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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.
Not a stub anymore, the article didn't present details of the accord. The equal status was impossible, the Emperor of Austria being greater of the King of Hungary. --Vasile 02:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
shouldnt it be austrian history, also?--Tresckow 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
shouldn't it be Hungarian history, also? :) (A common history) V 22.214.171.124 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, actually as a matter of fact Ithink so too! By anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
although I am proud of being part of a nation that nobody calls on its name, still Hungarians in English are used to be called Hungarians, not magyars. V 188.8.131.52 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The authors are probably trying to emphasize the difference between Hungarian nationals and residents of the Kingdom in an awkward way. However, it's badly overused, in particular "Magyar government" is a big mistake, since there was no ethnical census for big positions; in fact, politicians of German, Croatian, Slovak and other nationalities regularly featured in power.
That said, this article is a real mess as of now, with a lot of unbased statements and a quite a bit of anti-Hungary bias included. It does not make any kind of effort to point out non-Hungarian support or Hungarian opposition of the Compromise, nor to mention its (mostly detrimental) social and cultural impact on all the constituent nations, soundly displayed by works of Kafka, Musil, Hašek, etc. I think the article is in desperate need for the attention of a history professional, somebody familiar with Wiki templates should please mark it as such. 184.108.40.206 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The current use of the German term over a Hungarian one isn't the most neutral option. Compromise of 1867 is very neutral, and also more descriptive to Anglophones. Encarta, Britannica and Hutchinson encyclopedias all use the term so it is commonly accepted.Rex 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Weakly oppose Google scholar has over twice as many links to Ausgleich and Austria-Hungary as to "Compromise of 1867" and Austria-Hungary. Does EB ot the other encyclopedias have articles under the target, or do they explain Ausgleich as "the compromise of 1867"? I oppose the notion that we should be more politically correct than English=speaking scholarship. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Brittanica uses Comprimis of 1867 as the article name, and explains that in German it's called Ausgleich. (as does Brittanica concise ) Encarta uses it too, adding between bars ('Ausgleich'),  but not mentioning it again when discussing the compromise.Rex 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Support "Compromise" seems to be used widely enough in English. Check also this Google fight (26k vs 11k) and thesetwo Scholar searches (667 vs 210). Since "Compromise of 1867" is a much more specific term than "Ausgleich", I believe that the above search by Septentrionalis does not produce accurate results regarding this matter. (What about "Compromise in 1867", or "the 1867 Compromise", or an "Ausgleich" between other parties?) KissL 10:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Agree that the title "Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867" (proposed below) is even better than just "Compromise of 1867". KissL 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom and KissL. "Compromise of 1867" is the English name of this event, and that is reason enough to move it. K. Lásztocska 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Support to rename it to Comprimise of 1867, though I think Austro-Hungarian Compromise would be more clear and it is also widely used. --Koppany 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Support the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 as per above. Zello 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - it always wondered me why the title is in German when there is English name. I support move to either Compromise of 1867 or Austro-Hungarian Compromise (of 1867). Alternative names can of course be mentioned, but the title will be clearer with either of these options. MarkBAt/c/@ 12:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
That's true. That title gives immediately some pieces of information - what between who and when, but Ausgleich has no information value for those not knowing German plus I fear it isn't very neutral in this case. Compromise of 1867 has a bit vague meaning, but still better than Ausgleich. MarkBAt/c/@ 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Support -The most common name should be used. In this case i feel based on the presented evidence, that is "Compromise of 1867". Hobartimus 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Support per the statistics presented by Kissl. I would prefer Koppany's more specific version in the form proposed by K. Lásztocska ("Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867") though. Tankred 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose but support Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 as per above. "Ausgleich" is used in English (see also "Anschluss") and is better than the vapid "Compromise of 1867" which conveys no intrinsic meaning. Seriously - how many compromises occurred in 1867 around the world? István 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Support a move to Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 per WP:UE. Although Ausgleich might be used more in scholarly literature dealing specifically with the subject, Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 is more appropriate for general encyclopedic usage. (Not that it matters but the German version requires qualifying as well.) — AjaxSmack 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
"General Encyclopedia Usage" is a vague criterion: we should be influenced by what standard scholarly descriptions are. And the standard scholarly description in English is Ausgleich. Slacspeak up! 09:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Ausgleich (Austro-Hungarian)" is good, but "Compromise of 1867" is bewildering, because without a context, the collision risk seems overwhelming when we have an encyclopedia treating almost everything conceivable, including a "Compromise of 1867" between the (imaginary) author Fritz Schultz and his (imaginary) wife Emma. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the Compromise have a date in the year 1867? Said: Rursus (☻)
Yeah, 29 of May, 1867: see f.ex. Ausgleich Chronology. Needed for my deanachronizer database, used for translating German Astronomer to Bayuvarian Astronomer. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article succinctly illustrates how the Austro-Hungarian Compromise ties into broader ideas of European nationalism and changing power relations in the nineteenth century. It may be improved upon by more background on the constitutional reforms that had failed prior to the Compromise, but its further reading section provides the detail that the article uses to make a convincing argument for the complicated nature of Austro-Hungarian politics and how the future of the two nations was ultimately bound together. It certainly does not provide a Hungarian bias on the issues presented therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krimpul (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Though it may not have been the original intention in 1867, in subsequent year this increasingly came to be viewed as a Germano-Hungarian pact to repress Slavic nationalisms and self-determination of Slavs (an important part of why the Treaty of Trianon borders were set where they were)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And Don't forget, the Panslavism was the world's first racial based (racist) ideology. It determined the "Slavic Race", which proved a naive dream in th light of modern Y DNA and mt.DNA researches. The Nazi Pan-Germanism collapsed after the WW2, but the Pan-slavist ideology is virulent until this day.
This edit, although not plagiarism because the source is credited and the quotes are clearly marked, is still a copyright infringement. The amount of copyright text quoted (including the translation) far exceeds what is acceptable per Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The quoted segments need to be shortened to at most one or two sentences, and the rest of the content should be appropriately summarised. See also this section of Wikipedia:Quotations. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the excessive quotes in their entirety from the Adoption section, but have left the references. The material is available in this version for editors who wish to re-add a summary of the quoted material in your own words per the guidelines above. Note also that a translation of a copyright work, is still a copyright infringement if excessively quoted. Voceditenore (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The quotes in question were not excessively long, quoting four sentences is far from overuse, and Wikipedia articles contain many similar sized or larger quotes. The English translation of the Hungarian language original was my own work, and I provided it for the readers’ convenience, in accordance with Wikipedia rules on non-English language quotes.
Maghasito, I have once again removed your excessive quotation of copyright material. Please read the guidance links above and do not keep restoring it. You must summarize the material in your own words. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)