Talk:Austrians

Hitler?

Due to the fact that Hitler decided to be rather German than Austrian i think that he's not the best choice for the heading. --Zoris Trömm (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, Hitler's importance stems from his political functions in Germany, i. e. as a German Chancellor. He renounced his Austrian citizenship, and later became a German citizien which of course was the basis for his political career in Germany. He was never a major figure in Austria during the time he actually lived and worked there. Inserting his picture amounts to promoting a war criminal and mass murderer. Taking the examples of other pages devoted to single countries, it seems clear to me that only those person merit to have their picture inserted who without doubt can be identified as eccellent and outstanding citizens of that nation. Thus, ethically and morally questionable people like Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Ante Pavelic, Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Manson, Jim Jones and others don't have their images associated with the respective countries they belong(ed) to. Therefore I can see no reason that would justify inserting Hitler's image. And if this was meant to be a joke, it was a very bad one, made at the expense of millions of murdered Jews and other victims of the Second World War. --Catgut (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I helped put up some other photos, and I agree as well. 128.198.66.37 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Hitler because as a matter of fact he was a born Austrian, whether he fought for Germany or took control of it is of little relevance. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus, until now you're the only one, and you haven't put forward any arguments that would support your proposal. --Catgut (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jan Hofmann! An article about Austrians without a picture of Adolf Hitler would be a strange kind of wishful thinking. --Quadruplet (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange argumentation. On the one hand you don't accept Billy wilder as "real Austrian", on the other hand you say Hitler was one. --Zoris Trömm (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Some users seem to be following a specific agenda. For now I'd say that as long as there is no image of Hitler in Germans, no image of Pétain in French people, no image of Franco in Spaniards, no image of Stalin in Georgians, no image of Mussolini in Italians, there's no need to promote or use a war criminal and massmurderer for whatever reason. The more or less unspoken policy is to keep highly questionable people such as criminals and killers of the respective articles about certain ethnic groups. Period. --Catgut (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget to mention Fritzl... --Zoris Trömm (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On that Basis Arnie shouldn't be there because he chose to be American and is the governer of California. 86.151.239.118 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

By far the most famous Austrian of all time where is his picture? 86.151.122.205 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was ethnically Austrian even if a German citizen. To belong to an ethnicity doesn´t depend on where you live. An ethnic Italian can be an Austrian citizen. Another thing if we consider both Austrians and Swiss to be ethnic Germans too...--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't "ethnically" Austrian, Austrian was his nationality there is a difference. He was ethnically German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

In my opinion there are far too much pictures in the info box. Compared to those of other ethnicities (e. g. Germans) 24 (!) characters is a bit overkill. I´d say that six to eight would be adequate. If someone thinks that there should be more, he or she could scale them down like in the articles of Spanish or French people.--Zoris Trömm (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, most of these people are unknown (outside of Austria). Some of them were not even Austrians (Mozart, Schneider) or - if you check it exactly - were no "real" Austrians (Lamarr, Wilder, Lang, Trapp, Haneke (?), Schwarzenegger). --Quadruplet (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the pictures to encourage the creation of a collage. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want or plan to create a collage, then please do so. For now let's keep the images, the removal of which doesn't encourage anything. --Catgut (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to create a collage to fix the 24(!) images cluttering the entire page. Compare to reverting vandalism, just because I do it I don't have to expand the article. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, of course you don't have to. And I don't have to accept your edit. Your comparison with reverting vandalism is not appropriate. Please wait for the outcome of this discussion, thank you. --Catgut (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the picture of Mozart – Mozart is a VERY dubious case! Definitely no “Austrian”, because Salzburg became part of Austria not until 1805 (Mozart died 1791; http://www.salzburgmuseum.at/178.html). Besides, in the opinion of his contemporaries – and in his own eyes – he not passed for an "Austrian composer". --Quadruplet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

This is not the place to discuss about Mozart. If you want to do so, then go to this place. Mozart is also included in the Austrian composers category, so I guess there must be a reason for it. --Catgut (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with "real Austrians", but Schneider was Austian, French and German, Lamarr, wilder and Schwarzenegger are all Austrian-born. The Latter is still an austria citizen. Mozart is an old topic, but i'd guess that he became a subject of the Austrian archduchy when he entered the service of Joseph II. HRH. I didn't question the "Austrianism" of any of them, but there were to much/ wrongly presented pictures. --Zoris Trömm (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous claim

The claim that Austrians - meaning the German-speaking population of Austria - are the "Austrian ethnic group" is just ridiculous. It is a known fact among scholars that German-speaking Austrians are, by definition, ethnic Germans. The name "Österreicher" itself testifies that Austrians are not an ethnic group, but inhabitants of the "Eastern (German) Empire". I do understand the problematics of this discussion, especially after the events of WWII, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be free of politically motivated nonsense. Tajik (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way: see this really good article in the German Wikipedia. Tajik (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a very good article, which says nothing about Austrians being Germans - try this one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichische_Nation; where are the sources to your facts? 85.124.93.2 (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that from my experience all the users objecting to the existence of an Austrian nation, or questioning Austrians as an ethnic group, or declaring Austrians to be actually Germans, seem to be from Germany. Whereas users from other nations don't have similar problems, and they're quite able to identify Austrians as Austrians. Really strange. --Catgut (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a great difference between Germans and Austrians who deny the existence of an Austrian Nation. Whereas the about 5 percent Austrians, who still call themselves ethnic Germans, are mostly right winged, this does not apply to the German group. A lot of Germans are really surprised, that we don’t identify ourselves as Germans. I don’t think that they are actually hostile against the thought of an Austrian nation – it just doesn’t fit in what they have learned at school. Few of them consider that nationalism is a modern phenomenon and count the HRE as a common nation. The important role religion plays for the history of Austria is also seldom known, as well as things like Ständestaat, O5 or the tide of events concerning the Anschluss. They often think the allied forces of ww II and the “Opfermythos” are the only reasons Austria exists. And a lot of Germans feel rejected through our own identity and ask us, why being German would be bad. Nothing, neither would it be bad being French, I just don’t see myself as one. 213.162.66.178 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

a) I am not a German (Volksdeutsch), but I live in Germany. b) There is a difference between "nation" and "ethnic group". Most nations in the world, including Austria, are multi-ethnic nations. c) Within the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation "Austria", the ethnic Germans are the majority. d) The difference between Austrian German-speakers and Germany's German-speakers is the same as that between Saudi Arab-speakers, Iraqi Arab-speakers, and Moroccan Arab-speakers. While everyone acknowledges that Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, and Morocco are different nations (= states and citizenship), there is no dispute over that fact that all of the Arab-speakers in these countries are Arabs (cf. Arab League). In case of Germany and Austria, the difference is not even as big as between Arabs, many of whom can't even understand each other. Tajik (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you started this discussion your profile said that German is your mother tongue – now you changed that (funny) - so you probably grew up in Germany and learned the same things in school as Germans do. I think your mixing things like state and nation up and don’t really know much about Austrian history and Austria becoming a nation. But maybe I am wrong and you can write a chapter “criticism on the concept of an Austrian ethnic group” – that would be great. But please use valid sources; until now, you just wrote your not very reflected personal opinion. You can find a number of sources in the article, which confirm the existence of an Austrian ethnic group. In your farfetched analogy with the Arabs you didn’t consider one great difference: over 80 percent of the Austrians don’t identify themselves as Germans – so it seems quite inappropriate, that you think you can tell the Austrian population who they “really” are – quasi a ridiculous claim. 62.178.131.39 (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I grew up in Germany. And I have also lived in Austria (Vienna, "19. Bezirk", very nice). I know about austria, Austrian people, their dialect, their culture, etc. And it's not different from the rest of the German world. To keep it short: the only interesting thing in your last reply is the last part. Austrians are considered a nation (NOT an ethnic group!) because they see themselves as "Austrians" and not as "Germans". It's a trend that started after WW2; I guess Austrians want to forget their responsibility in WW2, unlike Germans who accept their history and regret it. Austria grew out of the Habsburg dynasty, a German dynasty from Switzerland. Austrians can consider themselves separate from Germans, it's their right. They can also consider themselves Martians or Chinese - it's their right. But it won't change the fact that they are no Martians or Chinese. The same way they can't change the fact that they are ethnic Germans. Tajik (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement, but I consider this debate now closed as it leads to nowhere, and doesn't even slightly improve the article at all. Now we've reached the stage where miraculously the Second World War comes into play to support an argument, and from my experience this is always a bad sign (see Godwin's law). But I'd suggest to read Ethnic group, in the introduction of which it's stated: "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed." This is valid for all ethnic groups, including the Germans. Afaik, no German soccer fan roots for Austria's national soccer team when the Germans play against the Austrians, quite the contrary. And the other way round. This says everthing that needs to be said. Btw, the Habsburgs weren't a German, but rather a European dynasty. See House of Habsburg for that matter. --Catgut (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Being a European dynasty does not change the fact that they were ethnic Germans, the same way that the Persianized Seljuqs were still Turkish and not Persian or Asian. Encyclopaedia Britannica says: House of Habsburg - royal German family, one of the principal sovereign dynasties of Europe from the 15th to the 20th century. [1] Tajik (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube. Nam quae Mars aliis, dat tibi diva Venus. A short look at the Habsburg family tree shows many French, Spanish… that are European family members. Calling the whole family ethnic Germans just because of their founding in today’s Swiss Canton of Aargau is absurd.213.162.66.142 (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tajik is right, Austrians aren't an ethnic group. None of the sources says that (most of them are dead links, and one source [2] particularly lists "Germans" as the ethnic majority. --bender235 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The CIA does not have jurisdiction over European ethnography. Tajik's claim that [scholars state that] Austrians are "by definition" ethnic Germans just show that he doesn't have the first idea of what he is talking about. Does Tajik realize that there weren't any "ethnic Germans" before 1850? If you must discuss the Middle Ages, discuss Austrians in term of Bavarians, Carinthians, Styrians, etc. There were no "Germans" in the Middle Ages. The "ethnic German" question is a historical one, limited to 1871 to 1945 or so. This is 2010. If you want to claim something is a "fact" you had better take into account the decade, or at least the century, your statement pertains to.

It is true that the terms "ethnicity", "nation" and "nationality" overlap in Europe more than elsewhere. The reason is that the nation state, and indeed the modern state in general, is a European development. The consequence for our purposes is that we cannot meaningfully separate "nationality" and "ethnic group" articles on a wiki-wide level, we can only do so on a case-by-case basis. --dab (𒁳) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an encycolpedia, not an example of politcal correctness, where is Hitler?

The pop idea that Hitler is with out a doubt top 3 most important people to ever live is really actually true, so why isn't he a in the pictures of notable Austrians? The photo collection seems to infer the idea that Wikipedia or this article is just a piece of pointless political correctness with no energy of true intellectualism. There's a overwhelming amount of artists representing the Austrian people, and for the sake of variety we should replace Elfriede Jelinek or Gustav Klimt (who are not that notable anyway in the scheme of history) with Hitler, a incredibly important and influential politician. To say he's just a war criminal/mass murderer is shallow. It shouldn't matter how notorious or "offending" he is.

And to help the self-righteous, politically sensitive people, stop editing Wikipedia. The point of this is to be a collection of intellectual knowledge, not political prejudgments. I just get tired of this shallow political correctness that is so common in Wikipedia articles. It could be so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Prejudgment, prejudgment, prejudgment. Stop posting this stupid rant everywhere, it's just supposed to be a collection of pictures of famous people from the race, that's all it's supposed to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

this recurring, pointless discussion illustrates that the Wikipedia practice of gracing ethnic group "infoboxes" with collections of thumbnail mugshots is idiotic to begin with, and I would support initiating its abortion on this as much as on any other article.

The "image" slot in the "ethnic group" template was intended for typical scenes, check out Maasai for an example. Replace this stupid mugshot collection with a picture taken in a Vienna pub or something along these lines. --dab (𒁳) 22:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

pictures

when I scroll over arnold schwarzenegger's picture i read the name Elfriede Jelinek. Jorumpl (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Languages of Austria

From my talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Languages of Austria

Hi! I heard you stating that Austrians speak German as their mother tongue. As an Austrian (Viennese to be exact), I can tell you that this is false. The OFFICIAL language is German (Austrian German to be exact), used in all official publications and announcements, in most media and is taught in schools, where it's expected to be spoken, and most Austrians (including all youth, unless really poorly educated) can speak it, but you don't go to Austria and hear the natives speaking Deutsch to each other, never. Instead, our native language (except in Vorarlberg, where Alemannic is spoken) is Austro-Bavarian, spoken with various dialects. And contrary to popular belief, Austro-Bavarian is NOT German (it is A German language, but not THE German language, since THE German language is a Central German language and Austro-Bavarian an Upper German language). Especially in larger cities, though,Italic text (Austrian) German is a second language to almost all of us; however, don't go to the Alps in the countryside of the Tyrol and expect a lady in her 70:s enjoying the beautiful mountains to speak a word of German or even understand it. The latter mostly applies to southern (and southwestern) Austria, where Southern Austro-Bavarian dialects are spoken. You know what I'm saying? The statement that German is the mother tongue of the Austrians is simply a misconception (even though Austro-Bavarian-speakers are listed as German-speakers in the statistics).

Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source to back this up? If so I apologise and feel free to "undo" my edit via the history tab. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Source? Ok, here's the source: I am a lifelong average Viennese bloke and have never spoken or heard German amongst ourselves other than mixing in some German expressions in daily speech, and trying to speak German to for example my grandparents (on my both parents' side) who are 75-80 years old is no less foolish than trying to speak Swahili, trust me. Aside from formal contexts, we only use German when speaking to tourists, immigrants or minorities, as well as in Germany, Vorarlberg and "German"-speaking Switzerland, plus in Sweden and Norway for my part due to the similarity between Swedish, Norwegian and German. Isn't that enough of a source? If not, I can refer to the fact that Austria's population is 8.383.784 people, of which 88 % (7.377.730) speak A German language as their mother tongue. Of these 7 million (German Wikipedia) speak Austro-Bavarian, which equals to 94.9 %. Also, you've got to take away the population of Vorarlberg (where Alemannic is spoken) and those who really speak German as their mother tongue (German immigrants). If these two facts aren't enough, I'm not sure I can help you.

Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per one of the key Wikipedian policies verifiability content included here has to be backed up by a reliable source. Of note this source doesn't have to be written in English if no source in English is available. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Spaniard the ideas of Andras look to me completely ridiculous. Of course Austrians speak German. From that point of view nobody speak German because in every German state until a few decades ago a dialect was spoken, and Northern German dialects were very similar to Dutch, so even more different from Standard German than the Austrian dialect. Bavarians also speak a dialect more similar to the Austrian one than to the one in Northern Germany. And so? Nobody speaks German in Germany then? Ridiculous. All that looks propaganda from the occupation forces who forced Austria under the Treaty of St. Germain (after WWI) to change their name from "German Austria" to just "Austria" as they feared Austria was going to become a German state, something which has already taken place as Austria shares the same borders, currency and language as the rest of "Deutschland". Sorry, but that is the reality. Wake up!--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the official statistics further down (bold style)?

/Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For the content to be included you'll need a link or another reference to the government publication in question which published those statistics - or another reliable source commenting on them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to to look for a reliable source confirming German Wikipedia's statements /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to bring it up here or on the talk page for the article when you've found one - or just be bold and add it to the article directly :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Here's the link [3] (sadly in German only). The 8:th lead paragraph says: Seven million Austrians speak Austro-Bavarian, says the "Förderverein Bairische Sprache und Dialekte", which is an association working for the continued flourishing of the Austro-Bavarian language mostly in Bavaria, where German is taking over as the majority language, and has already done so in Munich and partially in other large cities. Note, this IS from the website of the association/Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think that meets the reliable source criteria. Do you have something in a newspaper? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a reliable source at last: the Ethnologue (on External links on the Engllish-language artcle "Austro-Bavarian"). This fulfills the fact in bold. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.6.118 (talk)

Cool. Btw I'm going to copy this over to the articles talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

German, Slovene, Croatian and Hungarian are official languages in Austria (check the CIA source); Austro-Bavarian is a dialect; Austrian German is our national standard variety, also official and defined by the Austrian dictionary (Österreichisches Wörterbuch), published under the authority of the ministry of education, art and culture languages (check sources in main articles); please don’t mix up dialects and official languages Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am Austrian too, and a dialect in this case means language with no official status, because linguistically Austro-Bavarian is a different language. Besides, The article is focusing on the native language of the people, not the official language. Since you are an Austrian: Where in Austria are you from, and do you really speak German (since Austrian German is German and not Austro-Bavarian even though many non-Austrians confuse them) as your very first language? Because I am Viennese residing in Leopoldau and only speak German as a second language, my first langauge being Austro-Bavarian (Weanarisch to be exact) and I have never ever heard German being spoken among us either (except possibly mixing in some words into our colloquial Austro-Bavarian) /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a native Austrian German speaker but where we come from and POV is not relevant for this article. Your changes of the article don’t go along with the content of the sources and are wrong (for example is Alemanic German not only spoken in Vorarlberg, but also in Außerfern in Tyrol). So please stop deleting sources. I haven’t considered your source since it doesn’t even mention Hungarian as a official Austrian language: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=AT – so to me it seems unreliable. Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the other “people” pages and indeed dialects are sometimes mentioned in the info box. I hope my compromise is ok with you. Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit better, but just so you know, the Ethnologue was used as a source only to confirm the fact that virtually no one speaks German natively, since Austria's population is 8.383.784 people, of which 88 % (7.377.730) speak A German language (not to be confused with THE German language) as their mother tongue. Of these 7 million (THIS is what Ethnologue confirmed) speak Austro-Bavarian, which equals to 94.9 %. Also, you've got to take away the population of Vorarlberg and the Außerfern (you're correct with the Außerfern and for that one I apologise) and those who really speak German as their mother tongue (German immigrants), and well, we all know what this results in. Besides, even though Hungarian is not the national language, it is an official minority language in Burgenland, along ewith Burgenland Croatian. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible, that you mix up German (Deutsch) with Standard German (Hochdeutsch)? Austro-Bavarian is part of the German language. So even if you speak an Austro-Bavarian dialect you are still a native German speaker. Concerning Hungarian we go conform, but that is not mentioned in your source. Andrej N. B. (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian was not meant to be mentioned in the source, only the fact that 94.9 % of all "German"-speaking Austrians speak Austro-Bavarian natively (7 million). Anyway, I always thought Austro-Bavarian was a different language, because it does meet the lingustic criteria to be classified as such. But if it is a variety of German as you say, well, Austrian German is STILL not the native language of ours, since Austrian German is a kind of Standard German, and as described in the ethnologue we don't speak Stanard German natively. So, a more accurate statement would be like: German: Austro-Bavarian and Alemannic dialects, because the article wants the native tongue of the people, and Austrian German is just the official variety and a kind of, well, second language. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.191.175 (talk)

Do you have a source for this statement: "The Central Austro-Bavarian dialects are more closely related to Standard German than the Southern Austro-Bavarian dialects." Andrej N. B. (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier but I just re-formulated it. Although, the relation can be derived from the dialect continuum /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 21:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.191.175 (talk)

If German and Austrian were different languages as Andrea says there would be one Wikipedia in German and another Wikipedia in Austrian...but it is the same (German), and that makes more ridiculous his claims. Absurd. Then there should be one Wikipedia for English, another for American, a thir one for Australian....and so on.--83.39.41.244 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is Hitler ?? He is not among Germans nor Austrians ? IS THIS A JOKE ?

Its like he is taboo or something -- John 20.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.242.192 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was ethnically Austrian even if he had German nationality. People from any ethnic background can become a German citizen.--83.39.41.244 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He was ethnically German actually, Austrians are ethnically German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Hello guys, I've made some changes to the lead per WP:LEAD. First of all, some of the language appeared to be rather strange or even puzzling (maybe a bad translation?). Let's not forget, any article's lead should provide a concise overview, but leave the details to the article itself. Above all, I did my best to correct that very, very long sentence again. I did that couple of days ago, but it surfaced again, probably for some editing error following the IP's edits. And once more I corrected the expression "their own identity separated from the Germans". It wasn't quite clear to me what this should mean. Either you have an "own identity", or you haven't, but an "own identity separated from the Germans" would also include the opposite, i. e. the possibilty of an "own identity not separated from the Germans". Primarily, this was a case of lacking logic and coherence. Then of course, there were Western Austrians who obviously wanted to join Switzerland, so the problem is really a bit more complex. On the other hand, I included World War I, as this war gets mentioned in the article, and its aftermath seems important, given that Austria was now a different entity to what it had been before. But I still struggle with the expression that Austrians were "historically regarded as Germans". This makes me ask: Regarded by whom? By historians? Politicians? Ideologues? Or did Austrians regard themselves as Germans? The thing is, Nationalism was a political movement rooted in the 19th century. Before that, there was a complete disregard for ethnic groups or respective conflicts. So how did Austrians in, let's say, 1800 see themselves? The term "historically" is rather unclear in that respect. At least from the article it seems obvious that a publicly expressed wish by Austrians to unify their state with Germany only existed between 1918 and 1938. Never before or later any such wish became apparent. So maybe the term "German", when applied to a German speaking Austrian, meant something else, maybe just "German speaking". Finally, I corrected the expression "speakers of twelve languages". Well, I don't know how many languages a single person is able to speak fluently, but twelve is rather much, isn't it... Best, Catgut (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Top bit start of "Austrian" section

Why do people keep removing that Austria was part of the German Confederation and that it was excluded from Germany in 1871? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other editors, but the information is excessive and there is also an inappropriate (due to be it being unsourced) cause-effect link you are claiming, without sources making the link the changes cannot be made in my opinion. I strongly suggest you stop edit warring, since have continued to do so upon the expiration of your block. O Fenian (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is stating only that Austria was only part of the holy roman empire but it was also part of the german confederation and was the dominate state along with prussia it should be added in and when it says german state made in 1871 it should say austria excluded because it wasn't by choice these never joined germany... these guys are all the same people