources for the information as well. It seems that the castle has operated as a hotel for quite some time; however, the current version of this article barely indicates this. I agree with Khabah that the history could be fleshed out to talk more about the building's history as a castle. Still, I'd wait for the hotel to actually open before we refer to the castle as a hotel. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I'm very grateful that you chimed in with your thoughts. I think the discussion of whether to refer to the structure as a castle or a hotel in the opening sentence is not all that important, however. The much bigger issue for Justlettersandnumbers seems to be that some of the extensive historical information I added was sourced from a booklet published by the hotel, which I cited, and which can be viewed at the link in the citation. The facts listed in that book, about dates of construction and sale for the structure through the centuries, and then dates of sale and major events at the modern hotel business, are mostly backed up in a number of the articles I also cited, and they're also repeated in the German version of the page. They aren't promotion, in my mind, because they don't contain any value judgments about the quality or merit of the hotel as a business. They're just cold historical facts and names and dates. It seems a shame to lose all that valuable historical information. As for the more recent information, about changes in management and such, I did cite press releases for those, but I'd be happy to also find news coverage. It would most likely be local papers in the Salzburg or Munich area, in German. The most important thing, to me, is getting all that fascinating history back on the page. Thanks!Jamesluckard (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little confused about the claim of WP:PROMOTION, which seems to be unfounded. Someone who is writing about multiple hotel companies is most likely acting in a neutral capacity. From a practical standpoint, it makes little sense for a hotel company to associate with an editor that writes about multiple hotel companies, including (most likely) that hotel's competitors. That being said, I do see why using a hotel booklet as a source would be concerning. I'd try to find secondary sources for that information if at all possible. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I do agree, using a book produced by the hotel seems slightly less than ideal, but I think a few things factor in there: 1) pretty much everything in the booklet is repeated on the German Wikipedia page for the castle/hotel. That page has very few citations, so it's difficult to tell what its sources are, but they seem to agree with the booklet. 2) There are multiple articles at online travel magazines that line up with the dates and names in the booklet, but again these travel magazines aren't going to show links to sources. 3) It seems unlikely that the hotel business would create an elaborate fiction in a professionally published booklet on the castle's history. This is especially true because the booklet does not shy away from the castle's dark Nazi-era past, which is what one might expect of a corporate fiction. It isn't a promotional booklet in the traditional sense. It's all dry history. It just lists each date the structure and land changed hands, and when additions were built and renovations conducted. A promotional booklet would be full of gushingly positive adjectives, proclaiming the virtues of the hotel business's alleged standards of service, comfort, and quality. The booklet does nothing like that. It's far more likely that the hotel business would hire professional historians to research its history, since it's not famous enough for the Austrian government to do that. A quick Google search shows that Hermann Fuchsberger, the first credited author of the booklet, seems to be a serious local historian, with multiple published works on historic buildings and sites in the Salzburg area. https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nb2020008269/ A Google search also shows that this booklet is actually a condensed version of a longer published book, by the same authors, with photos visible here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30696140445 If I had simply copied all the text from the German version of the page and translated it into English, we would have basically the same things as what I wrote. It feels like this booklet is a legitimate source, because it's the best we will have, and the hotel would gain nothing by lying about any of the facts cited. Jamesluckard (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I should also add that I'm looking around, and I can find German-language sources for some of the facts from the booklet, some of them period publications. For example, I found a 1913 book that confirms that Fritz Steinbacher owned the castle at that point, https://books.google.com/books?id=loRFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=%22schloss+fuschl%22+%22fritz+steinbacher%22&source=bl&ots=Q8Nj-ASvkE&sig=ACfU3U18-rTDmlwmX13vhHR6h2cN6AQLNw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXnpGx9Z_8AhXRI0QIHaRIB1gQ6AF6BAgmEAM#v=onepage&q=%22schloss%20fuschl%22%20%22fritz%20steinbacher%22&f=false but only the booklet gives us the specific date he purchased it - 1910. The issue with very dated sources like this is that they can sometimes be of inconsistent accuracy. Modern historical works, done with research by historians, often have access to sources these older sources didn't. That's why I trust the booklet. But if I find German-language sources to back up most of the dates in the booklet, will that be enough to satisfy everyone? Jamesluckard (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I would like to call your attention to the new posts here. One is from a friend I asked to weigh in, but I specifically asked him to be totally honest, even if he felt I was wrong. The other comments are from a stranger I saw who frequently edits pages I also work on. I asked them both what they think of our disagreement, because nobody else has been commenting here and I'd like to get this resolved. I filed for a Dispute Resolution, but I was told that can't be done until I post this and post on your Talk page too, which I have done. I would be grateful if you would offer your thoughts. I hope we can settle this amicably. Thanks! Jamesluckard (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)