Talk:Austria

Ethnic Germans ?

No. Especially the eastern part of Austria has always been an ethnic melting pot between German and non German speaking peoples. Austrians are, therefore, ethnic Austrians. Culturally speaking, they are to a certain extent German, as they share their language and some cultural heritage with the other German speaking nations. Nevertheless, the notion of Austrians being Germans of some sort is largely frowned upon in Austria. Also, this concept of Austrians being ethnic Germans probably doesn't date back much further than 150 years ago when ethnic nationalism became a significant movement across Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.115.61 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The article Austrians has recently been changed significantly. Some editors changed it in that way that Austrians are now regarded as ethnic Germans (see the infobox in the article). 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: [1]. Neither anyone changed this edits, nor were they discussed. --193.170.52.132 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanx for your helpful comment! --Catgut (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a tiny remark: the article de:Österreicher (Austrians, in German language) was recently deleted (!) in the german-language wikipedia (replaced with a disambiguation). Most austrian authors contradicted, but, well, you see the result. --Wirthi (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand they're pretty severe over there. German Wikipedia already has a certain reputation for being rather strict on certain issues. On the other hand they're rather careless regarding WP:SOURCE. And they just love long, very, very long discussions about minor problems! --Catgut (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the author who filed the motion was actually an Austrian. And the article was delated because of its totally failed content and because the issue was better treated in the article "Austian Nation".--193.170.52.132 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ethno-Linguistic Map shown in the article says clealy "GERMANS", the same as any map from 1919 or later. So it is evident, Encyclopedias consider German speaking Austrians to be ethnic Germans.--83.35.181.133 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a good term would be German-Austrians but that only makes sense in German! Deutsch-Oesterreicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.3.174 (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And i think a good term would be "Austrians", like Austria, the country they actually live in. Phrases like German-Austrians are nowadays only used by the far right German nationalists! Please mind that world has changed since 1919...--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My intention was never to use a forbidden non-P.C. term that smacks of the far right, if that is the case today. However, the fact remains German-speaking Austrians makeup the ethno-linguistic majority in today's Republic and there should be term to distinguish them from the minorities: Hungarian-Austrians, Slovene-Austrians, Croatian-Austrians and Austrians of Turkish and Balkan heritage! I'm curious what the case is in Germany. Perhaps then you are either just Austrian or a hyphenated non-German speaking Austrian.

In that case - if we assume that there're only ethno-linguistic nations - we'd have to talk of English-Americans, Spanish-Mexicans and Arabic-Moroccans. Welcome to the middle ages of ethnology. A non-hyphenated German speaking Austrian. --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Until the end of the First Republic, it was clear that Austrians of German mother tongue are ethnic Germans. The Swiss of German language are called German Swiss until today, so it would be logically, that Austrians of German language are German Austrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course they are ethnic Germans. Austrians are NOT an own Ethnic-group. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.

Since the 6th Century Austria has been inhabited mainly by the Bavarii which were a Germanic tribe whose name emerged late in Teutonic tribal times. The full name originally was the Germanic "baio-warioz". The Bavarians themselves came under the overlordship of the Carolingian Franks and subsequently became a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire. It was overrun by the Hungarians in 909, and after their defeat by Emperor Otto the Great (Holy Roman Emperor) in the Battle of Lechfeld (955), new marches were established in what is today Austria. For the next 851 years Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Germans – the biggest Ethnic group of the Germanic peoples, with its heartland in Central and Eastern Europe, speaking German (Standard German, Austrian or Swiss varieties of German or other High or Low German dialects), are the largest ethnic group of Germany, as well as Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, a majority of the population of the now Italian Alpine province of South Tyrol and an autochthonous minority in Belgium (Eupen-Malmedy), France (Alsace), Hungary (e.g. Danube Swabians), Poland (e.g. Silesians) and Romania (e.g. Transylvanian Saxons). Also found in the American continent (especially in the United States, where they are the largest ethnic group, and in some Latin American countries)) and in other parts of Europe (e.g. Czech Republic, Slovakia, the former Yugoslavia, i.e. some of the former eastern territories of Germany as well as the territories of historic Austria-Hungary), Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan) and elsewhere (e.g. Australia).

Genetics: The predominant Y-chromosome haplogroup among Germans (incl. Austrians) is I1 and R1a followed by R1b; the predominant mitochondrial haplogroup is H, followed by U and T.

Is anyone here trying to claim that Austrians are not ethnic Germans?--IIIraute (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The U.S. Department of State says that Austrians are ethnic Germans: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3165.htm --IIIraute (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.S The CIA says that Austrians are ethnic Austrians. They may be Germanic like most of the ethnicity's in central Europe, but Austrians themselves admit they are not ethnic Germans they call themselves ethnic Austrians. Only about 6% say they are Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.205.210 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We speak German and have always been part of the German culture/nation. Actually Vienna was the center for centuries... So we are Germans and Austrians, just like the Bavarians or other subgroups, who are Bavarians and Germans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.244.215 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Its very simple, there are two Germans. German language and German nationality, If a swiss or an austrian says he speaks german or he is german swiss, than he or she means that she is part of the german speaking swiss and not german in a ethnical way. And most swiss speak german and french anyway. Swiss also calls itself Helvetia Conunctum which was the celtic tribe who settled there.... anyway there are also two kinds of persons in Austria the "pro-German people" and the "Anti-German people", those always existed in Austria, the pro German became the Nazis and are today the far right people.... u can read in austrian literatur about this issue... there are various authors from various time frames who write about this.......BTW the German Wiki isnt as good as the english.. The English is much better.. :) this is not my personal opnion, my personal opinion is there is nothing like n ethnie anyway and i would erase it from the articel... there might be nations, culture and all that stuff people identify themselves with but ethnie doesnt exist.. just my opnion... cheers from vienna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.236.76 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an "Austrian identity" section like the page of Austrian identity on the de.wikipedia?

Austrians are ethnic Germans but don't consider themselves as Germans since 1945, I think there should be a section about this to make it more clear, there is on the Austrian page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.116.160 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am Austrian and I feel like a German. Anyone who knows history knows why this is so. After World War II, they have tried to convince us that we Austrians were not Germans, it has in ignorant unfortunately led to a split! Correctly it must glad that we are a German folk with his own government. Do like it a GDR and FRG has given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.37.161 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Current Austrian Republic

Although it is mentioned in about ten different wikipedia pages, none of them has a clear explanation of when the "second" Austrian republic was established ? 1945 ? 1955 ? Some point in between. All of the existing descriptions skip from the 1945 occupation to the 1955 treaty with no details in between.Eregli bob (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The second republic was created by the Declaration of Independence of April 27, 1945, which has been published in the Staatsgesetzblatt no. 1 of 1945. On the same day, the provisional government has been constituted. The term "second" is not a legal, but a historical and political one. The Declaration stated in article 1, that the democratic republic is reinstalled and has to be structured following the spirit of the constitution of 1920. (It would not only follow the spirit: The whole constitution of 1920 / 1929 was put into validity on May 1, 1945.) --Johnny3031 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So the Austrian Republic was re-established in May 1945, and has operated since then, even though Austria was subsequently occupied by the anti-german powers for ten years ? That seems somewhat surprising, perhaps it should be more clearly explained in one of the relevant articles.Eregli bob (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently" is perhaps the wrong word in your description. Austria was freed by the allies. Only that allowed the constitution to be reestablished (in 1945); so the actual occupation took place before the constitution was reestablished. The republic was functional as Johnny3031 described since 1945, but of course the "occupiers" had a major voice (and veto) for many official decisions and actions until 1955. See it like Iraq right now: there is an (iraqian) goverment, even though the country is de facto occupied by the US (and allies). --Wirthi (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

South Tyrol

The is little to no mention of the South Tyrol Question. While it has been "solved" and the case is closed officially at least according to both the Austrian and Italian governments it has been a series issue for most of the 20th Century. Austria still sees itself as the protector of the cultural rights of South Tyrolean German-speakers. There should be much more said about this and the successful solution that has been found as model for trans-national and inter ethnic cooperation.

"Reunification" with Germany?

The wording makes no sense unless it is what Hitler said and it should be then in "". Austria was technically the inheritor state of the Holy Roman Empire so Germany was really rejoining Austria! Furthermore Austria was never part of the modern German nation-state. This sentence is flat out wrong! there was no reunification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.83.227 (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The term reunification was actually one used in the third Reich in the propaganda to make it sound nicer for what they actually were doing (it was like an invasion without fighting, although a lot of Austrians also welcomed the Hitler regime, I am not going to deny that...). In German the term therefore makes some sense. 129.132.152.46 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Austria was not the inheritor state of the Roman Empire of German Nation, the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) and the German Empire were the inheritor states, so of course Austria was re-joining Germany which was left by Austria in 1866. 14:09, 13 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 (talk)

Of course it was a reunion, what should the this falsification of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.37.161 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WWII Germany took over Austria, they did not join Germany

This sentence is most surely wrong:

"Austria joined Nazi Germany in the Anschluss in 1938"

Germany took over Austria. Austria did not join Germany. German Nazis burned numerous religious buildings in Austria among other things leading up to taking over. There were also many Austrians who fled to Yugoslavia and elsewhere to avoid the "anschluss" of the Nazis.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.78.117 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for your input. Catgut (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss! Stop pretending Austria was a victim of Germany and perpetuating the Sound of Music mythos. Real history please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.209.27.142 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Government of the time regarded Austria as a 'victim' of Hitler, and as a result, Austria, like the other occupied countries, escaped the attentions of RAF Bomber Command, which is why Austria wasn't bombed to the same extent as Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.71.28 (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

" In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany." Is absolute bullshit, the Anschluss did NOT annex Austria, it was linked-up/joined up not forced, pressured, or anything it was wanted and was no resistance, it was wanted even in 1918 when Austria changed its name to German Austria - stop sounding like Austria was forced to join Germany, it was unioned to make Greater Germany, real facts here not BS crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your changes are point-of-view. O Fenian (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You too wouldn't have voted against the Anschluss when SA-Soldiers were looking over your shoulder, though I agree that probably many Austrians wanted Austria to be "re-united" with Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.131 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But it was NOT occupied/annexed it was made with no resistance... just cheers and salutes - Austrians are Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your changes are still point-of-view.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Brauneder ("Österreichische Verfassungsgeschichte", 2009 edition) and Hoke ("Österreichische und deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte", 1996) Austria got occupied by Germany in 1938. It still existed from 1938-1945 but was incapable of actions. For this reason international treaties from the time between 1918 and 1938, like the concordat of 1933, are still valid. The austrian government and the former Allies support this theory since 1943. So it basically makes no sense to make a difference between the first republic and the second one. Of course, this is just an academic point of view, the reality was a bit more complicated (no government in exile, ...). At first the Allies supported the theory of annexation, which said that Austria seized to exist, but this opinion was rejected with the Moscow Declaration ("They [the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America] regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by German on March 15, 1938, as null and void."). Austria followed this opinion in 1945. --Cohiban (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The current version reads "In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany". Please make up your minds, it can't be both. As Cohiban pointed out, history largely seems to support the "occupation" school of thought. It's certainly the official Austrian POV, if there is such a thing. --IGreil (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, occupational theory is the leading theory. Austria was not annected but occupied which means that it's statehood didn't vanish but resurged after 1945. That's the legal point of view. The fact that many Austrians supported the German occupation ist a historical matter. Austria was a victim, but more or less the victim of it's own people.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the article today, removing any reference to annexation. --IGreil (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No this mixes up the issue of whether or not Austrians wanted it, and what happened, What happened was that Austria was annexed and fully integrated into germany. As opposed to France or Netherlands or Norway etc which were NOT annexed. As google reports thefre are over a thousand scholarly referenced to annexation see Google Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am so very glad we could talk about this before you simply went ahead and undid my edit. Keep up the good work, netizen! --IGreil (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am renewing the criticism I made above. "Annexation" and "occupation" are mutually exclusive in terms of public international law. Please make up your minds. Or, you know, "teach the controversy". I really don't care all that much one way or another, were it not for the fact that it's currently wrong, plain and simple. IGreil (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What I know because I am Austrian: The "Anschluß" was a fake election to decide weather Austria should become part of Germany. It was forced by Hitler. Votes against the "Anschluß" were not counted. --BeanMe (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Climate

Hello I'm now living in Austria for more than 13 years and am not sure about the cool/temperate zone 'cause I guess that the geographic plain areas (greatest parts in Lower Austria, but also in Burgenland, Carinthia, Styria and the Tyrol) are in a warm-temperated climate zone. In the alps, there is a cool-temperated climate predominating, of course. Also in the most information tables you can read that this country is lying in the warm temperated zone. User:Controller60 -- 21. 07. 2010, 23:30 Central European (Summer) Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.51.124 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Australia???

It's insulting! Both to Austria AND to Australia and to everyone out there who's still got at least one neuron working in their brains... I mean how can you confuse ballroom and beer with kangaroo and outback... or Arnold Schwarzenegger with Nicole Kidman for that matter. I mean if one is truly truly stupid he might have never heard of Austria. But to have never ever have heard of Australia to not know it's "down there" underneath Asia on the map and that kangaroos live there... one must have been living in a cave. But I really doubt that illiterate Taliban bullet boys from the caves of Afghanistan are reading any of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was younger I frequently mistook "Australia" for "Austria". It's not about mistaking customs, it's about the names. They are very close. 216.120.192.143 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and some people even confuse Slovakia with Slovenia or even Obama with Osama . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.32.134 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book at hand, but my source is Hella Pick's 'Guilty Victim' : During an Austrian predidential visit in the 1960's (or was it 70's?) the Mayor of London welcomed visitors with speech full of enthusiasm for Australia. 33gsd (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd

Austria and denazification

My main source was Hella Pick, 'Guilty Victim'. I don't have the book here so I don't want to make changes to the article simply on what I remember, also I don't know how this would best fit in to the present article.

AUSTRIA AND DENAZIFICATION

De-nazification of Austria was a less important for the allies than de-nazification of Germany, as Cold war considerations made keeping the Austrians onside a major policy goal.(For a long time, the existence of a country 'Austria' post WW2 was uncertain. Churchill planned for Austria to cease to exist as an independant counrty and be absorbed into a larger state.) Pre 1955, USA consistently pressured the Austria government to frankly own up to their countries co-operation with the Nazi's, who were welcomed in 1938 by jubilant crowds. They did not accept the 'Victim Thesis' as proposed in the 'Rot-Weiss-Rot' book. (One of their arguments was notoriously 'we didn't do anything wrong, because from 38-45 Austria didn't exist'). In was through a last-minute ammendment that the Austrians managed to get the 1955 State Treaty accepted in a version which did not demand that they accept responsibility for the country's activities in the Nazi era, which the Allies had demanded in the Moskauer Deklaration. Ausria's leaders always maintained that accepting the country's responsibility was too heavy a burden for a new country (which America needed to be strong and stable) to bear. Throughout the 1970's the USA continued to pressure Austria for the reparations it had commited itself to, but only paid a small portion of. It was not until the 80's that Austrians began to discuss the past openly, leading to official State apologies, in the Austrian parliament and also in the Israeli Knesset.

- and the 1998 establishment of http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/english_home.html

33gsd (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd

That is simply not true. The media is obsessed with the holocaust, in school we did 2 years on that issue. The talking point "Austria claims to be a victim" is popular, but it is simply not true. Everyone knows about our guilt. Not one person denies it, even if some liberals may claim the opposite.

Austria-Hungary was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900.

Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"38th Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Whilst it is beyond question that Austria is proud of this fact, why is it under the Science & Philosophy section? It should be added elsewhere, though not removed. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are people in Austria who do not like that he did not free two "victims" (it is the wrong word, I know) of capital punishment. (These "victims" were sentenced to death by a court - only because Austria has forbidden captial punishment, and most Austrians think it is wrong, Arnold Schwarzeneger does not have to free convicted fellows. But this is only my opinion.) --BeanMe (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

only for amusement

Google translate is not always a friend :

• upper mountain at the burner in Austria found in Semseyite

--Stone (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Security policies

Just took a quick look at the article. The last paragraph of the 20th century part seems a bit odd. Firstly there are some mistakes in it its not the Petersburg agenda - its the Petersberg tasks (a suburb of Bonn Germany - where the corresponding WEU meeting took place). Maybe the whole paragraph should be moved and reformulated within the foreign relations section as the discussion has not been resolved since the late 1990ties and still lingers in Austrian politics. I am not a registered Wikipedia user so maybe somebody else could edit the article and at least correct the Petersburg/Petersberg mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.25.86 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

population

This line: "...is a landlocked country of roughly 8.3 million people..."

is no longer correct. At 2011, there are over 8.4 million inhabitants.--62.47.168.64 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Official (and other ) names for Austria

There is no "official" or other name in "Austro-Bavarian" (which isn't even a written language). Hungarian? Slovene? Croatian? Why would anybody care in an English article? We don't mention French, Italian etc. either. And before anybody mentions minorities' rights: they do have certain rights in regard to the usage of their language, but there still is no "official" name other than the German one. Art. 8 of the Austrian constitution specifically makes German the one official language.

My suggestion: English (this is the English wikipedia) and German (official, and used by the natives.) Get rid of all others. Oh, and this, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_Names

--IGreil (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Croatian, Slovene, and Hungarian are "recognised regional languages" (according to the infobox), so they should stay. You are correct that it would make no sense to include the French or Italian names for Austria. BurtAlert (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Let me quote the Austrian constitution here (Article 8, in case you were wondering): Without prejudice to the rights conceded by Federal law to linguistic minorities, the German language is the official language of the Republic. That's exactly what they are, linguistic minorities. And, yes, they do have certain rights under Federal law, but that doesn't mean we have to clutter an article in the English language Wikipedia.

Would you consider adding Estados Unidos de América as a secondary name to the main article on the USA, just because it's spoken by a significant number of people there? --IGreil (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does the Austrian constitution somewhere mention Croatian, Slovene and Hungarian? If not I would suggest removing them from the introduction. There is no point in having these translations unless they are in the national or official languages. mgeo talk 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not mentioned in the constitution proper, no. I quoted Art. 8 in its entirety above. German is the only official nationwide language. Slovene is a secondary official language in parts of the province of Carinthia, and the same is true for Croatian and to an even lesser extent Hungarian in the province of Burgenland. IGreil (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here by paraphrasing a reply I made to IGreil on the Talk:Lower Austria page, since this is more prominent forum to discuss this matter and IGreil has challenged the inclusion of alternate names on several Austria-related pages. According to WP:Naming conventions (geographic names),

"2. The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, eg: Gulf of Finland ( Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea..."

"Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken; Estonian: Soome laht). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name."

Therefore the lead should list the name in English (Austria), it's official names(s) in any official language(s), followed by the names in any foreign languages that are relevant due to the above criteria. According to the list of official languages by state, which cites the Austrian Constitution, German is the official nationwide language, while Slovene and Croatian have official status in certain states of Austria. Therefore all three are "official" languages of the country, and should be included, in alphabetical order by language, no less, though I would agree with the argument that German should be first among the official languages since it is the only nationwide official language.

After the official languages come names in relevant unofficial languages. Austro-Bavarian would certainly fall into the category as a relevant foreign language, since its speakers have historically inhabited the country and continue to do so. Whether Austro-Bavarian is a language is not a matter of contention: it is listed on Ethnologue, which means it has been documented by linguists as a separate language. The page lists the language use as "vigorous" and that it has a writing system using Latin script. Its documented range covers all of Austria, with a speaking population of 7 million, which is just 500,000 less than the speaking population of Standard German, according to Ethnologue. That more than justifies the inclusion of its name for Austria in the lead of the article (after the official language names, of course). -Krasnoludek (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid German is the only official language in Austria, certain minority rights notwithstanding, and then only in certain parts of Austria. It's fine to include the Slovene name of Carinthia, IMO, or the Croatian one for Burgenland, but there is no need to clutter up the lead with a bunch of gratuitous alternative names. Please note that the number of Slovene speakers, e.g., for all of Austria, is less than 0.5%. There are far more native speakers of Turkish, Albanian etc. (or, for that matter, English.) IGreil (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Geographic names in "Austro-Bavarian" have no place in a serious encyclopedia. It is not a "foreign language", and certainly not a written one. If it has a "written texting system" it's certainly not used outside of linguistic circles, least of all by the people supposedly speaking it. IGreil (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Official names should be found in official documents from the Austrian government and not just translated here on wikipedia per WP:OR (see logo of the Swiss Confederation for example). For the common name (Austria), I think it would be legitimate to add at least a note including the translations in the recognised regional languages. mgeo talk 10:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox mentions Slovene, Croatian, and Hungarian as "recognised regional languages". It's a bit misleading in the case of Hungarian, which, contrary to Slovene and Croatian, is not referred to in the Austrian State Treaty but only in the federal Volksgruppengesetz, Federal Law on Ethnic Groups. Strictly speaking we'd have to mention Czech, Slovakian and the Romani language as well. IGreil (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two points being argued here: 1. which languages meet WP's guidelines to have their names included, 2. what the names (official or unofficial) are in those languages. WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) expounds on the conventions for geographic names in the lead: standard name in English first, the official names in English and in the official languages, then other names in relevant languages. For example, there's currently an informal German name listed (Österreich) and the official German name (Republik Österreich). For other languages that meet WP's criteria for inclusion, either the informal name or the official name can be included, and labeled as such. Keep in mind that WP explicitly allows for the listing of both official and unofficial names of geographic places, and provides criteria for relevant languages to list the names in, and this is evident on many geographic pages, e.g., Lyon, where Arpitan is listed despite not being an official language of France, yet it is a major language of the area. As I said above, German is the only official national language in Austria. Slovene and Croatian are official languages in certain states of Austria and therefore enjoy an official status in the country (compared to English, Turkish, etc), and this status appears in the national constitution. Determining the official names in these languages (i.e. the equivalent of "Republic of Austria") requires citing official Austrian documents; determining the unofficial names in these languages (i.e. the equivalent of "Austria") does not require any such citations and listing them would not constitute WP:OR.

IGreil's opinion on whether Austro-Bavarian is a serious language not a reliable source. Ethnologue is a reliable source, as are the academic articles in linguistics that Ethnologue uses to compile its data on languages. Linguists have classified Austro-Bavarian as a separate language and have documented that it has a writing system. It even has its own version of Wikipedia. So it does meets the standards of a serious encyclopedia. According to documentation by linguists, speakers of Austro-Bavarian are about half the population of Austria, so then its inclusion meets WP's guidelines for relevant geographic names in other languages. On Talk:Lower Austria, IGreil questioned whether "Nyada-Østarëich" is the correct word in Austro-Bavarian for "Lower Austria". I do not know either, but the proper course of action would have been to add citation needed tags to these Austro-Bavarian names, rather than deleting them. According to WP's own naming policies, these names should be included in the lead section. -Krasnoludek (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the disappearing paragraph. I had some editing issues but never meant to remove your text. IGreil (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been having issues editing WP today too, so no hard feelings. -Krasnoludek (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Linguists have..." Can we be somewhat more specific here? Can you show why it should be included in a written encyclopedia? Is it used anywhere (outside of linguistic circles, if there)? Proper language or not, it is not a written language. A made-up phonetic transcription like "Nyada-Østarëich" has no place in any serious written work. There cannot be a "correct" word for Lower Austria in "Austro-Bavarian", since as native speakers of German they simply use "Niederösterreich", regional pronunciation differences notwithstanding. The same is true for Österreich. IGreil (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, and I'll quote form the ("good") German Wikipedia article: Als Bairisch fasst man in der germanistischen Linguistik einen Dialektverbund nichtstandardisierter Varietäten ... zusammen (In German linguistics, "Bavarian" refers to a dialect group of non-standard varieties ...). The English article calls it a regiolect, i.e. a local dialect and goes on to say that there is no authoritative documented grammar or spelling system for Austro-Bavarian ... speakers of the language prefer to use Standard German for writing. IGreil (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been very specific. It is a language as classified by linguists. See the Ethnologue, which uses the official ISO classification of languages, which is what WP uses to classify its languages, e.g. for Template:lang. It is not considered just a dialect, just like Arpitan is not just a dialect of French, Catalan is not just a dialect of Spanish, and Cantonese is not just a dialect of Mandarin. Linguists have distinguished enough features to classify these as separate languages and not just dialects. Again, see the ISO classification. According to official academic sources (Ethnologue again), it is a major language of the region in terms of number of speakers, despite not having official status. Therefore it meets WP:PLACE policy for listing the name in that language. I have also shown where it's used: on the Austro-Bavarian version of wikipedia, which also refutes your claim that it is not a written language.

Your point about there being "no authoritative documented grammar or spelling system" is about written language. However, this is not an obstacle. For languages without a standardized writing system, the IPA is used for a phonetic transcription. (Side point: since we're being technical here, "Nyada-Østarëich" is not a phonetic transcription, but neither is "Niederösterreich". These are both just how the respective words are written in the respective writing systems. A phonetic transcription uses a phonetic alphabet, like the IPA). Even in English spelling is not fully standardized: see center/centre or the many spellings of Hannukah. Not having a standardized writing system does not exclude languages from having heir names of places being included in Wikipedia if those languages meet WP's criteria for relevance, as listed at WP:PLACE. If names can be found written in a writing system, then that's good, but an IPA transcription is even better. -Krasnoludek (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Can you please show that "Austro-Bavarian" is officially used anywhere? Official Austrian documents would naturally be preferred. Apart from you insistence that "linguists" consider it a language, can you please reference a reputable external source? The (dialect) version of Wikipedia that you have shown is for Bavarian, not Austro-Bavarian; that said, there are other dialects, too, including Simplified English. What does that prove, exactly? Speaking of other dialects, would you seriously suggest to add the name of "Germany" in Bavarian, Swabian, North Frisian and other Low German dialects to the article? Interestingly enough articles in German only mention the "official" German name, no dialect varieties.

No, "Niederösterreich" is not a phonetic transcription. It's the official name of the Land in German. IGreil (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only wonder about the term "Austro-Bavarian". As native Austrian I never heared that anyone in my country is speaking that "language". Also the WP website dealing with the dialect of Bavaria and mentioning that "Austro - Bavarian" is just a stub. The claim "In Austria, it is spoken in the western half of the country." under the title "Regions where Bavarian is spoken" is only wrong. Also that anyone in the city of Sopron speaks Bavarian is nonsense, tough a small amount of the inhabitants are speaking German. And the Grammar on the Bavarian "language" is just a awkward effort to bring a dielaekt in a written form. Every teacher would give a pupil the worst schoolnote when anyone would use it as in those examples! The same applies for all samples of Bavarian and Austrian! That´s not Austrian there, just a written dialect from somewhere! In my area (east of Austria, till 1921 part of Hungary) even every vilage has it´s own dialect. Abecedarian´s sometimes are making the mistake to write words like the are speaking their dialect, and that´s of course wrong. Regards from Austria, Austrianbird (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Ö

Austrian Empire

I think it's wrong to state that the Austrian Empire was created in response to Napoleon. Although it was a response, it's more a response that's positive for Napoleon? As far as I understand the Holy Roman Empire was ended out of "fear" of Napoleon? And the Austrian Empire was just a substitute for it? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog027 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation ended in 1806 because of Napoleon, the Austrian Empire was founded in 1804 because of Napoleon. The last Roman German Emperor Francis II was the first Austrian Emperor Francis I. 14:18, 13 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.42 (talk)

Is Hitler a representative Austrian?

There's an ongoing discussion about thet question on Talk:Austrians. You might want to join in.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Work and Employment Section

There should be a section presenting the employment landscape in this country. This is of interest to people wanting to move to the country to find work. Things like, is most work temporary or permanent? Do you need to know the local language or English is enough to work? Wikitravel does have some information -though not sufficient- but Wikipedia for Austria has nothing. Unemployment rate? etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest official numbers for 12-2012: 3.8% (intl definition), highest in Vienna (~5.4%), lowest in Salzburg/Upper Austria (~2.4%). See http://www.statistik.at/web_en/ for long-term statistics. Employment relationship rates only effectively apply to migration from Schengen countries. Others mostly depend on working visa, granted on demand/qualification. http://www.migration.gv.at/ provides administrative details about working in Austria. 178.191.180.75 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.192.136 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

History is all wrong

The history sections in this article goes against all history books I've read. The lead section states: "In the 1938 Anschluss, Austria was occupied and annexed by Nazi Germany.[12] This lasted until the end of World War II in 1945, after which Nazi Germany was occupied by the Allies and Austria's former democratic constitution was restored." This is dead wrong. Austria JOINED Germany willingly, the people were celebrating in the streets. The Austrians fought on Hitlers side until they we're defeated by the Soviets in the Vienna Offensive. The Austrians we're part of Nazi war crimes and this article tries to make it look as if Austria is a victim instead of the true Nazi regime it was. Don't try to change history. And its not just this article's lead that is very WP:POV, but the entire history section here is full of POV to make Austria look good. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree, it's best if you can provide citations. I've just been reading a paper from 1944, where the issue of how to treat Austrian POW's is discussed. The paper makes it quite clear that the annexation was not voluntary, and that the government was forcibly deposed and replaced with the Nazi government. There were many reasons for a desperate people to be pleased to join with Germany, but this does not make the annexation legal or unforced. I will even quote from the work:

Striking corroboration of many of the points established has been furnished by the Declaration on Austria signed at Moscow by the foreign secretaries of the Governments of the United Kingdom,the Soviet Union and the United States of America,and published on November 1, 1943, in which it was declared that the three Governments are agreed that Austria,the first free country to fall victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.

They regard the annexation imposed on Austria by Germany on March15,1938,as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see reestablished a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves as well as those neighboring states which will be faced with similar problems,to findthat political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.

Austria is reminded, however, that she has a responsibility which she cannot evade, for participation in the war at the side of Hitlerite Germany,and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation. (The Legality of the Annexation of Austria by Germany, Herbert Wright, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1944), pp. 621-635)Trishm (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but that doesn't excuse the very important fact that Austria, and Austrians, were part of the Nazi war-machine. Some of the most prominent Nazis were native Austrians, including Adolf Hitler, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Franz Stangl, and Odilo Globocnik, as were 40% of the staff at Nazi extermination camps. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By blaming Austria and Austrians, you are just scape-goating a different set of people. Austrians are no better or worse than any other people. Facts must be in context, and it is important to understand what was normal for the time (you may like to read up on the Stanford experiment, it is very revealing just how quickly normal people do abnormal things if they think they are meant to do those things). There was a thousand years of persecution of Jews in Europe, as well as the various Crusades and Inquisitions, and I personally think this all culminated in WWII. If you want to understand why the Nazis looked attractive to the population, you need to look to the treaty of Versailles, and understand that the Church had much to fear from Communism, and was active in supporting the Nazis. I have heard Austrians, adults at the time, recall Hitler's speeches. A memorable line translates as "If you want our railroads, come and take them". In their minds, Hitler stood for recovery from grinding poverty. Anti-semitism was normal, encouraged and sanctioned by the church. What passed for normal in Europe at the time was unstable and dangerous, and it had been building for centuries, not just in a particular generation of people; - just read Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies". After WWII, much changed around the world. But, how specifically would you improve the article? Trishm (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound as if there was an excuse for Austrians to be Nazis during WW2, while avoiding the fact that they indeed were Nazis and supported the Nazi ideology all the way, just like the Germans did. Regardless of the history of Jews in Europe, and regardless of the Austrian and German people's struggles and hardship at the time, there is no point in hiding their participation in Nazi war crimes and activities. Facts don't lie, and Austria was a part of the Axis and Nazi war machine. Jørgen88 (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

World War 2 dead

Nation	Militery dead	Civilian dead	Header text
Germany	3,500,000	700,000	4,200,000
Austria	230,000	104,000	334,000
Danzig	-	-	-
Sudatenland	-	-	-
Source-

90.244.81.248 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge suggest of Crime in Austria

It is suggested to merge Crime in Austria with this article. --atnair (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ex-Yugoslavs in Austria

In the infobox, I inserted the general term ex-Yugoslavia in place of "ex-Yugoslavs" which links to those ethnically identifying as such, these are an overall minority so the link to them is misleading. The other issue is Austria, having been a country to border SFRJ, has an autochtonous population: Burgenland Slovenes & Croats who moved to areas adjacent to Slovakia during Hapsburg rule, and some Slovenes close to the border with Slovenia who were locked out of the Yugoslav kingdom in 1919 (there was a referendum in which many Slovenes opted to be Austrian and the number of Slovenes left roughly corresponds to the figure to have voted against Austria - naturally the rest will have assimilated). These have been added in brackets, but when you group all of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia together it can prove difficult as there was a significant non-Yugoslav population, so a Hungarian from Slavonia/Vojvodina is more correctly grouped with other Hungarians than with Burgenland Croats (the Yugoslav category). Likewise, as is the case overwhemlingly in Switzerland, most ex-Yugoslav republics don't have huge diasporas compared to other states and the absolute majority of those quitting their country for another tend to come from Macedonia and southern Serbia only - this in turn means that many are ethnic Albanian. Macedonians/Kosovars tend to gladly leave their homeland for a better life in western countries while the rest of the region either lives in hope that things will improve or will go to another land if for a special reason (eg. to work a specific profession). Either way, I hope the reasoning behind my change is clear. The complications are hard to overcome. The Big Hoof! (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your statement that "Likewise, as is the case overwhemlingly in Switzerland, most ex-Yugoslav republics don't have huge diasporas compared to other states and the absolute majority of those quitting their country for another tend to come from Macedonia and southern Serbia only - this in turn means that many are ethnic Albanian." There are between 500,000 and 1.2 million Croats in the United States, 250,000 in Argentina, 228,000 in Germany, 200,000 in Chile, 126,000 in Australia, 111,000 in Canada and 100,000 in New Zealand. Similarly, there are between 175,000 and 600,000 Slovenes in the United States. Those are significant diasporas! They may not have left since Croatia and Slovenia achieved independence, but they still form a diaspora of the ethnic group. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

TREATY OF SAINT GERMAIN. GERMAN AUSTRIA What kind of sovereignty had a country which couldn´t even choose its own name?. Austrians decided to call their country "German Austria"...and the Allies forbade that name. After WWII there was a deep brainwashing trying to create the "Austrian nation" as different from the "German nation", even if it was not as successful as the very deep brainwashing to end with the Alsatian language and culture in Alsatia (France), a Germanic language which now is almost extinct and children have learnt for decades to hate their "Germanic" past even if the name of their villages and cities, and the last names of most Alsatians are Germanic.--88.1.244.26 (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that by using the word ex-yugoslav the wikipedia states that naming etnic groups and historical states is the same thing. Yugoslavs (and today ex-Yugoslavs) never existed as etnic group. Etnic groups were the same during ex-yugoslavia as they are today (Slovene, Croatian, Hungarian, Czech etc.) If wikipedia accepts this kind of approach, then it will be ok to write in the national minorities of Czech republic "ex-nazi German" for Germans and Austrians together. Funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.78.20 (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Can someone remove the nonsence that ex-Yugoslav is an etnic name???? Ex-soviet, Ex-Czechoslovakian, Ex-Nazi German????? Don't you see the stupidity????78.1.163.131 (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Mixing etnic group and state and former citizenship of non-existing historic state.78.1.163.131 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Error under "Largest Cities"

Someone add a Obamacare impeachment ad.I tried to find the file and couldn't.(Most likely someone trolling hence the name of the image is "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Cache_me_if_you_can.gif") — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudePup (talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of Noricum

I am very doubtful about the following, especially since it does not appear in any relevant articles in the German or Bavarian Wikipedias:

Friedrich Heer, a 20th-century Austrian historian, stated in his book Der Kampf um die österreichische Identität (The Struggle Over Austrian Identity),[19] that the Germanic form Ostarrîchi was not a translation of the Latin word, but both resulted from a much older term originating in the Celtic languages of ancient Austria: more than 2,500 years ago, the major part of the actual country was called Norig by the Celtic population (Hallstatt culture); according to Heer, no- or nor- meant "east" or "eastern", whereas -rig is related to the modern German Reich, meaning "realm". Accordingly, Norig would essentially mean the same as Ostarrîchi and Österreich, thus Austria.

Does anyone know what Heer's source was? Or can attest to his Celtic etymology?

Our Noricum article does not provide an etymology, merely stating that it was named after the lost city of Noreia: "The original population appears to have consisted of Pannonians (a people kin to the Illyrians), who, after the great migration of the Gauls, became subordinate to various Celto-Ligurian tribes, chief amongst them being the Taurisci, who were probably identical with the Norici of Roman sources, so called after their capital Noreia, whose location is, as yet, unknown." The Noreia article does not explain the etymology.

Furthermore, reconstructed Proto-Celtic lexicons do not list "nor-" at all. There are different versions of reconstructed word for east, including *φari-tero (phari-tero) (University of Wales) and *usāri-s. (The Gaelic for east is Thoir, pronounced something like "tair" while eastern is oirthear or "air-her"; the Welsh equivalents are "Dwyrain", which is pronounced something like "doorin" and dwyreiniol, "dooriniol".)

Grant | Talk 09:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)