![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
No. Especially the eastern part of Austria has always been an ethnic melting pot between German and non German speaking peoples. Austrians are, therefore, ethnic Austrians. Culturally speaking, they are to a certain extent German, as they share their language and some cultural heritage with the other German speaking nations. Nevertheless, the notion of Austrians being Germans of some sort is largely frowned upon in Austria. Also, this concept of Austrians being ethnic Germans probably doesn't date back much further than 150 years ago when ethnic nationalism became a significant movement across Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.115.61 ( talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Austrians has recently been changed significantly. Some editors changed it in that way that Austrians are now regarded as ethnic Germans (see the infobox in the article). The CIA says that Austrians are ethnic Austrians, the state departement saiys the are Germans... i don´t think that they should be regarded as Germans, this is seen offensife in Austria and scientific studies contradict it. See this: [1]. Neither anyone changed this edits, nor were they discussed. -- 193.170.52.132 ( talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ethno-Linguistic Map shown in the article says clealy "GERMANS", the same as any map from 1919 or later. So it is evident, Encyclopedias consider German speaking Austrians to be ethnic Germans.-- 83.35.181.133 ( talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a good term would be German-Austrians but that only makes sense in German! Deutsch-Oesterreicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.3.174 ( talk) 12:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
My intention was never to use a forbidden non-P.C. term that smacks of the far right, if that is the case today. However, the fact remains German-speaking Austrians makeup the ethno-linguistic majority in today's Republic and there should be term to distinguish them from the minorities: Hungarian-Austrians, Slovene-Austrians, Croatian-Austrians and Austrians of Turkish and Balkan heritage! I'm curious what the case is in Germany. Perhaps then you are either just Austrian or a hyphenated non-German speaking Austrian.
Until the end of the First Republic, it was clear that Austrians of German mother tongue are ethnic Germans. The Swiss of German language are called German Swiss until today, so it would be logically, that Austrians of German language are German Austrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 ( talk) 13:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We speak German and have always been part of the German culture/nation. Actually Vienna was the center for centuries... So we are Germans and Austrians, just like the Bavarians or other subgroups, who are Bavarians and Germans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.244.215 ( talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Its very simple, there are two Germans. German language and German nationality, If a swiss or an austrian says he speaks german or he is german swiss, than he or she means that she is part of the german speaking swiss and not german in a ethnical way. And most swiss speak german and french anyway. Swiss also calls itself Helvetia Conunctum which was the celtic tribe who settled there.... anyway there are also two kinds of persons in Austria the "pro-German people" and the "Anti-German people", those always existed in Austria, the pro German became the Nazis and are today the far right people.... u can read in austrian literatur about this issue... there are various authors from various time frames who write about this.......BTW the German Wiki isnt as good as the english.. The English is much better.. :)
this is not my personal opnion, my personal opinion is there is nothing like n ethnie anyway and i would erase it from the articel... there might be nations, culture and all that stuff people identify themselves with but ethnie doesnt exist.. just my opnion... cheers from vienna — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.190.236.76 (
talk)
14:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an "Austrian identity" section like the page of Austrian identity on the de.wikipedia?
Austrians are ethnic Germans but don't consider themselves as Germans since 1945, I think there should be a section about this to make it more clear, there is on the Austrian page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.116.160 ( talk) 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I am Austrian and I feel like a German. Anyone who knows history knows why this is so. After World War II, they have tried to convince us that we Austrians were not Germans, it has in ignorant unfortunately led to a split! Correctly it must glad that we are a German folk with his own government. Do like it a GDR and FRG has given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.37.161 ( talk) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ethnic groups (81.1% Austrians, 2.7% Germans, 2.2% Turks, 8.9% other / unspecified) only sum up to 94.9%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:52CC:8000:0:0:91F ( talk) 13:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be very appropriate to remove the "(Germans)" after "Austrians" in the infobox, since 1. native ethical groups like the Carinthian Slovenes and Burgenland Croats do not historically qualify as Germans, but are not seen as a different ethnicity by the vast majority of Austrians, except for right-wing extremist and 2. the vast majority of Austrians do not see themselves as Germans, but as something different. Doing so is a very right-wing extremist thing, and it looks like this article fell victim to such an editor. RudolftheFree ( talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Although it is mentioned in about ten different wikipedia pages, none of them has a clear explanation of when the "second" Austrian republic was established ? 1945 ? 1955 ? Some point in between. All of the existing descriptions skip from the 1945 occupation to the 1955 treaty with no details in between. Eregli bob ( talk) 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The is little to no mention of the South Tyrol Question. While it has been "solved" and the case is closed officially at least according to both the Austrian and Italian governments it has been a series issue for most of the 20th Century. Austria still sees itself as the protector of the cultural rights of South Tyrolean German-speakers. There should be much more said about this and the successful solution that has been found as model for trans-national and inter ethnic cooperation.
The wording makes no sense unless it is what Hitler said and it should be then in "". Austria was technically the inheritor state of the Holy Roman Empire so Germany was really rejoining Austria! Furthermore Austria was never part of the modern German nation-state. This sentence is flat out wrong! there was no reunification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.83.227 ( talk) 04:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The term reunification was actually one used in the third Reich in the propaganda to make it sound nicer for what they actually were doing (it was like an invasion without fighting, although a lot of Austrians also welcomed the Hitler regime, I am not going to deny that...). In German the term therefore makes some sense. 129.132.152.46 ( talk) 14:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Austria was not the inheritor state of the Roman Empire of German Nation, the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) and the German Empire were the inheritor states, so of course Austria was re-joining Germany which was left by Austria in 1866. 14:09, 13 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 ( talk)
Of course it was a reunion, what should the this falsification of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.37.161 ( talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is most surely wrong:
"Austria joined Nazi Germany in the Anschluss in 1938"
Germany took over Austria. Austria did not join Germany. German Nazis burned numerous religious buildings in Austria among other things leading up to taking over. There were also many Austrians who fled to Yugoslavia and elsewhere to avoid the "anschluss" of the Nazis.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.78.117 ( talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss! Stop pretending Austria was a victim of Germany and perpetuating the Sound of Music mythos. Real history please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.209.27.142 ( talk) 08:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
" In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany." Is absolute bullshit, the Anschluss did NOT annex Austria, it was linked-up/joined up not forced, pressured, or anything it was wanted and was no resistance, it was wanted even in 1918 when Austria changed its name to German Austria - stop sounding like Austria was forced to join Germany, it was unioned to make Greater Germany, real facts here not BS crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 ( talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
But it was NOT occupied/annexed it was made with no resistance... just cheers and salutes - Austrians are Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 ( talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello I'm now living in Austria for more than 13 years and am not sure about the cool/temperate zone 'cause I guess that the geographic plain areas (greatest parts in Lower Austria, but also in Burgenland, Carinthia, Styria and the Tyrol) are in a warm-temperated climate zone. In the alps, there is a cool-temperated climate predominating, of course. Also in the most information tables you can read that this country is lying in the warm temperated zone. User:Controller60 -- 21. 07. 2010, 23:30 Central European (Summer) Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.51.124 ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's insulting! Both to Austria AND to Australia and to everyone out there who's still got at least one neuron working in their brains... I mean how can you confuse ballroom and beer with kangaroo and outback... or Arnold Schwarzenegger with Nicole Kidman for that matter. I mean if one is truly truly stupid he might have never heard of Austria. But to have never ever have heard of Australia to not know it's "down there" underneath Asia on the map and that kangaroos live there... one must have been living in a cave. But I really doubt that illiterate Taliban bullet boys from the caves of Afghanistan are reading any of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the book at hand, but my source is Hella Pick's 'Guilty Victim' : During an Austrian predidential visit in the 1960's (or was it 70's?) the Mayor of London welcomed visitors with speech full of enthusiasm for Australia. 33gsd ( talk) 11:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd
My main source was Hella Pick, 'Guilty Victim'. I don't have the book here so I don't want to make changes to the article simply on what I remember, also I don't know how this would best fit in to the present article.
AUSTRIA AND DENAZIFICATION
De-nazification of Austria was a less important for the allies than de-nazification of Germany, as Cold war considerations made keeping the Austrians onside a major policy goal.(For a long time, the existence of a country 'Austria' post WW2 was uncertain. Churchill planned for Austria to cease to exist as an independant counrty and be absorbed into a larger state.) Pre 1955, USA consistently pressured the Austria government to frankly own up to their countries co-operation with the Nazi's, who were welcomed in 1938 by jubilant crowds. They did not accept the 'Victim Thesis' as proposed in the 'Rot-Weiss-Rot' book. (One of their arguments was notoriously 'we didn't do anything wrong, because from 38-45 Austria didn't exist'). In was through a last-minute ammendment that the Austrians managed to get the 1955 State Treaty accepted in a version which did not demand that they accept responsibility for the country's activities in the Nazi era, which the Allies had demanded in the Moskauer Deklaration. Ausria's leaders always maintained that accepting the country's responsibility was too heavy a burden for a new country (which America needed to be strong and stable) to bear. Throughout the 1970's the USA continued to pressure Austria for the reparations it had commited itself to, but only paid a small portion of. It was not until the 80's that Austrians began to discuss the past openly, leading to official State apologies, in the Austrian parliament and also in the Israeli Knesset.
- and the 1998 establishment of http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/english_home.html
33gsd ( talk) 10:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd
That is simply not true. The media is obsessed with the holocaust, in school we did 2 years on that issue. The talking point "Austria claims to be a victim" is popular, but it is simply not true. Everyone knows about our guilt. Not one person denies it, even if some liberals may claim the opposite.
Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900.
Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.0.114.153 (
talk)
12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst it is beyond question that Austria is proud of this fact, why is it under the Science & Philosophy section? It should be added elsewhere, though not removed. 98.176.12.43 ( talk) 06:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Google translate is not always a friend :
-- Stone ( talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Just took a quick look at the article. The last paragraph of the 20th century part seems a bit odd. Firstly there are some mistakes in it its not the Petersburg agenda - its the Petersberg tasks (a suburb of Bonn Germany - where the corresponding WEU meeting took place). Maybe the whole paragraph should be moved and reformulated within the foreign relations section as the discussion has not been resolved since the late 1990ties and still lingers in Austrian politics. I am not a registered Wikipedia user so maybe somebody else could edit the article and at least correct the Petersburg/Petersberg mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.25.86 ( talk) 15:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This line: "...is a landlocked country of roughly 8.3 million people..."
is no longer correct. At 2011, there are over 8.4 million inhabitants.-- 62.47.168.64 ( talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no "official" or other name in "Austro-Bavarian" (which isn't even a written language). Hungarian? Slovene? Croatian? Why would anybody care in an English article? We don't mention French, Italian etc. either. And before anybody mentions minorities' rights: they do have certain rights in regard to the usage of their language, but there still is no "official" name other than the German one. Art. 8 of the Austrian constitution specifically makes German the one official language.
My suggestion: English (this is the English wikipedia) and German (official, and used by the natives.) Get rid of all others. Oh, and this, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_Names
-- IGreil ( talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the Austrian constitution somewhere mention Croatian, Slovene and Hungarian? If not I would suggest removing them from the introduction. There is no point in having these translations unless they are in the national or official languages. mgeo talk 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two points being argued here: 1. which languages meet WP's guidelines to have their names included, 2. what the names (official or unofficial) are in those languages. WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) expounds on the conventions for geographic names in the lead: standard name in English first, the official names in English and in the official languages, then other names in relevant languages. For example, there's currently an informal German name listed (Österreich) and the official German name (Republik Österreich). For other languages that meet WP's criteria for inclusion, either the informal name or the official name can be included, and labeled as such. Keep in mind that WP explicitly allows for the listing of both official and unofficial names of geographic places, and provides criteria for relevant languages to list the names in, and this is evident on many geographic pages, e.g., Lyon, where Arpitan is listed despite not being an official language of France, yet it is a major language of the area. As I said above, German is the only official national language in Austria. Slovene and Croatian are official languages in certain states of Austria and therefore enjoy an official status in the country (compared to English, Turkish, etc), and this status appears in the national constitution. Determining the official names in these languages (i.e. the equivalent of "Republic of Austria") requires citing official Austrian documents; determining the unofficial names in these languages (i.e. the equivalent of "Austria") does not require any such citations and listing them would not constitute WP:OR.
IGreil's opinion on whether Austro-Bavarian is a serious language not a reliable source. Ethnologue is a reliable source, as are the academic articles in linguistics that Ethnologue uses to compile its data on languages. Linguists have classified Austro-Bavarian as a separate language and have documented that it has a writing system. It even has its own version of Wikipedia. So it does meets the standards of a serious encyclopedia. According to documentation by linguists, speakers of Austro-Bavarian are about half the population of Austria, so then its inclusion meets WP's guidelines for relevant geographic names in other languages. On Talk:Lower Austria, IGreil questioned whether "Nyada-Østarëich" is the correct word in Austro-Bavarian for "Lower Austria". I do not know either, but the proper course of action would have been to add citation needed tags to these Austro-Bavarian names, rather than deleting them. According to WP's own naming policies, these names should be included in the lead section. - Krasnoludek ( talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I can only wonder about the term "Austro-Bavarian". As native Austrian I never heared that anyone in my country is speaking that "language". Also the WP website dealing with the dialect of Bavaria and mentioning that "Austro - Bavarian" is just a stub. The claim "In Austria, it is spoken in the western half of the country." under the title "Regions where Bavarian is spoken" is only wrong. Also that anyone in the city of Sopron speaks Bavarian is nonsense, tough a small amount of the inhabitants are speaking German. And the Grammar on the Bavarian "language" is just a awkward effort to bring a dielaekt in a written form. Every teacher would give a pupil the worst schoolnote when anyone would use it as in those examples! The same applies for all samples of Bavarian and Austrian! That´s not Austrian there, just a written dialect from somewhere! In my area (east of Austria, till 1921 part of Hungary) even every vilage has it´s own dialect. Abecedarian´s sometimes are making the mistake to write words like the are speaking their dialect, and that´s of course wrong. Regards from Austria, Austrianbird ( talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Ö
I think it's wrong to state that the Austrian Empire was created in response to Napoleon. Although it was a response, it's more a response that's positive for Napoleon? As far as I understand the Holy Roman Empire was ended out of "fear" of Napoleon? And the Austrian Empire was just a substitute for it? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog027 ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation ended in 1806 because of Napoleon, the Austrian Empire was founded in 1804 because of Napoleon. The last Roman German Emperor Francis II was the first Austrian Emperor Francis I. 14:18, 13 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 ( talk)
There's an ongoing discussion about thet question on Talk:Austrians. You might want to join in.-- Glorfindel Goldscheitel ( talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section presenting the employment landscape in this country. This is of interest to people wanting to move to the country to find work. Things like, is most work temporary or permanent? Do you need to know the local language or English is enough to work? Wikitravel does have some information -though not sufficient- but Wikipedia for Austria has nothing. Unemployment rate? etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.192.136 ( talk) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The history sections in this article goes against all history books I've read. The lead section states: "In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany.[12] This lasted until the end of World War II in 1945, after which Nazi Germany was occupied by the Allies and Austria's former democratic constitution was restored." This is dead wrong. Austria JOINED Germany willingly, the people were celebrating in the streets. The Austrians fought on Hitlers side until they we're defeated by the Soviets in the Vienna Offensive. The Austrians we're part of Nazi war crimes and this article tries to make it look as if Austria is a victim instead of the true Nazi regime it was. Don't try to change history. And its not just this article's lead that is very WP:POV, but the entire history section here is full of POV to make Austria look good. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Nation | Militery dead | Civilian dead | Header text |
---|---|---|---|
Germany | 3,500,000 | 700,000 | 4,200,000 |
Austria | 230,000 | 104,000 | 334,000 |
Danzig | - | - | - |
Sudatenland | - | - | - |
Source- < ref> [2]< /ref> |
90.244.81.248 ( talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It is suggested to merge Crime in Austria with this article. -- atnair ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, I inserted the general term ex-
Yugoslavia in place of "ex-
Yugoslavs" which links to those ethnically identifying as such, these are an overall minority so the link to them is misleading. The other issue is Austria, having been a country to border SFRJ, has an autochtonous population: Burgenland Slovenes & Croats who moved to areas adjacent to Slovakia during Hapsburg rule, and some Slovenes close to the border with Slovenia who were locked out of the Yugoslav kingdom in 1919 (there was a referendum in which many Slovenes opted to be Austrian and the number of Slovenes left roughly corresponds to the figure to have voted against Austria - naturally the rest will have assimilated). These have been added in brackets, but when you group all of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia together it can prove difficult as there was a significant non-Yugoslav population, so a Hungarian from Slavonia/Vojvodina is more correctly grouped with other Hungarians than with Burgenland Croats (the Yugoslav category). Likewise, as is the case overwhemlingly in Switzerland, most ex-Yugoslav republics don't have huge diasporas compared to other states and the absolute majority of those quitting their country for another tend to come from Macedonia and southern Serbia only - this in turn means that many are ethnic Albanian. Macedonians/Kosovars tend to gladly leave their homeland for a better life in western countries while the rest of the region either lives in hope that things will improve or will go to another land if for a special reason (eg. to work a specific profession). Either way, I hope the reasoning behind my change is clear. The complications are hard to overcome.
The Big Hoof! (
talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Struck out sock.
bobrayner (
talk)
04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
TREATY OF SAINT GERMAIN. GERMAN AUSTRIA What kind of sovereignty had a country which couldn´t even choose its own name?. Austrians decided to call their country "German Austria"...and the Allies forbade that name. After WWII there was a deep brainwashing trying to create the "Austrian nation" as different from the "German nation", even if it was not as successful as the very deep brainwashing to end with the Alsatian language and culture in Alsatia (France), a Germanic language which now is almost extinct and children have learnt for decades to hate their "Germanic" past even if the name of their villages and cities, and the last names of most Alsatians are Germanic.-- 88.1.244.26 ( talk) 13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The biggest issue is that by using the word ex-yugoslav the wikipedia states that naming etnic groups and historical states is the same thing. Yugoslavs (and today ex-Yugoslavs) never existed as etnic group. Etnic groups were the same during ex-yugoslavia as they are today (Slovene, Croatian, Hungarian, Czech etc.) If wikipedia accepts this kind of approach, then it will be ok to write in the national minorities of Czech republic "ex-nazi German" for Germans and Austrians together. Funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.78.20 ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Can someone remove the nonsence that ex-Yugoslav is an etnic name???? Ex-soviet, Ex-Czechoslovakian, Ex-Nazi German????? Don't you see the stupidity???? 78.1.163.131 ( talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Mixing etnic group and state and former citizenship of non-existing historic state. 78.1.163.131 ( talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Someone add a Obamacare impeachment ad.I tried to find the file and couldn't.(Most likely someone trolling hence the name of the image is " https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Cache_me_if_you_can.gif") — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudePup ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 02:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I am very doubtful about the following, especially since it does not appear in any relevant articles in the German or Bavarian Wikipedias:
Does anyone know what Heer's source was? Or can attest to his Celtic etymology?
Our Noricum article does not provide an etymology, merely stating that it was named after the lost city of Noreia: "The original population appears to have consisted of Pannonians (a people kin to the Illyrians), who, after the great migration of the Gauls, became subordinate to various Celto-Ligurian tribes, chief amongst them being the Taurisci, who were probably identical with the Norici of Roman sources, so called after their capital Noreia, whose location is, as yet, unknown." The Noreia article does not explain the etymology.
Furthermore, reconstructed Proto-Celtic lexicons do not list "nor-" at all. There are different versions of reconstructed word for east, including *φari-tero (phari-tero) ( University of Wales) and *usāri-s. (The Gaelic for east is Thoir, pronounced something like "tair" while eastern is oirthear or "air-her"; the Welsh equivalents are "Dwyrain", which is pronounced something like "doorin" and dwyreiniol, "dooriniol".)
Grant | Talk 09:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I edited out the part about Reinhold Messner, seeing as he is Italian (South Tyrol was already part of Italy when he was born). There is no reason for him being mentioned in the "Sports" part of this page as if he were Austrian.
Has no real information about Austria's economy - short of interjecting dependance on Germany as its buyer. other country articles have a nifty sector % chart.
Usually an encyclopedia will say numbers of: miles of road/rail, cars, registered telephones, TV's. (a rough statement of the size of economy v. size of country), having comments of type of economy
intermediate details might describe developement, farming, mining, important industries
Usually an encyclopedia will say the products and imports that drive/drain the economy - mention any imports that are exported, and major companies / employers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 ( talk) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In the introduction it says "During the 1914 July Crisis that followed the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Germany guided Austria in issuing the ultimatum to Serbia that led to the declaration of World War I."
I would think this is incorrect, as there was never a declaration of World War I, that is a later definition, a umbrella term for many wars. Would it not be better to say "that led to the beginning of World War I? Einar Ólafsson ( talk) 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Austria. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As shown in previous discussions, readers may confuse Austria with Australia. While the disambiguation page have a link to the Australia article, the first note tells the reader to go to the disambiguation page "for other uses", but it says "This article is about the country", not "the country in Europe". Australia is also a country, so it would be the best to add a "not to be confused with" note. 1.36.196.169 ( talk) 05:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For anyone who would like to add climate data to articles on Austrian cities, towns, villages, or whatever else, I have created a table of temperature data from the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik at User:Erutuon/Austrian temperatures. It is very hard to navigate the data that they provide without putting it into a table. (I was using the data in a List of cities by temperature.) — Eru· tuon 23:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Skakkle has tagged a pov statement, and looking at it, it seems to me that the source does not directly back the assertion, at least not in so many words. Perhaps it is better known to more serious students of the history of Austria that the Second Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire would have some bearing on the decision of the Dual Monarchy to annex Bosnia-Herzogovina, but clicking through to the article does not immediately enlighten the reader as to what aspect of the aforementioned era provided the "excuse" for the annexation. In other words, I couldn't figure out from the cited source whether we have a POV statement or a scholar's evaluation. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the WWII must be there a mistake Germany is occupied instead Austria. Of course Germany was occupied but the meaning is Austria, isn't it?-- Seminario ( talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Any reason why the Austrian anthem is in the note at the top?
Makes as much sense as expanding that note with Austrian Airlines, Austrian cuisine, Austrian literature, Austrian nationality law... and have it fill a whole screen. 174.17.207.124 ( talk) 07:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone with an older account than me please update the Chancellor section in the infobox to Sebastian Kurz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temp3295t4852y035yp ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This newly introduced section contains outdated and strange statements (The Ministry of Justice is based out of the UK and is supported through multiple European countries
) without "as of" qualifications.
Purgy (
talk)
07:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this should be discussed beyond the level of edit summaries. Any capital letters WP:XYZ known, which are applicable? Purgy ( talk) 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Since no further stakes holders show up, I end, until further notice, my partaking in this effort I started by just stating that I explicitly disagree not only with Damvile's portraying of Colonestarrice's edits and motivation, but also with his portrayal of the legal situation in Austria concerning minority languages and the accompanying examples. Purgy ( talk) 14:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
No. Especially the eastern part of Austria has always been an ethnic melting pot between German and non German speaking peoples. Austrians are, therefore, ethnic Austrians. Culturally speaking, they are to a certain extent German, as they share their language and some cultural heritage with the other German speaking nations. Nevertheless, the notion of Austrians being Germans of some sort is largely frowned upon in Austria. Also, this concept of Austrians being ethnic Germans probably doesn't date back much further than 150 years ago when ethnic nationalism became a significant movement across Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.115.61 ( talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Austrians has recently been changed significantly. Some editors changed it in that way that Austrians are now regarded as ethnic Germans (see the infobox in the article). The CIA says that Austrians are ethnic Austrians, the state departement saiys the are Germans... i don´t think that they should be regarded as Germans, this is seen offensife in Austria and scientific studies contradict it. See this: [1]. Neither anyone changed this edits, nor were they discussed. -- 193.170.52.132 ( talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ethno-Linguistic Map shown in the article says clealy "GERMANS", the same as any map from 1919 or later. So it is evident, Encyclopedias consider German speaking Austrians to be ethnic Germans.-- 83.35.181.133 ( talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a good term would be German-Austrians but that only makes sense in German! Deutsch-Oesterreicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.3.174 ( talk) 12:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
My intention was never to use a forbidden non-P.C. term that smacks of the far right, if that is the case today. However, the fact remains German-speaking Austrians makeup the ethno-linguistic majority in today's Republic and there should be term to distinguish them from the minorities: Hungarian-Austrians, Slovene-Austrians, Croatian-Austrians and Austrians of Turkish and Balkan heritage! I'm curious what the case is in Germany. Perhaps then you are either just Austrian or a hyphenated non-German speaking Austrian.
Until the end of the First Republic, it was clear that Austrians of German mother tongue are ethnic Germans. The Swiss of German language are called German Swiss until today, so it would be logically, that Austrians of German language are German Austrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 ( talk) 13:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We speak German and have always been part of the German culture/nation. Actually Vienna was the center for centuries... So we are Germans and Austrians, just like the Bavarians or other subgroups, who are Bavarians and Germans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.244.215 ( talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Its very simple, there are two Germans. German language and German nationality, If a swiss or an austrian says he speaks german or he is german swiss, than he or she means that she is part of the german speaking swiss and not german in a ethnical way. And most swiss speak german and french anyway. Swiss also calls itself Helvetia Conunctum which was the celtic tribe who settled there.... anyway there are also two kinds of persons in Austria the "pro-German people" and the "Anti-German people", those always existed in Austria, the pro German became the Nazis and are today the far right people.... u can read in austrian literatur about this issue... there are various authors from various time frames who write about this.......BTW the German Wiki isnt as good as the english.. The English is much better.. :)
this is not my personal opnion, my personal opinion is there is nothing like n ethnie anyway and i would erase it from the articel... there might be nations, culture and all that stuff people identify themselves with but ethnie doesnt exist.. just my opnion... cheers from vienna — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.190.236.76 (
talk)
14:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an "Austrian identity" section like the page of Austrian identity on the de.wikipedia?
Austrians are ethnic Germans but don't consider themselves as Germans since 1945, I think there should be a section about this to make it more clear, there is on the Austrian page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.116.160 ( talk) 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I am Austrian and I feel like a German. Anyone who knows history knows why this is so. After World War II, they have tried to convince us that we Austrians were not Germans, it has in ignorant unfortunately led to a split! Correctly it must glad that we are a German folk with his own government. Do like it a GDR and FRG has given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.37.161 ( talk) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ethnic groups (81.1% Austrians, 2.7% Germans, 2.2% Turks, 8.9% other / unspecified) only sum up to 94.9%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:52CC:8000:0:0:91F ( talk) 13:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be very appropriate to remove the "(Germans)" after "Austrians" in the infobox, since 1. native ethical groups like the Carinthian Slovenes and Burgenland Croats do not historically qualify as Germans, but are not seen as a different ethnicity by the vast majority of Austrians, except for right-wing extremist and 2. the vast majority of Austrians do not see themselves as Germans, but as something different. Doing so is a very right-wing extremist thing, and it looks like this article fell victim to such an editor. RudolftheFree ( talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Although it is mentioned in about ten different wikipedia pages, none of them has a clear explanation of when the "second" Austrian republic was established ? 1945 ? 1955 ? Some point in between. All of the existing descriptions skip from the 1945 occupation to the 1955 treaty with no details in between. Eregli bob ( talk) 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The is little to no mention of the South Tyrol Question. While it has been "solved" and the case is closed officially at least according to both the Austrian and Italian governments it has been a series issue for most of the 20th Century. Austria still sees itself as the protector of the cultural rights of South Tyrolean German-speakers. There should be much more said about this and the successful solution that has been found as model for trans-national and inter ethnic cooperation.
The wording makes no sense unless it is what Hitler said and it should be then in "". Austria was technically the inheritor state of the Holy Roman Empire so Germany was really rejoining Austria! Furthermore Austria was never part of the modern German nation-state. This sentence is flat out wrong! there was no reunification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.83.227 ( talk) 04:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The term reunification was actually one used in the third Reich in the propaganda to make it sound nicer for what they actually were doing (it was like an invasion without fighting, although a lot of Austrians also welcomed the Hitler regime, I am not going to deny that...). In German the term therefore makes some sense. 129.132.152.46 ( talk) 14:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Austria was not the inheritor state of the Roman Empire of German Nation, the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) and the German Empire were the inheritor states, so of course Austria was re-joining Germany which was left by Austria in 1866. 14:09, 13 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 ( talk)
Of course it was a reunion, what should the this falsification of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.37.161 ( talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is most surely wrong:
"Austria joined Nazi Germany in the Anschluss in 1938"
Germany took over Austria. Austria did not join Germany. German Nazis burned numerous religious buildings in Austria among other things leading up to taking over. There were also many Austrians who fled to Yugoslavia and elsewhere to avoid the "anschluss" of the Nazis.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.78.117 ( talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss! Stop pretending Austria was a victim of Germany and perpetuating the Sound of Music mythos. Real history please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.209.27.142 ( talk) 08:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
" In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany." Is absolute bullshit, the Anschluss did NOT annex Austria, it was linked-up/joined up not forced, pressured, or anything it was wanted and was no resistance, it was wanted even in 1918 when Austria changed its name to German Austria - stop sounding like Austria was forced to join Germany, it was unioned to make Greater Germany, real facts here not BS crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 ( talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
But it was NOT occupied/annexed it was made with no resistance... just cheers and salutes - Austrians are Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 ( talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello I'm now living in Austria for more than 13 years and am not sure about the cool/temperate zone 'cause I guess that the geographic plain areas (greatest parts in Lower Austria, but also in Burgenland, Carinthia, Styria and the Tyrol) are in a warm-temperated climate zone. In the alps, there is a cool-temperated climate predominating, of course. Also in the most information tables you can read that this country is lying in the warm temperated zone. User:Controller60 -- 21. 07. 2010, 23:30 Central European (Summer) Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.51.124 ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's insulting! Both to Austria AND to Australia and to everyone out there who's still got at least one neuron working in their brains... I mean how can you confuse ballroom and beer with kangaroo and outback... or Arnold Schwarzenegger with Nicole Kidman for that matter. I mean if one is truly truly stupid he might have never heard of Austria. But to have never ever have heard of Australia to not know it's "down there" underneath Asia on the map and that kangaroos live there... one must have been living in a cave. But I really doubt that illiterate Taliban bullet boys from the caves of Afghanistan are reading any of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the book at hand, but my source is Hella Pick's 'Guilty Victim' : During an Austrian predidential visit in the 1960's (or was it 70's?) the Mayor of London welcomed visitors with speech full of enthusiasm for Australia. 33gsd ( talk) 11:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd
My main source was Hella Pick, 'Guilty Victim'. I don't have the book here so I don't want to make changes to the article simply on what I remember, also I don't know how this would best fit in to the present article.
AUSTRIA AND DENAZIFICATION
De-nazification of Austria was a less important for the allies than de-nazification of Germany, as Cold war considerations made keeping the Austrians onside a major policy goal.(For a long time, the existence of a country 'Austria' post WW2 was uncertain. Churchill planned for Austria to cease to exist as an independant counrty and be absorbed into a larger state.) Pre 1955, USA consistently pressured the Austria government to frankly own up to their countries co-operation with the Nazi's, who were welcomed in 1938 by jubilant crowds. They did not accept the 'Victim Thesis' as proposed in the 'Rot-Weiss-Rot' book. (One of their arguments was notoriously 'we didn't do anything wrong, because from 38-45 Austria didn't exist'). In was through a last-minute ammendment that the Austrians managed to get the 1955 State Treaty accepted in a version which did not demand that they accept responsibility for the country's activities in the Nazi era, which the Allies had demanded in the Moskauer Deklaration. Ausria's leaders always maintained that accepting the country's responsibility was too heavy a burden for a new country (which America needed to be strong and stable) to bear. Throughout the 1970's the USA continued to pressure Austria for the reparations it had commited itself to, but only paid a small portion of. It was not until the 80's that Austrians began to discuss the past openly, leading to official State apologies, in the Austrian parliament and also in the Israeli Knesset.
- and the 1998 establishment of http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/english_home.html
33gsd ( talk) 10:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd
That is simply not true. The media is obsessed with the holocaust, in school we did 2 years on that issue. The talking point "Austria claims to be a victim" is popular, but it is simply not true. Everyone knows about our guilt. Not one person denies it, even if some liberals may claim the opposite.
Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900.
Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.0.114.153 (
talk)
12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst it is beyond question that Austria is proud of this fact, why is it under the Science & Philosophy section? It should be added elsewhere, though not removed. 98.176.12.43 ( talk) 06:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Google translate is not always a friend :
-- Stone ( talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Just took a quick look at the article. The last paragraph of the 20th century part seems a bit odd. Firstly there are some mistakes in it its not the Petersburg agenda - its the Petersberg tasks (a suburb of Bonn Germany - where the corresponding WEU meeting took place). Maybe the whole paragraph should be moved and reformulated within the foreign relations section as the discussion has not been resolved since the late 1990ties and still lingers in Austrian politics. I am not a registered Wikipedia user so maybe somebody else could edit the article and at least correct the Petersburg/Petersberg mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.25.86 ( talk) 15:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This line: "...is a landlocked country of roughly 8.3 million people..."
is no longer correct. At 2011, there are over 8.4 million inhabitants.-- 62.47.168.64 ( talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no "official" or other name in "Austro-Bavarian" (which isn't even a written language). Hungarian? Slovene? Croatian? Why would anybody care in an English article? We don't mention French, Italian etc. either. And before anybody mentions minorities' rights: they do have certain rights in regard to the usage of their language, but there still is no "official" name other than the German one. Art. 8 of the Austrian constitution specifically makes German the one official language.
My suggestion: English (this is the English wikipedia) and German (official, and used by the natives.) Get rid of all others. Oh, and this, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_Names
-- IGreil ( talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the Austrian constitution somewhere mention Croatian, Slovene and Hungarian? If not I would suggest removing them from the introduction. There is no point in having these translations unless they are in the national or official languages. mgeo talk 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two points being argued here: 1. which languages meet WP's guidelines to have their names included, 2. what the names (official or unofficial) are in those languages. WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) expounds on the conventions for geographic names in the lead: standard name in English first, the official names in English and in the official languages, then other names in relevant languages. For example, there's currently an informal German name listed (Österreich) and the official German name (Republik Österreich). For other languages that meet WP's criteria for inclusion, either the informal name or the official name can be included, and labeled as such. Keep in mind that WP explicitly allows for the listing of both official and unofficial names of geographic places, and provides criteria for relevant languages to list the names in, and this is evident on many geographic pages, e.g., Lyon, where Arpitan is listed despite not being an official language of France, yet it is a major language of the area. As I said above, German is the only official national language in Austria. Slovene and Croatian are official languages in certain states of Austria and therefore enjoy an official status in the country (compared to English, Turkish, etc), and this status appears in the national constitution. Determining the official names in these languages (i.e. the equivalent of "Republic of Austria") requires citing official Austrian documents; determining the unofficial names in these languages (i.e. the equivalent of "Austria") does not require any such citations and listing them would not constitute WP:OR.
IGreil's opinion on whether Austro-Bavarian is a serious language not a reliable source. Ethnologue is a reliable source, as are the academic articles in linguistics that Ethnologue uses to compile its data on languages. Linguists have classified Austro-Bavarian as a separate language and have documented that it has a writing system. It even has its own version of Wikipedia. So it does meets the standards of a serious encyclopedia. According to documentation by linguists, speakers of Austro-Bavarian are about half the population of Austria, so then its inclusion meets WP's guidelines for relevant geographic names in other languages. On Talk:Lower Austria, IGreil questioned whether "Nyada-Østarëich" is the correct word in Austro-Bavarian for "Lower Austria". I do not know either, but the proper course of action would have been to add citation needed tags to these Austro-Bavarian names, rather than deleting them. According to WP's own naming policies, these names should be included in the lead section. - Krasnoludek ( talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I can only wonder about the term "Austro-Bavarian". As native Austrian I never heared that anyone in my country is speaking that "language". Also the WP website dealing with the dialect of Bavaria and mentioning that "Austro - Bavarian" is just a stub. The claim "In Austria, it is spoken in the western half of the country." under the title "Regions where Bavarian is spoken" is only wrong. Also that anyone in the city of Sopron speaks Bavarian is nonsense, tough a small amount of the inhabitants are speaking German. And the Grammar on the Bavarian "language" is just a awkward effort to bring a dielaekt in a written form. Every teacher would give a pupil the worst schoolnote when anyone would use it as in those examples! The same applies for all samples of Bavarian and Austrian! That´s not Austrian there, just a written dialect from somewhere! In my area (east of Austria, till 1921 part of Hungary) even every vilage has it´s own dialect. Abecedarian´s sometimes are making the mistake to write words like the are speaking their dialect, and that´s of course wrong. Regards from Austria, Austrianbird ( talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Ö
I think it's wrong to state that the Austrian Empire was created in response to Napoleon. Although it was a response, it's more a response that's positive for Napoleon? As far as I understand the Holy Roman Empire was ended out of "fear" of Napoleon? And the Austrian Empire was just a substitute for it? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog027 ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation ended in 1806 because of Napoleon, the Austrian Empire was founded in 1804 because of Napoleon. The last Roman German Emperor Francis II was the first Austrian Emperor Francis I. 14:18, 13 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 ( talk)
There's an ongoing discussion about thet question on Talk:Austrians. You might want to join in.-- Glorfindel Goldscheitel ( talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section presenting the employment landscape in this country. This is of interest to people wanting to move to the country to find work. Things like, is most work temporary or permanent? Do you need to know the local language or English is enough to work? Wikitravel does have some information -though not sufficient- but Wikipedia for Austria has nothing. Unemployment rate? etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.192.136 ( talk) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The history sections in this article goes against all history books I've read. The lead section states: "In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany.[12] This lasted until the end of World War II in 1945, after which Nazi Germany was occupied by the Allies and Austria's former democratic constitution was restored." This is dead wrong. Austria JOINED Germany willingly, the people were celebrating in the streets. The Austrians fought on Hitlers side until they we're defeated by the Soviets in the Vienna Offensive. The Austrians we're part of Nazi war crimes and this article tries to make it look as if Austria is a victim instead of the true Nazi regime it was. Don't try to change history. And its not just this article's lead that is very WP:POV, but the entire history section here is full of POV to make Austria look good. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Nation | Militery dead | Civilian dead | Header text |
---|---|---|---|
Germany | 3,500,000 | 700,000 | 4,200,000 |
Austria | 230,000 | 104,000 | 334,000 |
Danzig | - | - | - |
Sudatenland | - | - | - |
Source- < ref> [2]< /ref> |
90.244.81.248 ( talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It is suggested to merge Crime in Austria with this article. -- atnair ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, I inserted the general term ex-
Yugoslavia in place of "ex-
Yugoslavs" which links to those ethnically identifying as such, these are an overall minority so the link to them is misleading. The other issue is Austria, having been a country to border SFRJ, has an autochtonous population: Burgenland Slovenes & Croats who moved to areas adjacent to Slovakia during Hapsburg rule, and some Slovenes close to the border with Slovenia who were locked out of the Yugoslav kingdom in 1919 (there was a referendum in which many Slovenes opted to be Austrian and the number of Slovenes left roughly corresponds to the figure to have voted against Austria - naturally the rest will have assimilated). These have been added in brackets, but when you group all of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia together it can prove difficult as there was a significant non-Yugoslav population, so a Hungarian from Slavonia/Vojvodina is more correctly grouped with other Hungarians than with Burgenland Croats (the Yugoslav category). Likewise, as is the case overwhemlingly in Switzerland, most ex-Yugoslav republics don't have huge diasporas compared to other states and the absolute majority of those quitting their country for another tend to come from Macedonia and southern Serbia only - this in turn means that many are ethnic Albanian. Macedonians/Kosovars tend to gladly leave their homeland for a better life in western countries while the rest of the region either lives in hope that things will improve or will go to another land if for a special reason (eg. to work a specific profession). Either way, I hope the reasoning behind my change is clear. The complications are hard to overcome.
The Big Hoof! (
talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Struck out sock.
bobrayner (
talk)
04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
TREATY OF SAINT GERMAIN. GERMAN AUSTRIA What kind of sovereignty had a country which couldn´t even choose its own name?. Austrians decided to call their country "German Austria"...and the Allies forbade that name. After WWII there was a deep brainwashing trying to create the "Austrian nation" as different from the "German nation", even if it was not as successful as the very deep brainwashing to end with the Alsatian language and culture in Alsatia (France), a Germanic language which now is almost extinct and children have learnt for decades to hate their "Germanic" past even if the name of their villages and cities, and the last names of most Alsatians are Germanic.-- 88.1.244.26 ( talk) 13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The biggest issue is that by using the word ex-yugoslav the wikipedia states that naming etnic groups and historical states is the same thing. Yugoslavs (and today ex-Yugoslavs) never existed as etnic group. Etnic groups were the same during ex-yugoslavia as they are today (Slovene, Croatian, Hungarian, Czech etc.) If wikipedia accepts this kind of approach, then it will be ok to write in the national minorities of Czech republic "ex-nazi German" for Germans and Austrians together. Funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.78.20 ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Can someone remove the nonsence that ex-Yugoslav is an etnic name???? Ex-soviet, Ex-Czechoslovakian, Ex-Nazi German????? Don't you see the stupidity???? 78.1.163.131 ( talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Mixing etnic group and state and former citizenship of non-existing historic state. 78.1.163.131 ( talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Someone add a Obamacare impeachment ad.I tried to find the file and couldn't.(Most likely someone trolling hence the name of the image is " https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Cache_me_if_you_can.gif") — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudePup ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 02:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I am very doubtful about the following, especially since it does not appear in any relevant articles in the German or Bavarian Wikipedias:
Does anyone know what Heer's source was? Or can attest to his Celtic etymology?
Our Noricum article does not provide an etymology, merely stating that it was named after the lost city of Noreia: "The original population appears to have consisted of Pannonians (a people kin to the Illyrians), who, after the great migration of the Gauls, became subordinate to various Celto-Ligurian tribes, chief amongst them being the Taurisci, who were probably identical with the Norici of Roman sources, so called after their capital Noreia, whose location is, as yet, unknown." The Noreia article does not explain the etymology.
Furthermore, reconstructed Proto-Celtic lexicons do not list "nor-" at all. There are different versions of reconstructed word for east, including *φari-tero (phari-tero) ( University of Wales) and *usāri-s. (The Gaelic for east is Thoir, pronounced something like "tair" while eastern is oirthear or "air-her"; the Welsh equivalents are "Dwyrain", which is pronounced something like "doorin" and dwyreiniol, "dooriniol".)
Grant | Talk 09:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I edited out the part about Reinhold Messner, seeing as he is Italian (South Tyrol was already part of Italy when he was born). There is no reason for him being mentioned in the "Sports" part of this page as if he were Austrian.
Has no real information about Austria's economy - short of interjecting dependance on Germany as its buyer. other country articles have a nifty sector % chart.
Usually an encyclopedia will say numbers of: miles of road/rail, cars, registered telephones, TV's. (a rough statement of the size of economy v. size of country), having comments of type of economy
intermediate details might describe developement, farming, mining, important industries
Usually an encyclopedia will say the products and imports that drive/drain the economy - mention any imports that are exported, and major companies / employers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 ( talk) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In the introduction it says "During the 1914 July Crisis that followed the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Germany guided Austria in issuing the ultimatum to Serbia that led to the declaration of World War I."
I would think this is incorrect, as there was never a declaration of World War I, that is a later definition, a umbrella term for many wars. Would it not be better to say "that led to the beginning of World War I? Einar Ólafsson ( talk) 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Austria. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As shown in previous discussions, readers may confuse Austria with Australia. While the disambiguation page have a link to the Australia article, the first note tells the reader to go to the disambiguation page "for other uses", but it says "This article is about the country", not "the country in Europe". Australia is also a country, so it would be the best to add a "not to be confused with" note. 1.36.196.169 ( talk) 05:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For anyone who would like to add climate data to articles on Austrian cities, towns, villages, or whatever else, I have created a table of temperature data from the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik at User:Erutuon/Austrian temperatures. It is very hard to navigate the data that they provide without putting it into a table. (I was using the data in a List of cities by temperature.) — Eru· tuon 23:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Skakkle has tagged a pov statement, and looking at it, it seems to me that the source does not directly back the assertion, at least not in so many words. Perhaps it is better known to more serious students of the history of Austria that the Second Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire would have some bearing on the decision of the Dual Monarchy to annex Bosnia-Herzogovina, but clicking through to the article does not immediately enlighten the reader as to what aspect of the aforementioned era provided the "excuse" for the annexation. In other words, I couldn't figure out from the cited source whether we have a POV statement or a scholar's evaluation. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the WWII must be there a mistake Germany is occupied instead Austria. Of course Germany was occupied but the meaning is Austria, isn't it?-- Seminario ( talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Any reason why the Austrian anthem is in the note at the top?
Makes as much sense as expanding that note with Austrian Airlines, Austrian cuisine, Austrian literature, Austrian nationality law... and have it fill a whole screen. 174.17.207.124 ( talk) 07:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone with an older account than me please update the Chancellor section in the infobox to Sebastian Kurz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temp3295t4852y035yp ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This newly introduced section contains outdated and strange statements (The Ministry of Justice is based out of the UK and is supported through multiple European countries
) without "as of" qualifications.
Purgy (
talk)
07:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this should be discussed beyond the level of edit summaries. Any capital letters WP:XYZ known, which are applicable? Purgy ( talk) 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Since no further stakes holders show up, I end, until further notice, my partaking in this effort I started by just stating that I explicitly disagree not only with Damvile's portraying of Colonestarrice's edits and motivation, but also with his portrayal of the legal situation in Austria concerning minority languages and the accompanying examples. Purgy ( talk) 14:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)