Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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)

The black-yellow flag appears to have been used until the First World War. See for example a propaganda poster where the Austro-Hungarian soldier is holding the black-yellow flag: (http://cdn3.historyextra.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/623px_wide/images/features/173486356.jpg) on this page: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/first-world-war/who-was-involved-first-world-war-who-was-each-side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Passports

Updated a reference to passports to include a reference to the Croatian passport used by the citizens of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2016 (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.

Why do you think that the word "occupation" is not neutral? The cited source uses precisely this term 79.117.176.237 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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. Either 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 1920)
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 Czechs, Poles, Slovaks 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)

Well OK, then we do agree on the first issue - local formal names as of then and where the name asof then has changed the current name also in blue. However the table was not correct "as of 1910" conc. "Wien", "Krakau" and "Prag". But "New Austria" is a term to distinguish the Austrian republic formed after WW1 from Austria in the sence of Habsburgian monarchy before 1867. This is not necessary for Hungary, ist it? No one use "Hungary" instead of "Habsburg Monarchy", but that's common when it comes to "Austria" under the subject of history. It's no offence towards Hungary in any way. (Nore to any other nation) Boeing720 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Some notes: a) "New Austria" is weird, better is Republic of Austria. b) official names are in official languages, OK? But in A-H monarchy are many, especially in "Austrianů part. Prague was with Czech majority and official name was Praha, Brno (and Moravia) was officially with two languages - Czech and German. Similar situation was in Galicia with Polish.--Yopie (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I only think that what I called "new Austria" must be distinguished from the Habsburgian/Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The Republic of Austria is fine. Concerning Prague, I think that the official names as of then ought to be mentioned. And the German name for Prague is actually still "Prag" (but I did suggest mention "Praha" and "Brno" also). I may be wrong, but I think that German and Hungarian were the only official languages during this period (?) I understand that the subject is a bit more delicate that I expected. But if You have a look at my suggestions above, so although the table gets wide, there is still space enough. Someone else thought it was unpractical or non-standard. But I still feel something like that would be the best way to continue. I also want to add not only Pressburg/Bratislava but all current capital cities of today. Even if they in 1910 were small. Normally I would argue that if a city has different names in different languages,this proves that the city in question is well-known to other nations and people, and hence a kind of tribute. But I have some times noticed that some people takes offence if their city is spelled different compared to their own language. But f.i. Italians don't mind (Venezia/Venice/Venedig as an example). 83.249.163.255 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. Boeing720 (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Year Needed Tag

Is the year needed tag necessary to be used in this article in a section when the citation itself is not existing for the mentioned statement? I feel the year needed should be removed and should be re-analyzed once a proper citation or clarification has been provided. The tag is currently un-necessary.Amit (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Amit

See also

Please include: Field Marshal (Germany) ... thanks! -Hyperboreer 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

Tramway lines in the cities

This unsourced paragraph was added by a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Balkony). I was not able to find the original source, therefore I removed it [4] Raysdiet (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthem text

Hello, when playing the anthem on the right side of the "statistics" the words of the anthem appear convienent to the melody. But the words shown there are not correct. These are the words of the current GERMAN anthem "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" which uses the same melody as the former Austrian-Hungarian anthem ("Kaiserhymne"). composed by Joseph Haydn. The genuine text starts with "Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze...".

Sandžak- Raška region

The reference to Sandžak- Raška is present in the lead section for a long time. I ask all the users who are trying to remove it to reach a consensus here for eliminating it and to stop edit warring 79.117.167.165 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a duplicated text. You can found it in the World War I section. The fate of city sates villages have have not such important information to be in the Lead section of the article. See contemporary states: There are no such an irrelevant information in their LEAD.--Wirgensein (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also do not get why should this information be in the lead, since the relevance of the Sandžak- Raška region is quite low to the whole Austria-Hungary article. Of course, it can be mentioned in the article, but why in the lead? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to keep only this part: "Sandžak- Raška region was under Austro-Hungarian occupation between 1878 and 1909" and to remove the rest of the phrase ("when it was ceded to the Ottoman Empire, before being ultimately divided between kingdoms of Montenegro and Serbia.") 79.117.160.78 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That version is definitely better than the current one. If we change the word "occupation" to the more neutral "control", then I can agree to your version. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:The current source for this is a simple website, hence, its reliability is questionable. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Iaaasi (the vandal IP), it is a duplicated text. You can found this irrevelant information in the World War I section.--Wirgensein (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Stubes99, the lead section is a summary of the rest of the article, so any information can be found in another section. Other users (for example User:NeroN_BG) think that this info is important 79.117.168.76 (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not important what is the private opinion of Neron. It is not just strange in a country article, but very unusual. --Wirgensein (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations references and Iaaasi the wiki troll

The Austria-Hungary article has more references (103) than the contemporary French Third Republic article (60) and German Empire article (78) ! Iaaasi, the wiki troll pasted "fact" "citations needed" tags in the end of every sentences and lines. --Wirgensein (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Article size

The current size is more than 100 kb and according to WP:TOOBIG "almost certainly should be divided" 86.127.28.180 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. It's barely "oversize", and that is no need to try to squeeze it into smaller shoes on that score alone. Feel free to improve the article. There is no pressing need to split it. It is not megabytes long, and the subject is voluminous. --Mareklug ^talk 13:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also oppose a split. We could probably edit it down a bit in the WWI section, which is bit too detailed, but splitting will just serve create little used sub-articles. Better to keep it a bit bigger, and under proper supervision.Peregrine981 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Some content could benefit from being moved to subarticles, but it's not a pressing problem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Germanization

Is there any source stating that Germanization occurred after the 1867 Compromise? 79.117.188.132 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Yopie

Regarding the revert of this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&oldid=prev&diff=587101532

The current version has the following text:

The reaction among the Austrian common people was mild, almost indifferent. As historian Z.A.B. Zeman later wrote, "the event almost failed to make any impression whatsoever. On Sunday and Monday [June 28 and 29], the crowds in Vienna listened to music and drank wine, as if nothing had happened."

While the description of the reactions in Vienna is correct, it would be misleading to not include the tensions in Sarajevo itself (since it's the location where the conflict escalated). The first official declaration of war was done against Serbia, which makes the June 28-29 events related. Perhaps the Decision of war part should be split, with Sarajevo assassination and Escalation of violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina preceding it, but the information is definitively relevant to WWI. Anonimski (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done the segmentation of the section now, with references to the main articles in every part. Anonimski (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"...די קינגדאָמס און לאַנדס"

what's the source for this? 174.19.174.204 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

removed. 174.19.174.204 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in the world"

I am asking Harcikurt to provide the original quote form the book that supports this claim, cause I was not aable to find it. PersecutedUser (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Austria articles needing attention—is this still applicable?

The article is part of Category:Austria articles needing attention—is this still applicable, or may I safely remove it? There are no cleanup messages in the article.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's meaningless at this point, having been added manually in these two revisions over six years ago: [5] [6] This is the kind of a category that is added to Talk pages via a WikiProject template with a parameter attention=yes these days - and even that is often moot... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Other kingdoms

Now, I'm not saying it's 100% correct, but the article should address the perception at the time that there were five distinct kingdoms rather than saying Austria-Hungary comprised Austria, Hungary, and "some other regions with autonomous status" without mentioning their name or any details. This old EB entry calls the union "Austria" (when Austria-Hungary became a more common official term is worth discussion as well: possibly looking at lists of UK treaties and foreign correspondence of the US would help date the official switch) and describes its regions as comprising five countries "each bearing the name of kingdom"—Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, Illyria, and Dalmatia;—one archduchy (Austria proper); one principality (Transylvania); one duchy (Styria); one margraviate (Moravia); and one county (Tyrol). "These are now divided into provinces... called crown-lands...of which at present there are 18, 14 being in Austria proper and 4 in Hungary".

Source: "Austria" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed. 1878. — LlywelynII 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Empire was basicly made of three parts:

1.) Condominium

2.) Lands of the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen [Kingdom of Hungary(the only REAL kingdom in the Empire); Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (but this was only a kingdom by its name) and the District of Fiume]

3.) Lands and Kingdoms represented in the Imperial Council. You have mentioned Galicia, Illyria and Dalmatia. Well these were not even real kingdoms, only there name was "Kingdom of..." And you have also mentioned Bohemia. Well, Bohemia was part of the "Lands of the Holy Crown of Saint Wencelaus", which was the part of the "Lan...Imperial Council". But again, there was no real "Kingdom of Bohemia". These were all included in the tilte list of the Emperor, but not even there (!) were they represented as kingdom (except for Bohemia).

Oh, and the Principality of Transylvania was dissolved as of 1867. Not even the Emperor's tilte included it.

Kronosz 284 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Languages

Uh... Where to start?

1) "Google search" is not a source at all, let alone a WP:RS.

2) The results of that Google search provide two sources: one a period reference work stating that precisely two languages were official—German and Hungarian—and the other a more authoritative source that provides greater nuance... to the extent that it never provides a list and only mentions (A) imperial approval of Czech equality with German in 1848 (p. 67), (B) a c. 1849 abolition of any official languages (p. 89), C) some constitutional provisions for "provincial languages" distinct from official languages (p. 139), D) Germans claiming Czech wasn't a provincial language in Bohemia in 1866 because it wasn't the "language usual in the province" (p. 139), E) some laws making it illegal to teach Czech in 1868 (p. 182), F) one individual official's elevation of Czech as a language for some purposes in 1897 (p. 182), which may have been subsequently reversed or rescinded, and G) several proposals which may not have been adopted (p. 146, 198). I'm not sure what all of that adds up to, except that (per this source) Czech was not an official language as that term is generally understood and it provides no support for any other languages.

3) The Hidden Europe is an off-topic, informal, and non-WP:RS that mentions in passing that Austria-Hungary had "eleven" official languages, without listing them. (Our page lists 8.)

4) The Encyclopædia Britannica source isn't linked but is helpfully quoted. (Good show!) That helpful quote also shows Czech was not an official language but only at one (late) point used in some official capacities by one specific administrator. It may have been an actual official language later, but this source doesn't support that claim.

5) There were many more than 6 unofficial languages in these realms. What are the criteria for inclusion? One of the sources is in German and unlinked and unquoted and the other source is a hosted SVG map on a non-.edu website of an unsourced 1910 map whose languages disagree with those listed before the cite. Neither works for us or mentions anything about the legal status of the languages. (Even a third-party verification—and ideally translation—of the German source falls flat since it seems to just be a random person's map and nothing authoritative enough to deserve using a German source.)

So the only actual sourced official languages are German and Hungarian. Full stop. (Feel free to add more when actual sources become available.)

Actually, Austria-Hungary had another official language - Croatian. Croatian had been the official language since 1848 in the Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia-Slavonia. It was also recognised as such in the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement of 1868. Evidence for the official use of Croatian can be found here - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=f3xcAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA764&dq=zapisi+sabora&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq9rmHgcXPAhUD44MKHaeGClgQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=zapisi%20sabora&f=false - the official publication of the Croatian Parliament for the years 1868-1871.

Finally, the Austro-Hungarian banknotes were inscribed in 8 other languages (apart from German and Hungarian), namely, Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Slovene, Croatian, Serbian, Slovak and Romanian. See the picture in this Wikipedia article: Austro-Hungarian krone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise to avoid listing every single ethnicity of the realm, I'm changing the phrasing to "Major Unofficial Languages" and only including those notable enough to appear in Mayer's well-sourced linguistic map lower down the page. Open to discussion about other, better criteria, though, especially if we can get more details on those semi-official "provincial languages" mentioned above. — LlywelynII 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Badly-done laundry 1

Pending some verification to their actual official status, the laundry list of "official names" has been moved here. (Note that the list includes names even the existing page did not claim were actually official, such as Yiddish, and is badly formatted. Simply transliterate in italics, don't write out the word "transliteration", let alone misspellings of that word.) Commented out, below:  — LlywelynII 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Badly-done laundry 2

The page already describes the official names in German, in Hungarian, and in English translation. Pending actual official status to any of the following languages, there's no need to run an entire infobox for them. Commented out, below:  — LlywelynII 04:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Economy section

The economy section is far too long. Much of the information in this section should be moved over to the Economy of Austria-Hungary page, which is currently much shorter than what is given here. Király-Seth (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Austria-Hungary had another official language - Croatian. This was official in the Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia-Slavonia since 1848 (when Latin was abandoned) and was confirmed as such by the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement of 1868. More evidence can be found here - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=f3xcAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA764&dq=zapisi+sabora&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq9rmHgcXPAhUD44MKHaeGClgQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=zapisi%20sabora&f=false - which shows the official publication of the Croatian Parliament in the years 1868-1871.

Finally, the currency of Austria-Hungary was inscribed in 8 languages other than German and Hungarian - Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Slovene, Croatian, Serbian, Slovak and Romanian - see the picture at Austro-Hungarian krone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian

I´m sorry for my bad english, but Bulgarian wasen´t spoken in Austria-Hungary, it´s only listed on the map, because it´s a south-slavic language, but they are no black areas on the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.251.172 (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is an article on Banat Bulgarians, so I suggest you put it back in. Or I will do, if you don't mind. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It was not a "major unofficial language". Srnec (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Suni-Islam

This article states that Sunni-Islam was exercised in Austria-Hungary since 1878, but Bosnia-Herzegovina was, although controlled by A-U since 1878, annexed by A-U in 1908

Ausztria-Magyarország vs Osztrák–Magyarország

far as I know, Austria-Hungary means Osztrák–Magyarország in Hungarian it´s also the name which is used by the Hungarian wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.247.134 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, in Hungary we call it in these names: "Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia/Birodalom" (=Austro-Hungarian Monarchy/Empire) OR "Ausztria-Magyarország" (=Austria-Hungary). The term "Osztrák-Magyarország" does not exist, it would mean something like "Austrian Hungary". But this term was not even used during the era of the Habsburg Empire. Kronosz 284 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

Spelling mistake. Please change extremly to extremely. Royhvaara (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Empire

there is no any Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Citizenship?

"The division between Austria and Hungary was so marked that there was no common citizenship: one was either an Austrian citizen or a Hungarian citizen, never both. This also meant that there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one."

IF this would be true, than someone please tell me, what was the citizenship of those who were born and lived in the Condominium (Bosnia-Herzegovina). The Condominium was not Austrian territory nor Hungarian, it was ruled together, so: Which citizenship did you get if there was no common one?

ALSO, the Empire had only one, common Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There was no Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs nor an Austrian one, because the Empire was basicly one country and they did not want to represent it like it was divided.

ALSO, there was no Hungarian Embassy anywhere in the world, nor an Austrian Embassy. There were only common Austro-Hungarian Embassies. Just use some logic: If you are a "so called" Austrian citizen and you are in Berlin, you won't find an Austrian Embassy, because there is none! Where will you go then? To the Austro-Hungarian Embassy? Well you can't beacuse it is a standard diplomatic rule, that the Embassy is the territory of the country that is represented by it. If you are an Austrian citizen, you can't even get inside to the Austro-Hungarian Embassy, because you are not an Austro-Hungarian citizen.

There must have been common citizenship, because it makes so many unlogical problems, that a great powr simply could not afford itself through half a century.

Kronosz 284 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There were one embassy building with an Austrian chief of embassy or Hungarian chief (it was alternating) in foreign countries, however there were two offices in the embassy building: an Austrian staff only for Austrian citizens and a Hungarian staff only for Hungarian citizens. The Austrian staff had no right to handle matters of Hungarian citizens, and Hungarian staff had no right to handle the matters of Austrian citizens, because they were considered foreigners.--84.0.236.85 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Can a page containing a register of those who served in the Merchant Navy during the life of the Austria-Hungary Empire be provided or does it already exist?

John Leamy.

Largest cities of the dual monarchy

Contemporary official names: Can someone confirm that Praha was the only contemporary official name for Prague?

According to Prague "by 1880 the number of German speakers had decreased to 14% (42,000), and by 1910 to 6.7% (37,000)" and Czech was official language in the Bohemia.--Yopie (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP troll started to delete referenced text from the economy section

An IP troll deleted reference and text from the economic section of the article. The article has to be converted into a "protected page".--Prudoncty (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Dear" User:Prudoncty, are you the same person as User:Tirdwell? 91.127.61.217 (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to delete referenced text (read wiki rules), because you "do not like it". You have started an edit war, which will lead to the protection of the webpage in most cases.--Prudoncty (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Since 1849, Hungary was a part of the Austrian Empire

Section 1 of the Constitution for the empire of Austria (check it here) declared that the kingdom of Hungary is an Austrian crown-lands. This sentence annihilated the Hungarian Constitution sworn to by fourteen kings of the House of Hapsburg. Hungary was never a crown -land of the empire of Austria, but an independent kingdom, the crown of which was conferred on the possessors of certain hereditary provinces, in which Hungary was never included. 85.216.148.49 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

pre 1848 situation

This piece of text: “The Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary had always maintained separate parliaments: the Imperial Council (Austria) and the Diet of Hungary. Except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. All laws, even those with identical content such as the compromise of 1867, had to pass the parliaments of both Vienna and Budapest. They were published in the respective official media: in the Austrian part it was called Reichsgesetzblatt, and was issued in eight languages.

The administration and government of the Kingdom of Hungary (between 1527 and 1848) were not united with the administration and government structure of the Austrian Empire. Hungary's central government structures remained well separated from the imperial government: the two were linked largely in the person of the common monarch. The country was governed by the Council of Lieutenancy of Hungary (the Gubernium) - located in Pressburg and later in Pest - and by the Hungarian Royal Court Chancellery in Vienna. The Hungarian government and Hungarian parliament were suspended after the Hungarian revolution of 1848, and they regained their former status after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise in 1867.” Contains a few confusing elements. There are two citations not forthcoming since 2013. Furthermore a number of situations pertaining to the 1804-1848 situation that are mentioned seem to pertain to other periods altogether. There was no Reichsrat until 1861. Also the term ‘Empire of Austria’ is used for situations before 1804. I have rewritten it thusly:

“The Kingdom of Hungary had always maintained a separate parliament, the Diet of Hungary , even after the Austrian Empire was created in 1804. The administration and government of the Kingdom of Hungary (until 1848) remained largely untouched by the government structure of the overarching Austrian Empire. Hungary's central government structures remained well separated from the imperial government. The country was governed by the Council of Lieutenancy of Hungary (the Gubernium) - located in Pressburg and later in Pest - and by the Hungarian Royal Court Chancellery in Vienna. The Hungarian government and Hungarian parliament were suspended after the Hungarian revolution of 1848, and were reinstated after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise in 1867.” Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Significant additions made by a sockpuppet of banned editor

I request, per WP:BAN policy, the removal of the major unilateral changes made to the article by User:Prudoncty, confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. The version from 23:46, 25 May 2015 must be restored. 46.29.1.251 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Edits by user are not vandalism, and there have been too many intermediate edits to revert without damage to their work. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the changes made by User:Prudoncty (mostly to from Austria-Hungary#Economy section). Please don't re-insert them without a proper discussion (the article is already too long and random additions could make it even longer) 89.173.231.231 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So, one Slovak IP happily deletes information regarding Hungarian technical achievments at the request of another Slovak IP, though the deletion request was deemed unsubstantiated by antivandalism editor Orduin. How unsurprising. Rob.HUN (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

Please revert the unsourced changes of User:Rob.HUN. Especially the unsourced/unexplained addition often referred to as Austro-Hungarian Empire in English language sources and by post-WWI Little Entente countries is really dubious. Why in the Little Entente countries? Why would Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia adopt a different name? 213.229.64.181 (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Why would Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia adopt a different name?"

Because gaining territory from the Kingdom of Hungary through the dissolution of the Dual Monarchy, these newly formed Little Entente states were interested in presenting the Dual Monarchy as an empire, a notion generally associated with harsh centralized power, applying the name as a propaganda technique trying to justify their territorial gain. Rob.HUN (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob.HUN, your assertion is completely unsourced, so I'd like to ask User:Stickee to revert again Rob.HUN's dubious edits (I am referring especially to the statement "often referred to as Austro-Hungarian Empire in twentieth century English language historiography"). As it can be seen on Google Books, the phrase was also widely used in the 19th century. 213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob.HUN made a false assertion (that Austria-Hungary was often referred to as Austro-Hungarian Empire (only) in twentieth century English language historiography), so I'm asking somebody to revert him (again). 213.229.101.60 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

213.229.64.181 you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word historiography.

Is that you, the notorious sockpuppet Raysdiet / Iaaasi again? Rob.HUN (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not Raysdiet and I am not against adding your text if it is correct. But the fact that the name "Austro-Hungarian Empire" was used only since the 20th century is false. There are plenty of books from the 19th century that use this term! I ask an independent user to judge this, but in my opinion it is clear that your assertion ("often referred to as Austro-Hungarian Empire in twentieth century English language historiography") is wrong. 213.229.101.194 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Done I removed "twentieth century". Rob.HUN (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Your version of the first sentence is badly written and grammatically incorrect. The term "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is a term in English language, so it is unnecesary to add that it is used by "English language sources". 108.170.8.164 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If dispute resolution is really needed here, I suggest seeking help at WP:DRN or WP:3O, but please try to resolve this through amiable discussion on the talk page first. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: There was never such a thing as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, when you understand Empire to refer to a state ruled by an emperor. Austria was an Empire. Hungary was a kingdom. It's better to speak of Austria-Hungary throughout. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: No. historians, scholars and leading journals & publishers and reference books use "A-H Empire" -- and that's who Wikipedia editors are supposed to depend upon: 1) Mason, The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1918 (Routledge, 2014); 2) Schulze & Wolf. "Economic nationalism and economic integration: the Austro‐Hungarian Empire in the late nineteenth century" The Economic History Review (2012) pp: 652-673; 3) Thorpe, "Exhibiting the Austro-Hungarian Empire: The Austrian Museum for Folk Culture in Vienna, 1895-1925." Museum and Society (2015) pp: 42-51; 4) Dornbusch, "Monetary problems of post-communism: Lessons from the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." Review of World Economics (1992) pp: 391-424; 5) von Horstenau, The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire (London: JM Dent, 1930); 6) Trumpener, Béla Bartók and the Rise of Comparative Ethnomusicology: Nationalism, Race Purity, and the Legacy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (University of Chicago Press, 2000), etc etc Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're exactly right about that. I didn't say the name was never used. Just that it was a misnomer in the sense that Empire means a country ruled by an emperor. Which Austria-Hungary wasn't. (well the ruler was an emperor, he just wasn't emperor of Austria-Hungary.) Which is a problem that has more to do with the use of the word "empire" in the English language, than with Austria-Hungary. Which makes it preferable to be avoided in some contexts at least. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

a "misnomer"? No--we editors are not supposed to argue with the expert Historians, scholars, ref books etc --Wikipedia has to follow them. Rjensen (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. It is a confusing matter though. It's only a misnomer if you regard the word "Empire" as to mean State ruled by an Emperor. Which isn't the only meaning of the word. In works by historians however you will also find that Austria-Hungary was not an Empire in that sense. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

suceeded by countries list

It was not succeded by kingdom of Serbia. Even the article Kingdom of Serbia states that it is not preceeded by Austria Hungary... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.217.73 (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's right. This is probably caused by the fact that the Sanjak of Novipazar was occupied by Austria-Hungary from 1878 to 1908. Occupation does not mean that this territory was a part of Austria-Hungary. It was returned to Turkish rule in 1908 and divided between Serbia and Montenegro in 1913. I removed the entry from the list.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just came to open a request to remove Kingdom of Serbia from the list of successor counties, only to find it already open. I think that is quite clear. Kingdom of Serbia was already an independent county when Austro-Hungary still existed as a country. The successor state is State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. The fact that that state later united with Kingdom of Serbia does not make Kingdom of Serbia, nor Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to be successor states. Please correct that.95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, I see you removed it from infobox,but it is still stated in the article under successor states section. Also the flag of the State of Slovenes,Croats and Serbs in the infobox in wrong. 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I've corrected that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

IP you are wrong. Kingdom of Serbia is added because several territories that belonged to Austro-Hungary were first united to K. of Serbia and only next K. of Serbia transformed itself into K. of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. You should see the timeline of the events. FkpCascais (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of that. This needs a source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, a successor state is a legal term and FkpCascais is speaking of non-legal descriptive terminology "now a part of" that is widely used in Wikipedia. FkpCascais can bring a source and we can include Serbia in the "now a part of" section, but Kingdom of Serbia is not a successor state to Austro-Hungary and that is self evident since Serbia was already an independent country when Austro-Hungary still existed, so it can't be a successor state. It was not created from Austro-Hungary dissolving. Also, Gerard von Hebel, could you fix the flag of the State of Slovenes,Croats and Serbs in the infobox.151.24.15.202 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course @Hebel:, I am not with much time at moment, this map explains the territories that united with Serbia immediately after the end of WWI and prior formation of Yugoslavia and lists the sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Yugoslavia#/media/File:Serbia1918.png but Ill bring you later more sources. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here we go, the first one,

• Serbia by Laurence Mitchell, page 232, says: "The end of World War I, and the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that followed, allowed the three Vojvodina provinces to form a union with what was then known as the Kiingdom of Serbia on 25 November 1918." You can read the rest of the page which explains it all. The 3 Vojvodina provinces were Banat, Bačka and Baranja, and on 1 December 1918 it all became Kingdom of SCS, however we should not forger that Vojvodina entered Yugoslavia as part of Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's ok and we can include K.of Serbia in the "now a part of" section. However K. of Serbia is not a successor country to Austro-Hungary. You won't find a source that states that. You clearly do not know what a successor state is. Here you go Succession of states. No one is disputing that some territories that were a part of Austro-Hungary became Serbian after the dissolution of Austro-Hungary. Serbia had occupied those territories after WW1. Well there were some pretend people counciles, but that's a different story to how Serbia gained those territories. 178.130.41.173 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that what we are discussing here is the inclusion/exclusion of countries in the infobox, and there it is not the successor states as by definition of it that are listed, but countries that the territory of the former state gained territories from. See other exemples. Hebel, I will wait for you here. I think you should also know that this IP here is the indef-blocked User:Asdisis evading block, known as a single-purpose account for fighting for Croatian causes vs Serbian ones. FkpCascais (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have to answer this personal attacks and that's exactly why numerous people choose to edit as anonymous ip's. While you choose to go to personal attack to push your POV I won't pay much attention to such approach. I'm concentrated on the valid arguments and sources. As for that, it's self evident that the successor counties are the wrong name for the list in the question. Here's something from Treaty of Trianon article. There's an interesting text to read, but here's the map of successor countries : [7]. That's the image sources by RS. It clearly shows the successor states: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. The list in question can stay in the article but it can't be named as the list of successor countries, but as a list "Became part of". 5.144.98.84 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, I just noticed that Italy and Romania are stated as successor states and those are not successor states. It seems that the intention was different. Maybe we should just rename the title of the section to something "became a part of", and then list all those counties. Succession is something different. Or make 2 sections, succession and "a part of". What do you think? The successor states would be Austria,Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the State of Slovenec, Croats, and Serbs. Well I would really need to go to sources to be quite sure, since this is somewhat complex question. Several entities existed in the dissolution's time period and it's hard to say which to include in the successor states. It would be much simpler to rename the section into "became a part of". We can always do another about successor states. 178.130.41.173 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, I wen't trough some articles: Paris_Peace_Conference,_1919, Treaty_of_Versailles, Treaty_of_Saint-Germain-en-Laye_(1919), Treaty_of_Trianon, Treaty_of_Neuilly-sur-Seine and my concrete suggestion is to make two lists. The infobox can hold the list "Became a part of" that lists all countries that gained territories that previously belonged to AH. While the successor list should name Austria,Czechoslovakia, Hungary and SCS as successor states. The second list doesn't have to be in the infobox but a separate section should be made in the article. I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. In my opinion, the other editor is not participating in good faith since he continued personal attacks from the other discussion I have with him. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to think. What constitutes a successor state? Hmmmmm. I'm not sure either if this matter is of enough significance to add another section about it in the infobox. I won't object to anyone adding the K. of Serbia to the list again however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I myself think this is a bit complex question to deal with. I would be prepared to deal with it, but as an ip, I'm limited to ask others to edit this, and if you are not prepared to deal with it, that pretty much means the article will be left without the info on successor states. Can we at least agree that the list in question is not the list of successor countries? I think that's self evident. Here's the definition of successor country: Succession_of_states. The lead sentence states: "Succession of states is a theory and practice in international relations regarding the recognition and acceptance of a newly created sovereign state by other states, based on a perceived historical relationship the new state has with a prior state.". The key points are "theory and practice in international relations", "newly created sovereign state", "historical relationship the new state has with a prior state". Let's take Italy for example. It is not a "newly created sovereign state" and it does not have any "historical relationship with a prior state". Let's call the list that it is. It is a list of countries which gained territory from AH. Some of them were a successor countries and others simply gained some territory. I know it's a complex question but I think I found a map that pretty much gives an answer to it. What do you think of that map? If you don't feel like participating, I can open a request.5.144.98.84 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the list of countries in the infoboxes is mentioned as successor states, but in practice is used here to point out all countries that took/receved/conquered territory of the country at the point of its disestablishment. You are right that we have here a situation that should be discussed, but it should be discussed and applied all over wikipedia, not just one article. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then we agree that the list should be called "Became a part of", or something similar, but not succeeded by? Of all those listed successor counties are: Republic of German-Austria , Hungarian Democratic Republic ,First Czechoslovak Republic, and the SCS. Again, my suggestion is to change the list name in the infobox and in the article list those countries as successor counties in the Successor states. The maps that are now in the article already show those states as successor counties so the change has to be done to the text. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Successor counties

Please change the name of the list in the infobox that reads "Succeeded by" to "Became part of". The reason is that this list does not represent successor counties. Even the article itself has a section named successor stats and it provides a different list. Also fix the flag of the State of Slovenes Croats and Serbs in the infobox. Thank you.194.226.8.147 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Come on, FkpCascais , we can do this! We can together edit this article. If you do it the credit will he half-half. Let's start with this, let's bury the hatchet. I feel we practically agree with this request. Gerard von Hebel you can also contribute to this simple request. I went trough several articles and I agree with the changes made so far , but this list has to be renamed. It isn't any significant change, but it's a correction that benefits the article because the article body itself lists different countries as successors than this list in the infobox. I have a good feeling about this request ;) 188.242.144.157 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The talk section above (suceeded by countries list) suggests to me that there is not a consensus to make this change. -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Please revert Tzolov 's edit: [8]. Bulgaria was one of the Central Powers, so "Bulgaria and the Central Powers" is not a correct phrase. 86.124.210.98 (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Done -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New article needed: Austria-Hungary during WW1

Or: With redirection: The history of Austria-Hungary during WW1.

The WW1 section is too long in this article, it's time to open a separate article. All other countries had similar topics.--Walter Voterds (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia was part of Austrian-Hungary empire

Slovenia was a part of Austria in Austria-Hungary. Ljubljana was capitol of Kranjska.

Yes, with the exception of Prekmurje, which was in Hungary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong caption

Under the "Flags" section, one of the captions mention "Flag of Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"; shown flag is flag of Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.133.57 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Dalmatia was basically not a part of the Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The caption is all right. That is the flag of Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia which was a formal entity withing the empire. I direct you to Triune Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel, Dalmatia was formally a part of the Triune Kingdom. Someone should really cover that more elaborately since people are getting confused. I know it's complex but let's not make it simplistic because we don't understand it. Austro-Hungary had functioned that way. Although Triune Kingdom was a formal entity, it wasn't really de facto an unified entity with single representation. 54.166.72.233 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Triune kingdom may have claimed or wanted Dalmatia, but it was not a part of it during the Austrian and Austro Hungarian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Formally it was, however they had a separated representation. However, the Triune Kingdom had formally existed as an recognized entity withing the empire. I'll try to get sources. In the meantime you can see Triune Kingdom and the discussion I had on talk page there. 54.166.72.233 (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here's the source I found earlier, Gerard von Hebel. It's on Croatian, here's the translation:"Croatian ethnic area in the first half of the 19th century was divided on several political and administrative areas which were completely distinct but formally gathered under the name Triune Kingdom".54.166.72.233 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, after 1867, Dalmatia was a part of the Austrian part of the Empire, while Croatia-Slavonia was part of the Hungarian portion of the Empire. I don't know exactly what mechanisms of cooperation were intact before that date. Also Dalmatia might have been part of the official name, but I doubt that the post Ausgleich Kingdom can be equated with the situation you describe in the first half of the century. The article is about the post Ausglech monarchy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Triune Kingdom had existed up to 1918. As I said, this is more complex than simplistic way Wikipedia often describes historical events. Dalmatia and Croatia were separate political entities but still formally a part of the Triune Kingdom. If you see the emperors title you'll see that he was the "King of Dalmatia-Croatia and Slavonia". Not to get too much into it, just one example to portray how complex Austro-Hungarian way of working was: Triune Kingdom was also known as Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. However Austrian part of the Empire had called it Kingdom of Dalmatia-Croatia-Slavonia, putting Dalmatia upfront to assert its claim to Dalmatia which was in Austrian part. So, there were 3 official names for one official entity which was composed of 2 completely distinct political entities while Croatia-Slavonia was a single kingdom composed of provincial part and Military Frontier which was under military administration. 54.166.72.233 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comment. I've always taken it as a claim on both sides of the equation that was allowed to remain because the facts on the ground were clear anyway. As Dalmatia (that had the status of a Kingdom within the Austrian part of the Dual monarchy) never seemed to be in any connection with Croatia-Slavonia on any maps of the period, I never assumed that there were any remaining constitutional ties between the two entities, except a claim from the Croatia-Slavonia part. I know that the title of the Emperor for Croatia-Slavonia included Dalmatia, but I have always been under the impression that this was just a matter of titulature and not of a constitutional situation on the ground. Perhaps this can be clarified somehow. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. 54.166.72.233 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Language

This article mentions Serbo-Croatia as a language within the empire. I'm sure that this term was not used at that time. I see that this article says that Croatian is an official language so I've changed the info in the referenced article to Croatia. If someone has a source, please go to talk page of the referenced article. 54.166.72.233 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues

It may seem surprising, but it actually is not permitted to simply copy material from another Wikipedia article, even if the material is referenced.

As one of our canned responses notes:

While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

The original addition to the article by @Enginerfactories: in [this edit] was a copy from Wikipedia article, without references in the material and without notification in the edit summary. In my opinion, the volume of material, more than de minimus, triggers the need for the template, but at a minimum, the attribution in the edit summary is required.

I reverted it, with an explanation.

Enginerfactories restored it, without contacting me, and claimed it was reversion of vandalism. That isn't remotely true.

@Rjensen:, who has enough experience to know better, undid my removal with a edit summary which simply isn't true.

We can discuss what needs to be done to properly include the material, but if it is added back without doing it correctly, blocks may be forthcoming.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood - all good now. (But I still think the copied template should be added.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The rule is clear enough "This page in a nutshell: When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page and state that content was copied from that source. " So I added it back in with a clear explanation in the edit summary where it came from. That fulfills Wiki criteria. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Enginerfactories: please note that while I accepted the edit by Rjensen, it did not meet out minimum standards, and should not be used as a model. Please follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The name of the empire in Ukrainian/Ruthenian

Is there any substantial reason not to include it in the first sentence?--Adûnâi (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)