Talk:Austrians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pictures

In my opinion there are far too much pictures in the info box. Compared to those of other ethnicities (e. g. Germans) 24 (!) characters is a bit overkill. I´d say that six to eight would be adequate. If someone thinks that there should be more, he or she could scale them down like in the articles of Spanish or French people.--Zoris Trömm (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, most of these people are unknown (outside of Austria). Some of them were not even Austrians (Mozart, Schneider) or - if you check it exactly - were no "real" Austrians (Lamarr, Wilder, Lang, Trapp, Haneke (?), Schwarzenegger). --Quadruplet (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the pictures to encourage the creation of a collage. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want or plan to create a collage, then please do so. For now let's keep the images, the removal of which doesn't encourage anything. --Catgut (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to create a collage to fix the 24(!) images cluttering the entire page. Compare to reverting vandalism, just because I do it I don't have to expand the article. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, of course you don't have to. And I don't have to accept your edit. Your comparison with reverting vandalism is not appropriate. Please wait for the outcome of this discussion, thank you. --Catgut (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the picture of Mozart – Mozart is a VERY dubious case! Definitely no “Austrian”, because Salzburg became part of Austria not until 1805 (Mozart died 1791; http://www.salzburgmuseum.at/178.html). Besides, in the opinion of his contemporaries – and in his own eyes – he not passed for an "Austrian composer". --Quadruplet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

This is not the place to discuss about Mozart. If you want to do so, then go to this place. Mozart is also included in the Austrian composers category, so I guess there must be a reason for it. --Catgut (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with "real Austrians", but Schneider was Austian, French and German, Lamarr, wilder and Schwarzenegger are all Austrian-born. The Latter is still an austria citizen. Mozart is an old topic, but i'd guess that he became a subject of the Austrian archduchy when he entered the service of Joseph II. HRH. I didn't question the "Austrianism" of any of them, but there were to much/ wrongly presented pictures. --Zoris Trömm (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages

For anybody who doubts that Austrians include speakers of the Slovene, Czech etc. languages. Just type the term "slowenischsprachige Österreicher" or "tschechischsprachige Österreicher" into Google. So, clearly users of these languages are considered as Austrians. Nahabedere (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There may be some Austrian citizens who speak Slovene or Czech, but thats no proof for the theory that the Austrians as a people are ethnic related to these ethnic groups. I bet that there are some Austrian citizens who speak Chinese - are the Han-Chinese people a related ethnic group to the Austrians? --217.226.176.225 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not make myself clear. This should NOT be a discussion on the entry "related groups" but on the entry "languages". These web-pages prove that some people speaking these languages are considered as Austrians in its proper sense. For immigrants speaking a language different from German who were awarded Austrian citizenship, a different phrase would be used, for example "aus China eingewanderte österreichische Staatsbürger", or even "aus Slowenien eingewanderte österreichische Staatsbürger", emphasizing that here the term Austrian is only used in its sense as citizens. Of course, also in Austria some people reduce the term Austrian only to the German language, but these people are considered to be on the extreme political right, and it its certainly NOT mainstream. Nahabedere (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is an important difference between immigrants and national minorities, but on the other hand i can not fully agree with you because there are several commonly used terms for non-German-speaking Austrian citizens which implicate that these people claim an own ethnic identity. For example "Burgenlandkroaten", "Kärntner Slowenen", "Wiener Tschechen", etc. They may be well integrated in the Austrian society but this is not the point here. Otherwise, you have to add several languages to almost every ethnic-group-page. And as I can see on the Slovene people-page, your Slovene-speaking Austrians are claimed to be part of the Slovene ethnic group. So it could also be interpreted as far-right-wing if you claim the members of an national minority for your group, because one could see it as an attempt to denie their own identity as an different people (like many South Tirolians wouldn't be pleased to be classified as Italians). Well, at this point, its very difficult for me to agree to your arguments. --217.226.163.71 (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

what is the problem with having BOTH a Slovene AND an Austrian identity? ... and, of course, all of this depends a lot on individuals, some might claim an exclusive Slovene identity, and some might say that they have both a Slovene and Austrian identity, and some might say that they are Slovene-speaking Austrians but NO Slovenes. But here you have to keep one thing in mind: historically the term "Austrian" ALWAYS included speakers of different languages, it never was a term used to specify people of only one language. For the term "Slovene" this is completely the opposite: historically this was the term that was used in the national arising in the 19th century to build up a national identity based on a certain language. The opposite term then was "German" and NOT "Austrian". It was no problem whatsoever to be an Austrian Slovene, and even today the only people making a problem out of that are the followers of Jörg Haider. Nahabedere (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You start mixing several historic periods and several topics. At first, it is right that the term "Austrian" was not used to describe an ethnic group, it was used mainly to refer to two different groups: the Austrian army ("Die Österreicher siegten in Italien.") and the inhabitants of the two crown-countrys called today Oberösterreich and Niederösterreich. And it is also right that the first group included people from many ethnic groups who speaked many different languages. But you can not use this fact to characterize an completely different collective of an different historic period which only shares the same name. It is if you would confuse the old Saxon people Charles the Great struggled with with the inhabitants of the present-day Bundesland Saxony (which is called Saxony because of dynastical land-sharing and land-partitions). But if you insist of calling the Slovene people Austrians because they were subjects to the Austriam emperor, you have to call the German-speaking inhabitants of Austria Germans because they were called Germans and called themselve Germans in these times. You can also delete this article than. After all, you have to declare: what should this article describe: an ethnic group called Austrians? The inhabitants of Austria today? The inhabitants of Austria under the late Habsburg rule? --217.226.146.72 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

During Habsburg times, the German speaking population of Austria WAS INDEED called Germans, today not any more. The term Austrian was ALWAYS (both during Habsburg times and today) based on the Austrian state and citizenship. Until 1945 Austrian identity was quite weak, and the language based German identity strong. After WW2 the situation switched into the other direction, and today German identity is more or less irrelevant. Where is the problem? Nahabedere (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You started arguing with the past. As like the most Austrians don't consider themselve to be Germans anymore the most people consider Austrians and Czechs or Slovene people as different nations, altough the term Österreicher contained many ethnic groups in his today anachronistic use. --217.226.134.70 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OF COURSE there are different nations called Slovenes. This does NOT IN THE LEAST contradict the fact that some Austrians speak Slovene. Nahabedere (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are contradicting yourself. If the Austrians and the Slovenes are different ethnic groups and if the Kärntner Slowenen are part of the Slovene people, they can't be part of the Austrian ethnic group. Otherwise they are not part of the Slovene people. Or Austrians and Slovenes are no different nations. --217.226.150.171 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no contradition whatsover. One person can feel part of several ethnic groups without any problem whatsoever (e.g., you can be Austrian AND Tyrolean without any problem, many people do identify in this way). Moreover, two persons having the same background can without any problem identify differently (e.g., one person might feel mainly Austrian whereas his brother mainly Slovene, also this happens a lot). Nahabedere (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing regional and ethnic identity. The people of Tyrol never claimed to be a ethnic group on their own, although there was an very strong Tyrolean patriotism. And your example contradicts your point of view that one person can belong to two ethnic groups. --217.226.139.186 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Many people in Tyrol (especially in its southern part) claim to be an ethnic group on their own (Remember "Die Piefkesaga"? At one point Moretti says to his son who is moving to Germany: "Bleib a Tiroler". This would not make any sense if Tyrolean identity would only be regional). There is no contradiction at all in the second example, a further brother might identify as BOTH Austrian and Slovene, and also this happens a lot. Nahabedere (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't make that sense? It's just an request to keep the heimat in mind. In Südtirol, there may be some people who claim an own ethnic identity, but the majority would identify themselve as ethnic German and some as Austrian. By the way, I stated that some people may identify themselves as Austrians (Austrians citizen) and Slovenes (part of the Slovene people) in the same way an Italian American can feel as Italian and American. --217.226.130.221 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So you accept that someone might identify both as Austrian and Slovene? So, where is the problem? Google shows that the term "slowenischsprachige Österreicher" is in use. So it is a fact that some Austrians speak Slovene. So we add it there. I do not understand where the problem lies. Nahabedere (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this article isn't about the Austrian citizens but about the Austrians as ethnic group. Google shows that the national minority itselfs uses the name "Kärntner Slowenen", for example by naming one of their organisations "Rat der Kärntner Slowenen". So they are part of an other ethnic group, although they are also Austrian citizens (= colloquial Austrians, but not in an ethnic sense). But, again: this article is about the ethnic meaning of the word. --217.226.136.42 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that you are aware of the fact that in contexts where Austrians refer to citizenship they use the term "österreichische Staatsbürger". When they just use the term "Österreicher" they use it to refer to people who they think to belong to the same group of "we, the Austrians", or in other words, the group of ethnic Austrians. Nahabedere (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the austrian dialects, how much do they differ from standard German really?----

Austrians are German speaking ethnic. Speakers of Croatian, Slovene, Czech etc. are Austrian citizens but not ethnic Austrians . Ethnic Austrians are 91-99% of citizens in Austria .Others are ethnic Croats Slovenes, Turks who speak their own languages and they are ethnic minorities. So these sources confirm that [1], [2][3]

Moreover this source [4] list Germans as one of the ethnic groups in Austria- not Austrians!! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because an ethnic group has been receiving immigrants from neighboring countries doesn't have to mean they are related, they speak different languages, have different cultures etc, that the economist states that Austria share the same culture as for example the hungarians is false. This website (http://www.everyculture.com/A-Bo/Austria.html for example states that Austria is pretty homogenous but have recieved some immigration from the neighbours. If we were to, as it seems to be the case, label the Austrians to be related to these ethnic groups because a large part of the austrians have slovak/magyar/croat surnames, then maybe we should label the germans as related to the poles? Or why exactly should we put these 3 nationalities as related to the austrian one? Björnebacke (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the sources, learn about Austrian history. This has nothing to be with immigration. Nahabedere (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans ?

The CIA says that Austrians are ethnic Austrians, the state departement saiys the are Germans... i don´t think that they should be regarded as Germans, this is seen offensife in Austria and scientific studies contradict it. See this: [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.52.132 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right, thx for your comment. Therefore I've restored former undisputed versions that reflect the majority's view. Onesided comments on what a specific source does not' say or provide is not helpful and comes close to WP:OR. Any further changes have to be sourced, otherwise they will be reverted. --Catgut (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing was already discussed before. Don't try to open new discussions. Discuss it on the right place, please. However, the article doesn't proove anywhere that Austrians are or not ethnic Germans. The map uses only different colours for each country and the graphic on the left side prooves that Austrians are genetically as closest related to Southern Germans, as the Southern Germans are related to Northern Germans. I repeat: the map uses only different colours for each country, e.g. see Spain where the Catalan region has the same colour with the rest of Spain from a simple reason: it is located in the same country. Under these conditions we shouldn't wonder that they used a different colour simply because the Austrians do live not in Germany. --Feierabend (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You should notice, that the studie´s sample was took in Tyrol an therefor isn´t representative for whole Austria. I only mentioned it here to show that Austrians are´nt identic with Germans. If we´d follow your argumentation we could also regard Austrians to be French or Swiss. Furthermore it is an illusion to belief that ethnic groups are homogenious like a family. In the end it is a question of cultural mutualities and common beliefs if a people can be called ethnic group. And as surveys show, about 85% of the Austrians consider themselfes to be part of an Austrian nation. The modern Austrians are a mixture of Gothic, Baiuvarian, Celtic, Slavic and other people. Most people who have the same ideological background like you have think that austrians should be regarded as germans only because they speak "the same" language. But this fact origins from the common orthographic conferences of Austria and Germany and the and the literatured they shared a long time. If you have a look to the Dutch, you can imagine what could have happened to the Austrian German language if it had been fully seperated from Germany. And although most of the Irish speak English, you´d never call them english people. People in Norway even have Bookmal and Nynorsk and you wouldnt divide them into to seperate ethnical groups. And if you are one of those who prefere "genetic concordances" think about the fact that your Bavarians seperated about 1500 years ago into those who setteled in Bavaria and those who colonised the later Austria. But if you really do belief that old Germans wandered into Europe once upon a time and lived there among each other ever since, you should rather read "Mein Kampf" than changing Wikipedia articles.--193.170.52.132 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear user 193.170.52.132, reading your posting I noticed only a wishful thinking and a lot of intentions to promote by all means an unexistant ethnic group: the Austrians. The Austrians are described in some sources as a nation, but not an ethnic group (except the ones who doesn't provide even a definition for such term). Please try to see the obvious difference between the meanings of those 2 terms. Don't try to convince me here with you own original research. I expect sources. --Feierabend (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you are:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• The CIA World Factbook
• The Chinese Embassy in Austria
• MSN Encarta
• The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia
• For example these books:

-Franz A. J. Szabo: Austrian Immigration to Canada. Pg. 41 et seq.

-Alfred Connor Browman: Zones of Strain: A Memoir of the Early Cold War. Pg. 73

-Ilija Sutalo: Croatians in Austria. Pg. 21

-Donald G. Daviau, Herbert Arlt: Geschichte der österreichischen Literatur. Pg. 318

-Deirdre N. McCloskey: The Bourgeois Virtues - ethnics for an age of commerce. Pg. 190

-Bruce M. Mitchell, Robert E. Salsbury: Multicultural Education - An international guiede to research, policies and programs. Pg. 19

• An Austrian research Institute (IHS)
• The President of the Republic of Slovenia
• The BBC
• A study from the University of Regensburg

Most of those references are mentioned in the German Wikipedia article "Osterreichische Nation" too. And, if i´m allowed to ask, what exactly makes you an expert on that topic? Are you Austrian? Do you live in Austria? And, which is further more important, are you an ethnologist, a historian or a political scientist? --193.170.52.132 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments! I must say that I tend to side with User:193.170.52.132 as he is citing sourced material. Which of course should be the basis for our articles (see WP:NPOV and/or WP:VERIFY). User:Feierabend has made his point clear, he doesn't believe in Austrians as an ethnic group. However we don't work with beliefs or assumptions but with sourced material. Furthermore, following Feierabend's arguments we could even start questioning whether Germans be an ethnic group. They have quite different cultural or religious traditions. But that wouldn't make any sense, as it wouldn't reflect what current sources tell us. This also applies to Austrians, Italians etc. If there is indeed a strong and credible minority in the scientific community arguing against Austria as an ethnic group it could be mentioned somewhere in the article. But again, this would be a minority's view, and we don't have any serious and trusted sourced material. Therefore it's clear that the mainstream view ought to shape this article, and certainly not some obscure theories or personal opinions. --Catgut (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we should revert the article into its original form?--193.170.52.132 (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

193.170.52.132, I see only 1 source fom Austria and not even thant one is official. Moreover, none of those source provide a particular description or at least a short definition for an "Austrian ethnic group". --Feierabend (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now its about Austrian sources... Just read the discussion and don´t repeat old stuff. Contradict my sources seriously if you can. And answer my questions, if you´r willing to...--193.170.52.132 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

193.170.52.132, could you give me a valid argument, please? --Feierabend (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your new Bable component was damned necessary. What do you mean with "valid arguement"? Still searching for "THE BIG DEFINITION"?--193.170.52.132 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I do not thin the issue here is "what is the ethnic identity of Austrians" (or Tyrolese). I think the issue is NPOV. Identifying ethnicity is not like identifying whether something is an animal or a vegetable, because different people have very different views of what ethnicity is. The CIA handbook is a reliable source - but for what? For how the US government sees things. States use ethnic (and racial) labels to identify people, but the way they apply ethnic labloes only speaks to the State's point of view. People living in one or another part of Austria may self-identify in a different way. And sociologists and anthropologists have other definitions of ethnicity which lead to other identifications of a group of people. In short, one group of people may be several different ethnic groups depending on whom you ask. So it is crucial to identify whose point of view. As an academic, my bias is towards othe academics: I would look for articles in major anthropology or sociology journals, or books published by university presses ... a great one (relevant to the passage below) is Wolf and Cole's The Hidden Frontier, one of the best books on ethnicity ever. But even then, it is just one view of ethnicity (about Tyrolese, not all Austrians). Anyway, my point is two-part: you have to look for sources in good academic libraries that have good holdings of academic journals, and you need to differentiate between different kinds of actors who have different views of ethnicity. SOme will say Austrians are Germans, some will say they are Austrians, some will say they are a composite of many ethnic groups. The question is not who is right, the question is why are there such different views? Who is it that has such different views? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for some objectivity in this discussion. It has been very needful. From my point of view, it is clear that all social identities are constructions. And you are right by saying that it´s a question of the individual point of view. The main problem in this discussion may have been, that a lot of statements (and that’s much more a problem in the German Wikipedia anyway) have been based on what i call "old German ethnology" the belief that ethnicity is a major question of genealogical ancestry or "blood". I contradict this theory because, above all in Europe, peoples aren’t consistent homogenous entities. But we also should make a difference between nationality and ethnicity. In my point of view nationality is something that can be changed in one generation. You can move to Norway and feel yourself Norwegian. But what’s ethnicity? This item is much harder to define. I think that ethnicity is a question of cultural ancestry. It´s maybe the way someone has been imprinted in his childhood. If someone’s been raised in a specific cultural background, he maybe can called be an ethnic... So of course there can be many kind of ethnic identity, if someone’s been raised in a German nationalist family, he will of course see himself as ethnic German, and if a person grew up in an atmosphere of Tyrolean local patriotism, he´ll feel himself to bee of Tyrolean ethnicity. But if we ask ourselves which position is the most widespread, the logical answer has to be: the Austrian ethnicity. And rightly so because about 85% of Austrians think that they are part of an Austrian nation. There maybe, of course, some people who were raised in another believing, but it´s fairly clear that most of them must have been raised within Austrian cultural ambience. But even if you don´t follow this point of view, you can´t argue that an Austrian ethnicity does not exist because most of the people in Austria feel themselves to be Austrians. One answer for the relative dearth of sources may be that the term "ethnic" has been applied very negatively in the past.--193.170.52.132 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is, first and foremost, an assertion (often fictive) of common ancestry, believed by its members. The modern anthropological view of ethnicity is that no group shall be forced to have an ethnic identity it rejects; ethnicity is a term that cannot be understood without a fairly sophisticated notion of the word "identity," which some people seem to have intuitively and others don't seem to be able to get if they are pounded on the head with it. So, the question would be, do Austrians now (or at any time) consider themselves to be of separate descent from Germans? Since Germany is not a stable concept itself, frankly, to me, Austria is MORE of an ethnic identity (by far) than Germany/Prussia/Hessia, whatnot. The archaeology and genetics support what I'm saying as well - go do the actual reading. Start with a basic textbook like Cavalli-Sforza and then actually read the referenced literature in it. Then look at what's been done since the textbook was written. At any rate, German ethnic identity has been invented and reinvented numerous times (anyone and everyone should know this, it's common knowledge and is the subject of many articles from many points of view). Austrians can not be kept from doing the same thing. So - go to the literature and find citations. Do Austrians assert an ethnic identity? How widespread is this assertion? Who asserts it? Do other, non-Austrian people who study such things agree (for example, anthropologists and sociologists, each of whom should have different data - but which, if they agree, would be a strong argument that there is such a thing). As it happens, one of my good friends is an anthropologist who has long specialized in Europe, particular central and eastern Europe, but has a fair knowledge of the history of ethnic claims (and struggles) throughout Europe (I wouldn't say that I'm exactly uneducated about such things, either). She's been writing a lot, in the past ten years, about how rapidly and fluidly ethnic and national identity can change (anywhere, but her data is from Europe). She's interested in Macedonia, for example (lots of people are - huge literature on it). So, go to the anthropological databases first - there are many subfields to search through. Find scholarly views on the topic, both etic and emic. State both in this article. Levalley (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Ethnic group or nationality??

If Austrians are an ethnic group then Croatian /Slovak/Hungarian speakers do no belongto them.

Does Austria recognize national/ethnic minorities?? If not , then this article makes no sense. Just like the article about Indian ethnic group--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Austria recognizes this minorities called "Volksgruppen".--193.170.52.132 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Then they are not issue of this article .. article about an ethnic group!!! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are not. One could only mention them to explain, that not all Austrian citizens are ethnic Austrians, from this point of view.--193.170.52.132 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true. As was already discussed, some members of the Croatian/Hungarian/Slovene etc. minorities DO consider themselves to be ethnic Austrians. Nahabedere (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources , please???--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you persistantly mismatch nationality and ethnic group. Donald Rumsfeld , Barrack Obama , Rudy Giulianni are all Americans by nationality. But they belong to different ethnic group. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

For me it seems that you, Anto, don´t know the definition of an ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups." I think this is the answer for a lot of your questions. 213.162.66.198 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again the same issue:Bixente Lizarazu (Basque), Zinedine Zidane (Algerian Arab) ,Djibril Cissé (Ivorian )and Sebastien Loeb (Alsatian German) are all French -born and by that French by nationality. They probably do identify themselves primarly as French but it does not change the fact that they belong to different ethnic groups. They are not even the same race!!

Same thing for Wolfgang Petritsch and Dietrich Mateschitz

Similar things for some Croatian people :August Šenoa and Dimitrije Demeter were Croatian-born and declared themselves as Croats-which does not change the fact that they were 0% Croatian ethnicity. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

According to your personal private theory. The commonly accepted definition is the one above ("An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other ..."). The definition based on some kind of "blood link" was fashionable in the 19th century, but by now it is only used by people on the MOST EXTREME right. Nahabedere (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Again , sources please! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the article ethnic group which contains all relevant sources. The sentence supporting my statement is "Before Weber race and ethnicity were often seen as to aspects of the same thing. Around 1900 and before the essentialist primordialist understanding of ethnicity was predominant, and cultural differences between peoples were seen as being the result of genetically inherited traits and tendencies.[40] Nahabedere (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever.That is the definition made by the great imperial forces -including Austria! Not to forget that Austria has started with census by native tongue-not by nationality. It appeared to be effective method for elimination of certain ethnic groups (Jews and Roma i.e.)Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the current scientific definition. You don't want to attribute imperialistic wishes to the scientific community. I cannot see any relationship between your remark on Austrian census and the current discussion. Nahabedere (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bla bla bla. Your claims like "some members of the Croatian/Hungarian/Slovene etc. minorities DO consider themselves to be ethnic Austrians." are total nonsense because we don't accept claims like "I know some people ..."

I could also say " <I know some man Hidetoshi Harada and another Hans-Dietrich Schwarzenberger who declare themselves as Japanes/German-speaking Croats" and according to that put German and Japanese as language of Croatian people-which is the exact nonsense that you are doing.78.1.125.212 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed the heading

Changed:

Austrians (German: Österreicher) are an ethnic group^[6] originating from the Republic of Austria and its historical predecessor states (March of Austria, Archduchy of Austria, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary) who share a common Austrian culture and Austrian descent. Due to their common history and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, German-speaking Austrians were historically regarded as Germans, but after the founding of a German national state, the German Empire in 1871, and after the events of World War II and Nazism, this has fallen out of fashion and is often considered offensive.

To:

Austrians (German: Österreicher) are often considered to be an ethnic group,^[7] originating from the Republic of Austria and its historical predecessor states (March of Austria, Archduchy of Austria, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary) who share a common Austrian culture and Austrian descent. Less controversially, they are a nationality.

Due to their common history and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, German-speaking Austrians were historically regarded as Germans, but after the founding of a German national state, the German Empire in 1871, and after the events of World War II and Nazism, this has fallen out of fashion and is often considered offensive.

Any objections? I think this revision is less POV, representing both opinions in the opening paragraph. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert. Which opinions? 85.124.93.2 (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Austrians are even today regarded as ethnic Germans in certain proeminent sources. Why do none of those porposals include this matter of fact too?--Feierabend (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And this sentece is a ... pure absurdity: "Due to their common history and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, German-speaking Austrians were historically regarded as Germans, but after the founding of a German national state, the German Empire in 1871, and [...] this has fallen out of fashion and is often considered offensive.". I suppose the persons who wrote this never heared about German Austria (1918-1919). --Feierabend (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good pointed. Those aspects can be taken into account. --Olahus (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a very important part of the sentence is missing: […], and after the events of World War II and Nazism […]. Try to read more carefully. Which sources? 85.124.93.2 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Read here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Feierabend (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Source: Can’t find anything about Austrians being Germans. Which page are you referring to?; 2. and 3. Sources: Are about South Tyrol. Indeed it is controversial, if German speaking people in South Tyrol are Austrians or Germans. I have sources which claim that they are Austrians (http://www.hofburg.at/show_content2.php?s2id=464; http://www.bmeia.gv.at/aussenministerium/aussenpolitik/europa/nachbarschaftspolitik/suedtirol.html). You could discuss that in the article, but these sources say nothing about people living in Austria; 4. Source: Doesn’t deny the existence of an Austrian ethnic group – see for example here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/9403.htm Just says, a German ethnic group lives in Austria – here we have figures: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/au.html 85.124.93.2 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also can´t see how a "German ethnicity" antipole could be construkted with this sources.--193.170.52.132 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I removed the non-German citizen Austrians and Alemannic Swiss from the upper limit of the number of Germans. I'm not sure what is most WP:NPOV here. Should we include them since this is the "maximum" estimate or is this offensive? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no more then 6 percent of the Austrians see themselves as „Germans“ (http://iiss210.joanneum.at/demokratiezentrum2/media/pdf/bruckmueller.pdf), over 80 percent define Austria as a independent nation (http://images.derstandard.at/20080312/1918-1938-2008.pdf) and no relevant sources say that they are Germans I would exclude them. 85.124.93.2 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 85.124.93.2´s statement.--193.170.52.132 (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is Adolf Hitler?

Surely by far, the most famous Austrian of all time. What about people like Seyss Inquart?

Hitler isn't famous, he is infamous; there is a difference. Ameise -- chat 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seyss Inquart wasn´t a Austrian

• I don't understand why people do not put important figures of their day that dominated the era into the picture. He is one of the most important figures in the twentieth century and should atleast deserves to be in the tiny info box if nothing else. No one will shed a tear because it shouldn't be considered taboo or offensive 50 years after the Holocaust. and if that didn't convince you...C'MOOOOOOOOON...C'MOOOOOOOON!

Well, he didn't even really consider himself Austrian if you think about it. He took control of GERMANY, and ANNEXED Austria making it part of Germany. He concidered himself German, and faught for the German army in ww1 etc... also he is an extremely evil man who caused deaths of millions, it would make Austrian people look bad for people reaserching them. However, no matter how evil he is, he was a person from Austria, in very recent history, and caused WORLD WAR 2 for God's sake. So yes, he should be posted in there briefly, maybe just mention the evil menace Hitler was born in Austria or something, and add alink to his main article. It would be silly to do an article on Russia, for instance, and not mention Stalin. Also, to the idiotic person who posted above, he isn't really "important", he failed in what he was trying to do, murdered many many people, and caused the war that has had the most deaths in recorded history of war. I would say the world would be FAR better off today if he was never born. He is not the most IMPORTANT figure of 20th century, I'd say someone like Churchill would be, as the Allies shaped the world to what it is today, Hitler would be concidered the most EVIL person of the 20th century.

Seyß Inquart was an Austrian. Please check the german Wikipedia. --193.171.131.249 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Poor Austrians are the victims here. Hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.42.30 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree with the guy up there ^...Hiter for good or ill is by far Austria's most famous son, and for his pivotal role in World War II and world history, I think he deserves to be in the picture infobox (which can fit one more image). Austria isnt a huge country and the white space is glaring at you when you read it! You just ask yourself, "how is such an influential figure not deserving of a little picture?" I dont see how it is controversial-it by no means implies the Austrian people sympathize or support the deeds of Hitler-he is simply a well-known Austrian...the most influential Austrian in history.

Ive seen discussions like this on the Georgian people page on whether to put Joseph Stalin in the infobox-why not?? 66.82.9.61 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was from Austria after all. Placing his picture does not mean that Austrians share his opinions.

Someone post Hitler up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an encycolpedia, not an example of politcal correctness, where is Hitler?

The pop idea that Hitler is with out a doubt top 3 most important people to ever live is really actually true, so why isn't he a in the pictures of notable Austrians? The photo collection seems to infer the idea that Wikipedia or this article is just a piece of pointless political correctness with no energy of true intellectualism. There's a overwhelming amount of artists representing the Austrian people, and for the sake of variety we should replace Elfriede Jelinek or Gustav Klimt (who are not that notable anyway in the scheme of history) with Hitler, a incredibly important and influential politician. To say he's just a war criminal/mass murderer is shallow. It shouldn't matter how notorious or "offending" he is.

And to help the self-righteous, politically sensitive people, stop editing Wikipedia. The point of this is to be a collection of intellectual knowledge, not political prejudgments. I just get tired of this shallow political correctness that is so common in Wikipedia articles. It could be so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Prejudgment, prejudgment, prejudgment. Stop posting this stupid rant everywhere, it's just supposed to be a collection of pictures of famous people from the race, that's all it's supposed to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

this recurring, pointless discussion illustrates that the Wikipedia practice of gracing ethnic group "infoboxes" with collections of thumbnail mugshots is idiotic to begin with, and I would support initiating its abortion on this as much as on any other article.

The "image" slot in the "ethnic group" template was intended for typical scenes, check out Maasai for an example. Replace this stupid mugshot collection with a picture taken in a Vienna pub or something along these lines. --dab (𒁳) 22:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

pictures

when I scroll over arnold schwarzenegger's picture i read the name Elfriede Jelinek. Jorumpl (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Languages of Austria

From my talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Languages of Austria

Hi! I heard you stating that Austrians speak German as their mother tongue. As an Austrian (Viennese to be exact), I can tell you that this is false. The OFFICIAL language is German (Austrian German to be exact), used in all official publications and announcements, in most media and is taught in schools, where it's expected to be spoken, and most Austrians (including all youth, unless really poorly educated) can speak it, but you don't go to Austria and hear the natives speaking Deutsch to each other, never. Instead, our native language (except in Vorarlberg, where Alemannic is spoken) is Austro-Bavarian, spoken with various dialects. And contrary to popular belief, Austro-Bavarian is NOT German (it is A German language, but not THE German language, since THE German language is a Central German language and Austro-Bavarian an Upper German language). Especially in larger cities, though,Italic text (Austrian) German is a second language to almost all of us; however, don't go to the Alps in the countryside of the Tyrol and expect a lady in her 70:s enjoying the beautiful mountains to speak a word of German or even understand it. The latter mostly applies to southern (and southwestern) Austria, where Southern Austro-Bavarian dialects are spoken. You know what I'm saying? The statement that German is the mother tongue of the Austrians is simply a misconception (even though Austro-Bavarian-speakers are listed as German-speakers in the statistics).

Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source to back this up? If so I apologise and feel free to "undo" my edit via the history tab. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Source? Ok, here's the source: I am a lifelong average Viennese bloke and have never spoken or heard German amongst ourselves other than mixing in some German expressions in daily speech, and trying to speak German to for example my grandparents (on my both parents' side) who are 75-80 years old is no less foolish than trying to speak Swahili, trust me. Aside from formal contexts, we only use German when speaking to tourists, immigrants or minorities, as well as in Germany, Vorarlberg and "German"-speaking Switzerland, plus in Sweden and Norway for my part due to the similarity between Swedish, Norwegian and German. Isn't that enough of a source? If not, I can refer to the fact that Austria's population is 8.383.784 people, of which 88 % (7.377.730) speak A German language as their mother tongue. Of these 7 million (German Wikipedia) speak Austro-Bavarian, which equals to 94.9 %. Also, you've got to take away the population of Vorarlberg (where Alemannic is spoken) and those who really speak German as their mother tongue (German immigrants). If these two facts aren't enough, I'm not sure I can help you.

Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per one of the key Wikipedian policies verifiability content included here has to be backed up by a reliable source. Of note this source doesn't have to be written in English if no source in English is available. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Spaniard the ideas of Andras look to me completely ridiculous. Of course Austrians speak German. From that point of view nobody speak German because in every German state until a few decades ago a dialect was spoken, and Northern German dialects were very similar to Dutch, so even more different from Standard German than the Austrian dialect. Bavarians also speak a dialect more similar to the Austrian one than to the one in Northern Germany. And so? Nobody speaks German in Germany then? Ridiculous. All that looks propaganda from the occupation forces who forced Austria under the Treaty of St. Germain (after WWI) to change their name from "German Austria" to just "Austria" as they feared Austria was going to become a German state, something which has already taken place as Austria shares the same borders, currency and language as the rest of "Deutschland". Sorry, but that is the reality. Wake up!--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the official statistics further down (bold style)?

/Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For the content to be included you'll need a link or another reference to the government publication in question which published those statistics - or another reliable source commenting on them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to to look for a reliable source confirming German Wikipedia's statements /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to bring it up here or on the talk page for the article when you've found one - or just be bold and add it to the article directly :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Here's the link [12] (sadly in German only). The 8:th lead paragraph says: Seven million Austrians speak Austro-Bavarian, says the "Förderverein Bairische Sprache und Dialekte", which is an association working for the continued flourishing of the Austro-Bavarian language mostly in Bavaria, where German is taking over as the majority language, and has already done so in Munich and partially in other large cities. Note, this IS from the website of the association/Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think that meets the reliable source criteria. Do you have something in a newspaper? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a reliable source at last: the Ethnologue (on External links on the Engllish-language artcle "Austro-Bavarian"). This fulfills the fact in bold. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.6.118 (talk)

Cool. Btw I'm going to copy this over to the articles talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

German, Slovene, Croatian and Hungarian are official languages in Austria (check the CIA source); Austro-Bavarian is a dialect; Austrian German is our national standard variety, also official and defined by the Austrian dictionary (Österreichisches Wörterbuch), published under the authority of the ministry of education, art and culture languages (check sources in main articles); please don’t mix up dialects and official languages Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am Austrian too, and a dialect in this case means language with no official status, because linguistically Austro-Bavarian is a different language. Besides, The article is focusing on the native language of the people, not the official language. Since you are an Austrian: Where in Austria are you from, and do you really speak German (since Austrian German is German and not Austro-Bavarian even though many non-Austrians confuse them) as your very first language? Because I am Viennese residing in Leopoldau and only speak German as a second language, my first langauge being Austro-Bavarian (Weanarisch to be exact) and I have never ever heard German being spoken among us either (except possibly mixing in some words into our colloquial Austro-Bavarian) /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a native Austrian German speaker but where we come from and POV is not relevant for this article. Your changes of the article don’t go along with the content of the sources and are wrong (for example is Alemanic German not only spoken in Vorarlberg, but also in Außerfern in Tyrol). So please stop deleting sources. I haven’t considered your source since it doesn’t even mention Hungarian as a official Austrian language: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=AT – so to me it seems unreliable. Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the other “people” pages and indeed dialects are sometimes mentioned in the info box. I hope my compromise is ok with you. Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit better, but just so you know, the Ethnologue was used as a source only to confirm the fact that virtually no one speaks German natively, since Austria's population is 8.383.784 people, of which 88 % (7.377.730) speak A German language (not to be confused with THE German language) as their mother tongue. Of these 7 million (THIS is what Ethnologue confirmed) speak Austro-Bavarian, which equals to 94.9 %. Also, you've got to take away the population of Vorarlberg and the Außerfern (you're correct with the Außerfern and for that one I apologise) and those who really speak German as their mother tongue (German immigrants), and well, we all know what this results in. Besides, even though Hungarian is not the national language, it is an official minority language in Burgenland, along ewith Burgenland Croatian. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible, that you mix up German (Deutsch) with Standard German (Hochdeutsch)? Austro-Bavarian is part of the German language. So even if you speak an Austro-Bavarian dialect you are still a native German speaker. Concerning Hungarian we go conform, but that is not mentioned in your source. Andrej N. B. (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian was not meant to be mentioned in the source, only the fact that 94.9 % of all "German"-speaking Austrians speak Austro-Bavarian natively (7 million). Anyway, I always thought Austro-Bavarian was a different language, because it does meet the lingustic criteria to be classified as such. But if it is a variety of German as you say, well, Austrian German is STILL not the native language of ours, since Austrian German is a kind of Standard German, and as described in the ethnologue we don't speak Stanard German natively. So, a more accurate statement would be like: German: Austro-Bavarian and Alemannic dialects, because the article wants the native tongue of the people, and Austrian German is just the official variety and a kind of, well, second language. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.191.175 (talk)

Do you have a source for this statement: "The Central Austro-Bavarian dialects are more closely related to Standard German than the Southern Austro-Bavarian dialects." Andrej N. B. (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier but I just re-formulated it. Although, the relation can be derived from the dialect continuum /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 <talk> 21:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.191.175 (talk)

If German and Austrian were different languages as Andrea says there would be one Wikipedia in German and another Wikipedia in Austrian...but it is the same (German), and that makes more ridiculous his claims. Absurd. Then there should be one Wikipedia for English, another for American, a thir one for Australian....and so on.--83.39.41.244 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is Hitler ?? He is not among Germans nor Austrians ? IS THIS A JOKE ?

Its like he is taboo or something -- John 20.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.242.192 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was ethnically Austrian even if he had German nationality. People from any ethnic background can become a German citizen.--83.39.41.244 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He was ethnically German actually, Austrians are ethnically German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Hello guys, I've made some changes to the lead per WP:LEAD. First of all, some of the language appeared to be rather strange or even puzzling (maybe a bad translation?). Let's not forget, any article's lead should provide a concise overview, but leave the details to the article itself. Above all, I did my best to correct that very, very long sentence again. I did that couple of days ago, but it surfaced again, probably for some editing error following the IP's edits. And once more I corrected the expression "their own identity separated from the Germans". It wasn't quite clear to me what this should mean. Either you have an "own identity", or you haven't, but an "own identity separated from the Germans" would also include the opposite, i. e. the possibilty of an "own identity not separated from the Germans". Primarily, this was a case of lacking logic and coherence. Then of course, there were Western Austrians who obviously wanted to join Switzerland, so the problem is really a bit more complex. On the other hand, I included World War I, as this war gets mentioned in the article, and its aftermath seems important, given that Austria was now a different entity to what it had been before. But I still struggle with the expression that Austrians were "historically regarded as Germans". This makes me ask: Regarded by whom? By historians? Politicians? Ideologues? Or did Austrians regard themselves as Germans? The thing is, Nationalism was a political movement rooted in the 19th century. Before that, there was a complete disregard for ethnic groups or respective conflicts. So how did Austrians in, let's say, 1800 see themselves? The term "historically" is rather unclear in that respect. At least from the article it seems obvious that a publicly expressed wish by Austrians to unify their state with Germany only existed between 1918 and 1938. Never before or later any such wish became apparent. So maybe the term "German", when applied to a German speaking Austrian, meant something else, maybe just "German speaking". Finally, I corrected the expression "speakers of twelve languages". Well, I don't know how many languages a single person is able to speak fluently, but twelve is rather much, isn't it... Best, Catgut (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)