Talk:Austria-Hungary

Flag

The flag as shown here cannot be shown as any kind of national flag here. It was, as mentioned, just the civil ensign. I think to prevent confusion we should just show the coat-of-arms and no flag as it is in the article in german language. Eromae (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Political struggles in the Empire

This section opens with this statement:

"The political opponents of the "conservative liberal" aristocracy and gentry class were the leftist liberal "cosmopolitan" political parties in the parliaments of Vienna and Budapest. These leftist liberal parliamentary parties were backed by the big industrialists, bankers, businessmen and the predominant majority of newspaper "media moguls". During the war, they had a important functions [sic] in the organization of strikes, protests and civil unrest in the Empire. After the war (as consequent republicans) that parties [sic] had key-role in the disintegration and collapse of the monarchy in Austria and Hungary, and proclamation of the republics in Vienna and Budapest."

I would like to know the name of such "leftist liberal cosmopolitan political parties". For one, it is weird that "leftist liberal cosmopolitan political parties" would be backed by industrialists, bankers, businessmen, and media moguls. Besides that, what war is referred there? Since the proclamation of Austrian an Hungarian republics seems to be the outcome, then it seems it was WWI. But what "leftist liberal cosmopolitan political parties" had a role in the disintegration of the monarchy and the proclamation of the republics? The main parties in Austria immediately after the fall of the monarchy were social democrats and conservative (and anti-semitic) "Social Christians"; what happened to the liberals, who should have been so prominent in the process? Also, were liberal parties "consequent" republicans? Or rather constitutionalist monarchists? Or is the article lumping diverse things here, and calling the social democrats (who, for their part, were certainly not backed by bankers, industrialists, businessmen, or media moguls) "liberal"? Ninguém (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a strange assertion - it appears to be OR and is unsourced. I have changed the section somewhat to make it more neutral and reconcile with my understanding of what was going on at the time, and will look for sources. Sounds as if the editor was trying to link Marxists, leftists, liberals and urban suspects. I agree that they were hardly backed by bankers and industrialists or media moguls - anachronistic to use for newspaper publishers, even if I believed it.Parkwells (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, this section says that Andrássy refused to take on more territories, but in 1878 the Monarchy was awarded Bosnia-Herzegovina and Andrássy's brinkmanship led to WWI. As the assassination of the archduke occurred more than a generation after Andrássy had served as foreign minister, I find this unsourced assertion hard to believe and will be checking Andrassy's article for more insight.

Vittorio Veneto is an italian offensive

Why did the battle of Vittorio Veneto have been classified as a "Italian British and French cooperating offensive". In fact, according to the corresponding page of wikipedia, the ordre of battle was composed of:57 divisions, whom 51 Italian, 3 British, 2 French, 1 Czechoslovak and 1 US regiment. It appears that since during that battle the 89% of soldiers were italian, said battle must be defined as an Italian Offensive. In fact, in the corresponding page of Wikipedia associated to said offensive, there are a lot of source claiming the offensive was Italian. Otherwise should the prescne of other divisions taken into account, the Offensive should be defined as "Italian, British, French, Czechoslovak and US cooperating offensive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WWI Italian front

By reading this section it seems that were the austrian to win and war and not italian, and that only the allies were fighting and not the italians in this front. To rewrite completely, in my opinion. Magnagr (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Article not neutral

I am asking the moderator to flag the article as NOT NEUTRAL. In fact the section related to Italy is clearly a POV presenting the Italian fron as a Frecnh English vs AUSTRian battle. Moreiver there are a lot of cosiderations about the aòòeged material support whcih Italy had recevied which is again not supported by any source. Either the moderator cancel the objected section or some citations should be provided. At this moment is eadlily apparent that the article is not Neutral and must be labelled as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am no moderator, just a humble editor :-), but I have placed two tags to that section which warn the reader that the section may not be neutral and needs verification. Yours was not the first complain about that section. By the way: you are welcome to rewrite the section: all you need to do is to register to Wikipedia, then, you will be able to edit the article (this article is only semi-protected). If you do so, please, do not forget to cite reliable sources. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Italy had fewer population, and Italy has lesser industry, therefore it is not wonder that Italy needed the strong support of allied powers. Despite that Italy had ONLY 1 frontline and Austria Hungary had 4 frontlines during the war.

Bosnians

It seems Bosnia and Bosnians were for some period of time under the rule of the AH Empire. Why were they not listed under the nations and languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.100.209 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Slovene an official language or not?

In the article under Ethnic relations, it says that after 1882, Slovene became the dominant official language in Carniola. But at the top where languages are listed, Slovene is listed as an unofficial language. Why is that?

Also, it would be nice to write what the situation was like in the lands where Slovenes were not an absolute majority like in Carniola, but formed a sizable part of the population, like Styria, Carinthia, Kustenland... Was Slovene one of the official languages there or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Official language in my area is spoken by common people. If you conquer a realm you can try and ask civilians to speak any/your language so they should want speak it and you win but doing it aggresivily will probably cost you dear,and not last.

Slovene has been an official language in the Empire of Austria since 1849. From this year until 1918 the Reichsgesetzblatt, the empire's official law publication organ, appeared in Slovene language, too. See the ALEX = Austria Lex website of the Austrian National Library, where you find electronic copies of every page. -- Wolfgang J. Kraus (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Then it should be removed from the unofficial language bracket and put into official, right? In the beginning of the wiki page, on the right, I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

clarication use

Should you use “clarification needed” anywhere in the text? Are there any rulesfor the users? It `s unrude to let users do the digging or follow you,if you ask me. Also I don’t like such questions unless you start research it in talkpages.188.25.109.142 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

paul

Its name in romanian is imperiul austro-ungar,both name and titles in any print.The part romania that had foreign ruler and was under foreign realms (pretty often until ww1:) was transylvania only,and not whole romania (1908). Its chair has been owned by a hungarian origins I cant remember right now,representative of the central realm “deputy commisioner.”in rormanian principe188.25.109.142 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Culture

I'm interested in the culture of Austria-Hungary. For great power that has produced so many artists, musicians, architects, and writers around the time when the state still existed, it's a worthy addition, I imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.78.223 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic census? yes in 1900 and 1910

The Empire counted ethnicity and language in the 1900 and 1910 censuses. for proof see Henry Wickham Steed; et al. (1914). A short history of Austria-Hungary and Poland. pp. 145–46. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No it did not, only by language and religion, you are obviously misinterpreting the source which you may find scanned in its entirety here: [1]. The text reads the following on p.146: The following table gives the numbers of different nationalities, as determined by the languages' spoken by them in 1900. The language data was subsequently "racially" extrapolated, and in the case of Bosnian, Croats or Serbs, without making any thorough distinction between them. The principle was the same in 1910. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, the extrapolation was of a conveniently arbitrary character which by no means reflected the reality on the ground. The Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats in fact perceived and continue to perceive themselves as sharply different communities between which there is often animosity, now as then. Historically, the Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats have lived under different empires, adopted different religions and developed different traditions and identities early on. This point is evident in the first Yugoslav census held a mere 10 years after the final AH one, which saw a clear separation between Croat, Serb and Bosniak (Muslims) self-identification. The question is now, should we respectfully strive to reflect the true nature of things or the substandard categorization imposed by an administration which frankly did not pay much attention to the sensibilities of their subjects. In any way, one cannot maintain that an "ethnic census" took place, when in fact such data was merely based on the secondary interpretation of language affiliation. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

I have protected the page from editing as there appears to be an edit war regarding the inclusion of certain content. Once a consensus has been established as to whether or not the content should be included, the unprotection of the page can be requested at WP:RFPP. WJBscribe (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, almost all the accounts (on both sides of the current edit war) appear to be blocked as sockpuppets. Perhaps what is needed are some uninvolved editors to opine on whether the content should be in or out? WJBscribe (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that this data [2] is added by a sock of Stubes99 (User:Balkony) and re-added with another sock [3]. As such, some editors tried to remove this what appears to be a constructive but sock edits. Adrian (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is true the text added by Stubes99 may be useful in this article, but unfortunately we talk about a long-time abuse (4 years old sockpuppeteer). With such users we must have no indulgence. We must apply radical solutions, namely to get rid of the whole text added, even if it is contructive. Stube99 behavior must not be accepted as behavior of normal editors and his edits must be completely nullified. Thread with this subject is also opened here Wikipedia:An#User_restoring_edits_of_banned_user_and_4_years_old_sock-puppeteer--Omen1229 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stubes99 copy-pasted in the article unprocessed paragraphs from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. He did not even bother to convert them to past tense (Example: "The judicial power is independent of the administrative power. The judicial authorities in Hungary are).--Omen1229 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Names of the cities

I think it has to be some kind of order here. Eighter the names of the cities must be presented as of then, 1910 or only in English. I think correct is as of official in 1910 + comments in other languages - the entire table. To use different principles for different cities makes no sence. Boeing720 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I suggest following names and commentaries for "the city table"

1. . Wien (Vienna, New Austria since 1919)
2. . Budapest (Hungarian since 1919)
3. . Prag (Prague, Praha: Czechoslovakian 1919-1992, Czech Rep. since 1993)
4. . Triest (Trieste: Italian since 1919)
5. . Lemberg (Lwow: Polish 1919-1939, Lviv: USSR 1945-1992, Ukranian since 1992)
6. . Krakau (Kraków: Polish since 1919)
7. . Graz (New Austria since 1919)
8. . Brünn (Brno: Czechoslovakian 1919-1992, Czech Rep. since 1993)
9. . Szeged (Hungarian since 1919)
10. . Subotica (Yugoslavian 1919-2006, Serbian since 2006)
11. . Debrecen (Hungarian since 1919)
12. . Czernowitz (Czerniowce: Polish 1919-1939, Chernivtsi: USSR 1945-1992, Ukranian since 1992)

All blue-linked to correct English article. "New Austria" is needed, I think. Austria after WWI was an entirely different nation that must not be confused with the Habsburgian Austria. I have previously stated that Hungarians (after native German speaking people) were the largest minority of the Habsburgian Empire. This was reverted as "good faith edit", but I only used another table from this article, which states that 24% of the population were native German speakers followed by 20% native Hungarian speakers. This do to some degree explain why the Hungarians got a higher status than for instance Czecks, Poles, Slovakians etc after 1869. And the Hungarian uprising began during the revolutionary year 1848. (There were revolutions and/or uprisings in many European countries that year. For example in France, where the second republic began. And also a Hungarian uprising in the Habsburgian Austria) Boeing720 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Usual practice is to use the official name of that place (city) in that period of time, in this case in the 1910. After that name, if it is not the present day name, we add the present day name as blue-linked. Adding this kind of description after every city is too much. Anybody who is interested about the history and changes of this city can find that data on that city`s article. As for the "New Austria" term, this term is confusing to me. Hungary was a new state after the Austria-Hungary but I did`t saw "New Hungary" anywhere. Adrian (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)