Talk:Jörg Haider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2002 elections[edit]

"In response [to the disastrous results in the 2002 elections], Haider stated that he had demanded that the leader of the FPÖ must step down to allow him to be leader, and on being refused, stated that he would leave politics permanently." (final sentence) --> As right now the situation keeps changing every single day, there is really no point whatsoever in trying to keep this bit up to date. So far, over the past few months, Haider has announced that he would leave politics altogether at least five times. However, despite the FPÖ's heavy losses, the current party chairman, Herbert Haupt, is determined to make Haider once again a member of the new Austrian parliament. In other words, even if Haider, of his own free will, resigned as Governor of Carinthia, this would just mean his switching from regional to federal politics. Keep the dustbin of history close by, but it's not quite over yet. KF 18:20 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
A quick update: Today, Haider confirmed his intention to remain Governor of Carinthia. It is still unclear what role he will play in federal politics in the future. Federal Chancellor Schüssel, the winner of the November 24 2002 elections, will have to form a coalition government over the next few weeks, and talks with the Social Democrats (SPÖ), the Freedom Party and the Greens are already underway. No one, including political analysts, can predict the outcome of these talks. If Schüssel decides on the Freedom Party again, Haider may again have a say in federal politics, too. Recent opinion polls show, however, that this is considered the worst case scenario by the vast majority of Austrians. -- KF 18:57 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)
Another update on Austrian politics, posted here due to its ephemeral nature: Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) has been negotiating with the other three political parties for almost two and a half months now (while the old right-of-centre government headed by Schüssel is still in power) and has still not decided with which of them he would like to form a (necessary) coalition government. Today, both Schüssel and Alexander van der Bellen, the leader of the Green Party, announced that they would start Regierungsverhandlungen (talks to form a coalition government) tomorrow. This would not only mean a complete renversement des alliances for the conservative Austrian People's Party but also a new and unique constellation in European politics.
Haider, still Governor of Carinthia, has been keeping a low profile ever since the disastrous November 2002 elections. This of course is partly due to the media dropping him and turning to more exciting subject matters. --KF 23:53 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
After negotiating all night, van der Bellen (Austrian Green Party) announced yesterday morning that his party would not be able to form a coalition government with Schüssel's Austrian People's Party (headlines: "Back to the start" etc.). In other words, the Freedom Party could again become Schüssel's partner.
Meanwhile, Haider himself refrains from commenting on this. Recently, he was ridiculed by some papers which reported that he had criticized, in a speech, the loss of a valuable painting from an art gallery without realizing that it had been borrowed to be put on the wall of his own office. --KF 11:46 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

It was announced a couple of days ago that Schüssel would again form a coalition government with the Austrian Freedom Party. Haider, who is not involved in the negotiations, told the press in an interview (in German) that Schüssel would have to pay dearly for all the humiliations the FPÖ has had to suffer. Haider also said that he was busy writing a book of revelation. KF 21:02 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

"Considerate" politician, reverted here[edit]

don't point out my bad enlish like this, hehe. "considerate" should have been a citation/translation of wolfgang fellners "besonnen" mentioned in this press review, see here for a translation. according to fellner, he and haider sued each other maybe a 100 times, and quarreled bitterly. i am also unsure why you consider the fellner-edited Oesterreich (, ORF_(broadcaster), Kleine Zeitung as "unreliable source"? how would you include/translate this information in a better way? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I post the above message here to focus the discussion on this talk page.
First of all, my edit was only aimed at the opener, the rest was accidental and I restored it.
Why did I revert the changes to the opener.
First of all say that Haider became a considerate politician is vague and also POV - it is the opinion of a single man (or half the opinion of a single man as he also describes Haider as
"das größte politische Genie seit Bruno Kreisky" gewesen, aber auch der "größtmögliche Zerstörer". ... Zuletzt sei Haider zum "sanften, besonnenen, fast weisen Politiker gereift" und hätte "alle Chancen gehabt", das Land "jenseits von Rot-Schwarz neu zu gestalten".
As for the link I removed (I am talking about this one, the ORF link is still present and the AP link no longer avaiable) - do we need links that say things like "Auch die USA und die Zionisten (die treuesten Verbündeten der Türken) befürworten den EU-Beitritt der Türkei." and other niceties?
Str1977 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation please (for those of us with only holiday German)?

There may be an article in December's Standpoint (magazine) on JH. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The bits above translate as:
"the greatest political genius since Bruno Kreisky" - the "greastest possible destroyer" - eventually "matured into a soft, considerate, almost wise politician" who had all the chances ... to mold the country apart from red-black" - "the USA and the 'the Zionists' (the most loyal allies of the Turks) favour Turkey joining the EU". Str1977 (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


The Standpoint article is at [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rumours about homosexuality part II[edit]

Here we go again. Please discuss if it is proper and encyclopaedic to include rumours in the article. I thought this discussion was over. I would just hate to start copying and pasting my arguments from the sections above but if I must....--Dr.K. (logos) 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that we do not include rumors, but report on notable rumors, and Haider's homosexuality reaches at least that level (in fact, with all the evidence I would not even class it a rumor). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I respect your opinion, but obviously I disagree because I can't picture Britannica incorporating rumours in its articles. Anyway, although I do know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc., can you give me an example where rumours are incorporated in a similar (i.e not UFO, Conspiracy etc) article? Thanks. Dr.K. (logos) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you exclude conspiracy? 9/11 conspiracy theories is a fine article on nothing but rumors. John F. Kennedy assassination deals with rumors. But we also have rumors on the ancestry of Cao Fang, or the death of Edward II of England, on Sally Pederson's potential career and on the love life of Jennifer Fitzgerald. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Stephan, it's the function of the conspiracy article to list all possible rumours. As such it is not a good example of avoiding rumour-mongering whenever possible. Also a conspiracy theory is not as sensitive a subject matter as the biography of a person, living or dead. Your other examples however are convincing. I guess rumours may not be something I would expect to see in Britannica but obviously here they seem to be a legitimate part of some articles. I guess that settles the issue. My apologies to Iron Duke for reverting yesterday. Thank you for your great work. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 22:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
Maybe more apropos to our current case are the rumors on the sexual orientation of Cary Grant and Rock Hudson. I would not be surprised at all if EB would contain something of these. In general, WP:NOTPAPER applies - Wikipedia is much more comprehensive than any other general encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Stephan. I'll check the Britannica articles on Rock Hudson and Cary Grant. It may well be the case. As far as WP:NOTPAPER I agree, but we must also keep an eye on the quality of the info, something which is not always clear. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the apology, Dr. K... very, very rare on WP. Cheers. IronDuke 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It was a pleasure Iron Duke. You are one of the most civil and agreeable users I've ever met on WP. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

The Standpoint article mentioned is quite certain on the subject.

Whatever the actually existing facts of the matter, his activities and #apparent# range of preferences should be noted. As with certain other topics, the exploration on the talk page is as much about (other)people's perceptions of the subject (or certain aspects thereof) as the actual person and what they did.

Pace Chou Enlai on the French Revolution how soon can Haider's place in, and influence on Austrian history and politics be discussed? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Out magazine has a featured story discussing this but I can't find it online to share so will leave it for now. -- Banjeboi 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The mentioned "HOSI" is a political organisation of and for homosexuals. If it would help their cause, they'd tell that they knew the Pope was gay for at least the last 10 years... So, in Austria nobody would give a damn for their story.

And that's how it came to the story about homosexuallity (from the view of a carinthian for whoever cares):

Austria is mainly split into two political parties, SPÖ and ÖVP. And there is that little province Carinthia, the onlyone of nine provinces where Haiders BZÖ is (because of complicated historical reasons) the biggest party and Haider is even Governor. Then Haider dies (however) and they see their chance. At the day of the "accident" thousands of people come to the accident site. In the evening Austrian radio news tell "no alcohol was involved". The next day more and more people come to the site to bring flowers and candles. That can not be! So we hear, he drove with 140 km/h, he was a reckless driver. Doesn't matter - more candles, more flowers. The next day, they tell us, he was drunk (suddenly!). The funeral is planned and 25000 are expected. what signal would THAT be? So the day before the funeral suddenly we hear, Haider came from a gay bar - Carinthia's Governor was gay. (Which did not change the number of funeral guests, by the way). All that information would have been confidential in any other case - the role of the state prosecutor (pledge of secrecy) is not clear until today.

That's the way the story came into life. Maybe the only gay in that whole story is Haider's secretary Petzner. So this should be a warning: don't never ever give a gay man a job, because when you're dead, they may tell the world you were gay, too. (sarcasm!)

I don't think this truth will find it's way into any encyclopedia, but it may give a little insight to interested people. And please think about that, when you give so much room to the homosexuallity rumors in this article... (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Stefan Petzner subsection states that he never made any statements about his sexuality. What was reaction to being outed in 2000? Was he ever asked about his sexual orientation in interviews? If so, what did he say? Alfred Kinsey (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Haider seems to still be viewed in a very positive light by his party and their supporters. He seems to be thought of more highly since he died, despite the fact that a) he caused his own death through his recklessness and b) many members and supporters of his party are anti-LGBT, due to them being conservatives and nationalists. Do his fans make the claim that he was heterosexual, despite overwhelming evidence, including the pictures on the Internet of him kissing young men on the lips and his visit to Staedkraemer, which has a large LGBT flag in its front window? Or do they overlook his sex life as relatively unimportant? Alfred Kinsey (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Frequented gay bar(s)?[edit]

Was he a regular / frequent customer at Stadtkraemer, or at any other homosexual establishments? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He was at that bar immediately before his death.[2] In a quick Google search I don't see any mention of him going there regularly. There is this article, [3], which discusses him getting friendly with young men at a bar, but it doesn't describe it as a gay bar.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not: Living next to Klagenfurt a few weeks ago I went to the Stadtkraemer to ask. And here's what the barkeeper told me: Haider was never ever there before. And the best: He went out of the bar "as sober as he came"... As I said, believe it or not, but I'd be careful with rumors. And everything that was written in newspapers may not be a "truth" fit for an encyclopedia... (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't believe it. Too well "informed" to be honnest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm boldly adding auto-archiving for threads stale 45+ days leaving a minimum of 5 threads. -- Banjeboi 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2002 elections section on this page should be archived; all of the comments in that section are from 2002 and 2003. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Once new sections are started it will age off, alternately you can simply cut and paste it into the archives. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Was Webhofer a friend of the Haider family, or in a sexual relationship with Haider? It is a very high value estate that Haider inherited from him. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He was not gay[edit]

Austrian court said that, so don't spread homo-propaganda. LINK -- (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide what is true. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So, for exmaple, we'd report that some newspapers say he was gay and also report that they were fined for saying so, without deciding who is right.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but as you noticed Austrian court sentenced every newspaper who further call Haider as "gay" must pay 100.000 euros. -- (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That may be true but is a legal concern that cannot be used to determine a person's sexuality. I believe quite a few gay men have won similar court orders but later were revealed to in fact be gay. I have no idea if this might be one of those cases but we certainly can lean on reliable sources as to what can be reported. -- Banjeboi 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the court (according to the linked source) ruled that claiming that Haider was gay is "breach of personal and privacy rights", not that it's false. --Nemo 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, he's now dead, and you can't defame the dead; otherwise historians would be out of a job.
Nuttyskin (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the recently added "bisexual politician" category, because the article (as it is today) does not make such a claim.
Personally, I am not convinced that he was gay or bisexual, and I am not convinced that he was not.
But if we add such a claim to the article, it would have to be supported by a source. The same standard should apply to categories. So I will (for the moment) also remove the LGBT tag.
-Austrian (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)