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)

Ack. Catgut (talk) 21:59, 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Austrians. It is not about every single political affiliation of Austria, whether it's the current republic, or its predecessors. Even Austria's EU membership doesn't get mentioned, yet the current EU is a much more cohesive federation or union than the Holy Roman Empire ever was, let alone the German Confederation. Catgut (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thing which is stupid in this first bit is its stating Austrians are a ethnic group when Austrians ethnicity is German, Austrians are Germans and it should be only a nation/nationality because up until '45 Austrians had always been part of the German nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, we are discussing. Ethnic group is defined as people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. If you read the article carefully you will find enough sources that show, that Austrians don’t identify themselves as Germans anymore. Also the meaning of “German” itself has changed over the last centuries, like today the term “European” does. On the other hand we have enough sources in the article which say, that Austrians are an ethnic group today. Regarding Austrians being part of a German Nation until 45 - I can’t really follow. Maybe it would help, if you explain your concept of the German Nation. Andrej N. B. (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters the Anschluss was seen as the unification of the German people. And Austrians share the same language, same culture, same ethnicity as Germans and in the ethnic sense there is no "Austrian ethnicity" it is only because of late politics in the 20th century that Austria never became part of Germany. Austria in German means Eastern Reich for Germans... so — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieNUFC (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is boring NAZI and German-nationalist talk. Some sources could make it more inspiring. Andrej N. B. (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not nazi or German-nationalist talk it is stating facts. There is no such thing as Austrian ethnicity, Austrians are 100% ethnically German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Where's the proof for that pangermanic point of view? Ever read Benedict Anderson? I've no doubt you didn't. Ever read Friedrich Heer? Surely not. Start to inform yourself before you present your personal point of view as facts.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty easy to see really heres some points -

1. Austria in German means "Eastern Reich for Germans". 2. Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the GERMAN Nation. 3. Austria was part of the German Confederation and Vienna sat as capital and was ruled by a "Austrian" chancellor. 4. Austria is included in Greater Germany. 5. Austrians speak the German language. 6. Plenty of parts of Austria have changed over the centuries and was part of southern germany like Bavaria, Mozart and Hitlers birthplaces are perfect examples. 7. It is only because of late 20th century politics Austria never became part of Germany. 8. Germany was just fortunately founded by Prussians. 9. Austria changed its name to GERMAN-Austria in 1918 in plead of a union with Germany. 10. When the Nazis did Anschluss it was welcomed and was seen as the unification of the German people. 11. Even when Germany became a country many Austrians still referred themself as Germans. 12. If you are saying Austrians ain't Germans then neither are Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons, etc.

Now all of a sudden after Nazi regime and WW2 there have tryed to seperate themself from Germans, but time doesn't change history and the point stands - Austrians are ethnically, racially, language "German". Austrian is just a nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but we rely on facts, not assumptions or opinions. You seem to see an ethnic group as something like a DNA, or God-given, which it isn't. Austrians are Austrians, because they see themselves as being Austrian, agree on an Austrian culture, and hold an Austrian citizenship. Period. Whereas the Prussians or Bavarians cited by you regard themselves as Germans. Furthermore, the history of Europe has always been a history of changing borders, thus changing countries and nationalities. Maybe the best example is Poland, which for many centuries had to endure all kinds of transformations. Austria is now more or less what it was 200 years ago in the form of the Archduchy of Austria. It's simply not ideal to refer to the Holy Roman Empire, as this was neither a state nor a nation, but included many different countries, regions, and languages, from the Netherlands to Italy etc. Finally, this article is based on facts, not on ideologies. Again, you have the right to believe in whatever you may believe, but you cannot change this or any other wiki article according to your beliefs. Catgut (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Austrians have seen themself as Austrians for about 200 years? So why in 1918 did Austria change its name to German Austria and wanted union with Germany? Bavarians actually normally refer themself to Bavarian alot of the time not "German" first. 200 years ago Austria was one of the most powerful dominate German states and was in the German Confederation, It is facts not assumptions or opinions you can do a quick google and everything I put is the truth and you know it, I hate how people who are Austrian try and deny being Germans - if Austria had won the Prussian-Austrian war to become top state for Germany nobody would be going "Oh Austrians are not Germans". Austrians are Austrians in the nationality sense not the ethnicity, language, racial and that is a fact. You only have to look at the pictures and videos of when Hitler did Anschluss it was seen as the unification of the German people and cheered on and the atmosphere was fanatic. Tell me if Austrians are not Germans why are Austrians included in Greater Germany? We ain't talking about Poland we are talking about Austria/Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Austrian composer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschlandlied

Point proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor old Haydn didn’t even live anymore when August Heinrich Hoffmann wrote the lyrics and (ab-)used the melody originally written for Francis I/II. Not really a good point. Andrej N. B. (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is only because of late politics in the 19th century that Austria didn't join Germany. Austria had dominated "Germany" until the Prussian-led it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of that song is its the song for Germans and not Austrians - if Austrians ain't German why is Mozart listed in German people wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and seek consensus for your changes, or pursue dispute resolution. O Fenian (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It should state that the German Empire excluded Austria and it should state part of German Confederation because lots of other countries was part of Holy Roman Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See, you don't have any clue about this. Austria wasn't excluded form the German Empire, it was excluded from the German Confederation, something totally different. The appendix "of German Nation" for the Holy Roman Empire was only used for a short time in History and was never the correct adress. There is a reason why the German and English Wp-articles do not use that phrase. Austria does not mean "Eastern Empire of Germans", it isn't totally clear if Österreich is a Name for a direction at all. And if the name descends form a point on the compas, it is no clear wether it means south (from latin "australis") or east (from German "ost"). The Name itself has no hint at all, that it concerened Germans in any way. In fact, when Ostarichi was named in a document for the first time, major parts of Austria were populated by a slavic-germanic people mixture. Austria may not be part of a modern German state because of historic events, but the US are not part of Britain for the same reason. Americans speak English, but do not define themselfes as English. Start learning history and stop spaming your ignorance to Wikipedia.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Austria was excluded from the German Confederation which made the unification of Germany under Prussian rule but if Austria beat Prussia in 1866 it would have been "Greater Germany" in 1871 as start of the German Empire but Prussia beat Austria and it forbidded Austria to join Germany against Austria's wishs under the Treaty Of Versailles, Austria means Eastern Reich for the German-speaking lands in German actually, the Anschluss was an old dream and the unification of the German people, even Austria changed itself to German Austria and 98% wanted merge with Germany but it was forbidded. A true Austrian knows in there heart they're German, shame it's only 6% these days. You learn history and stop spamming your woffle claiming Austrians are not Germans when there are just NOT in the nationality sense apart from 1938-1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this is only a platform for you to post your oppinions as facts, it's EOD for me.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick google search or reading a few books proves Austrians are Germans, the Anschluss was an old dream and was welcomed... stupid how Austrians try and deny it now, wasn't saying that in 1918 German Austria or 1938? A Austrian identity has only changed massive since 1945 but they're still German, time doesn't change facts or history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"time doesn't change facts or history"... you judge yourself...--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true because no matter how much Austrians can try and deny it the fact remains Austrians ARE and FOREVER will be Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I updated the description of Austrians to be citizens of Austria, as that is the correct definition. I removed all unreferenced numbers of Austrians allegedly living in other countries. I removed the aggregate number of 10 million, as it consisted in part of Austrian citizens living in Asutria and in part of residents of the US who claim that they have Austrian ancestry and these numbers are incompatible. I then checked the reference for italy, and it talked about 290,774 German language speakers. The term Austrian did not appear in that document in relation to any number anywhere close to that size. I therefore erased the figure for Italy. None of the remainign figures were part of the top ten countries with Austrians living inn them according to the official Austrian http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/bevoelkerung/internationale_uebersich/036450.html so I went ahead and deleted them as well without checking their sources any further. If you think any of the figrues are relevant, please go back to that list and start including them from the top down. the entire list fo false figures seems to be part of an advanced scheme of distortion that has hit many other pages as well, such as Norwegians. --Johanneswilm (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, either we see the only as cityzens of the Republic of Austria, or we see the as Nationals in a legal way and members of a Nation in a ideological way. It is complete nonsens to write about Austrians as citizens of Austria in the first sentence and talk about ethnic/national history of an Austrian people in the second. My proposal'd bee to introduce the article with a sentence like "Austrians are regarded as the citizens of the Republic of Austria in the definition of Austrian nationality law as well as people of Austrian heritage and decent in a ethnologic definition." Concerning South Tyrol i'd recomend the homepage of the Austrian ministry of foreign affairs which calls the German speaking minority there an "Austrian minority" BMEIA--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That second definition of Austrians is not supported by the definition as it is currently used by the state of Austria or can you provide references? People with ancestors from other parts of the world who are Austrian citizens are just as Austrian as those who do, and people who have Austrian ancestors but who themselves are Germans, Danes, US Americans or Mexicans are not Austrians. You could of course write an article about Emigration from Austria, similar to Emigration from Germany. As for the history as it is presented, I understand that as mainly being about who was seen as Austrians at various historical points in the past, that is why I did not delete that part. However, at times it seems that some of the history is mostly about the Austrian state rather than "Austrians", and possibly someone should go through this and delete irrelevant parts.--Johanneswilm (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do agree on the South Tyrol issue. I will amend the definition similar to Danes on the issue of South Schleswigans. One of the reasons I originally removed this was also that this minority was included both in the list of Germans and Austrians abroad, yet it was made clear that Austrians are not Germans. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, and I've contributed some adaptions. As the article isn't only about Austrians today, I've reinserted the link to the predecessor states. Today, Austrians are the citizens of the Republic of Austria. Historically, also people from the non-Hungarian parts of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy were considered Austrians. It's interesting that the German language never played a major part in that, and also the religious background was pretty irrelevant. Whether people spoke Czech or Polish or Italian, Catholic or Muslim or Jewish, they all could be or become Austrians. Basically, today's situation isn't very different, it's all about having the citizenship and sharing Austrian identity. Catgut (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point in adding that information. I just wonder if maybe the first sentence should be reworded because "Austrians (German: Österreicher) are the citizens of Austria and its historical predecessor states" sounds a bit as if there would be people who today still are citizens of predecessor-states of Austria and also, it does't seem to take the Hungarian part of Austro-Hungary into account. What if we take your sentences from above and create something like: "Austrians (German: Österreicher) are as of today the citizens of the Republic of Austria. Historically, also people from the non-Hungarian parts of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy were considered Austrians." Alternatively: "Austrians (German: Österreicher) are as of today the citizens of the Republic of Austria and before that Austrians were the citizens of Austria's historical predecessor states." Anyone, something along those lines. --Johanneswilm (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right, thanks for that comment! I'd say your first suggestion is fine, but please allow me some time to think about it. Just in order to get it right, and avoid further changes. I'm just thinking about how to address the time before the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the Austrian Empire that is, and the Archduchy of Austria, when Austria belonged to the Holy Roman Empire. I think the member states of the Holy Roman Empire were, despite of the Holy Roman Emperor, sort of sovereign states. Thus, Austrians were called Austrians, as Prussians were called Prussians etc. And Marie-Antoinette was known as "L'Autrichienne". Catgut (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling Austrians a "subtype" of Germans is wrong, there was historically and regarded and understood themself as German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be quite different information than what Catgut presents above. Also, your revert reverted much more than just this one issue. Please discuss here if you have further issues with the text. --Johanneswilm (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how because people develop a distinct identity it makes them an ethnic group, German-speaking Austrians which is pretty much all Austrians are ethnic Germans. It should be said in German Confederation until 1866 because many other countries was in the Holy Roman Empire.

Everything else is fine but a subtype" is silly because Prussians, Bavarians etc are subtype but still considered "Germans".

Well, that is the way nations function though. It's all about identity and what people see themselves as, which then is formalized and legalized through the definitions the state makes -- else we would all still be Africans. There is no ethnic group of Austrians that can be clearly defined. You are quite correct, that Prussians, Bavarians, etc. also were sub-types of Germans many years ago and that Bavarians and North-Rhein-Westphalians as of today still are that. Specifying them as a subtype is the easiest way to communicate to someone not familiar with the area that it at one time was possible to be seen as a German and a Austrian, whereby Austrians were the smaller group and all Austrians were Germans. As for the language: German is NOT the official language of Germany. I have not researched this for Austria yet, but are you certain that German indeed is the official language of Austria? --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

German is the official language in both countries and in the Germany-Austria relations wiki page it clearly states that as well. A nation is not a ethnic group neither are you stupid? Yes Austrians have developed a own nation from Germans compared to prior 1945, but it doesn't change the ethnicity of Austrians, and Austrians are Germans in the ethnic sense just not the nationality sense. if you go to Prussian, Bavarian wiki pages it is not "subtypes" it is just German and it is correct to put Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans not a subtype of Germans. Also some Austrians still identify themself as German something like 6% or so since 1987. I agree everything is fine but it clearly should state at the top being part of the German Confederation until 1866 after all it was the leading empire and the rival was Prussia which beat Austria and forced them out of Germany against Austria's wishes, because so many other countries was part of the Holy Roman Empire that is not enough to state there was regarded as Germans just being part of that. You saying we could all call ourself African is silly because the Life from Africa is a theory and whether you want to believe it or not is up to you - let's stick to this Austrians wiki page. Austrians before 1871 [when Germany was unified Prussian-led] was regarded as Germans, and even if up to 1945 Austrians still considered themself German because ethnically there are.

No, German is not the official language of Germany, but it seems to be the official language of Austria, see [4] although wikipedia in itself is not really a valid reference. I will go ahead and check all the original references. Not Germany nor Austria recognize a category of "ethnic Germans". I personally don't know what that should mean either. However, before the establishment of the BRD, its predecessor states operated with such a category. The definition for what Volksdeutsche was back then, was circular when I found the article so I only fixed it a little, but if you have the knowledge and references needed to describe this better, please go ahead. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another proof that German is not the official language of Germany yet. A campaign to do so was started a few years ago, but so far it has not been converted into law [5]. In the case of Austria, the official text reads "Paragraph 8, Article 1: The German language is, without prejudice to the linguistic minorities who have rights granted by federal law, the state language of the Republic." (my translation) [6]. To be honest I am not quite sure what the inner part of this is to mean, but you are right that German is the official language of Austria. --Johanneswilm (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The way the Austrian page is now is absolutely fine. Nothing needs removing from it. It clearly states that Austrians have developed a distinct identity from German, but Austrians are ethnically German and if you read further down explains it perfect, some Austrians today identify themself as German, but most do not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - Official language - German http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria - Official language - German http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria%E2%80%93Germany_relations - German is the language of both countries.

I think the way the page is now is fine and looks good, this Austrian wiki page should be locked just like the German one is, don't you agree?

Time and again, the usual old debate comes up, obviously sparked by the same person doing the same edits and using the same arguments. Just see Nationalism to realize that nations, national identities etc. are ideas that emerged in the 19th century, rooted in movements dating back to the late 18th century. Attributing those ideas to people and states before that time is falsifying history and scientifically wrong. There was no German national state before this state was created in the second half of the 19th century, as so many other nations came to exist around that time, for example Italy. Several nations began their existence in the 20th century, among them the Czech and the Slovak nation. Not to speak about more complicated cases, like Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, and Yugoslavia (allow me to exclude Kosovo from that discourse). It is also wrong to perceive the Holy Roman Empire as a state, which it wasn't, and even less as a national state of which all of its citizens or inhabitants were Germans. It was the last Holy Roman Empire, an Austrian archduke, who ended the Empire and founded the Austrian Empire, making himself the Emperor of Austria. There is no official document calling Austria a part of Germany, or defining Austrians as Germans. And there was no wish to join Germany. The idea of national identities was completely foreign to Austria and its Habsburg rulers, a lack of understanding current ideologies which ultimately led to the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, when Czechs, Italians etc. demanded their own national states, whereas the German speaking parts did not know how to cope with that. Only then, in 1918-1919, the question appeared regarding the identity of the people living in the then rump state, a leftover of the former monarchy. This led to the short lived wish of becoming a part of Germany, but was forbidden by the signatories of the Saint Germain treaty. So the new democratic Republic of Austria started to exist, without any further attempt to join Germany. Again, the question of whether Austrians were Germans or not simply did not occur or remained irrelevant. The next such situation arose in 1938, and a Nazi controlled referendum completed the annexation of Austria by the Third Reich. In 1945, the Republic of Austria was reconstructed, its former democratic constitution was restored, and following that any wish to ever join Germany again was limited to right-wing fringe groups. At the same time, Austrians became aware and certain of their own identity, a view supported by scientific research. These are the facts. In short: The question of any Austrian identity restricted only to the German speaking inhabitants of Austria, or whether those German speaking Austrians were Germans, simply did not really surface before 1918. And then it took some time to develop a new identity. As we know from examples like Belgium or Yugoslavia, any such identity cannot be constructed artificially. It either exists or not. And if it exists, we have an ethnic group. It is simply not viable to say, Austrians are Germans because they speak German, as it would be ridiculous to say Americans are English or British because they speak English by the majority. And it is also not viable to connect the question of ethnicity or nationality with a "common blood". Today, Austrians are Austrians if they're citizens of Austria, whatever mother tongue(s) they may use or not. Again, the belief that Austrians are actually Germans is confined to fringe right-wing or Nazi groups in Austria and especially Germany. Except for those fringe groups, nobody in Austria or outside Austria sees any value in such an idea. And to be honest, nobody is interested in it. It's so 19th century that it seems just boring in 2011. Finally, German is of course Austria's official language, but there are also other languages which hold official status in certain parts of Austria, for example Croatian in Burgenland and Slovenian in Carinthia. There are state run schools where pupils are tought in Croatian, Slovenian or Czech, as they constitute officially recognized minorities defined by the Austrian State Treaty of 1955, now a part of the Austrian constitution. What kind of conclusion should we draw from that? None. Canada has two official languages, English and French. Yet Canadians are Canadians, they're not English or French. It's as simple as that. Catgut (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all and it's not just one person doing the edits several people have done them. For starters in the 19th century section (and where counted as such in the censuses) is wrong it's "were" not "where" so why you keep changing that back to where is stupid. Austrians are Germans alot more than just because there speak German and you know it, it is not far-right talk at all it is plain and simple facts. Austria had dominated and was seen as the leader of Germany for centuries and being part of Holy Roman Empire which was the German nation, Austrian-led German Confederation and it was against Austria's wishes not to join Germany anyways which you already know, even when Germany was created Austrians still considered themself German. Why in 1918 did the name go from Austria to German-Austria and 98/99% want union? Why when Hitler and the Nazis (who was Austrian-born (nationality) but considered himself German all his life) did the Anschluss it was seen as an old dream and was welcomed, it's all Nazi-propaganda in making the world think Austrians are not Germans when clearly history proves otherwise whether it's 19th century that Germany was created or 2011 it still doesn't change the fact Austrians are Germans. Yes Austrians image has changed since WW2/Nazi Regime and considered a seperate nation but you can't go around calling them a different ethnic group when every tom, dick and harry knows that Austrians are ethnic Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) It only seems to be you changing them, everybody is happy. Austria was a top leading German state, it's like claiming Northern Irish ain't Irish because not part of the Republic, everybody knows there are whether religion makes them think otherwise. Because they are Germans. They speak German, are culturally German, and Austria was regarded as not only part of Germany, but the leader of Germany for a thousand years before Napoleon forcibly broke apart the Holy Roman Empire at the beginning of the 19th century. Despite its name, the Holy Roman Empire was a confederation of German states (the pope crowned a German prince 'emperor of Rome' during the middle ages to secure Germany's support in wars the church was fighting at the time). Traditionally, the Holy Roman Emperor was the Duke of Austria, and the capital of the Empire was Vienna. After Napoleon conquered most of Germany, he dissolved the empire. Its two largest states, Prussia in northern Germany, and Austria in southern Germany began building themselves up after Napoleon's defeat by taking over smaller German states. This competition between Austria, whose ruler adopted the title "Emperor of Austria" and Prussia, whose ruler took the title of King of Prussia, permanently split Germany into two states. Hitler, who was Austrian, wanted to reunify Germany as a large and strong state that would then conquer and enslave the rest of Europe. He did this by invading Austria in 1938 to assist a rebellion by local Austrian Nazis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75ldUNc2Xw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC) If you look into how Germany was created as a single unified state you will see it wasn't Austria's choice not to join it, Austrians are Germans just like Bavarians, Prussians, Saxians, Hessians etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Been changed back to the old page, least it states the obvious apart from claiming they're an ethnic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC) No they're a nationality and a nation - Austrians are ethnic Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) (and where counted as such in the censuses) where - place were - past tense It's were stop changing it back to where it's not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks as if the major clean up is all about deleting sources. Cant find any new sources that demand an new intro. And the discussion here is about Austrians beiing ehtnic Germans once again. Andrej N. B. (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC) It's propaganda claiming they're not it's like saying Hitler wasn't German of course he was, he was ethnically German, Austrian being his nationality. It's not even Nazi/Right wing it's just plain facts that is what Austrians con the world in thinking Austrian=German=Nazi bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Austrians = austrian citizens. That is extensively documented and you can see it in all Austrian laws, such as this one. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't change Austrians ethnicity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If you think that there is such a thing as Austrian ethnicity, and you can document it, then create Austrian ethnicity. --Johanneswilm (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Austrian is a nationality not a ethnicity, Austrians ethnicity is German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course all Austrian citizens are called Austrians - but there is a little more to tell. And as you can read in the intro, this article is not about Austria citizenship - it is about Austrians as a nation and an ethnic group. This kind of disambiguation goes along with nearly all other "people" pages (see Italian people, Finns, Swedish people, Hungarian people, Serbs,...). And please - stop deleting sources and content. If things should be sourced, flag it with citation needed. Andrej N. B. (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So a dog born in a stable makes it a horse? Austrians was historically regarded as Germans you don't need to change that, Austrians are Germans. You need to get your ass out from the media living in anti-nazi propaganda and how all of a sudden from ww2 austrians ain't germans, idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Austrians due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German Confederation until 1866 and German being the official language in Austria, Austrians were historically regarded as Germans. But after the following of the German Empire in 1871, World War 1, World War 2, and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct identity. Or something along those lines should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire and German being the official language spoken in Austria. But after the founding of the German Empire, World War 2 and Nazism Austrians have developed their own distinct identity. okay????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Scared to state Austrians were once regarded as Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Still no sources for your assertions? O Fenian (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep this - Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German being the official language spoken in Austria. But after the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2, and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct identity.

It was pretty much the same as before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not appear to be listening. If you continue to add unsourced content to this article, I will ask for you to be blocked. O Fenian (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be supporting that 100%.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It was there before that Austrians were historically regarded as Germans, why change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically Austrians regarded as Germans!

Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German being the official language spoken in Austria. But after the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2, and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct identity.

What is wrong in that it is the exact truth, why are people disagreeing? (keep Austria being part of the German Confederation) out of it like before when I tried to put it in but it wasn't revelant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No sources, no addition. O Fenian (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur. See WP:RS and WP:V. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you winding me up? There is loads of sources to back it up.

The even article itself here says even after German Empire was created German-speaking Austrians still considered themself German and were counted as cenuses.