Talk:Austria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bavarian as a recognized and/or national language

Per request, about the edit I've been reverting:

1. The claim that "Bavarian" has any kind of special status or legal recognition (that other forms of German spoken in Austria have not) is wrong. I've already cited (and quoted from) the relevant statute in an edit summary a few days ago. Austrian language law does not privilege Bavarian dialects spoken in Austria relative to e.g. Alemannic dialects of German spoken in Austria. The national language, per Art. 8 (1) B-VG, is "die deutsche Sprache," i.e. "the German language." A number of additional statutes (and in fact at least one international treaty) award recognition and protection to a number of non-Germanic minority languages. But neither the B-VG nor any other relevant law mentions Bavarian, not even in passing.
2. The specific the edits talks about "Bavarian Austrian" makes it sound like "Austrian" is a clade in the linguistic taxonomy tree and "Bavarian Austrian" is one of its subclades. If anything, it's the other way around: the set of Bavarian dialects spoken in Austria is a subset of the set of Bavarian dialects in general. (I am aware of the pluricentricity debate. This is not about that. I'm here as an encyclopedist, not an ideologue. No linguist will object if you refer to the German spoken in Vienna as "a Bavarian dialect." You cannot, on the other hand, refer to the German spoken in Munich as "an Austrian dialect.")
3. The edit also changes a sentence in the body text in a way that makes it ungrammatical. Kramler (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Demographics of Austria. According to the 2001 population census, 88.6% are native German speakers (96% Austro-Bavarian dialects and 4% Alemanic dialects) while the remaining 11.4% speak several minority languages. The non-German speakers of Austria can be divided into two groups: traditional minorities, who are related to territories formerly part of the Habsburg Monarchy, and new minorities, resulting from recent immigration.

Probably written with error - Germanic languages, in the country we use precise language and precise name - in this case it's Bavarian Austrian. It is independent language. Read Bavarian Wikipedia - http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96stareich chapter Sprochn & autochtone Voiksgruppm

Denis Tarasov (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still don't get it. Yes, a clear majority of Austrians who speak German speak some variety of Bavarian, and nobody says otherwise, but that doesn't mean that Bavarian has official legal recognition, or national language status, or anything else of the sort.

On the purely legal level, the national language (Staatssprache) of Austria is German. Not Bavarian, German. This is the black letter of the law.

On the wider political and societal level, the Austrian government and the Austrian academic establishment assert that 1) German is a pluricentric language and 2) Austrian German™ should not be considered an aberrant form of Standard German but rather a standard in its own right, equal to FRG German™ in rank and prestige. But the Austrian German™ they postulate is emphatically not the same thing as Austrian Bavarian. It explicitly transcends the Bavarian-Alemannic divide. For one thing, the powers that be are not interested in implying that the Alemannic community is second banana. For another thing, what distinguishes Austrian German™ from FRG German is not grammar so much as lexicon. (There is no government-issued official Austrian grammar, but there is a government-issued official Austrian dictionary.) The reasons Austria uses different words than Germany for a wide variety of objects and concepts (separate legal systems, independently developed postal and banking systems, different predominant trading partners, historically strong Italian influence in many areas of public life, etc.) all apply to the entire country, users of Bavarian-type dialects and users of Alemannic-type dialects alike. In other words, "Is this Austrian?" and "Is this Bavarian?" are completely different questions. Some regiolects that linguists would classify as Austrian can also be called Bavarian, some cannot, and the same is true the other way around.

The Bavarian article you linked to does not seem to disagree with any of this.

Поскольку вам кажется неудобным английский, мы можем продолжить этот разговор на русском или немецком, если хотите. Моя жена - лингвист. Я уверен, что мы можем объяснить вам, где вы ошибаетесь в отношении лингвистического аспекта этого, как только мы узнаем, что вы на самом деле имеете в виду. Kramler (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's English Wikipedia, I will use English language. I will explain to you. Official language of the country - is the language in witch legislation is published and government organisations use it. Ordinary citizen can use any language. Official German language in Austria was accepted in Constitution of Austria in 1938. Probably after the Austrian Anschluss referendum, 1938. This marks the begging of the occupation of Austria by the Nazi Germany. It's well known fact and this action was heavy punished because of the big human losses in the Second World War caused by the Nazi Germany.

Denis Tarasov (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude, what are you doing. German was established as Austria's national language with the Constitution of 1920. Have a look, Article 8 is right at the top of this page. The Anschluss had nothing to do with this. When Austria was liberated in 1945, Article 8 went back into force along with the rest of the Constitution because why not, the fact that German is Austria's national language is in no way, shape or form associated with any Nazi crap.

As an aside, the fact that you mention the Anschluss referendum is... peculiar. The referendum was a farce with no legal significance whatsoever, staged purely for PR purposes. The Anschluss law was enacted on March 13 and entered into force the same day. The referendum on the Anschluss law was held on April 20. The Nazis had an entire month to round up the opposition, saturate the country with propaganda, put the literal fear of death into any remaining dissenters, and make sure the vote wouldn't even be secret in most places. Most people who walk around offering opinions on Austrian constitutional history are aware of this. Kramler (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Austria's Coat of arms

Kindly have a look at the current version as given in the Bundesgesetzblatt, Anlage 1. Obviously, the eagle rendered in the Anlage1.pdf (as of 08.09.2018) has shaded feathers. The RIS is the Austrian Rechts-Informations-System, reflecting Austria's laws in their currently valid version. Please, take into consideration. Purgy (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Colonestarrice: If the bird is wearing shackles, it's postwar. The shackles symbolize the liberation from Nazism.

Purgy: Both versions are equally valid, both legally and encyclopedically. Regarding legally, what matters here is the official blazon, which is in B-VG Art. 8a and specifies that the eagle is sable in tincture. The picture in the Wappengesetz is really just an example of one possible conformant rendering. It does not contradict the blazon because it's perfectly OK for a visual representation of sable to be hatched, dotted, stippled, or otherwise textured – as long as it's recognizably black, it's correct. Regarding encyclopedically, Austria generally does try to approximate the example in the Wappengesetz, but it has always been using a solid black version alongside and interchangeably with the textured one. There is no clear preference for either. Me, I'd personally prefer the solid black version because it looks less scrawny on screen; the coat of arms is busy enough without the half-assed 3D effect. Kramler (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not that much involved in whatever outcome to fight for my opinion, which is:

• Ascribing the broken shackles to any liberation is not legally derivable, but a maybe welcome insinuation, they are, however, definitely postwar.
• B-VG Art. 8a in its original form had no chance ever to include a scalable vector graphic, not even a bitmap in its legally valid form. They did what they could to give a formal description in legalese of the "Bundesente" by blazoning it with "eagle, hammer, sickle (like communism), ...". Everyone (lawfully?) assumes almost any right to apply aspect ratios, color gradients (as long as they are black (?and red?)), rasterizing, ... However, there are contemporary methods, like .pdfs, the legislative bodies took advantage of, to give a (regrettably?) more narrow description, even when a lot of variants are not only not incriminated, but even actively entertained (see the various logos of the governmental dpts). Imho, the task of an encyclopedia is to promulgate the best approximation to the paradigm given by the legislative, and not to put representatives of personal taste on the shelf, even when a simplified, stamp-able mono-colored version is in frequent official use.
• Calling the dithering of eagle-wings half-assed might vulnerate sensitive Austrian citizens. ;)

Thank you for your detailed considerations, it was a pleasure to have this dispute with you. Purgy (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL at "Bundesente;" I'm not sure this species has been documented before.

Anas foederalis (Purgatorio 2018) (NMW, male ventral)

I agree that we should probably aim for the best possible approximation, but in heraldry, "best" has never meant "most literal and fastidious." Users were always expected to make allowances for the medium they were working with. The legislature obviously wasn't thinking about computer screens when they invented the original federation fowl in May 1919, but they already knew the shaded feathers wouldn't work well in embroidery, on enameled door signs, or in newspaper raster print. I'd guess that's why the solid black version exists in the first place! As you've pointed out yourself, there are certain use cases where Austria has deviated from the Wappengesetz example much more radically:

Anas foederalis vigilum (Kramler 2018) (MZUTH, male ventral)

My personal opinion is that the solid black version is better suited for use in Wikipedia infoboxes because it's an approximation of the Wappengesetz example that is (a) close enough, (b) better looking on screen than the even closer approximation, and (c) as widely used as the even closer approximation by the Republic of Austria itself. Whatever else the legislature had in mind with regards to the thing, they certainly wouldn't have wanted the Official Raptor of the Republic to look like it was dying from tuberculosis.

As an aside, I have to disagree about the "not legally derivable." The meaning of the shackles is specified in the Gesetz vom 1. Mai 1945 über Wappen, Farben, Siegel und Embleme, BGBl. 7/1945: "Dieses Wappen wird zur Erinnerung an die Wiedererringung der Unabhängigkeit Österreichs und den Wiederaufbau des Staatswesens im Jahre 1945 dadurch ergänzt, daß eine gesprengte Eisenkette die beiden Fänge des Adlers umschließt." Unmistakable enough in my opinion :) Kramler (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I enjoy that I could contribute to your amusement, I thank you for your detailed historic and legal information that changed my beliefs about the chain, and for making the taxonomy scientific by using Latin (caveat: I own no rights regarding the term). However, even when we agree to strive for "best approximation" in WP, we do not agree on what to approximate. While I, in the typical mentality of a traditional tributary, try to approximate the letters given by the authorities that are, you appear to me as approximating "Austria's Coat of arms in itself", the optimal representation of this idea. There are certainly philosophers who deny the mere existence of such, but -as said- I already had my fun in discussing this, and I enjoy to see you satisfied (and Colonestarrice, too) by re-establishing the bird, not in the molt (tuberculosis seems excessive). :)

Finally, there are still more alternatives, besides the BMI, which might suit different esthetic categories: BMJ, BMF, in the assembly hall, authorized use, ... Purgy (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's use the MS Paint version in your last example; it's clearly the most dignified :) Seriously though, we are choosing an approximation, whether we want to or not. No matter what we do, the picture users will end up seeing will be brutally downscaled compared to the plate in the Wappengesetz, rasterized, and forced into a different color space with a smaller effective palette. We're really just disagreeing about the scaling algorithm. You want more edge preservation, I'd prefer more smoothness. The choice is not that important to me though and I'm not going to start a fight over this. Glad you enjoyed my rusty Latin! Kramler (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

CHANGE Economy

Main article: Economy of Austria

See also: List of Austrian companies

TO Economy

Main article: Economy of Austria

See also: List of Austrian companies

See also: Tourism in Austria

Lemur1000 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:ElHef with this edit I have moved some of these see also links to the article body per WP:MOS--DBigXrayᗙ 13:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

civil war

austria had a civil war in 1510 before england took over. WIKepia was ineted in austria by wiki agui — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellinmelon (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Name confusion

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of their subjects.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Austria is often confused with Australia (even by news channels!), so why don't they rename it Osteria or Osterria? Polytope4D (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Formal name

Austria has two names: Austria and the Republic of Austria. The article said that the country's official name would be the Republic of Austria. That would imply that the country's short name, Austria, would be an unofficial name or in other words, a nickname - which it isn't. As far as i understand, both names, Austria and the Republic of Austria, are official names.

The United Nations Statistics Division and the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) are developing a multilingual names database. There they denote "the Republic of Austria" to be the country's formal name, as opposed to "Austria", which is called the country's short name. In order to prevent the impression that the country's short name "Austria" would be a mere nickname and based on UNGEGN's usage, i replace "officially" with "formal name:". --K1812 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Grammar errors

"As reported in July 2017 they are currently at 94.9% maximum capacity(“Austria.”)."

There should be a space after capacity.

"Austria is ranked number 105 in prison pollution in the world("Highest to Lowest ... "

There should be a space after world.

Lead

Roastedturkey,

nothing is obscure or unsuitable, it is an important part of the Austrian history, as the concerning territories have been part of Austria, etc., it is a general summary and not even too specific, because then many other distractions could be mentioned. Thus, there is no reason to change the content.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC))

The previous lead distracts from Austrian history by introducing the irrelevant invasion of Poland and the Munich Agreement. Austria had lost those territories after World War I and never regained them since. All we need to state is that Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938 and liberated after World War II. --Roastedturkey (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you wish, we may ignore the case with Poland, also you are right that the article reflects current Austria in invariant time, but as well includes her hisotry, as i.e. Hungary also include her history since the creation of the country. Sudetenland has been historically part of the Austrian Empire, hence it should remain.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC))

The Sudetenland had no relation to Austria after the dissolution of the empire. Articles should not discuss a state or territory at a time when it has no relation to the subject. For example, the article on the United Kingdom does not discuss the United States after the latter had gained independence. --Roastedturkey (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really, because the Republic of German-Austria was in question, however, as I already told as well in all such type of articles the historical timline is reflected, as well in the lead. See, here, the history starts at 976 until up today, the example with the United States is not good, since it has been never part historically of UK proper....we may establish some agreement of rephrasing, i.e. mentioning the will of union with Germany after the ending of WWI that has not been succeeded in the end, that naturally would have included Sudetenland. In case this you agree, we may remove Munich & Poland and letting the Anschuss dicussed alone.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

I think I would be fine with that. --Roastedturkey (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

Students union fee is not 17€ but 20.20€. (in the last line of the chapter 6.5)

Source: I am a student and https://www.oeh.ac.at/service/oeh-beitrag 178.191.67.115 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Kingdom of Austria-Hungary 1910 Adlerhof (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

2019 GDP predictions are now meaningless

Given what happened afterwards, invoking an old October 2019 estimate as a meaningful update for the 2020 GDP is a nonsense. Sapphorain (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Do people REALLY confuse Austria with Australia?

Someone added a Not To Be Confused notation, with the comment that people frequently confuse the two. I guess it doesn't hurt, so I'm not going to revert and perhaps start an edit war over nothing--but do people REALLY confuse the two? I don't run into those people. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's really strange, I would also remove it...(KIENGIR (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

I have the feeling that most of the time when people seem to confuse the two, it's played as a joke. However, it's still plausible to arrive at the wrong country as a result of a typo. So the one-liner in the hatnote might still be a net positive. Don Cuan (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Pronunciation of Österreich should be [øːstəʀ-], with normal schwa instead of "low schwa" [ɐ], according to Duden Aussprachewörterbuch.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

The last sentence of the first paragraph begins with "While Austrian German...", with a hyperlink on "Austrian German". Currently, "Austrian German" links to the page about the German language, instead of the page about Austrian German, the variety of German.

My suggestion is to replace the link with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_German.

Barring that, my suggestion is to change the visible hyperlink text to say "German".

Thank you. Robbykraft (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Robbykraft Done, thanks!

COVID-19 vaccine

"Starting in February 2022, COVID-19 vaccines are mandatory for all residents over the age of 18."
This is only partly true. Before the legal act fully came into force, it has been temporarily suspended and finally the law has been repealed. See also the related article in the German wiki.
Is there somebody who can care for an update? --At40mha (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@At40mha:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Official sources: Quote from BGBl. I Nr. 131/2022 (Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria)

"Das Bundesgesetz über die Pflicht zur Impfung gegen COVID-19 (COVID-19-Impfpflichtgesetz – COVID-19-IG), BGBl. I Nr. 4/2022, in der Fassung des Bundesgesetzes BGBl. I Nr. 22/2022, wird aufgehoben." Google translation: "The federal law on the obligation to vaccinate against COVID-19 (COVID-19 Vaccination Act - COVID-19-IG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 4/2022, in the version of the Federal Law Federal Law Gazette I No. 22/2022, is repealed."

Temporary suspension was in BGBl. II Nr. 103/2022 and BGBl. II Nr. 198/2022 --At40mha (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Austrian government gazette is not a WP:SECONDARY SOURCE. I've made a quick google search and have added two seemingly applicable refs to the article (upon amending the sentence in question). Colonestarrice (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Formal country name

"Austria" and "Republic of Austria" are both official names. Therefore, it makes no sense to denote one of them as the official name. The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names distinguishes the names by calling "Austria" the short name, and the "Republic of Austria" the formal name. Please see: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ K1812 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Austria Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Diffrence between names in german.

AUSTRIA IS ÖSTERREICH IN GERMAN! NOT OSTERREICH!!! Editor3.11.12 (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T SHOUT. NOWHERE DOES THE ARTICLE SAY DIFFERENTLY. It looks to me as if the umlaut is used consistently throughout (except in the hatnote, where it arguably makes sense not to use it). And the language you refer to is German, NOT german. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

how about ostria instead of austria in english? Binbesser (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Austria is the official translation, so no. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why does the de.wikipedia page on Austria not have a talk button?

I wanted to point out that it says "eine semipräsidentielle Republik" but when I click on semipräsidentielle the map on that page actually shows it as Parlamentarische Republik.

Idk how to tell the de.wikipedia page that. II don't know where the error lies. I just know it's an inconsistency when trying to learn about Austria. On the german wiki. 84.131.49.86 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT, the page has a talk-page ("Diskussion:Österreich") and "semipräsidentielle Republik" redirects to "Semipräsidentielles Regierungssystem", which lists Austia. But all that aside, this is the English language Wikipedia, not quite the place for this question. I suggest you ask on the German Wikipedia instead. Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove pending changes protection from this article

Hello, can anybody remove pending changes protection from this article? Italy Herlan Heru (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it is in place as the article is continued target of vandalism, so the protection is needed.

if you would like to recommend an edit, you can raise an edit request on the talk page here. Raladic (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Why you do that? Austria must be remove a protection from this. Italy Herlan Heru (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed pending changes protection from the page. Otherwise, there is no more pending changes protection on this page again. 2001:448A:11A1:1AE4:1119:6332:EBCB:A48B (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is reverted. There is still pending changes protection from this article. As a result, I'm doing vandalism on a page with pending changes protection. 2001:448A:11A1:1AE4:1119:6332:EBCB:A48B (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If removed, any Neo-Nazi could just infiltrate the article with pro-hitler propaganda. AVeryUncoolGuy (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was surprised that this isn't protected 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:A871:9DED:7D14:72EA (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)