Talk:German nationalism in Austria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

2008 opinion poll[edit]

In the 2008 opinion poll the original question was whether or not the respondents viewed Austrians as a nation. Now this article says that it was about the need for an Austrian state. I think there is an important difference between nation and state and we should be more exact here. "(...) 17 Prozent die österreichische Nation infrage stellt" literally means "(...) 17 percent call the Austrian nation into question." --RJFF (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Nation" in English can be construed in two separate ways. It can mean "ethnicity", though this usage is not as common as in other languages, but it can also mean "state". I figure that, in the context of German nationalism, this question was attempting to ask whether "Austrians" existed as separate from "Germans", hence questioning the existence of a separate Austrian "nation-state". If, in this case, the "Austrian nation" means a unique "Austrian ethnicity", then that would be a better translation. If it is referring to a civic Austrian national identity, that's also a possibility. My German isn't that good, so any assistance in choosing one of these would be helpful. RGloucester 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
"Nation" in German has these two meanings as well. Therefore I would simply translate 'Nation' with "nation". The question was not if Austria should continue to exist as a sovereign state, but if Austrians (the people) are a "nation". Of course a nation can be defined civic rather than ethnic (best example are the US). But one could also be of the opinion that even though Austrians are ethnic Germans and part of the greater German nation, Austria should be a sovereign state and not part of the Federal Republic of Germany (during Cold War there was no nation-state for all Germans anyway). But this was not the question. The question was: "Are Austrians a nation?" If you ask "Are Britons a nation?" there is a major difference vis-a-vis "Should the United Kingdom continue to exist as one state?" You could negate the one but affirm the other. Modern German nationalists in the FPÖ just say that Austrians are part of the German cultural nation, they would never (at least not publicly) advocate another Anschluss. Negating that Austrians are a "nation" (separate from Germans) does not imply negating the existence of Austria as a sovereign state. --RJFF (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And "nation" is not used in the sense of ethnicity: You can be ethnically Slovene, or Croat, or Magyar, and still part of the Austrian nation. So it is neither purely ethnic nor purely political. Therefore "nation" should be used and not "state" or "ethnicity". —RJFF (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
In English, the word "nation" is unnecessarily vague. Especially in an American context, "nation" is viewed as meaning "state", rather than a "people". Therefore, the word should be avoided if possible. "Are Britons a nation?" isn't a question that would be asked, as most people wouldn't understand what it meant. I think the best translation would be something along the lines of "Do the citizens of Austria constitute one people?" RGloucester 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The "American nation" is not just the state "United States of America". A "nation" has much more emotional connotations than a "state". Oxford dictionary definies a nation as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory". This is exactly what is meant. Both "state" and "people" have their own definitions and connotations that are different from "nation". And "people" is at least as vague as "nation". In this context it is pretty clear that "nation" is meant as an "imagined community" (Benedict Anderson) and not as a sovereign state. It would be absurd to ask people "Do you feel that Austria is a sovereign state?" Of course it is. That is a factual question and not a question of feeling. Nations are held together by a group identity or a feeling of "togetherness". The United States or Switzerland are nations, not just states, even though they unite different ethnic or linguistic groups. Austria-Hungary on the other hand, was one state, but never was a nation, because it lacked a national identity. —RJFF (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand the British dictionary definitions of "nation" and "state". However, common usage is somewhat different, and an American dictionary would provide different results. Note the American Heritage Dictionary, which provides the following definitions in first and second place for "nation"[1]:
a) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b) The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2) The government of a sovereign state.

In many contexts, "nation" is viewed as interchangeable with "state", despite the fact that technical definition is somewhat different. Many academics would say that there is no actual "American nation" in line with the Oxford definition, and I'd agree with that. However, when an American president "addresses the nation" he does not mean that he is addressing an "American nation" in the sense of an "imagined community", but that he is addressing citizens of the United States. I understand now that writing "state" with regard to the poll was incorrect, and have realised that that was not a good translation. Hence, I've replaced it with "unique Austrian national identity", which is clear and precise, and has no ambiguity. RGloucester 16:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. —RJFF (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I just want to make the prose as clear as possible. By the way, I've also nominated this article for a GA review. I think it is somewhat ready. RGloucester 18:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @RJFF: I was wondering, are there any citations for the last paragraph of the section "During the Imperial period"? It seems like it should have some. Also, I was wondering if you're aware of any German-language material from the German Wikipedia that would help to expand the section on the Nazi period? Thanks. RGloucester 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I have taken that information from an encyclopedia at my uncle's house. I won't go there anytime soon so I am afraid that I can't verify it for now. In my first version of this article three years ago, I forgot to add any references, so for some sentences it is difficult to trace back on which source they are based. The article is much more superficial than this one and not a source for expansion. There is only one sentence about the Nazi period, saying that the "Anschluss" was achieved in 1938 and the German nationalist movement was virtually absorbed by the NSDAP. —RJFF (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll look around for some references, then. RGloucester 15:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:German nationalism in Austria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Will be starting review ASAP! Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Review Notes[edit]

I review GA's with a "main review" then a prose+source review following it. This article is a good example.

Main Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. No issues anymore.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead is very good, no weasel words, etc.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No issues with sources.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. There are in-line citations for information.
2c. it contains no original research. All information is cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Covers main aspects.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article is NPOV.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No major edit wars/arguments that I've seen.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. No more issues with pictures.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images have suitable captions and are relevant.
7. Overall assessment. Great job fixing the issues I spelled out. Pass! Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use YesY or  Done If the change was only partially done use YesY, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

  • Lead

"several political parties and groups have express pan-German nationalist sentiment."

Change express to expressed.
  • During the imperial period

"and anti-clerical policies, in an attempt entrench the German ethnic identity."

Add to after attempt.
Are we going to use the serial comma or not? I see one example of it not being used: "This manifesto was signed by the radical German nationalist Georg von Schönerer, Vienna's populist, pro-Catholic and royalist mayor Karl :Lueger" and then I see it being used: "His radical racist German nationalism was especially popular amongst the well-educated intelligentsia: professors, grammar school teachers', and students."
I always use the Oxford comma, myself, so I've converted that sentence. RGloucester 19:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"He demanded the annexation of all German-speaking territories of Austria-Hungary to the Prussian-led German Empire, and rejected any form of Austrian pan-ethnic identity."

"comma and" is used only when the 2nd sentence is a full sentence, not a clause. Remove the comma before and.
  • Dissolution of Austria-Hungary (1918–1919)
No issues.
  • During the First Republic and Austrofascist period (1919–1938)
No grammar/prose issues.
  • During the Second Republic (since 1945)
No grammar/prose issues.

Source Review[edit]

  • Checklinks wasn't working, so I hand checked them and there are no dead links! Great job maintaining sources!


I've tagged the images with the appropriate public domain tags. RGloucester 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)