Talk:Government of Austria

Image

Image:CIMG2973 bkanzleramt wien.jpg-Office of the Federal Chancellor Vienna is available, but there is no good place to put it right now.--DO11.10 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)austria's government is a parliamentary representation democratic republic.

Requested move 24 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Government of Austria, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Austrian Federal Government → Cabinet of Austria – The article doesn't describe the Austrian federal government as a whole, it describes the Bundesregierung, i.e. the cabinet. The intro explicitly says it's a cabinet that's the subject of the article. The page lists itself under "Executive" in the infobox, is in the National cabinets category, and uses the National cabinets of Europe navigation template. Every other article in the template is named Cabinet of XXX. Comprehensive articles on the other branches of the Austrian federal government and their constitutional frameworks do exist. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 01:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)  – Damvile (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hack and slash

Comment. Google translates "Bundesregierung" to "Federal government", not to "Cabinet". – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply. Regierung can mean government, administration, cabinet, rule, regime, or several other things: [1], [2], [3]. German (and Austrian) media and government publications alike routinely use the word to mean cabinet or administration. The British cabinet becomes the Regierung Cameron: [4], [5], [6], [7]. The Israeli cabinet becomes a Regierung, and the Israeli prime minister becomes the Regierungschef: [8]. The Irish cabinet becomes a Regierung: [9]. The Obama administration becomes the Obama-Regierung or Regierung Obama: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Note that the sources I'm citing include leading magazines and prestige broadsheets as well as one tabloid, one sleazy gossip rag, and the web site of the German Foreign Office.

When you look up the English word for Regierung in a German-made (or Austrian-made) dictionary, you will indeed see government listed as the primary translation, so Google is neither wrong nor an outlier. It is also not really refuting anything, however.

Having acknowledged these ambiguities, the article very clearly is about a cabinet. It says so in its first sentence. It says so in ten more places in the body text. It says so in the infobox, where is describes its subject as a part of the executive branch of government. It says so in an image caption, in its category links, and in its use of the "National cabinets of Europe" navigation template.

Articles about the cabinet of X are pretty consistently called Cabinet of X around here. In particular, the articles on three out of four other European cabinets are called Cabinet of X. Just click the links in the nav template:

• 6 of the places listed have no cabinets in the conventional sense;
• 2 have cabinets but no useful link targets for them;
• in 28 out of the remaining 40 cases, the article (or section) on the cabinet has the word "cabinet" in its heading.

Most notably, the article on the German cabinet is listed as Cabinet of Germany, even though that body is called Bundesregierung in German, exactly like its Austrian equivalent. If the German cabinet is not the precedent to follow, then what is? Damvile (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the references that you said referred to the "British cabinet" do not refer to the cabinet, but to the Government of the United Kingdom. The current government is called the Cameron Ministry in official and academic usage or the Cameron Government in colloquial and media usage. The British cabinet is a weekly meeting of senior ministers only, whereas the government contains all ministers, junior and senior. That reference was not at all to the "cabinet", as it wasn't referring to the body that meets weekly, but to the collective executive. Regardless, this discussion is about what this body is called in English, not about how to translate "British Government". RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, German Federal Government has redirected to Politics of Germany since 28 October 2006, while German Federal government has redirected to Cabinet of Germany since 4 April 2009 (these might be listed at Inconsistent similar redirects). I'm not convinced that there's a right or wrong answer here, but, as nobody else seems to have an opinion, I'm inclined to support your request. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Cabinet of France § Move? (6 Dec 2014). Surely this gives better insight into why this move might be considered to be controversial. – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – Something is being lost in translation here. This body is the government, it is not a "cabinet". German has a word for cabinet, and it isn't being used here. I don't understand why people can't tell the difference between a government and a cabinet. This is a government. It is no different than the Government of the United Kingdom. "Government" means the people controlling the executive. I've now found out that the reason many articles that shouldn't be are at the "Cabinet of XXX" title is because one of editor, Neelix (talk · contribs), went around and "standardised" many of these articles in 2011 to use "cabinet", even when "cabinet" is not an appropriate translation. Just to be clear, a "cabinet" and a "government" are not the same thing. There is a difference between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example of one of Neelix's moves, one can see this. I'm not oppose to consistency, which is an article title criteria here. However, translating things incorrectly, and misleadingly, is not acceptable, especially when done unilaterally across broad swathes of articles. The extent of these changes is staggering. He made such questionable moves as to moving the Federal Council (Switzerland) to Cabinet of Switzerland, which shows a complete lack of political understanding. In other words, do not base a move on a consistency that it is false, and was unilaterally created by one user. Luckily, it appears may reversions have been made. I will start reverting his inappropriate moves now. RGloucester — ☎ 03:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. One of your observations is irrelevant; the other one is an argument for the move.

1. Yes, we do have a word for "cabinet" (Kabinett). However, as I have pointed out above, it is only rarely used in this context. We use the word Kabinett (a) to refer to a small room in an apartment, (b) as a euphemism for "toilet," (c) for a type of wine. The standard translation for "cabinet" in the sense of the council of ministers is Regierung.
2. Yes, a "cabinet" and a "government" are indeed not the same thing. In particular, the word "government" is ambiguous in the sense that it can be used to include the legislative and judiciary branches. The word "cabinet" cannot; it exclusively means the council that heads the executive branch, which is what this article is about. If nothing else, at the very least the move would therefore remove ambiguity. Based on the title, many readers would assume an article called "Federal Government of Austria" to be about, well, the entire government, not just one of its many bodies. Damvile (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No readers would assume that, and even if they did, per MOS:RETAIN, we shouldn't change it. "Cabinet" does not necessarily mean the "council that heads the executive branch". The vast majority of the world uses "government" in the sense of executive. There is no confusion. There is no reason to move this article to a title that has no basis in sources. Sources refer to this as the government, per the Ngrams search provided below, per this Austrian government website, as does this Austrian parliament website, as do reliable scholarly English works on the subject, such as this book, which provides a detailed description: "the Federal Government consists of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, and the Federal Ministers". Note that this book also translates Ministerrat as "Cabinet", as I said below. The amount of confusion this move would create is extraordinary, and is entirely counter to reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I being trolled? I sincerely don't get it.

1. You have already admitted earlier that you have read the comment where I point out that Ministerrat and Bundesregierung are the same body, meaning that if the Ministerrat is a cabinet then so is the Bundesregierung, the subject of this article. Now you cite a book that translates "Ministerrat" as "cabinet."
2. You have admitted multiple times that you understand that "cabinet" and "government" are not necessarily the same thing. The former is typically a subset of the latter. In particular, the latter includes junior ministers while the former typically doesn't. Now you link to two Austrian web sites that use the word "government" to include junior ministers (Staatsekretäre) who do not participate in Ministerrat sessions and who the constitution very clearly states are not part of the Bundesregierung (B-VG articles 56 and 75).

What conclusion do your own arguments and the sources you yourself are citing leave you with?

For what it's worth, the Bundesregierung refers to itself as a Kabinett all the time [15] [16], and so does the media [17], but of course you have made my case much more strongly already. Damvile (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This uncalled for. This means that you did not read the book. Let me provide a full quote:

The Federal Government (Bundesregierung) consists of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, and the Federal Ministers. The ministers are selected by the Chancellor and appointed by the President as head of individual departments and can be removed individually by the President on the recommendation of the Federal Chancellor. They also owe a collegiate responsibility to the Cabinet (Ministerrat), and an individual responsibility as head of a Ministry to the Nationalrat.

They are not the same body. The book I cited made that clear. The "government" refers to the collective group of ministers on a daily basis. The cabinet, or Ministerrat, is when those ministers convene in a meeting to make executive decisions. The membership is the same, but like with the British cabinet and government, their purposes and meanings are different. Are you disputing what this book says? What the government calls itself at obscure times in German doesn't matter (and anyway, you just said not long ago that the German word for cabinet isn't used in the political sense often). What matters is what English-language reliable sources call it, and how English-language sources translate the words. They don't call it the Cabinet. I provided Ngrams below, and this book makes it clear that the English word "Cabinet" in an Austrian context only refers to the Government as convened in the Council of Ministers. Neither of the English-language Austrian government websites I provided mentioned "junior ministers". RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure they're the same body. The statutes that define the powers and duties of the "Ministerrat" (e.g. B-VG articles 42 and 69) actually use the word "Bundesregierung." I already told you the word "Ministerrat" does not appear in the Constitutional Law; this could have given you pause, you know. I'm not saying the book is wrong, the author obviously just didn't feel the need to be overly anal about terminology – probably because he didn't anticipate someone would try to assert the Austrian government is somehow structured exactly the same as the British one.

And no, of course I didn't read the book. This is where you really look like you're arguing in bad faith. Why would an Austrian buy a British book to study the Austrian constitution? I'm perfectly capable of reading the same Öhlinger and the same Mayer everybody else is around here is using.

You're correct in that the web sites don't directly, literally mention the Staatssekretäre. They do mention the "Provisional State Government", however, two thirds of whose members were Staatssekretäre, and they refer to responsibilities and procedures of the government that Staatssekretäre partake in. The latter fact is completely obvious to anyone who has actually studied the system, the former fact is taught to middle school students. Damvile (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

While I'm at it, there is a critical point I was wrong about: Staatssekretäre do attend Ministerrat sessions, in a non-voting report-and-observe capacity. So if you were right, if Ministerrat and Bundesregierung really were two different entities, then it would be the Bundesregierung, not the Ministerrat, that would be the smaller, closer analogue to the British cabinet. Damvile (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and junior ministers do attend British cabinet meetings too. They just are not members of the body, as with the Ministerrat. The analogy proves even more correct. We don't care about the Provisional State Government, because we're dealing with the present Federal Government. I provided the book to provide a source for the fact that this body is called the government in English, and that calling it a "cabinet" would lead to confusion with the actual cabinet, i.e. the Ministerrat. The book supports this idea. Given that it is a reliable source, your WP:OR is meaningless. What appears in "Constitutional law" doesn't matter. The British cabinet doesn't appear in British constitutional law, and the Australian cabinet doesn't appear in Australian constitutional law. RS do not support calling this a cabinet. The Ngrams search shows that this body is almost NEVER called a cabinet. It is usually called the "Austrian Government", without the word "federal". This book, and the Australian government websites make clear that the proper translation for the word here is "government", and there is nothing more you can say to that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit you now lost me completely. I simply can't follow your logic. Never mind.

If you want to move the article to remove the word "federal," you have my enthusiastic support. The idea that Austria is a federation in any conventional sense is ludicrous, nobody who isn't Austrian is buying it, and the silliness of calling the Austrian government a "federal" government is 50% of the reason I suggested this move in the first place. If you can prove the word needs to go with clarity sufficient for a move then by all means please go ahead. We have about 100 Austria articles falsely translating Bundes- as federal, I just don't feel like opening this particular can of worms all by myself. Austrians do not like to be reminded their pretty little smurfville is not in fact a second Germany, to say nothing of Australia or the US, so I fear the resistance will be fierce. Damvile (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If you'd read the Ngrams report I'd provided below, you'd see that this entity almost never called the "Cabinet of Austria". It is sometimes, but rarely called the "Austrian Federal Government". However, the vast majority of sources refer to it as the "Austrian Government", and I'd support a move to that title, which would also be more WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support 'Government' means executive only in the UK; everywhere else this title is deeply misleading. I am open to other titles than 'cabinet' specifically. Oreo Priest ^talk 07:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per Oreo Priest's argument, and for consistency. I would oppose moves of other articles from this title format to "official" titles, and would even recommend that Federal Council (Switzerland) be moved back to this format. Consider this article; we are clearly talking about cabinets, while "government" refers to a system (not simply the executive/cabinet, except in the case of British English), as expressed on the corresponding article. Neelix (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He has no argument. "Government" does not mean "Cabinet" in British English. We have a cabinet. It is not the same as our government. This is not misleading, and guess what, it also happens to mean "government" in German, and the government also happens to use "government" in English translation. If you're going to say it is "confusing" in American English, I'll say that it will be confusing in every variety other English if you move this. Anyway, MOS:RETAIN applies if you're going to apply WP:ENGVAR. There is no reason to move away from the correct translation. Regardless, none of that matters here. There is no consistency, since you invented one out of thin air. It isn't only in "British English". Government refers to the collective executive in British English, Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English, Indian English, and in all of the various African varieties of English. You're making a bizarre distinction that doesn't make any sense to anyone that understands parliamentary systems. This is not a cabinet. In the Austrian system it is the Ministerrat that is the cabinet. Ministerrat is usually translated as "Council of Ministers". The "government" includes all junior and senior ministers, whereas the Council of Ministers only includes ministry heads, just like with the British cabinet. The "government" is not a "cabinet". RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You're simply wrong about the Austrian system. The Ministerrat is what the Bundesregierung is (sometimes) called when in formal session as a deliberative body. Ministerrat and Bundesregierung contain exactly the same people: chancellor, vice chancellor, ministers. The B-VG doesn't even actually contain the word Ministerrat, even though it spends reams and reams of words talking about what chancellors and ministers can do individually and what they can only do as a formally convened collective. Damvile (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Constitutional quirks. That's exactly the point, though. The Ministerrat functions like a "cabinet", as these are deliberative supreme bodies that meet in formal meetings on a regular schedule, whereas everyday work is that of the government. Executive decisions are those of the cabinet. This is the same distinction made in the British and French governments, even if in this case the membership is exactly the same. In that way, it seems to be similar to the Dutch ministerraad. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, look at this Ngrams search. There are almost no hits for "Cabinet of Austria". It seems that this body is usually called "Austrian Government" rather than "Austrian Federal Government", but it is almost never called "Cabinet of Austria". I wouldn't be opposed to using "Austrian Government", if anyone wants to propose that. It is clearly favoured by reliable sources. One thing is clear, however. "Cabinet of Austria" is simply wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should not be seeking to impose consistency in article titles by merely boxing things into a single term where that term is neither the majority use in sources nor exactly translatable to the different concepts at issue. bd2412 T 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No real opinion on this, but just a note to the closer that there has been some fairly blatant canvassing at WP:Politics. Number 57 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "canvasing" to ask for third opinions on a politics-related matter at the politics WikiProject. If you'd like to play legal games, do so elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't canvassing when you do so in a neutral manner. Calling the move "wrong for many, many reasons" in the request for comments (and describing it as "needing help") is quite clearly canvassing. Number 57 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I'm not neutral. I never claimed to be neutral. I'm free to state my own opinion. I did not say, however, that I was only asking for opinions that support my own. I was asking for expertise, and I presume it will come. At this time, I have no time to deal with the fripperies of Clerk No. 57. Please put it in the post. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, and if you don't understand such a basic rule of Wikipedia, then perhaps this needs to be raised as a behavioural issue. Number 57 22:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I could name certain behavioural issues that you may or may not have, but I'll refrain in good will. Unless you have something of substance to say, I suggest you find something better to do. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I will give up, but have raised the issue at ANI. Number 57 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. That "'government' means executive only in the UK" is patently false. Trying to impose terminology from a different system on Austria is misleading. —  AjaxSmack  04:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly third option

There is at least one thing RGloucester and I agree on: the article name should not contain the word "Federal." [18] [19] The term "Austrian Federal Government" is the naive word-by-word translation of "Österreichische Bundesregierung," i.e. it's a translation that occasionally happens to people with limited English and/or a limited understanding of what "federal" means. Pretty much no WP:RS uses it; as RGloucester's NGram search demonstrates, the body is conventionally just called the "Austrian government."

RGloucester suggests the article could be moved to "Austrian Government." [20] Personally, I'd prefer "Government of Austria" for consistency with other articles, but I can live with "Austrian Government" as well; either variant is clearly better than the current title. Damvile (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll support either of those. WP:CONSISTENCY may give "Government of Austria" an edge, but I think that the much heightened usage of "Austrian Government" in reliable sources should make that the title. I prefer Austrian Government. However, if others prefer "Government of Austria", I can live with that. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Austrian Federal Government" is a very common construct in the literature, including official publications, not least by the United Nations and the EU, so it is rather misleading to describe it as an occasional or naive translation. "Austrian government" is more common, true, but the use of lower case suggests this is more of a descriptive or "colloquial" term than an official name. I recommend we leave the title as it is. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: I agree that it is common, but Ngrams makes it clear that it is not nearly as common as "Austrian Government". I did not search for the colloquial descriptive "Austrian government" lowercase. I searched for "Austrian Government", uppercase, which is often used as a proper name in academic literature. Regardless, I have no strong opinion, other than to say that this article should never go to the title "Cabinet of Austria", as I'm sure you will agree. I will accept Austrian Government, Austrian Federal Government, or Government of Austria. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bermicourt: official publications are primary sources; if primary and secondary sources disagree then secondary sources win. In this case, the primary sources are not just primary, they're additionally dubious due to their fairly unsubtle political agenda: local parochialism requires Austrian officeholders (and therefore the translators they hire) to pretend that Austria is a federation in the same sense in which e.g. the US, India, or Brazil are federations. That the world of international diplomacy has to humor them is obvious, but that nobody else does is obvious as well – not the media, not the scholarly literature, nothing. Wikipedia goes with what an institution actually is called, not with what it would like to be called. Damvile (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester: I'm not convinced the Ngrams shows beyond any doubt that "Austrian Government" is preferable to "Government of Austria" because we don't know how many hits refer to the Bundesregierung (the administration) alone and how many refer to the government (all three branches) as a whole. (This is also why I'm not convinced it shows beyond any doubt that cabinet is wrong.) It mainly shows what other possible titles are right out. If it's really all the same to you, I'd therefore advocate that we make "Government of Austria" our official joint proposed compromise. Damvile (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept it, on the basis of WP:CONSISTENCY and for compromise. "Cabinet" is wrong because is not used to describe this body in English-language sources, as established above. In fact, English-language reliable sources make the distinction I mentioned between the government and cabinet. Therefore, this cannot be title "cabinet", as it has no basis in any sources. However, any of the government varieties are fine, because they are supported by reliable sources. If you like "Government of Austria", I see no reason why that title should not be used. It is supported by sources, and consistent with other similar articles, such as Government of the United Kingdom (which is officially called Her Majesty's Government, but we don't call it that either), Government of Russia, Government of Romania, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 19:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on your arguments, Government of Austria sounds good to me too. Neelix (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.