Talk:Austrian Civil War
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 16, 2009 and February 16, 2010.|
Improvements very welcome
Especially creation of internal links to other articles
Tidying up / consolidation of all the different articles on the First Republic would be necessary. For instance, I have seen that there is a (very short) article on the same subject under the heading 'February Uprising'. I believe 'Austrian Civil War' is a more descriptive term, but one could of course mention that '(Austrian?) February Uprising' is a term also commonly used.
Comments on revisions as of 8 Sep 2005
This is the original author, once more. (maybe I should get an account to make things easier) Thanks for all the interest in the article and the concerted effort to improve it. I am especially thankful to Martg76 who took on the (always precarious) task of merging two pieces of writing.
As for my own latest changes (8 Sep 2005),
Austria Republic -> Austrian state
First of all a grammar thing, of course. But I also changed Republic to state, because we are talking about the times of Austrofacism here. "State" therefore seems to me to be the most neutral term. Cf. also the very last paragraph of the article which addresses precisely this issue.
Staendestaat -> Staendestaat
I think Staendestaat and Austrofacism can really be used interchangeably, so Staendestaat should probably redirect to Austrofacism (independently of this article). I will try to implement this.
deletion of 'ironically' in last paragraph
Ironic in the light of what? Since the conservative reasoning for keeping the portrait is outlined in the first part of the sentence, the result is no longer ironic. This has nothing to do with an endorsement of the stated position but merely with the internal coherence of the sentence.
Finally, I am unhappy with the internal link to 'Proporz'. Not because it is irrelevant, but because I am not very happy with the 'Proporz' article as such. However, I decided to keep the link and maybe spend some time working on improving the 'Proporz' article
Hi! Yes, please do get an account. I think this is a pretty good article. Also, please don't remove relevant links (such as Proporz, even if the article is bad. BTW, you can sign your comments here on the talk page by making four tildes. Martg76 21:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
In the first paragraph it refers to conservatives as "fascists", a term meaning a person or group of people who won't allow others to think differently. The referring to conservatives as this is inaccurate, as socialists can just as easily be fascists. Hitler was a fascist, Osama Bin Laden is a fascist. But Christians in Austria cannot be referred to as fascists, no group can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rurounigoku78 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Dollfuß was definitely facist. Today´s "People´s Paty" actually took another name after World War 2 because they didn´t want to be associated with the old "Christian Democrats", who had turned into a facist party and installed the so-called "Staendestaat". You can trust me, I´m Austrian! --Mike F (German Wikipedia)
Schekuli 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is this - before the civil war, the conservatives were a force working within the constitutional framework of the first republic; the civil war marks the exact boundary when they turned from a conservative camp into a fascist regime.
So how to refer to the grouping in an article on the exact time period when the change happened? As the original author of the article (I wasn't yet registered back then, if you're wondering about the IP address), I wrote conservative, since it seemed to me to be a less partisan term. However, I can see why some people would prefer fascist.
I now changed the passage under discussion to the linguistically slightly awkward, but possibly most accurate formulation of conservative-fascist. I hope this solves the issue of neutrality. If I do not read anything to the contrary over the next month or so I will take the liberty to remove the POV-check tag from the article as well.
Schekuli 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No dissenting opinions having been posted over the last 1.5 months, I will now proceed to delete the POV-check tag from the article. Schekuli 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think austrofascism (clerical fascism is the most correct term. --Oddeivind 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Alot of this article is written from the view point that both the conservatives were to blame for everything that happened and that Fascism is inheritly bad and all fascists along with it. Fascism is not dictatorship and it is not Nazism, it is a wide political ideology that took a quite different shape in each country, Austrofascism is what this article deals with, and they are not Nazis, the fact that the nazis went out of their way to kill them ought to make that clear. There is almost no neutrality in this article and changing a couple words wont change that, its written with the view point as the socialists as innocent victims, it was a civil war and there was fighting on both sides, dont forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ē== Dolfuss ==
Is it Dolfuss or Dolfuß? I am a native Anglophone with only a limited knowledge of German and a can see either being correct, but not in the same article and particulaly not in thr same paragraph. Since this is an English-language article in the English-language Wikipedia, I would suggest and prefer Dolfuss, but am open-minded, even though many English speakers are unaware that "ß" = "ss". As I said, either is correct but inconsistency within the article is NOT. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)