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)

OK, then take Arnie down.--90.193.23.169 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2011 (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)

Period? Stalin is on the Georgian article, FWIW. Personally, if its a list of notable Austrians (regardless of what they were notable for), he ought to be included. I don't see how inclusion of an historical figure is tantamount to "promoting a mass murderer"--Львівське (говорити) 07:13, 31 October 2011 (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.

wrong,the consept of german or than teodisc allready existed in the frankish empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.104 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

austrian saw themselvs as germans they even called their country German Austria at first (after wwi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.104 (talk) 08:14, 17 October 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Then citing those sources should present no challenge to you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. On the user's talk page, I've encouraged him/her to make sure s/he cites a reliable source if s/he decides to try to add the information again. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sources"

Regarding this edit, this is a blog which is not a reliable source, and this is a travel website which does not appear to be a reliable source, and furthermore I cannot see anything on there that sources "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". While it may mention German being the official language of Austria, it does not source the conclusion that "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans...". O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This source is of questionable reliability and does not source "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806", there is nowhere it draws that conclusion. This source does not even mention 1871 or the German Empire, so it does not source "Following the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2 and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own identity". Since the preceding sentence is not sourced, it makes no sense to leave that sentence in anyway.

I strongly suggest the editor provides sources here for discussion, since this is going badly already. O Fenian (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What about this: Republic of German-Austria?--IIIraute (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Austrians historically regarded as Germans

I've added sources sorry can't "edit" other topic hope it's okay now, removed German Confederation and official language spoken in Austria as it is irrelevant

As mentioned at Talk:Austrians#"Sources", none of the sources make the claims you are adding to the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even in the article itself even states there considered themselves Germans and them sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordi2011 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are not listening, which is why despite having this message posted to your talk page you proceeded to make this edit. If you had attempted to discuss your edits before making them as requested on multiple times, you would have found out that this source is a self-published source and not reliable, and appears to be a mirror of our own Pan-Germanism article. O Fenian (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that putting that German being the official language in Austria and part of German Confederation is irrelevant but even the article itself says Austrians still considered themselves Germans and before I added extras like the language and German Confederation it used to be something along the lines of :

Historically, due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, German-speaking Austrians were regarded as Germans but after the founding of the German Empire, World War 2 and Nazism Austrians have developed their own distinct identity.

Why can that not be added again? The Austrian article itself even tells you it.

I don't want to edit no more without asking don't want to be perm blocked.

You wouldn't need to put German-speaking Austrians as that is 99.9% of Austrians seeing as it is the countries first language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nufc2011 (talk • contribs)

Of course it is true that "historically, German-speaking Austrians were regarded as Germans". Say for about 400 years, 1400-1800. At least if you are careful with terminology (what do the English nouns Austrians and Germans mean here, exactly?). They aren't now.

Be aware that Germans comes into use in English about 1350, meaning "German-speaking population of the Holy Roman Empire". At that time, and for another 300 years, there wasn't even a noun Austrians. That noun appears about 1650. So for the period of 1350 to 1650, it is difficult to say that "Austrians were considered Germans" because the term "Austrians" didn't exist in the first place, and it is meaningless to even discuss "Austrians" for times prior to the 17th century. In the period of 1650 to 1800, things become interesting, and it may in some sense be claimed that "Austrians" were a subset of "Germans". Between say 1800 to 1945, you get the Pan-Germanism issue, and it becomes disputed whether "Austrians are Germans". After 1945, it is clearly the mainstream view that Austrians are a group apart from Germans. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

'Austrians' have been 'German' since they came into existence, at least as an extension of being Bavarian; and at least the time of the Moravian Slavs, who passed their word for Nemci into Magyar. There is undoubtedly a diachronic conceptual continuum between how they are first distinguish themselves from Walha and Slavs and how they thought of themselves c. 1800. Austrians are the inhabitants of the margravate then duchy of Austria. They were a kind of Bavarian, then just one political grouping of Deutch/Netmci/Teutonici. Austrian in its current sense is recent, in that it referred only to people in the duchy as a extension of being in the duchy (and thus didn't include Styrians, Salzburgers and so on). In the 19th century there was no doubt that Austrians were Germans, just whether or not Austria could be in a new German state; it was only questioned because Austria had a large empire, not because people thought it wasn't German. If anything the problem was the opposite; what was the difference between Austria and Germany? The Ottomans referred to both [what we would regard as] the Holy Roman Empire AND Austria as Nemçe, borrowing the Slavic word for Germany (so Berlin was in Austria according to translators of Ottoman documents!). It's comfortingly easy to backdate Austria as a core identity of the Hapsburg Empire, but in reality Austria comes about only because of the decline of the Hapsburg Empire, the rump German Austria left after the Great War; and then because the Soviets and Americans said they had to be different to quiet future German threats to themselves. Austrian/German distinction can be better traced to the political machinations of Stalin's mind than to the minds of pre-Great War 'Austrians'. Incidentally, the traditional English word for the Germans is 'Dutch'; 'German' is a more recent Latinate borrowing speakers have found convenient because of the separate identity of the Netherlandic 'Germans', though 'Dutch' survives in use in Pennsylvania and in terms like 'Dutch courage' and 'double Dutch'.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Before editing can I just discuss it first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordi2011 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

O'Fenian I understand you blocked me before on 'Geordi2011' can I please just have a new clean sheet on this name and before making big edits discuss it like on this one before editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So is there going to be any addition to the top that Austrians were regarded as Germans but after 1945 the identity of an Austrian has changed to some degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is putting something like Historically, due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German being the official language in Austria. German-speaking Austrians were regarded as Germans. Following the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2 and Nazism Austrians have developed their own separate distinct identity. good enough? Something has to be said about them being historically regarded as Germans it is necessary so people understand the new Austrian nation and separate identity from Germans.

I firmly believe that what was on before should stay there.

Historically, due to Austria's common history and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, Austrians were historically regarded as Germans. Following the founding of the German Empire in 1871, and after World War II and Nazism, Austrians have now made their own distinct and separate identity.(with references) is that okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Austrians in the past may have considered themselves Germans, but they are not Germans now, they figured out they were different like the Swiss did. All Austrians say and know they are ethnic Austrians. The found their differences from the Germans by their culture and history. Over 90 percent of Austrians say their different. If Austrians are German than the Swiss are German too, or that Scottish are English. Just leave Austrians as a ethnicity they say they are not Germans, so why should we say anything back?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.205.210 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 

Where is Hitler?

This ethnic infobox has become a retarded attempt to follow political correctness. Come on, this is encyclopedia, things don't have to look cute here. Italians don't put there Mussolini, Autstrians hide Hitler, even Russians removed Lenin from their infobox. It seems that only Georgians are brave enough to put Stalin on their page and not be such hypocrites. Wikipedia will never win over those trying to hide unwanted or unpopular characters from respective pages, so maybe it is a good reason to get rid of that little galleries completely? They only show how hypocrite and biased Wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.198.169 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler is taboo, Stalin is taboo, Mussolini is taboo that is why.

Italians put Napoleon even though he was Corsican.

Also Hitler always considered himself German not Austrian (he was ethnically German). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely not correct so. Hitler considered himself always as Austrian and German. His roots, where his ancestors lived was Lower Austria. But like most German speaking people in the Austria-Hungary empire, he considered the German speaking inhabitants of the empire as part of a German ethnicity. But it's understandable, that Hitler doesn't belong to such a gallery, because it's no good advertisment for a country. Better Mozart, who was no citizen of a Austrian territory and wrote about Germany as his 'beloved fatherland'. But his birthtown belongs today to Austria and he is a better advertisment.

Regarding Stalin: It seems, some people from his birtharea are still proud of him.78.43.102.178 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that being more unbiased rather than being proud? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini - those were the people who really stood out and left a HUGE impact on the world. Notorious, but well-known. Wikipedia doesn't have to always look nice. 92.46.182.251 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No you are wrong because when he was growing up like most Austrians back then he always called himself a German first and even more so when rebelling against his father and singing the German national anthem and going into the German army not the Austrian army, he always considered Austria part of Germany. --GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That´s definitely true, but don´t you think that Mozart would have considered Austria a "German" country as well? You see, I am Austrian, and I think that excluding Hitler is denying our "dark side". Austrian participation and guilt concerning WW2, the Holocaust and all these things, used to be denied for a long time. Therefore, in Austria, your exclusion of Hitler from the picture collage could be considered a political statement of that kind, you know, like saying, "we didn´t have anything to doo with this, not us, that´s the Germans´business." Interestingly, he also hasn´t been included in the collage on the "Germans"-page as well, because people there argue that he was Austrian... So, it seems that nobody had ever anything to do with this kind of person, and all are happy.... --Mike F2 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, I agree.--Львівське (говорити) 07:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Hitler was either an ethnic German (but then we do not need this page: "Austrians" as etnic group, because they are NOT an own ethnic group) or Hitler must have been an ethnic Austrian! Same goes for Mozart. Sorry, but can't have it both ways.--IIIraute (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Mozart is not a good choice – but neither is Hitler. He never identified as an Austrian and is a mass murder. I would change it into someone neutral and honorable – Konrad Lorenz. Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That he didn't self-identify as something is questionable justification - it's not his article. To exclude him because he is evil is a whitewash. It's a selection of Austrians, not "nice Austrians". Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it is a selection of Austrians he wouldnt be a good choice either - after 1925 he was a German citizen. And - Mussolini is not in the italien article, Franco not in the spanish,... all whitewashed? Andrej N. B. (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have views on the Italians and Spaniards articles adress them there. After 1938 all Austrians were Germans whether they like it or not - that's not more pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The comparison is not correct since Hitler activly rejected his Austrian citizenship in 1925. Even in WW 1 he did not fight for the A.-H. but the German Army - by choice. Andrej N. B. (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

All of this citizenship stuff doesn't even matter. This article says that Austrians are an own ethnic group. This article is about Austrians as a nation and ethnic group - so, Hitler was an ethnic Austrian, so why shouldn't he be part of this article?.--IIIraute (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. I am fine with Lorenz...... but, to be clear on this one.... if there is no Hitler - there is no Mozart!).--IIIraute (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Elfriede Jelinek in the Austrian page

Why is she even in here? Elfriede Jelinek has no Austrian ethnicity but Romanian and Jewish in her ethnicity, plenty of people have been born in Austria, so why is she added? Plenty more people could be added which would be better for the page and more relevant.--GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Elfriede Jelinek is an Austrian writer, and she is a Nobel Prize laureate. Accept it, or go some place elseCatgut (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC). Thank you.

Tell me why she is so important to this page? There is plenty of other people who are much more recognised Austrians that are not on it and fair enough she was born in Austria but she has no Austrian in her, she has also only recently been added. I think she should be removed.--GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And it continues

These edits has been reverted. This does not source "Historically, Austrians were regarded as a subtype of Germans due to the common history of Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and part of the German Confederation until 1866". This is someone's personal website, and this does not appear to source "Following the founding of the German Empire and Nazim and WW2, Post-1945 Austrians have developed their own distinct identity from German" and this is a blog. O Fenian (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are in denial that Austrians are Germans, yet the wiki page says it itself.--GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And you are not listening. Let this be my final word on the subject, if you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to this article I will produce a report detailing your lengthy history of disruption, edit warring, sockpuppetry, and anti-Semitic and far-right point-of-view pushing, and it is highly likely you will be blocked indefinitely. O Fenian (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As appose to the tediously politically correct ahistorical point of view you're pushing. For centuries "Germans" simply referred to native-German speakers in Central Europe, until the term was racialized by the Nazis. After World War II, most Austrians have swung to the other extreme claiming desperately that they are somehow fundamentally different from other ethnic Germans. Vdjj1960 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol what? anti-Semitic and far right to say Austrians historically were regarded as Germans? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAA --GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You would appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am referring only to your edits to this particular article, and not the skeletons hiding in your many closets. O Fenian (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are deluded.--GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

Does Austrians in this article only refer to German speaking Austrian natives?

Austrians are not an ethnic group?

Austrians are ethnically German not a separate ethnic group, borders/different countries doesn't change nations or ethnicities.--14Adrian (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We had this discussion over and over again (see above) - sources? Andrej N. B. (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can get sources if you wish but the Wikipedia article itself self-explains it. Just I see you come from Austria so post-1945 don't like the whole identity of "German" right?--14Adrian (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

originally Austrians saw themselves as Germans (they even called their country German Austria at first after ww1) this has changed after ww2 because they dont want to be associated with the nazis and hitler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.104 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Of course Austrians considered themselves Germans, it was the Occupation forces from the USSR, France, the U.S. and the U.K. the ones which since WWII (in fact since WWI) started their propaganda machine trying to "build a new Austrian nation", but the result has failed and Austria is already the 17th member state (land) of Deutschland as everybody knows in Europe.--83.37.98.119 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Austrians are Germans - The Facts

In Austria-Hungary the "Austrians" of today saw themselves as Germans. After WWI "Deutschösterreich" wanted to join the motherland Germany but the winners of the world war forbid it (Anschlussverbot). They even forbid the word "Deutsch-" in the name of Deutschösterreich. In every political party there were politicians who wanted to join Germany. Ignaz Seipel for example said that on both sides of the river Inn is the same nation. He also said that when he is talking about Germans that he means both weimar-republic-Germans and austrian Germans. Dollfuss wanted Austria to be the "better german state". Austria is not only lingually german but also culturally. The Austrians are part of the german lingual and cultural area. So they are ethnic Germans. But why Austrians think that they are an own ethnicity? Because of WWII and because of manipulation through education in schools. If Austria wanted to join Germany after WWII it would have been forbidden too. Many people come with arguments like "When I am in Germany and I speak my language then nobody understands me." These are regional german differences. In the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" we have even more german dialects. If an Austrian is not german because of his dialect then a Saxonian is not german too because they speak Saxonian. Austria is german as same as Liechtenstein, the german territories in Switzerland, Luxemburg (the state and not the district in Belgium) and Eupen-Malmedy. These territories should come together. anonymous 12:01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.176.66 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Well, of course they are ethnic Germans. Austrians are NOT an own Ethnic-group. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of 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/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.

Since the 6th Century Austria has been inhabited mainly by the Bavarii which were a Germanic tribe whose name emerged late in Teutonic tribal times. The full name originally was the Germanic "baio-warioz". The Bavarians themselves came under the overlordship of the Carolingian Franks and subsequently became a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire. It was overrun by the Hungarians in 909, and after their defeat by Emperor Otto the Great (Holy Roman Emperor) in the Battle of Lechfeld (955), new marches were established in what is today Austria. For the next 851 years Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Germans – the biggest Ethnic group of the Germanic peoples, with its heartland in Central and Eastern Europe, speaking German (Standard German, Austrian or Swiss varieties of German or other High or Low German dialects), are the largest ethnic group of Germany, as well as Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, a majority of the population of the now Italian Alpine province of South Tyrol and an autochthonous minority in Belgium (Eupen-Malmedy), France (Alsace), Hungary (e.g. Danube Swabians), Poland (e.g. Silesians) and Romania (e.g. Transylvanian Saxons). Also found in the American continent (especially in the United States, where they are the largest ethnic group, and in some Latin American countries)) and in other parts of Europe (e.g. Czech Republic, Slovakia, the former Yugoslavia, i.e. some of the former eastern territories of Germany as well as the territories of historic Austria-Hungary), Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan) and elsewhere (e.g. Australia).

Genetics: The predominant Y-chromosome haplogroup among Germans (incl. Austrians) is I1 and R1a followed by R1b; the predominant mitochondrial haplogroup is H, followed by U and T.

Is anyone here really trying to claim that Austrians are not ethnic Germans?--IIIraute (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes me. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other... but Austrians, as sourced in the article, don´t identify as Germans anymore. And I´d love to read some sources about the genetic similarities between Germans and Austrians. Studies I know conclude that genetic differences correlate mainly with geographic distances. In this study for example the genetic structure of Germans is more similar to Dutch and Danish people than to Austrians: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/abs/nature07331.html. Andrej N. B. (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ethnicity is not a matter of choice.--IIIraute (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

the definition of the term ethnicity: ...is relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, and cultural heritage.--IIIraute (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Austrian society supporting the Nazi regime

In the World Wars section, the following phrase has revisionist tendencies: "Though only small portions of Austrian society supported the Nazi regime, the Allied forces treated Austria as a belligerent party in the war and maintained occupation of it after the Nazi capitulation."

With more than 10% of the total population being NSDAP members (therefore, a much higher percentage of the adult population) to talk about "small portions of Austrian society" does not seem to represent the truth.--IIIraute (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I can support that - will you change it? Andrej N. B. (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitler?!

Good heavens! Why should Hitler be mentiond in the photo galery? Where is Stalin in the Russians article? Hitler's also not mentioned in the article about Germans, although he saw himself as one of them. For good reasons: He's been a mass murder! And there was neither a consented Austrian nation nor an ethnicity at that time! As the article says, Austrians have evolved as a nation only in the last decades, why should Hitler be mentiond being one? That would of course also be a reason to delete others like Mozart or Haydn.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

see previous discussion: [7]

The fact is, that you have put Hitlers picture in the article without even discussing it in the fist place and although there's been an older discussion about that measure. On what ground, if i may ask, have you put in that picture and what gives you the right to defend it with an edit war without even responding to my arguments? Your last argument was that Hitler was an ethnic Austrian. Well, i prooved the opposite of it. Show me one serious source that states that there's been an Austrian Ethnicity or Nation before 1945 and you can keep your Hitler if you want to.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And what i also want to know: Why did you claim that Hitler was ethnic Austrian on the 14th of March in this discussion while reverting edits that said, that there is an Austrian ethnicity at all on March 18th? Did you change your mind four times? On the other hand I think that this statement was quite reasonable. --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It was more an issue between Andrej N. B. and Mutt Lunker. I said I was fine with removing Hitler - but you did put Mozarts picture back on the page - [8]. Remove him and use Lorenz - that's fine with me.--IIIraute (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. ...but I hope you do know that your argument lacks any substance[9] - otherwise you should think about deleting almost every person in the article - and start it in 1945. Actually a good point you are making - maybe we should do that. --IIIraute (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A few observations. Stalin is included in the gallery for the appropriate article, Georgian people. Likewise for Austrians pre-1945, should all people born before 1991 be excluded from that gallery? Are you seriously suggesting there are no Austrians before 1945? The gallery will thus just have Arnie and Elfriede Jelinek. Of all the pictures in the gallery, Hitler's would be far and away the most recognisable throughout the world, probably followed by Arnie. Is being the most recognisable pictorial example of the subject not a higly compelling reason for inclusion? Who are you accusing of being a sock puppet and why. Remember, this isn't a vote. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And since (regarding to the creation of this article) ethnicity has now become a matter of choice - we might also have to remove Arni ...because he doesn't even want to be an Austrian.--IIIraute (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The gerneral Problem of the Article is, that it mixes citicenship with nationality and ethnic affiliation. History and statistics show that the intellectual basis for an Austrian nation was layed between the 1920s and 40s, but that only between 1955 and 1965 a majority of Austrians began to feel themselfs as members of a distinct Austrian nation. Of course there were Austrians before 1945, but they were not Austrians in a modern - ethnic, cultural, national - context. Before 1918 you had italian, polish, cech or german speaking Austrians and more. Some of them might have even felt as Austrians, but not as members of a modern Austrian nation. Georgians on the other Hand had an own language and ethnic culture for centuries and felt as one people before they gained independence from the Soviet Union

So if it's the Article about Austrians in every sense you can take Hitler and Mozart, if it isnt you'll have to stay with those who took part in the process of an developing Austrian nation and those who were born after that period. But beside that discussion i strongly resist to show Hitler in the gallery anyways. You are right when you say that he might be the most well know (Ex)austrian citizen, but what does that gallery stand for? By picturing him there you might make the impression, that he's one of the "nation's best sons". I personally was shocked, when I saw him there and I mightn't be the only one. I don't oppose his appearance because I want to keep the picture of the "glorious Austrian nation" clean, not at all. But I think we should consider that we might give a massmurder and his adherents a plattform for their hate propaganda if we show his picture without any explanation and context. I'd say that all nation-ethnic-articles could spare those galleries at all, but since they are a fact that'd be hard to change, I want to make a sugestion for this one:

• Remove Hitler and all those who didn't consider themselves as part of an Austrian nation or were born before 1945 from the gallery.
• Make clear that there are several understandings and meanings of the word "Austrian".
• Choose pictures of modern Austrians for the gallery (Jelinek, Figl, Waldheim, Kreisky, Handke, Bernhard, Nitsch etc.) I know they weren't all born after Austria became a nation, but those who weren't somehow expressed their feelings about Austria being one during their lifetime (read Figls first speach to the National Council in 1945 e. g.).
• Picture other famous people who are considered to be Austrian in an other than the modern way in the article. Thats also the place where we could show a picture of Hitler - and Mozart - with an explanation and within the content, not just the picture itself as it is now seen in the gallery.

The whole thing is not an easy topic and I have to admit, that its also emotional for me, but we should focus on a good and historical accurat solution. I hope i made a step towards it. --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mozart is a particularly bad example, as Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) was born in Salzburg. Salzburg became independent from Bavaria in the late 14th century; then was the seat of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1805, Salzburg was annexed by the Austrian Empire. Mozart died 14 years before the Austrian Empire annexed Salzburg.--IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to most peoples/nations/ethnic groups/citizenships, with not necessarily all of these categories applicable to the grouping in question in some or all contexts. Far from being problematic, as these overlap it's surely more realistic to deal with them together. This article clearly deals with Austrians in the wider sense, not simply citizens of the post war Austrian nation state. It is not mixed up but all-encompassing. There is no need to limit it to "Austrians in a modern - ethnic, cultural, national - context". The term existed and meant something before that. If the article does not reflect the wider and/or earlier meanings, bring your sources and expand/amend it accordingly. So "it's the Article about Austrians in every sense" (so we can) "take Hitler and Mozart".

Your next rationale strikes me as bizarre at best. What does the gallery stand for? Notable examples, pure and simple. To assert that the inclusion of something in Wikipedia asserts a positive value judgement about it is patently ludicrous. Would you like all pictures of nasty things to be excised? Notability does not imply worth. Would you like to see the article on Hitler himself go, in case Wikipedia is seen to be approving him? For a highly notable example of the subject matter, arguably the most notable, not to be shown would seem like a glaring omission. What would it then be but a "picture of the "glorious Austrian nation" clean"?

Please don't allow emotion to cloud your judgement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As you might've seen I didn't write emotionally although i'm a bit disappointed that no one seems to cater to my arguments. Illaurate only talks about Mozart - wich was about 1% of the topic, but well - and you do not understand that i did not mean the gallery to be a presentation line for noble spirits but most people'd do. So tell me: If the Germans article has the same alignment as this one. Why is Hitler not represented there? 1. He saw himself being a German. 2. He was German citicen in the last period of his life. And 3. he even was the German head of government and state. So why isn't he prictured there? Because he's a massmurderer and the greatest criminal within the 20th century! And you want to make him appear uncommented on this page?! Stalin is the only example you can bring. Where ist Pinochet in the article about the Chilean people? Where ist Quisling in the Norwegians article? Not even Mao is pictured in the article about the Han Chinese! But you want Hitler? In the article: yes. In the gallery no! And please respond to my arguments and do not philosophy about Mozart and the history of the Holy Roman Empire... --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up the editors here. I said I am fine with Lorenz. Mozart however, was neither born in Austria, nor was he an ethnic Austrian. That's not philosophy - it is a historical fact.--IIIraute (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

These people and peoples pertain to other articles; argue for their inclusion or otherwise on the relevant talk pages, including Hitler at the German article, if you believe you have a strong case. Let's not be distracted from this being an article about Austrians, so let's stick to Austrians. Your reasoning for excluding Hitler still appears to be that he is notable for very bad things, not that he is not notable, and that some other articles omit potential candidates known for bad things. That simply is not a valid reason. Whether or not other articles are deficient in who they choose to depict is not pertinent here. What is your basis for saying that "most people...mean the gallery to be a presentation line for noble spirits"? That is a dubious claim. Is there a policy on this? You have yourself said this is emotional for you and your arguments are purely emotional appeals that you are hurt, rather than ones that stand rational analysis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you haven't clarified who you are accusing of socking, or have you dropped this accusation? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot recognize, in which kind the photos of all these peoples are composed. So I cannot find the cause, why hitler is located at the first point. His importance was not as a austrian people. Also Schwarzenegger has not importance as austrian governor only perhaps as actor. So I find both are not important with an photo in the box, because they are not the importants people for Austria and as Austrians. --K@rl (Bitte hier antworten) 05:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Karl has a strong point here too: Hitler isn't famous for being Austrian at all. He's famous for being a German dictator. In fact he hated everthing that was Austrian and let the name be whipe out after the Anschluss. He only visited Austria for a few times after he joined the bavarian Army in WW I. Let's face the facts:

• Hitler was an Austrian citizen for 36 years, for his last 20 years he wasn't.
• Hitler lived in Austria for 24 years, for 32 years he didn't.

In his speach at the Heldenplatz in Vienna he called Austria his "Homeland" (Heimat) but also "the German people's oldest Ostmark" ([d]ie älteste Ostmark des deutschen Volkes). He also wrote:

"As my heart never beat for an Austrian monarchy, but only for a German Reich, the hour of the decay of this state could only appear to me as the beginning of the salvation of the German nation."

(Da mein Herz niemals für eine österreichische Monarchie, sondern immer nur für ein Deutsches Reich schlug, konnte mir die Stunde des Zerfalls dieses Staates nur als der Beginn der Erlösung der deutschen Nation erscheinen.)

So the fact that Hitler was an Austrian citizen was nothing important to him. He even plead to be dismissed from the Austrian citicenship in 1925.

And of course it's important what other articles show. This is not a isolated question. So i may ask again:

• Where is Franco?
• Where is Pol Pot?
• Where is Mussolini?
• Where are Breschniew and Churstschow?
• Where is Pétain?
• Where is Mubarak
• Where are father and son Assad?
• Where is Chavez?
• Where are Achmadinejad and Chamenei or even Khomeini?
• Where is Hussein?
• Where are Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il?

This are not isloated rulings, these are creative precedents! And i ment that you start divagating if you only discuss about Mozart. As I said, it's not about emotion its about arguments. (P.S. If socking is your main objective now: User Quadruplet seemed to be only interrested in this topic and then left.)--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

People are not generally famous for being of their nationality or ethnicity. None of these people are famous or notable (more importantly) for being Austrian but are notable for a variety of reasons and happen to be Austrian, hence their inclusion. Notable and Austrian, not notable for being Austrian. Picture galleries would be rather sparse if the latter was the type of criterion.

Your ever-growing list of horrible-people-from-somewhere-else is, as I have indicated, irrelevant to this article unless you can demonstrate that they are being excluded from what might be their pertinent picture gallery by a WP policy or convention to exclude genocidal maniacs. Is there such a policy or convention? If not their inclusion or otherwise in other articles is a matter for the talk pages of those articles.

That Hitler was a pan-German nationalist, with complex feelings about his Austrian-ness and German-ness does not make him not Austrian, particularly as he, as you have said, described it as his homeland. People can have several identities which are not mutually exclusive. The article is not about citizenship.

Socking is not “my main objective” – you tossed that one into the discussion then did nothing to back it up. The user you refer to was editing 3 years ago and it seems like a long shot and a distraction to peg them as a sock in the current debate. What’s more, you seem rather fond of this topic yourself but nobody is wildly accusing you of socking.

What is "divagating"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I just clocked the rather anomalous inclusion of Hugo Chavez in your list. Some of the others in the list have also been elected democratically, if possibly questionably, but I'm not aware of Chavez having committed murders or massacres, or perpetrated genocide. But as I said, that ain't relevant here anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I ment that he wandered from the subject. If you don't know it: Opposition has a hard life in Venezuela.[10] And Hitler was elected too, don't forget that neither. And even if you say that all the arguments that were braught froward in these discussions that opposed the picturing of dubious people in the galery theres one big question left: You say this article isn't about citizenship. In which way was Hitler an Austrian beside his citizenship? But as I see it, it's not arguments that count here. Because all you say is "He was Austrian after all." and "Those examples do not count here." I made a compromise proposal (Put his picture from the galery in the article.) none of you even considered it. I shall rejoin this discussion if anyone comes forward with some new ideas.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave Chavez etc.? That's so far off-topic it really is going to prove fruitless.

Can I ask again, what is the policy basis for "opppos(ing) the picturing of dubious people" in WP galleries in general? I find the notion bizarre. I can't find such a policy and, apparently neither can you since you haven't indicated it despite repeated requests. If you believe there should be such a blanket policy throughout WP, an individual article is not the place to propose it or argue it.

Citizenship is not in any way the sole means of conferring an identity. Besides his citizenship Hitler was from Austria, making him an Austrian whether Austria is regarded, by him or anyone else, as a nation state in its own right or a constituent part of a greater Germany. I am Scottish, I have British citizenship, I do not only have the choice of one or the other.

I'm puzzled as to what the benefit would be of your proposal to move the picture into the article. If it's ok to have him in the article, you may as well have him in the gallery. Unless your aim is to single him out as someone who doesn't really count under your stipulations. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the image in question as its inclusion is obviously highly controversial and far from being useful. This debate is not over, and furthermore I can't see any majority for the inclusion. Let's wait for the outcome, if there will ever be one. Personally I have to say I'm quite doubtful about the motives behind such actions. Studying some respective edits, I'm prone to assume a certain, very questionable agenda. If 'history' is the basis for any argument, then it is rather strange that the image of a Nazi-Fascist massmurderer and dictator was given a 'starring role' in the gallery, right before a composer from the 18th/19th century (Haydn). From much earlier edits I remember users arguing against Austrians as an ethnic group, against Mozart qualified to be called an Austrian, but strongly supporting the inclusion of a Hitler image. There seems to be a political-ideological pattern, and this is certainly not a rationale for contributing to Wikipedia. --Catgut (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me as having a motivation of being an advocate of Hitler? I can't speak for the much earlier edits you talk about and as to whether their agenda may have been dubious; I have given my rationale and will speak to it. I would say the non-inclusion of a picture of a notable (in WP terms) and certainly the most recognisable Austrian is highly, highly contoversial. If you are looking for dubious motives, could this not be seen as the whitewashing of one of the darkest periods of history and the failure to face up to what "Austrians" are in their entirety, warts and all? The article is not a celebration of nice Austrians, it's an encyclopedia article. And once again, this ain't a vote -a majority either way is not the deciding factor. I wasn't aware that the order that pictures appear in a gallery denoted anythng - rank, worth, height, whatever - so I'm perfectly happy for him to be placed in any position you prefer in the the gallery if you think he's currently in the starring role. (Have just quickly tried doing this, the formatting has defeated my limited abilities in this regard - may try again if I have time.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just re-read your comments regarding Hitler being placed before Haydn and finding this strange as I couldn't grasp what you are driving at. Are you saying they should be ordered chronologically ('history' is the basis)? Is there a convention as to how gallery pictures should be ordered? Personally, I'd never given it so much thought. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, do you find anything compelling about any of the arguments as to why Hitler "doesn't count" for this article effectively, or was it more that it was upsetting people but not on the strength of their arguments? Mutt Lunker (talk)

To be blunt: It its quite obvious that you have one single issue here. And that is the inclusion of a Hitler image. This, and your reaction to my words proves this, makes you so nervous that you can't even wait for any consensus. But this is good practice here. If you don't know that, then this is the right moment for you to realize that, as you seem to have problems with the term 'majority'. What consensus is not: you against the rest. You also cannot see any 'convention as to how gallery pictures should be ordered'. Then you will accept the fact that there is also no convention to include and thus promote racist ideologies in the gallery by inserting images of those ideologies' most prominent proponents. Whether images are included or excluded depends on the consensus of the users, otherwise we'd have dozens of images here. Btw, have you already argued for including a Hitler image in the article on Germans? --Catgut (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)