This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Would it not be worth adding at the top about Austrians historically being regarded as "Austrian Germans" but now have developed their own distinct national identity?
Would something along the lines of "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Austrian Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until it was dissolved in 1806 and the German Confederation until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which consequently excluded Austria and the six million Austrian Germans from Germany. Following the founding of the nation-state German Empire in 1871 and the events of World War II and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity."
I (as well as others) can back this up with cited sources and books but this would be good to mention and it is mentioned in the article further down but is a key information, I'm not saying "Austrians are Germans" now at all but before 1945 the distinct national identity was not separate or as broad as what it is today since 1945, I do think this is worth backing up as a key point as important to understand how things are different now and the quick bit of Austria's history.
I of course will not vandalise the page and ask before adding this, but I definitely think it's worth mentioning.--SubaruImpreza2.0 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, an (german)Austrian identity was established only after WW2. Before the term Austrian refered to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and was a political term not a ethnical term.--Dappsi (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A german Austrian identity was created in the years before and after WW1. After WW1 Austria was defined as the german speaking rest (leftover) of the Habsburg empire. People regarded the use oft other traditional languages of Austria as some kind of a non-loalty with the Asutrian state. What happened from 1945 onwards was to some extend new in the European context: The new Austrian ethnic identity was not that much defined by language, but by history, culture and territory. Thus nowadays Austrian ethnicity includes also Slovene speaking Carinthians, Croatian speaking people from Burgenland and other linguistic groups. --Liebeskind (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Liebeskind, I am finding your post very difficult to understand and I think the ideas you express are important (I do speak German.) Would you mind if I rephrase it according to my understanding? Then you can tell me if I got it right. Otherwise I fear it may be ignored. Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably the most famous Austrian (and composer) in history.18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Only if you consider Austrians as Germans (they are) because Mozart was not born in Austria, it was under the German Holy Roman Empire and his ancestry was all German, his parents were also born in what is now in Germany.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism/removal of the file "Freud" without consensus!
Some POV pushers continuously delete the image of Freud, saying he wasn't Austrian. --IIIraute (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
1. You are the POV pusher here, lets start with that.
2. Freud was Austrian by nationality but not by ethnicity! There is a need to clarify the definition to the article before putting him in the infobox. If the Article talks about Austrians as a nationality it's fine, if an article talking about Austrians as an ethnic group then Freud shouldn't be here simply because he's not ethnically Austrian but ethnically Jewish. As much as we know you IIIraute don't like to hear it, Jews exist and they are a separate ethnic group. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture has been on this page for years - and you don't remove it without taking it to the talk-page first. Period! Stop your edit-warring and canvassing or you will be blocked → , , , , , ! --IIIraute (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The links you gave has nothing to do with that discussion. The picture being here for years doesnt mean it should be here. He wasn't of Austrian ethnicity, we need to define the nature of the article. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary that Hitler be included in the portraits of famous Austrians?? Really?? And Mozart should really be there.JohnnyR997 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"Historically, Austrians were regarded as ethnic Germans, since Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation until its ending and as part of the German Confederation until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which effectively saw Prussia exclude Austria from Germany. Following the founding of the nation-state German Empire in 1871 without Austria (Lesser Germany solution), and along with the events of World War II and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity and in the modern day do not consider themselves as "Germans"."--IIIraute (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, its necessary. If Hitler isn't the most well known person in history, let alone Austrian, he's certainly right up there. The infobox isn't there to show the ethnicity in a favorable light at all costs, but to objectively represent it. Its silly even to suggest excluding Austria's no.1 anti-smoking and vegetarianism activist :). -- Director(talk) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We really don't need this again - please have a look through the talk archive. There has been general consensus on several talk pages not to include dictators, criminals, etc. to the picture gallery; i.e. consensus that the inclusion should be based on merits. Also, Mozart was not Austrian. It's nothing more but a popular myth. Although Salzburg became independent from Bavaria, it still was part of the HRE, and did not belong to Austria till 1805 - Mozart died in 1791, and his father was from Augsburg (his mother also from Salzburg, HRE). Apart from that, historically, Austrians were regarded as ethnic Germans, since Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and as part of the German Confederation until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which effectively saw Prussia exclude Austria from Germany. Only following the founding of the German Empire in 1871 without Austria (Lesser Germany solution), Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity and in the modern day do not consider themselves as "Germans". --IIIraute (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
"There has been general consensus on several talk pages not to include dictators, criminals, etc. to the picture gallery; i.e. consensus that the inclusion should be based on merits. "
I have 3 things to say to you
1) It doesn't matter what consensus you've reached between fellow editors; The rules are the rules and consensus to break Wikipedia's NPOV has no standing. I can't legally shoplift from stores, burglarize homes, or defraud the elderly just because I can assemble a group of like-minded criminals who think its ok. Its obvious from the content of similar nationalities pages that the "consensus" you all arrived at was only selectively enforced. As such, you and everyone else who reached that "consensus" have violated Wikipedia's NPOV, circumvented the rules, and openly called for the continuation of such unethical violations of both the rules and the trust of us readers.
2) You are breaking Wikipedia's rules by replacing them with selectively-enforced ones are blatantly ignored. The page on Georgians displays an image of Stalin, recognized as a dictator by consensus on this site and by the international community and as a brutal war criminal due to human rights violations including, but not limited to, massacres of POWs, use of concentration camps, and other clear examples of unnecessary dictatorial abuses of human rights. It's clear an obvious by the fact that Stalin is still present in the collage on the Georgians page even after over 3 months of you making that statement. If you are unable to remove his image but have time to justify the removal of another dictator's image then you are breaking Wikipedia's NPOV.
3) According to those very same rules made up in your "consensus", the fact that Vladimir Lenin's image is presented in the collage of famous Russians on the Russians page is an additional example of you selectively enforcing the made-up rules formed in some 'consensus'. Since you have openly fought the inclusion of 1 dictator based upon selectively enforced rules that you are selectively enforcing in this TALK page, then why is Vladimir Lenin, a political usurper, dictator, and violates of human rights, still visible on on the page about Russians?
Here's the deal: I don't edit these pages because of the very corruption you're openly defending. If you are unwilling to remove, or even call for the removal of, with reasonable effort, the image of Vladimir Lenin in the page on Russian and that of Joseph Stalin on the page on Georgians, then you're openly and intentionally violating the very rules and agreements you've brought to this discussion and you'll have clearly violated Wikipedia's NPOV by selectively enforcing a prohibition you've openly enforced here due to ideological bias. By posting your comment, you're clearly willing and able to enforce the rules unless your intention is selective enforcement which clearly violates this sites rules.
Are you willing to uphold the prohibition on the inclusion of dictators and criminals in image collages focused on specific nationalities or are you intending to only selectively enforce that prohibition? If you intend to only selectively enforce that prohibition, is that because you can't manage to enforce those rules/agreements or are you unwilling?