Talk:Austrians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] Germans/Austrians population box

I don'ti like pancakes I like pancakes allot i bet i like them more than you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! entirely understand the point of the population box in this article. I thought that the Germans article has Austrians included in it, no? And is there even a way to distinguish an Austrian from a German? Historically, there was a harsh border between Austria and the German lands, and often pieces of each would get get conquered and reconquered. Plus, there were mass Austrian-German migrations from former lands of Austria-Hungary to Germany (ie: Bohemia, Romania). So, is there even a cutoff (ethnically) for a German and Austrian? Certainly there is a culture difference, but what else? Is there enough to be able to chart the population accurately (take the Sudetenland for example) And shouldn't there just be one population box per ethnic group? Antidote 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


There is perhaps some contradiction in having this "ethnicity" article when most Austrians are counted among the population of ethnic Germans in another article but after having read this article it would appear to be based more on the idea of nationality rather than ethnicity, since an Austrian ethnicity remains largley undefined. The category "ethnic groups" should perhaps be removed from the article but other than that the article seems alright to me. The population figures would seem to be based on Austrian nationality/citizenship and includes Austrian non-German minorities like the Croatians of Styria and Slovenes or Carinthia as well as Austrian-born people of whatever ethnic background who live in other countries like the US.

--Nikostar 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I didn't have much time to edit this article. Before we begin, I would like to point out that you have removed a comment from an anonymous editor from Austria. Although he might not be skilled, his comment be symptomatic and does reflect the sentiment.
My argument is as follows: the ethnicity articles attempt (for whatever reason) to define ethnicities separate from national entities. I can see where this intention might be coming from, if we focus on people's ancestry and not their political circumstances. However, our modern understanding of a nation state and that a nation should ideally encompass one ethnicity runs contrary to this and is a source of confusion.
First off, Germany, and by extension the term German, includes descendants of several Germanic tribes, which have originally settled on the territory of roughly the former Holy Roman Empire. These tribes exhibited both linguistic and morphologic differences and have often undergone separate development and have over time assimilated different groups.
I have raised the issue of the Dutch as an example. They are barely mentioned in the Germans and are certainly not counted, although they situation mirrors the situation of Austria or Luxembourg pretty closely. I believe the Dutch descended from the Lower Saxons and the dialect spoken on both sides of the German-Dutch border are very similar even today, some 500 years after the political separation took place. The English name for the Dutch is virtually identical with the short form for German language: “Deutsch”.
What I'm trying to say is that the term German is applied to a varied mix of people. Who is included and who is not has always been based largely on political developments as evidenced on the example of the Dutch. If we wanted to be ethnically accurate, we'd probably have to split them into several groups roughly along tribal borders. The fact that they all understand and speak the same language (although their local dialects vary greatly) is again largely a result of political developments, not inherent ethnic or morphologic cohesiveness. The modern term German is therefore largely determined by the results of the political work of Otto von Bismark and the century-long precedent set by the Holy Roman Empire.
The Austrians descend largely from the Baioari. Many people of present-day Bavaria do too. The fact that Bavaria has a separate identity within Germany and most Bavarians put this identity before the their identity of a citizen of Germany is a testament to the differences between the people we call today German. Austrians have assimilated many immigrants from their former multi-ethnic empire and I'm sure that if genetic profiling was performed, this would come to fore and could serve as another differentiator.
The question of Sudetes and Banat Germans is valid. However, we need to keep in mind that these settlers came from different areas of what is today Germany. Some of the Sudetes Germans originated from present-day territory of Austria. This was mostly the case in the south, in the proximity of present-day territory of Austria.
AFAIK most of the forcefully resettled German citizens and ethnic Germans sought refuge in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. This was mostly related to a combination of ancestral ties and political circumstances. Bavaria was wholly under American military and initially also political control, which might have been preferrable to Austria, which was under joint Allied control and where the USSR pressed for political neutrality. Jbetak 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The situation of the Dutch can not be compared with that of the Austrians as the Dutch are more distinct from the Germans both ethnically and linguistically. Although the surviving local Low German dialects and languages have survived in Northern Germany and are similar to Dutch, the majority of the people (especially younger generations) speak High/Standard German and the Low Saxon German languages themselves have been significantly influenced by High German for centuries, which can not be said with the case of Dutch. From an ethnic and cultural perspective, the peoples of Germany and Austria (as well as Swiss Germans) are much more related to each other than is the case with Germans and the Dutch. Obviously there is influence from the Dutch and Danish in the North (who have settled in areas of northern Germany), but the Dutch are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Germans and this is simply not the case with the Austrian Germans. The Political independence of the Netherlands in the 15th-16th cent. further aided in the distinction of the Dutch people while in contrast, the 19th cent. political and cultural re-unification of Germany increased the commonality between all Germans which had already existed since the time of the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Although Austrians and Bavarians do have a distinct regional identity that is also seen with most other Germans (and within other peoples such as French or Italians), this identity is not to the same level of disintinctiveness seen with the Dutch. Austrians can still be considered "ethnic German" no matter what name they choose for themselves and most Austrians still identify with being German to distinguish them from non-German Austrians. 69.157.121.76 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the anonymous comment becaust it was more vandalism than anything else and certainly not a valuable contribution. I do take issue with what you are saying about the definition of the term "German" in an ethnic context. Unlike the Dutch who have seperated from the Holy Roman Empire and developed a distinct national language in the middle ages, the German-speaking Austrians have only as a majority accepted a national identity seperate from that of other German-speaking peoples in the last four decades (since the 1950s and 60s). Although there is clearly now an Austrian national identity the idea of an Austrian ethnic identity is still not as clear and for the most part the issue is largely ignored. It's true the German-speaking provinces of the old Austrian Empire absorbed many immigrants from non-Germanic regions but the same is true of the modern Federal Republic of Germany where millions of Germans, especially in Eastern Germany and the Ruhr region, have Polish or Czech surnames. Regardless most modern day Austrians share common ancestry with Germans, especially the Bavarians and also share a common language - ancestry and language are probably the most important factors for defining an ethnic group. My point is that when discussing the concept of ethnic Germans it is logical to include Austrians in this category, after all its illogical to say German-speakers in South Tyrol or German-speakers of Sudeten ancestry are ethnic Germans, yet German-speakers in the modern Republic of Austria are largely excluded from this category. Its even more illogical to limit the category of ethnic German to today's Federal Germans. I have no problem with this article but it seem as i said to be largely based on a concept of Austrian nationality rather than ethnicity which is the only logical way to adress this subject.

--Nikostar 15:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I notice here is that it states significant populations in Canada, however I myself being a 10th generation Canadian and currently going to school in an area called Vancouver that many immigrants come to, I have only seen one German person in my whole life in Vancouver, and on the demographics chart of Canada on this website, it shows that there is only one area with significant amount of German people, in the mid south eastern half where former Berlin, Ontario was, which only exists with high amounts of Germans because of previous German settlers. And that itself is speaking of GERMAN people, not AUSTRIAN. Maybe you should check some more facts out, because I'm pretty sure if there is any significant ammounts of Austrians in Canada, they are a severe minority.

[edit] The surname "Austrian"

"Acquaintance carrier"? Followed by a list of people named Österreicher, not "Austrian". Smells like a machine translation. Angr/talk 08:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Although I do speak German, I didn't have much time for a better translation. I edited parts of the article before posting, but quite frankly I wanted to test the interest level in this topic as well. Although it could be worse, it's much lower than I'd have hoped for. I guess that's the fate of small nations, most of them attract only a small group of active editors. Jbetak 10:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austria's Identity

"The overwhelming majority of Austrians today are quite happy to be independent and enjoy their independent national identity with the exception of a few Pan-Germanic diehards and right-wing radicals. Questioning the existence of Austria is more likely to be interpreted as state treason than be greeted with sympathy today." The language presented in this paragraph appears to be too strong and does not respect NPOV.TSO1D 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? the phenomena described in this paragraph clearly correspond to reality. Nahabedere 06:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive re-writing of article

I've decided to "be bold" and overhaul the entire text of this article, as it was pretty much easier to rewrite the whole thing than to try and do all the copy-editing that was needed. I've removed both the POV and the clean-up tags since I don't believe the former to apply any more, and the latter certainly doesn't.

I've tried to keep what was useful from the article as it stood, whilst stripping out a number of inaccuracies and irrelevancies. Of course, I may have introduced some of my own!

Anyway, I hope that what I've done is generally seen as an improvement.

Silverhelm 00:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Encarta

The Encarta reference is groundless and provides no reference to its claims of "ethnic Austrians" or its ludicrous 99% figure for the proprotion of the populaton that is "ethnic Austrian". The article from the German Wikipedia isnt referenced that well either which really goes to show that most of this article is original research and therefore not up to Wikipedia's standards. I don't have time currently to provide detailed discourses on why Austrians are not a distinct unified ethnic group (but a sub-group of Germans in the same sense as Swabians, Bavarians, Saxons, Swiss Germans, etc.) but will in the near future. Ciao, Epf 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Encarta is a recognized electronic encyclopedia and likely more mainstream than Wikipedia. If you consider it ludicrous or unscientific, then suggest its removal. I have included these references because of your valid (albeit pointed) complaint that the article is unreferenced. As such, the entire text is a direct translation from the German Wikipedia and is not based on original research. If you spoke German, I'd suggest that you read the source text and the accompanying talk on de:Österreicher. 216.104.211.5 03:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian Ethnic Group

Although I believe that any 'related ethnic group' box is contentious and rather pointless, I do not agree that Austrians are 'a bunch of Germans'. If, in the United Kingdom people articles, the differences between English and Scottish are long drawn out to drive these peoples further apart, and the notion that they are a 'bunch of Britons' rejected, the fact that the user most known for this viewpoint is now saying the opposite about Germany and Austria, which have only ever been forcefully united in fascism, stuns me cold.Enzedbrit 10:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your paragraph here was pointless and groundless. Just because Scots and English are seen as separate groups obviously has no bearing on the relation between Austrians and Germans. Austrians have much more in commmon with other Germans than do Scots and English and the peoples share all the markers of an ethnic group (shared descent, traditional language, culture, history, etc.) which can not be said with the case of English and Scots. The fact you claim Austria and Germany have "only been united in fascism" just goesto show what credibility your comments have here. Parts of modern day Germany were long part of the Austrian empire before the wars for German reunification and even earlier than that, the Holy Roman Empire was a unification of all the German lands, including both Switzerland and Austria. Epf 04:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EPF, not only are we on different pages of the book, but we're on different worlds. I understand you not, nor could I begin to. You apply different rules to how you regard the judgement of history in both a British context and the German/Austrian one. I say black, and you will say white. You are the perpetual driver of wedges between English and Scottish/Welsh relations/articles on wikipedia. You really need to chill Enzedbrit 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And you're constantly trying to bang the "we're all British gong". Sorry, the Scots, Welsh and Irish all came into "union" because of either invasion or corrupt treaties. By the way, I would refer anyone to "NZ Birt"'s edits on various Celtic articles if they're interested in his constant POV edits, which reflect his disturbed childhood, which involved a traumatic move from England to NZ, and his subsequent identity crisis. --MacRusgail 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Enzedbrit, I don't know what your trying to come across with here. My opinion disagrees with your controversial (in some cases minority) opinons, but so what. I don't see how I am "applying different rules" here since history obviously isn't some uniform set of commands for every people and and every culture to follow. Cultures and peoples have different histories and evolve in many cases differently from each other. I am not trying to drive some "wedge" between the peoples of the British Isles, I am trying to promote the cultural and ethnic distinctiveness of such peoples who are closest to a historically dominant English langauge and culture which has been (in many cases unwillingly) imposed on them. I value diversity, I take a great interest in my own ethno-cultural heritage, which includes Scotland and England and I am as chilled as ever. Ciao, Epf 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
By the same toke one could say that Rex, myself and some other editors are "trying to promote the cultural and ethnic distinctiveness" of what you consider to be a "wider group of Germans", which BTW seems to be a neologism. I believe Rex and I base this on first-hand knowledge of the situation in Europe. I grew up in Germany, in Southern Germany to be correct. I pointed out to you that this article originated from machine translation of an article on German Wikipedia. While you may call it unsourced, based on original research or worse - biased, I'd urge you to realize that there seems to be a number of editors who might agree with this is text as-is. Otherwise it would not have survived on German Wikipedia for so long. Although as it stands, it may not be representative of all POVs, be 100% correct or complete, it's not just a hodge-podge of unverifiable claims and non-facts. It's not something we have written over a beer with a bunch of friends for our entertainment or to push a particular agenda. 192.150.10.200 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no Austrian ethnic group, just as there is no Canadian ethnic group... Ameise -- chat 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And you base this on [...] ? Rex 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Common sense? Ameise -- chat 15:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Come back with sources.Rex 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And where are the sources that say that Austrians are an ethnic group? You are the one making the claim that they are, and it is obvious that you would know, being Dutch. Ameise -- chat 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This is referenced -- please see the CIA Factbook link in the references section. Furthermore, I don't know what being "Dutch" has to do with the ability to form an opinion on this matter. Or would you only consider his opinion if he declared himself to be German based on his ancestry? 71.198.59.81 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not consider his opinion because I have never seen him give me a good opinion on anything. And what you are saying, Herr "I don't want to make a Wikipedia account", comes awefully close to a personal attack. Ameise -- chat 05:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No I believe what you're saying meneer mier, comes close to a personal attack. Like 71.198.59.81 said. We have references: the CIA factbook. Rex 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, liebster Herr Ameise, I don't care for his kind of company, your behavior is clearly out of line. As for your pointed comment, I and only I will determine, if I will return to Wikipedia as an established editor or not. And as long as it attracts and encourages the kind of discourse we're having, it is a not a very appealing place. 192.150.10.200 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook is ONLY a valid refrence for statistics -- it gives absolutely no information into Austrian culture, language, or religion (which is basically the same as German with minor differences) -- hence, it gives no supporting evidence to an Austrian ethnos -- show me actual evidence that Austrian's are their own ethnos, and I will support having the statement that they are their own ethnicity. Give me a REAL source that EXPLAINS how it is an ethnicity, not one that simply lists it as one. I can say that I am of Illinois ethnicity, that doesn't make it true. Ameise -- chat 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, however I hope you'll excuse me, if I won't recognize your authority as the self-appointed expert on the interpretation of facts listed in the CIA Factbook. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most, if not all demographic and country articles on Wikipedia follow it to the letter. There are several reasons for that, which I'm sure were disused at length before. THe Factbook changed the entry for Austrians as recently as two years ago and without wanting to speculate about it, I'm sure that it was for a reason. I empathize with your Illinois (or California) counter example. However, I'm sure that the CIA Factbook is not listing it. I have also included a link to Encarta, which should be a competing electronic encyclopedia and as such should be quotable. 216.104.211.5 21:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
And besides statistics that mention an Austrian Ethnicity, I have simply not seen -any- evidence to back up the claim that Austrians somehow are of different ethnicity than Germans. Ameise -- chat 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
To restate your comment: you don't think that an entry in the CIA Factbook stating that ~ 92% of the population of Austria are "ethnic Austrians" is enough for a reference. You don't think that linking to a government-sponsored publication citing a poll conducted in the 1990s showing that an overwhelming majority of German-speaking Austrians does not consider themselves to be "German" in part or whole is reflective of their ethnic identity. You don't consider the statements of casual Austrian editors on this page to be representative enough. If this is the case, then I'd like to know what exactly you are looking for. 71.198.59.81 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Common cultural, behavioral, linguistic, and/or religious practices that separate the Austrians from the Germans. I'd also point out that the factbook also lists more than 80% of American's ethnicity as 'White', so should we also have a 'White ethnicity/culture' article?Ameise -- chat 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OIC -- here's a start then, I'd also recommend reading Austrian culture, unless you have already looked at it. I understand the comparison you're drawing between the "White" ethnicity, however fail to see how can that put their classification of ~ 92% of the population of Austria as ethnic Austrian into question. Aren't 70% of the US population white? Or are you implying that they would simply make up a term or classification without any real significance? 71.198.59.81 17:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I honestly do not care if 100% of Austrian's state that they are of Austrian ethnicity; that simply means that they misunderstand the difference between Ethnos and Nationality... they simply don't want to be called ethnic Germans, just like the Belgians don't want to be called ethnic Dutch/Flemish or French. Ameise -- chat 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What you just said above is pure speculation. Who does "misunderstand the difference between Ethnos and Nationality"? The authors of the CIA Factbook or 100% of Austrians?
It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't care. You have ignored the link I have provided you in my last comment and you simply revert to repeating your opinion, which I have heard, understood and emphatize with. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but as far as I can tell, you have never been to Austria and have not brought forward anything except for doubts, German national bias and verbal arguments. Although I'm under the impression that might have only turned up here because of your personal argument with Rex, I'm open to discussing this further at a rational level. 216.104.211.5 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence that there is an Austrian ethnicity besides references to one existing. Where is the common language differing from German? Religion? Culture? Behavioral? As far as I can tell most Austrians call themselves Austrians because they don't want to call themselves Germans... it makes as much sense as the Montenegrans calling themselves Montenegran ethnicity (and not nationality) versus Serbian. Ameise -- chat 12:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, that's your opinion and I'm not going to take it from you. However, the article is referenced and reflects the Austrian identity pretty accurately. They do not view themselves only as a separate nation, they came to emphasize the historical, cultural, linguistic differences from other German-speaking peoples much more than the similarities. This is the basis of their modern identity, they don't simply see themselves as a second German state. Now, whether it's justified or not and how that jives with people's opinions, convictions or research is another matter.
We could go an debate how the definition of a German changed over time, cover the entire history of Austrian lands, assimilation of Slavs and other non-Germanic populations, look into linguistic and morphologic differences and we'd still be where were now. You'd say that the differences are not significant enough and I would say that they are. I'd be a matter of opinion and I don't have that much time. Please do yourself a favor, continue learning German, visit all German-speaking countries, spend some time and learn some dialects. Perhaps you will come to appreciate the diversity and rich history Europe has to offer, it certainly will be more satisfying than the trolling you'll witness on Wikipedia. 71.198.59.81 06:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you insinuating that I am a troll? Ameise -- chat 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey -- no I'm not, and I apologize if it appeared that way. I'm merely a bit disappointed with Wikipedia and its ineffective editing processes. 71.198.59.81 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Being an Austrian citizen and a strong opposer of the idea of ethnicity and nationality, I have to agree with Antman/Ameise. There is not way to distinguish between Austrians, Germans, German speaking Swiss people, inhabitants of Liechtenstein and frenchmen (just to pick up a few) on an ethnic basis. The idea of ethnicity is a ridiculous one, as what today is considered Germany and what today is left of Austria, plus parts of France, Liechtenstein and until the Treaty of Westphalia Switzerland and the Netherlands were all part of the SIR (Sacrum Imperium Romanum). And the majority of the inhabitants of the HRR, despite all their differences, shared a language and to some extent culture and traditions. Of course 1866 changed a lot - unification of the former parts of the SIR was suddenly far away. And at latest nationalsocialism made such a unification nothing desirable anymore. Austrian identity existed long before the HRR ended, just as Bavarian or Swabian identity did. And today most Austrians consider themselves a nation (whether you support the concept of nationality or not). Yet, that doesn't mean Austrians form a seperated ethnic group, or all Bundesdeutsche do or all Frenchmen do or any other country in Europe does. --193.171.131.249 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, did not share one culture let alone one language. The concept of ethnicity isn't one based (purely)on genetics or similar. The fact that Austrians have they own dialects, separate history and culture suffices for me.Rex 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I said the majority, not all did! Obviously you have know knowledge about German dialects at all. While e.g. the Tyrolean dialect (part of Austria) is closely related to the Bavarian (Part of Germany) one, the Vorarlbergian Dialect (Part of Austria) is not related to the tyrolean one, as the latter is a bayuwarian dialect and the first (Vorarlbergisch) is an alemannian dialect and therefor related to the Swabian and the Swissgerman dialects. There is no such thing as a seperate and general Austrian German dialect. Ethnicity is indeed a funny thing: It can't have anything to do with genetics, as Europe is one big mix of slawic, germanic tribes, celts, etc. and therefor I claim it's impossible to distinguish between central European peoples on a genetic basis. Secondly Ethnicity can't be based on separate history - or are 140 years of separate history (1866 - 2006 [not counting the 3rd Reich) enough to create two separate ethnicities? The whole ethnicity thing is bullshit, just accept that it's a question of different IDENTITIES, not something rooting in genetic, language or cultural differences, as that is complete nonsense. --193.171.131.249 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Feel free to leave a comment on my German userpage de:Benutzer:Hagenk
I took off the ethnic group box, but if another box is added - one specifically made for nationalities - that would be much better. WilhelmIII 06:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I restored the article to the last concensus version. Wilhelm III, your username indicates you might be pursuing a certain agenda. Please discuss any edits you believe this article needs. 71.198.59.81 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote article

I have rewritten this article as it looked like crap. Rex 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your rewrite looks even more like crap. Its even more unfounded, unsupported and opinionated than the older version. I have reverted. You will have to come to a consensus with me before I can allow such an atrocity to this article and to German people and culture. Epf 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I for one appreciated Rex' attempt to contribute, and although I might not have had time to review it in detail I would like to point out that we presently have two editor opinions against one. You asked me to reference the article, which I did. You then proceed to either ignore or ridicule the references. And although you claim to be an expert, you did noy produce any references to the contrary. You claim not to know any Austrain who does not feel to be a member of larger group of Germans. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that term and can assure you that although most Austrians would agree to identify with other Germanic people, they most certainly do not consider themselves to be Germans or part of a larger groups of Germans.
You claim that this article is unfounded, unsupported and opinionated and use it as a basis for edit warring. I'm not sure if I follow, given that it is virtually identical with its pendant on German Wikipedia and several editors collaborated to clean up the text produced by machine translation. 71.198.59.81 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See below Rex 10:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, no matter what language an article originally translates from. Its ok to not delete it but it needs to be mentioned how it is unverified and uncited. As for my edits, the article needs to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Ciao, Epf 00:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course it needs to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all you did bring to the table was a link to a website maintained by the State Department. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just this does not correspond to the attitude and level of emotional investment (there were two full reverts and two partial reverts in a 22 hour period a month ago) that you seem to have put into it. Don't be more certain than you need to be 192.150.10.200 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrians vs. Germans

Okay Epf, or anyone who agrees with him, please eleborate why the Austrians are "mere" Germans. Rex 10:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm?
Rex 08:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Did I say "mere" Germans ? NO. Are they a more distinct group of Germans than Bavarians or Swabians, etc. ? Highly questionable. Can they form a fully distinct group ? Also highly questonable. Would most who identify as being distinctly "Austrian" also acknowledge their long shared history, shared descent, shared culture and shared langauge with other Germans ? Of course. SO I don't see why we can not have a separate article for Austrians while also acknowleding their close relation to other Germans. Epf 00:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you did. If I may, I'd like to ask you to take a different approach. Consider your editing style; edit warring, hesitancy to engage on talk and unwillingness to work with editors who do not share your POV, albeit an expert one as you keep claiming, might not go down very well. I must admit that this comment would apply to Rex as well, although I believe that he's operating from what he might consider self-evident. I presume that you grew up in North America, even if you claim to pursue a scientific approach, you need to take into account how these people perceive themselves and how they're seen by their neighbors. I'm sure that there are ways we can capture the facts and the diverging POVs, edit warring is unfortunately not one of them. Although Austrians are not considered Germans either by themselves or by people living in Germany proper, we may need to describe how that leads to confusion outside of German-speaking countries, stress their close relationship and other ties. 192.150.10.200 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider my editing style ? Edit warring ? Hesistancy to engage on talk ? Where are you getting this non-sense ? I have discussed it in talk and im not the only one making consistent edits here. The fact is that Austrians are ALSO considered part of the wider German group by both many Germans and many Austrians. This does not mean they are not acknowledging the distinct identity of Austrians, it is just saying that they also recognize the the great degree of ethnic closeness of these peoples which can categorize them into a larger grouping of German peoples. Epf 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your editing style. I believe that you've been removing the ethnic group info box since beginning of July. And unless this edit is yours too, your first comment on talk appeared on August 31. Care to comment why you would not engage in a discussion? We're all reasonable people, or at least so we think.
I have absolutely nothing against stressing the ethnic and cultural closeness of Germans and Austrians. I do object however to the way it's been worded thus far. What troubles me is that a "wider grouping of Germans" seems to be a neologism. There might be better and more established ways of describing the situation and their close relationship. I also object to "they are related and part of", which obviously makes them part of something they are not seeing themselves as belonging to.
I'm sure that if we all work on this, we can find appropriate wording that will satisfy everyone without compromising on clarity and accuracy. 71.198.59.81 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You have absolutely no proof on what "many Germans" and "many Austrians" think. Point is that Austrians are an ethnic group; by definition.
Rex 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is you equally have absolutely no proof saying that Austrians also don't identify with other Germans based on long shared history, shared descent, shared culture, and shared language, all factors in ethnic identification. They are an ethnic group but they are also part of larger grouping of Germans. Epf 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Epf, since you seem to know so much about so many European countries without apparently having ever visited them, let's entertain this as a purely academic discussion for your sake, shall we? Seventy-nine percent of Austrians not recognizing "Germanness" as being one of the attributes of being Austrian by 1990. This Web book is based on public domain material provided by the US government and has been compiled using Coimbra. It is also available as an installable eBook.
Is this good enough for you? Do we need to continue? 71.198.59.81 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the anom IP there -- as an Austria, I can assure you that the feeling of "pan-Germanness" is a fringe opinion held by less than five per cent of Austrians. —Nightstallion (?) 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I kinda resent modern states usurping ethnicity. Austrians are Germans and considered themselves Germans for the millennium before the US and Soviets forced them to be separate states in 1945. In the first half of the 19th century, for instance, Austria - permanent president of the German Confederation - was the yardstick by which German culture was measured. States being separate does not mean ethnic groups are splintered. It's the same kind of logic that means Pakistanis are no longer Indians, or the San Marinese are not Italians. "German" is an ambiguous term; it means both a member of the German speaking nation of central Europe and a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany; Austrians are not German in the latter sense, but German in the former sense. But when it comes down to it, it is blatantly absurd to call Austrians an ethnic group separate from Germans; most Austrians are ethnic-Germans; for instance, historically Austrian emmigrants to the USA registered themselves as Germans, as Austrian was never regarded as a nationality and Austria being no more a separate ethnicity that Swabians, "Prussians", Saxons, Bavarians, etc, etc. But identities themselves are always fluid. Maybe in 100 years time Californians won't think of themselves as Americans, or Parisians as Frenchmen, or Londoners as Englishmen. Maybe Graz will become an independent state and become different from Austrians, and wiki will have Grazians as a separate ethnic group related to both Austrians, Germans and Liechtensteiners. Who knows? Who knows how politics will change ethnicity? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


well it is very easy: if you spread such stories in Austria you will be regarded as a right-extremist or even Nazi Nahabedere 11:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

holy roman empire was not a state like france,germany or austria today. u can compare holy roman empire with eu today. it was a union of several independent states. so austria was only together in one state with germany from 1938 to 1945. not really a long time compared to 1000 years of existence.

austrians called themselves "german" before the idea of nationalism rose in the countries of the holy roman empire. the meaning of "being german" until mid of 19 century has to be translated as "speaking german". in this tradition they were called "germans" during the austrian and later austrian-hungarian empire in order to differ from other speaking citizens. they were austrians speaking german, like austrians speaking czech.("chzechs" at that time) after the first ww many people thought austria couldnt survive alone. so it became an issue. it was finally solved after second ww.

the discussion about when a group of people has a seperate ethnicity is very useless. it only depens on the date u take as basic. examples: one million years ago: ethnicity of all human beings: monkeys. 3000 years ago: most of the people in europe and india are indoeuropeans. about 500: until then all germanic people were speaking one germanic language. all germanic people today would have a germanic ethnicity. about 800 aC(empire of karl the great): all people in austria, switzerland, nehterlands, czech republik,germany,... are french (->Frankenreich). about 1200(holy roman empire): if u take it as one single country(which is wrong): dutch people, czech people, austrians, swiss people, most of italian people are german. or today: austrians are austrians. and so on... obviously most of the poeple here took the time of the holy roman empire as basic for the definition of the ethnicity of austrians. i could take the empire of karl the great as basic. austrians would have a french ethnicity then. so id say it only counts on how people define themselves.

im austrian, i feel as an austrian. i see myself and all other austrians in an own group, totally independent from germans. i feel offended and insulted when someone calls me a german or a part of a german ethnicity. on my point of few all people, who i know in austria feel the same way.this autumn in austrian tv they said that 96% feel the same way. so i think that are enough reasons why austrians have an austrian identity and ethnicity as well as french people, montenegrin poeple or belgian people

(i dont know if i posted it the right way. it was written by Nemoo)


You know, the way I see it, it's quite clear. An ethnic group (to me) consists of the following:

"A group of people, who feel connected to each other and have a common language, history and culture."

The Austrians are a group of people, I do not doubt that they interact with other peoples (after all this is the 21th century), they speak a common language: German. They have a common history (agreed, they share quite a bit with other states, for example Germany, but so does every European ethnic group) and a culture of their own. If Austrians think the same way (which they apparently do) then it doesn't matter what neo-nazis in Germany or a university Student in Toronto think about it ... they will just have to accept it. Rex 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to get for you guys a NPOV compromise, but you revert me and call me a "German nationalist". I'm not even German. If you think the perception of Austrians is important, then work this into the article. But most Austrians are ethnically Germans, and you can't argue with that unless you seek to redefine both historical German-ness and ethnicity. And you can't roll over facts because you don't like them, nor can you call everyone who disagrees with you a "neo-Nazi" or a "German nationalist". Besides anything else, it is a very ungentlemanly way to participate in dialogue and is not likely to endear itself to anyone. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
facts? you simply assert that yourself and ignore what 8 million Austrians say about that; such behavior not only ungentlemanly but it ignores the basic human right to assert one's own ethnicity according to one's own free will. Sorry, you are not talking about facts but about your own fantasy. Nahabedere 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The best compromise was the previous stable version I reverted to, prior to all the edit warring instigated by Rex. Additionaly, having an ethnic box for a nationality- with two (Bohemian) Jews, and a Salzburgian, was very cumbersome and beyond all standardized conventions, not to mention their eras vs. the contemporary usage of the term. Ulritz 20:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting you Calgacus, I must have reverted your edits too when I reverted the edits by the true German nationalist: User:Ulritz. Rex 20:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the version sugegsted by Calgacus, if Austrians are not ethnically distinct from Germans, then they're implicitely Germans, which is not acceptable. I can see how people don't seem to understand or get confused, however, the times where a German speaker was automatically considered to be a "German" are long past. 216.104.211.5 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] right wing

umm, everybody is entitled to their own opinion in a free, democratic society, and just because you are "leftist" or "rightist" doesnt mean you are necessarily a neo-nazi or an extreme communist. Considering Austrians ethnically as German does not mean you are a neo-nazi, or on the extreme right and you can't use such a silly and opinionated statement on Wikipedia, especially when its unsupported by a source. The whole statement (and most of the article) is unsupported by any facts or sources anyhow and Im sure theres many Austrians who would still identify their cultural and/or ethnic identity as German.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.94.172 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you once more carefully read the article, then come back here and show me/us where it says you're a neo-nazi when you believe Germans and Austrians are one and the same thing.Rex 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Rex, although the article does not say anything about neo-nazis, I have left EPF a message explaining how these views came to be regarded as right-wing in both Germany and Austria. I believe that this goes back to their peace treaties following WWII and I put it into that context. I think he might have been upset about that comment.
To clarify, anyone is free to declare themselves to belong to any ethnicity they identify themselves with, that's what one could call a personal freedom. However, if one would like to extend that personal view to everyone in Austria, then it becomes a view currently represented only by the FPÖ, which is recognized as not only right-wing, but extreme right-wing and it earned Austria the honor of an EU ban following its election into a governing coalition a few years ago. 216.104.211.5 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can not use simply your own personal persepective to speak for all Austrians and all Swiss Germans, but it is the varying opinions of all of us as a whole that does matter. You are simply ignorant if you claim that all Austrians and Swiss who consider themselves to identify their ethnic group as also German to automatically belong to extreme right wing. It does not matter if someone who believe such is right-wing , extreme right wing, left wing, whatever, and you cant make such generalized associations as that itself speaks from an authoritarian viewpoint.

There is no need for you provide "pointers" to me, especially from someone such as yourself who has made ignorant opinions and comments. It is common knowledge from anyone in this region that many recognize and take pride in their continuing connnectoin with German culture and identity. Just because Austria and Germany have been separate nations for 50 years or so, does not mean this all of sudden ignores over 1000 years of a common culture, language and identity of the peoples. Your unsourced comments shouldnt be made to be the rule here, I mean who the fuck are you to impose your opinion on others as fact when you have NOTHING to back up what you speaking on ???

  • and who the shit is EPF ???
Please watch your language, though this is an open project, it should not be mistaken for a bathroom wall. Let's discuss this again when you have calmed down. EPF is another user from your locale with similar views and editing style, I'd be more than happy to request a formal sock check if interested. 71.198.59.81 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The autochtone Volkgroups

Where are the autochtone Volkgroups? Those people are also Austrians... Not only the Germans in Austria! There are following Volkgroups in Austria:

  • Germans (about 7,4 mil. people)
  • Slovenes (about 40. - 50.000)
  • Croatians (35.000)
  • Czechs (10. - 15.000)
  • Slovaks (5. - 8.000)
  • Roma and Sinti
  • Jenish (35. - 40.000)
  • Hungarians (20.000)

--85.124.105.6 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a Volksgruppe does not refer to any nationality, the Austrian census simply counts languages. Whether the members of a certain language group consider themselves to be members of a certain nation(ality) is simply an individual private choice. By far the most (appr 95%) of German-speaking Austrians do NOT consider themselves as Germans. It is also a fact that many non-German speaking Austrians DO consider themselves primarily as Austrians (and not e.g., as Slovenes). This is not well reflected in the article. Nahabedere 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freud?

The opening caption under the article title says that the article is about the ethnic Austrians but the picture shows Freud among the examples. Freud, naturally, was an ethnic Jew, not an ethnic Austrian. W.M. O'Quinlan 02:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

During Freuds lifetime the german speaking population of Austria was called "Germans". "Austrians" was the term used for all citizens, no matter, which ethnicity they actually had. Especially Freud considered himself as Austrian (being the citizen of a multi-ethnic state of Austria) and was deeply struck by its dissolution in 1918. "Österreich-Ungarn ist nicht mehr. Anderswo möchte ich nicht leben. Emigration kommt für mich nicht in Frage. Ich werde mit dem Torso weiterleben und mir einbilden, dass er das Ganze ist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.168.80 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you should read the introduction again (especially the beginning and the last sentence), as I dont see any reason why it reduces the article to "ethnic" Austrians (By the way: The concept of seperating people by "ethnics", especially if they are jewish or not, is not widely used in todays Austria, especially because of its abuse by the Nazis. So be carefull with your wording in this context). The problem is, if the short caption BEFORE the introduction is well assigned to this article?-- Rfortner 09:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the caption above the actual body's introduction where it says that the article is about the Austrians as an ethnic group, as opposed to the nationality determined by citizenship. I am aware that it is unfashionable to make distinctions between people of ethnic Austrian heritage and Jewish heritage in modern day Austria, but this has to do with political and social reasons as opposed to the substantive genealogical issues in question (hence I've called for a reference on the last clause of the introduction). Furthermore, the article is categorized under "Ethnic groups in Europe" and doesn't even mention the Jewish diaspora in Austria before or after WWII. Certainly Freud would belong among the major icons of Austrian citizens (perhaps in a history section of the article on Austrian demographics?), but given that there are many other notable Austrians who aren't members of a displaced diaspora population, it seems confusing to put Freud's picture up. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, the last sentence of the introduction (for which you called for a reference) was NOT written by me, but I totally agree with it (so maybe I am a typical Austrian). Its quite hard to set the boundaries for an Austrian ethnic group, as Austria was for a long time in history a "melting pot" for so many different ethnics from central, south and eastern Europa. It was always dominated by germanspeaking people, but not all of them where "Germans"! In the Austrian Monarchie the ethnic belonging was not counted in the census, people where only asked for their mother language (so Jews mostly defined themself as germanspeaking = "deutschsprachig"), for more details see Austria-Hungary. And the concept of national citizenship was first founded in the 20th century.
Back to Freud: He always supported the Jewish community in Vienna, but he didnt care so much about his religion and he didnt emphasize to define himself as "Jewish" (as he was a great critic of ANY kind of religion in general - personally and in his work). Mostly he defined himself as a "Viennese", which was also the reason why he didnt flee the Nazis earlier. He first left Vienna when he allready was forced by the GESTAPO in June 1938.
Back to a general problem: Is "Jewish" more an ethnic group or a religion? Which leads me to the general problem of these whole category of articles: Why do we have to seperate people in Wikipedia by "ethnics"? This concept is allready out-dated, at least here in Austria. -- Rfortner 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the question of a distinct Austrian ethnicity is somewhat problematic. However, this problem in its modern form is largely attributable to the fact that Austrians have sought to distance themselves from Germany since World War II; and the idea of ethnic groups may have fallen into disuse and taboo in present-day Austria, but that doesn't mean that the entire concept is outdated, or that it isn't still useful in certain cases.
A very relevant question in the case of "Austrian ethnicity", as I see it, is whether or not "Austrian" is the best description available for a person's ethnic identity. In the case of Freud, I think the answer is fairly clear. I would think that most Jews identify him as a Jew, whereas they wouldn't say that of, for example, Mozart. This ties into the question you raised of whether "Jewish" describes a religion or an ethnicity. This is also a tricky subject (see Who is a Jew?), and while many hold Judaism to be a defining characteristic of Jewishness, I think very few would dispute the idea that a shared heritage and ancestry is at least somewhat important, and that it is something common to the vast majority of Jews living today(see [[1]]).
In any event, my position is simply that since there are so many other notable Austrians of whom we could put up pictures, we only hurt the article and possibly confuse readers by showing Freud. At the very least, we should hold off on putting his picture up until the question is settled. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Austria didnt start to distance itself from Germany first after WWII, it allready did in the 19th century (especially after the Austrian Empire was founded in 1804 and after the Austro-Prussian War in 1866). The problem in the 20th century was, that so many people in Austria didnt belive, that the rest which was left after 1918 would be able to survive economically (as Austria had lost important parts of its industry and ressources after the treaty of St. Germain). Therefore Austrians unfortunately decided to coope with Germany once again between 1938 and 1945 (also due to military pressure and SS-terror from Nazi-Germany, but some of them did voluntary), but that doesnt cancel the developments in the 19th century.
As I already stated above, Freud would have described himself more as an Austrian than as a Jew, which was only a less important fact for himself (unfortunately in 1938 it became an important fact for others who forced him to leave the country). Therefore I think he is well placed in such an article about Austrians.
But Freud is not my major problem, as your comment has raised a topic which is even more important: Does this article make sense, particularly its opening caption? Because the article itself ist called Austrians, and the introduction also supports this title. In contrast, the caption tries to state an Austrian ethnic group, which is - from my point of view - argueable (as well as the link to the Austrian demographie). ...?!? -- Rfortner 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that the question of Austrian ethnicity begins after WWII, only that it was reintroduced in a modern form after WWII in which even people descended from German-speaking families no longer identified as being in any meaningful sense German (whereas before the fall of Nazi Germany, a large part did--the Anschluβ couldn't have happened the way it did if it had only been for economical reasons, but I don't want to get sidetracked on this issue). Like you said earlier, Austria (or rather Austria-Hungary) was home to many different peoples (I'll point out that you even used the term "ethnic groups" to describe them--which seems to contradict your argument about ethnicity being meaningless or outdated), but the 19th Article of the Austria-Hungarian Constitution didn't say that this meant that there was one Austrian or Austrian-Hungarian ethnic group; in fact, it said the opposite: that each of these groups had inviolable rights to preserve their independent identities.
Thus, when you say that Freud would have described himself more as an Austrian than as a Jew, it seems you are suggesting that he not only disagreed with the general culture (as indicated by Article 19 of the A-H constitution), but that he held highly anachronistic views on ethnicity and nationality. But at any rate, that is only a part of the question; self-identification is not the only criterion for ethnicity.
So you can say that Freud is not a major problem for you, but I was the one who originally asked the question and it is still in need of an answer as far as I am concerned; I guess I'll wait to hear some more opinions, though. Also, your problem is apparently with Wikipedia and the validity of the ethnic group as a topic for an encyclopedia article; to this, I can only suggest that you are in the minority in thinking that ethnicity is entirely outdated or useless or indefensible. If you are convinced that Wikipedia has no business or interest in writing articles about different ethnic groups, I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page of the ethnic group article, and then we could maybe get more at the heart of this issue. W.M. O'Quinlan 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Lets forget about Freud and come to the important discussion: I said that its quite arguable to write an article about an "Austrian ethnic group", thats also what the final words of the introduction say. Forget the time of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, as the TODAY concept of nationality and citizenship wasnt well established at this time. So what I say is: The article itself, its title and its introduction are quite fine. Only the caption and its categorisation as an "ethnic group" is problematic. I would propose to delete this. Then it is an article purely about Austrians without any problematic missunderstandings. And the other article about Austrian demography could be well integrated in this one. Voila! Rfortner

That sounds like a good idea, as long as we can tactfully merge this material with the article on Austrian demographics (since this article standing on its own doesn't conform to any Wikipedia template or article type that I'm familiar with. For instance, there is an article about the Russian ethnic group and there is an article about Russian demographics, but not an article about citizens of Russia, past and present--which is analogous to what this article would be for Austria.) So I agree with you about removing the opening caption--I realize that speaking of an Austrian ethnic group makes little sense (not to be confused with speaking of ethnic groups in general). W.M. O'Quinlan 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Freud did not consider himself ethnically Austro-German or Austrian and considered himself ethnically Jewish before anything else. An example of this can be seen from the following:

"I hope it is not known to you that I have always held faithfully to our people; and never pretended to be anything but what I am: a Jew from Moravia whose parents come from Austrian Galicia." [2]

Epf (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

This article is/was about an ethnic group. Recently, people who think they are the ones who determin what Austrians have implemented their view ("[...] whatever Austrians say, they're Germans") in this article while providing nothing in support of their views. For example:

even though ethnic identification of who is Austrian is almost impossible, as it is mainly a question of national identity and self-definition.

Rex 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How much do you know about Austria and its history (see History of Austria)? Austria was always a bridge and connexion between
* north and south (e.g. most of nowadays Austria was part of the Roman Empire, while north of Austria there were the Germanic peoples) as well as between
* west and east (especially the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, but also before as the "eastern march" = "marcha Orientalis" = March of Austria and the Archduchy of Austria in the Holy Roman Empire).
Particularly under the 600 years of the House of Habsburg, Austria was always a melting pot for peoples from different ethnic groups, different languages or origin - and the Habsburgs had a very tolerant politic about ethnic groups and language. By the way something, that many Germans from Germany never really understood well and which made Austria also quite "suspicious" for nationalistic Germans that fought for the "purity" of their "german" blood. So forget about the ethnic-group-template and see the people of Austrians as what they are and as what they have to be documented in Wikipedia: Austrians. -- Rfortner 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, what we have here are people who claim Austrians are either Germans, or Germans in denial. What are your thoughts about that?Rex 14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Its a question of semantic as well as of history:
1) Historically Austria and Germany once were very close as they joined a common history in the Holy Roman Empire - and as they speak (nearly) the same language. But about 200 years ago, Austria decided to get more indipendent (again) and the Austrian Empire was found in 1804. After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Austria and other germanspeaking states tried again to form a loose confederation (like the Holy Roman Empire was before), which was called the Deutscher Bund, but in 1866 this try ended again unsuccesfully (as Prussia demonstrated its military power and stepwise forced the other germanspeaking countries to intgrate in the new German Empire which was definitly founded in 1871). Austria did not integrate itself in a German Empire and after a lost battle with Prussia in 1866 it founded the Monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1867. Unfortunately in 1914 Austria decided to cooperate again with Germany and went into World-War I - of which Austria was the real looser as it lost many important parts of its territory in south- and eastern-Europe (compared to this, Germany was treated quite well). Then the first Republic of Austria was founded in 1918 and 1938 the Nazis (which were already well established in Austria) integrated Austria into the Third Reich (with some military force, but there was not much real resistance from the Austrians - mainly due to economic considerations). Ok, and after 1945 the Second Republic of Austria was found and Austrians definitly got in their mind that its better not to merge with Germany again, as this always ended in desaster. Only right-wing politicians (so called "Deutschnationale") still try to convince Austrians, that they are not a nation and should be called Germans (by the way: Jörg Haider does so).
2) The semantic problem: In German, the adjective deutsch (German) was formerly used for people with German Nationality (Deutsche = Germans) as well as a synonym for deutschsprachig (german-speaking). Especially as long as the German Empire was not founded, all Austrians where also called Germans to refer to them as german-speaking. But since 1945, the distinction between deutschsprachig and deutsch is made more frequently and conciously (especially in Austria) to display the difference between the Nationality (Germans or Austrians) and the (nearly) common language (even when there is Austrian German (like British English). Ok, and the same problem applies in English: You can say Austrians are germanspeaking (People, Country, ...) but you cannot (anymore) call them german. Clear? -- Rfortner 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one who needs convincing on this matter, I believe Austrians aren't Germans. Point is there are people out there who are convinced Austrians started to exist when Nazi Germany lost the war, and that despite what austrians say, they're still Germans.Rex 08:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Where are such people? Bring them to me, so I can attend to them and treat them the right way ;-) ... Seriously: There will always be some right-wing people who try to propagate thoughts about a well-defined race or ethnic group of "Germans" (see Pan-Germanism), but after two (lost) world-wars the majority of people in Austrian and Germany have learned their lesson. Even the people in Germany (Germans) itself are maybe not one well-defined "ethnic" group which soley traces back to the Germanic peoples, as there had been influences from the Celts as well as from the Slavic peoples and other groups. So honestly I believe, that the concept of splitting Europe into well-defined ethnic-groups is a little bit out of date (Especially for Austria, as we where always used to merge different groups and cultures, even when there was admittedly a mostly germanspeaking environment). -- Rfortner 10:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
They can be found at Germans (which lists austrians as Germans) and of course their views can also be found here, in this article.Rex 10:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm, maybe I should revise this article when my master thesis is finished. My problem is that I dont know what for a native-speaker in English the semantic differences between "german", "germanic" and "germanspeaking" really mean. And it is quite complicated to explain the changeful history of attraction and rejection between Austrians and Germans (and unfortunately Nazi-Germany did a lot of "education" to ban the memories to good old Ostarrîchi and the March of Austria). -- Rfortner 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think this issue is arising simply because we are trying to apply the Wikipedia Ethnic Groups template to a population that isn't ethnic, and we don't create articles simply about the citizens of a country (unless it's about demographics). I'm not sure what all English-speakers think of the differences between those related words you have given, Rfortner, but I think the confusion is at least in part coming up because you say in Austria the concept of ethnicity is outdated (which seems very puzzling to me). Anyway, my understanding of them goes like this: "German" (when not talking about the language) generally means ethnic German (see Ethnic Germans for some clarification, though in my opinion that article is not very good), as distinguished from, for instance, the Irish people, the Basque people, the Roma people, etc. "Germanic" to me denotes two closely related things depending on the context: first, it is a "super-ethnic" group comprised of the descendants of the early European tribes such as the Franks, the Anglo-Saxons, the Flemish, the Visigoths, etc.; these groups have modern descendants as the Germans, the English, the Dutch, etc. The second context is linguistic; thus, in this case, "Germanic" describes a family of Indo-European languages that were/are spoken by the aforementioned peoples (e.g. Dutch, German, English, Norse, etc.). "German-speaking" is generally independent of ethnicity, so it simply refers to native-speakers of German (e.g. immigrants from Turkey or Southern Europe). This issue of ethnicity can be confusing (especially in central/east Europe), but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

And just out of curiosity, what's your thesis about? W.M. O'Quinlan 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, for the factual content of your posting I need some time to reflect it before answering to it (but mainly I dont understand why it should not be possible to have an article about Austrians, even when they are not a homogenus ethnic group? Especially because the distinction from the Germans is so tricky, that there is a real need for such an article).
But to your last question: My (master) thesis (not PhD) is quite far away from this about a current question in Software Project Management: The Requirements Management among client stakeholders and its manifold problems (especially when there is no broad consenus among them). -- Rfortner 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What would be ideal, I think, is if we could cite good sources that specifically deal with Austrian ethnicity, the problems of determining Austrian ethnicity, the influence of Pan-Germanism and Hitler, etc., instead of just trying to condense information from a wide range of sources that aren't really directly concerned with the history and development of past and present conceptions of what an "Austrian" is. I think a good rule of thumb for whether or not something merits its own WP article is whether or not it has been directly addressed in respectable publications by qualified commentators. W.M. O'Quinlan 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you need to differentiate between an ethnic group and a nation. Austrians can be used in both ways. Ethnicity isn't the same as citizenship. Another thing is that 'ethnos' is a very broad subject, there are no fixed rules. But please answer the following questions:
  • Do you think there is a thing such as 'Austrian culture'?
  • What do you think of the Slovene minority in Austria? Are they different (and different does not hold any negative connotations here) from the 'rest'.
  • Could you form a group out of that 'rest'? What are their charactaristics?
  • In what place were you born, in which place was your father born, and in which place was your grandfather born?.Rex 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Those are precisely the kinds of questions I think are relevant to this article; Rfortner and I had a discussion earlier over my objections to Freud's picture being used as an example of an Austrian (my position was, and is still, that regardless of whether or not there is such a thing as Austrian ethnicity, unless you define the Austrian ethnic group as being of Jewish or part Jewish derivation, Freud's ethnicity was better described as Jewish). At that point, I had taken it on assumption that there was a distinct Austrian ethnicity, which I now don't think to be the case. You are quite right in saying that there is a difference between citizenship and ethnicity, though I don't think it is accurate to say that there are no fixed rules in determining which one is which.
To answer your questions though:
(1) Yes I think there is a distinctive Austrian culture--personally, by virtue of the shared language, I consider it to be a part of a larger class of German regional cultures (for instance, Bavarian culture can be distinguished from Prussian, but they are both essentially German), perhaps with notable influence from neighboring eastern countries.
(2) I think that the fact that you can identify and single out a group from the general Austrian population for consideration seems to answer its own question; in other words, if they are Slovenes, then they probably aren't "ethnic" Austrians.
(3) I don't think you could form one meaningful group out of all the non-Slovene population in Austria, but perhaps you could identify other distinct populations within it (e.g. a German segment, a Hungarian segment, a Czech segment, etc.)...I really don't know enough about present-day Austrian culture to know if there are such distinctions to be made.
(4) I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this question is. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A big problem with the Austrians is that they regarded themselves and were regarded as "Germans" until the 20th century. If you go through sources with a microscope hoping to find Austrians distinguished from "Germans" before that you're simply going to be wasting your time. Problem of course is that "German" today is usually understood by everyone but historians as referring to people from the Federal Republic of Germany without too much reference to ethnicity, which leads to lots of anachronistic disputes (everything called "German" or "Germany" in the past is seen as pertaining to the Federal Republic of Germany as exclusive from the Republic of Austria). But having said that, "Ethnic group" is surely too historically and linguistically based a term to make Austrians one. An Austrian is just someone from the Republic of Austria, and that Republic, like FRG and like most states in the world, is just a state claiming sovereignty over a random territory irrespective of the real ethnic map. Yes it is unfortunate that the term "German" is associated so strongly with one ethnic-German state, but surely the English language is flexible enough to deal with this without leading to absurdities like "Related ethnic groups: Germans (especially Bavarians)" which will have most neutral educated people gasping in distain. And yes, ethnic groups are a lot about self-identification, but there's no way that "German Austrians" as they are so often called (note that btw) are regarded by most Austrians, let alone most scholars or most people, as an ethnic group distinct from "Germans". Austrian is simply not an ethnic group as most people understand there term. Like it or not, call it backward if you want, when you say the term "ethnic German" you're not checking their birth certificate to check what side of the BRG's borders they were born in, you're thinking about the language and historical heritage attributed to all German-speaking people in central Europe and beyond; if nothing else, millions of Americans of "ethnic German" descent actually come from Austria, and came from there before there was any Austria versus Germany distinction. Calling Austrians an "ethnic group" simply destroys the meaning of ethnic group, it doesn't make the Austrians (now ancient Austria people) like the Welsh, the Greeks, or in point of fact the Germans (pre-20th cent. attempted change in meaning), all peoples whose ethnic identity was perceived and accepted well before and without reference to any state. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting write-up. Just to be clear, you don't have to check someone's birth certificate to see if someone is an Austrian. This is usually pretty apparent from their accent, vocabulary, habits and attitudes. In my experience, the same can be said of German-speaking Swiss. It's pretty tough to misidentify them given their heavily accented German that often relies on local vocabulary and linguistic constructs than on the codified Hochdeutsch (High German).
It's interesting that the views of the diverse origins of German-speaking people you just described are indeed characteristic of many English speakers. I hope you don't mind me saying, but it reminds me of what I saw in GErmany when I lived there. Many people would regularly call the UK "England" and think that all of its inhabitants had to logically be called "English". While this attitude is understandable to some extent, I'm sure that it would not bemuse people in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. I hope that you forgive me that I'm relying on this somewhat lame comparison and I'm sure that many people would be up in arms and argue that this is a poor comparison because of the different historical, cultural and linguistic developments in both regions.
What I'm trying to say is that in my mind many English speakers are (still) ignorant of the developments in the German-speaking parts of Europe. This article reflects a widely accepted fact and common attitude in that part of Europe and it's astonishing that many Americans and Britons alike jut can't accept it for what it is and prefer to cling onto their simplistic and outdated understanding of that corner of Europe. I believe that this is at the core of the heated arguing and stubborn threading of water we've witnessed here. Cheers 24.5.28.31 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Pndapetzim, your diffuse posting is off topic, as we already clarified the question, that Austrians should not be covered as an "Ethnic group" (By the way: Even Germany doesnt consist of ONE unifique ethnic group which leads us once again to the question if the concept of ethnic groups isnt out-of-date or should be reconcidered in its nowadays use). So you should read the complete discussion before answering. And stop immediatly to say that Austrians are NOW called "German Austrians" (I think you mean the term "Deutschösterreicher") as NOWADAYS only right-wing politicians like Jörg Haider and supporters of Pan-Germanism do so (instead, you can call them "germanspeaking Austrians" = "deutschsprachige Österreicher") The last time the term was widely used was in the Third Reich. I hope this happened unconciously and doesnt reflect your political orientation.
For the rest: Currently I dont have time to translate all the sources from the germanspeaking Wiki for you all (about Austrian Culture that exists of course, like Austrian cuisine, etc....), so I hope that you all here can speak German to see these sources. If not, please wait till I have finished my thesis. By the way: In some decades this discussion will be completely out-of-date, like discussing today if the germanspeaking part of Switzerland ever was part of "Germany" (as Switzerland was also part of the Holy Roman Empire before it got its independence - good for them that they did this mainly in 1648, quite long before the right-wing Pan-Germanism could try to occupy them). -- Rfortner 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic groups arent a dated concept, but I suppose you're confusing ethnic group with all the pan-movements and all those other 19th century crap the German Empire came up with.Rex 18:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This is preposterous Rex. German identity existed hundreds of years before your bogey-man the German Empire, and the tautologously named Pan-Germanist movement existed before the that "German Empire". Can you see the problem with your statements now? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about any identity I'm taling about the difference between words like "Imperial Germans" and "volksdeutsch" and ethnicity.Rex 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are you talking about that specifically? Also, how often do you normally interact with psychics? I don't have that much experience, and will apologize for the lack of psychic powers you seemingly expect of people. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, you've completely lost me. What are you talking about? Or better still, what do you think I am talking about? I have no idea what you mean by 'phychics' ... Rex 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I can only guess but maybe he wants to demonstrate to you, that he doesnt take you (respectively your arguments) seriously at all. And it sounds a little bit offending, but thats not my business, I am quite glad when we can keep the discussion on the topic of the relevance and content of an article in Wikipedia about Austrians (and their manifold origins). -- Rfortner 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No I want top know what I've supposably said with which he disagrees.Rex 09:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not clarified. The article still portrays them as an ethnic group distinct from, presumably, ethnic Germans. Regard to "German Austrians", the term is entirely innocent in the English-speaking when it is used and is not politically aligned in any way. In Austria, because the ideology has moved a certain way it is probably natural that the political extremes should be distinctive in preserving its use ... that's pretty commonly how it happens. You should also remember that ideologies become associated with the "extreme", its because the middle ground has alienated and isolated them. "Pan-Germanism" of course was not an extreme in the 19th century, and its existence, partly as a result of romanticism and "nationalism", partly as a result of the break up of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, should not be used to cloud the natural development of "Pan-German" (i.e. German) identity in the earlier period. With regards to the Federal Republic of Germany ("Germany"), sure there are lots of ethnic groups there, as there are in all European countries. What's the point of that assertion? I'm just standing up for common usage and sense, not any ideology of which I care little. And the German ethnic group, which predates pan-Germanism (itself a redundant and semi-tautologous phrase in the historical context), itself consists of multiple ethnic groups who, despite the fact their identity has been eroding in the last 200 years, have existed for centuries and whose existence was never seen as exclusive of [Pan-]German ethnicity. You will find that strikingly revealed in settlement charters designed to attract and confirm settlers and their possessions in the lands "beyond the Elbe and Oder" in the Central Middle Ages, where often the settlers are addressed as "Saxons, Bavarians, Flemings" etc, but described collectively as "Germans". Such a concept is only difficult to deal with if you can't escapte from the intellectual clutches of the quite recent idea that states and "Nationality" are tied and thus "nationality" is mutually exclusive of another nationality. These are fallacies not held by me, so you don't need to bring them up. At any rate, the article is still misleading, and it certainly hasn't been clarified just because you and your mate have agreed with each other. Try to remember that wikipedia is larger than that in future. Also, sorry for my diffuseness. Can't help it I guess, just a personal problem. But I promise I will try to keep it down if you do the same with your emotionally charged rantings. Deal? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm, you didnt react to the Switzerland-example, which is still quite a good example for the process that Austria is going through (with some time-delay).
The other problem is, that in the 19th century the "German questions" (de:Deutsche Frage) was an upcoming topic and dominated the peoples minds (and also the literature) for such a long time that maybe some peoples minds are still influenced by it (this movement propagated to unified all germanspeaking countries). But already in 1804 (Founding of Austrian Empire) and at least in 1866 (Battle of Königgrätz) from the side of Austria this "German question" was definitly decided (and allready before the Austrian chancelor Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg had refused ideas of the german nationalists to split Austria in germanspeaking and a non-germanspeaking part to completely unify the germanspeaking part with Germany in the Deutscher Bund). Even in the First World-War it was clear, that Austria and Germany fought together as two "chummy" nations, but they were still independent nations and countries. It were the Nazis who brought up again the idea of unifying Germany and Austria. So once again: Switzerland is a quite good example :-) -- Rfortner 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It were the Nazis who brought up again the idea of unifying Germany and Austria. This is not true. The wikipedia article about Austrian history states that in 1919 both Austrian politicians and a majority of the people supported unification with Germany Barlotto 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Freud of ethnic Autro-German heritage ?

  • I know Freud was born and raised inAustria, but id he have any ethnic German/Austrian heritage or descent ? Obviously he was at least partially of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, but was he also Austrian/German ? If not then we should remove his picture from the ethnic infobox. Epf (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Freud was Austrian, but not German. Nahabedere (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
He was born in Moravia, not Austria, although Moravia was at the time under a political union under Austria. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slovaks

Are the Slovaks really a related people? Czechs obviously are, the two groups have been interacting for over a thousand years, but Slovaks weren't really all that close and during the times of AuH (and for many centuries before) they were an integral part of the Hungarian portion, not the Austrian. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Related Ethnic Groups

Here some new source on this issue: [3]. I cite: "The people on the other side of the border remain close cousins. Vienna's telephone book is full of names that hail from farther south and east, and many Austrian citizens still speak the languages that go with the names. It is said that half of them have relatives in the countries of the old Habsburg empire. They share the same culture and find it easy to do business together. They work just as hard as the Germans or the Swiss, but they are also more relaxed and less pernickety." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahabedere (talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is no historical or scientific source, it's just an journalistic opinion. And I'm not sure that most Austrians regard the peoples on the other side of their east borders as cousins (and vice versa). Perhaps that's an minority position of Habsburg-nostalgic people. --217.226.146.72 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There simply is no scientific way of assessing ethnic relatedness. The Economist is one of the world's most respected weeklies, and the article the opionion of an independent outside viewer. And btw. I am personally strongly anti-habsburg. Nahabedere (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no independent opinion in that article, it is just reproducing some clichés. The theory that the Austrians and the Czechs (taking them as a pars pro toto for all named ethnic groups) are related is based mainly on two arguments: The first one refers to the fact that especially in Vienna there is a relative great amount of people with Czech surenames. That's obviously an very biologistic argument. But if you start arguing biologistic, you can't ignore the fact that the most Austrians have German surenames, they obviously would be far more related to the Germans than to the Czechs or Hungarians or the Slovene people. Besides, you would have agree to the piont of view that the Czechs are related to the German people, because there are many Czechs with German surenames, even so important national heros like Josef Jungmann. The second argument is that all these people lived together in the Habsburg empire. I think that this is also an very poor argument because as the common man begun to take part in the political life of the state, the empire started to be an conglomerate consisting of national and ethnic conflicts, which showed that these people did NOT have enough in common to live in the same state. The third argument is very amusing, because you can't really discuss seriously about it: Austrians und Czechs share the same "Mentalität". Beside the fact that you can't proof this in any way it is a very Vienny-centered cliché. Yet the regional clichés of Tyrol or other Western parts of Austria are completely different. So I don't see where the Economist does argue seriously in that case. He just not trying to question the slogans and keywords he is reproducing. --217.226.134.70 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it can be your own personal point of view that what the article says is a (wrong) cliche and not an independent opinion. But I assume that you know the Wiki rules (cite sources instead of personal point of view or original research). So we should reflect what the article says.
And btw. I am NOT from the east of Austria (and definitely not from Vienna), you are just trying to put people into your own set of cliches. I just have a lot of personal experiences with living and traveling in several central European countries, and these experiences support my opinion, but of course, for Wikipedia, this is irrelevant Nahabedere (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And btw. (again not directly relevant for the article), I agree that the Czechs are related to the Germans (in my experience, maybe even more than the Austrians). Nahabedere (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you really present this Economist-article as source for the argument that Austrians and Czechs are ethnic related groups? What would you say if anyone would present this Stern-article, which was published not many years ago, which presented Austria under Chancellor Schüssel as the "better Germany" because of good economic data? Of course, that would be absurd. But you are doing the same, just with an opposed line of impact. --217.226.150.171 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I really present this Economist-article as source for the argument that Austrians and Czechs are ethnic related groups. The title of the Stern article obviously is a figure of speach and no factual assertion whatsoever. Nahabedere (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If the Stern-article obviously makes no factual assertion, the Economist-article just presents obviously journalistic smalltalk and no serious or scientific argument on ethnic relationship. --217.226.139.186 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That is your subjective judgement. Of course you are can do this. However, in Wikipedia we have to reflect existing sources and not our subjective judgements. These are the rules of Wikipedia, sorry. End of the discussion. Nahabedere (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's absurd. If I would start an independent internet newspaper (which requires nothing more than a homepage) in which I state that the Austrians are ethnic related to the Thai people because they share the same mentality and so on, would you add the Thai because of this new "source"? Of course, the economist has more reputation, but not in the field of ethnology. If you really insist on this economist-article, I will really do it and then the Austrians will be part of a very great but exclusive family - but i think that you won't accept your own rules in that case. --217.226.130.221 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The economist is NOT just another internet newspaper. It is one of the world's most respected, if not THE most respected weekly. Do you doubt that? Nahabedere (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't confuse respected weeklies with the Holy Bible. They just present the opinions of journalists, not the ultimative truth. The Economist is no scientific publication and in this article, the author presents nothing but an lukewarm feeling to confirm his statement, that Austrians and the other mentioned people are related. But because it's the great Economist, this more than sufficient for you. I doubt that you trust all of the Economist's statements so submissive. :-) --217.226.136.42 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure this is not the ultimate source. You are very welcome to present better ones. But up to now this is the best we have, and we have to respect that. Nahabedere (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Languages & Related Ethnic Groups

A few statements to my changes:

Languages: CIA Factbook says there are 91.1 percent Austrians; 88,6 percent speak German, the rest Croatian (official in Burgenland) … Slovene, official in Carinthia, and Hungarian, official in Burgenland…

Ethnic groups: “An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits.” – see wiki article for references. All mentioned related ethnic groups accord to (some) of these criteria.

Adolf Hitler: - Born: Austro-Hungarian Empire - Served for Germany in ww1 - Became a German citizen in 1932 - For sure denied an Austrian nation and identity – would have never identified himself as an Austrian - But most important – should not be the first association someone gets when he reads about Austrians. Not really a person to be proud of. kr mv 3. April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.131.39 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Current CIA factbook refers to the Austrian census of 2001. But this census does simply not contain information about the ethnic groups of Austria, the factbook had taken the information about the amount of Austrian and foreign citizens and put it under the label "ethnic groups", which is simply wrong. You can go and check the data, because the Austrian census is online. The factbook confuses citizenship (data shown in the census) with ethnicity. And, a few years ago, the factbook listed over 90% ethnic Germans in Austria. Were all these people wiped out without any evidence? ;-) So you can see, that the "factbook" is not serious. And for the second point: The census and the factbook containing information about the languages which were spoken in Austria but not about the languages which were spoken by the Austrians. So your calculations make no sense.

Now about the ethnic groups: I never argued that the Czechs or the Hungarians are not ethnic groups, I just said that they are not ethnic related to the Austrians.

About Hitler: You may erease him from the photo-section (although he was indeed Austrian). I'm against all your other changes, but this editing is acceptable for me. --217.226.162.228 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that kind of arguing – criticising other sources but not bringing in own ones. Things change, nations arise, people develop and the CIA Factbook seems to keep in touch. Once again – your US Department source denies the existence of Austrians (where do you think they get their data from?). That makes the whole article senseless and denies what over 7 million Austrians say (probably it will be changed into Austrians soon anyway). But as long as you don’t confirm your explanations (which are very often wrong) with sources, for me they are personal opinions and the discussion ends here. kr mv, 23:50 03. April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.131.39 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not stay in touch because it confuses data about citizenship with data about ethnicity. Nochmal: The Austrian census does not contain information about ethnicity, but this census is quoted as source by the "factbook". And please bring a source for your statement that 7 Million Austrians think that they are ethnic related to Hungarians and Czechs. Thats absurd. --217.226.162.228 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No sources from your side again? I didn’t say that over 7 million people in Austria think that they are ethnic related to Hungarians and Czechs. I said over 7 million Austrians say that they are not Germans (see article for sources) – you interpret me wrong consciously. I don’t have much time, but the http://www.weltalmanach.de/ (the book) also distinct between citizenship and ethnicity and says the same as CIA Factbook. I will integrate the data next week. By the way – what makes you able to define which source is good or bad? You are not giving sources at all – so stop editing the article. Kr, mv 85.124.93.2 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing that the Austrians are related to Czechs and Hungarians and so you (!) have to bring sources. You are just arguing if the Austrians are Germans or not, which is simply not the point in question. Besides that, the factbook is a weak source because it takes its data from the official Austrian census but confuses data about citizenship with data about ethnicity. I'm very interested on which source the Weltalmanach's data is based. ;-) But, again, this has nothing to to with your reverts, because neither the Weltalmanach nor the factbook say that the Austrians are ethnic related to the people in question. So your reverts are not based on serious sources and have to be deleted. --217.226.184.194 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm Austrian, but we are not Czechs and Hungarians in our ethnicity! Only 2-3% of all Austrians are Czechs and Hungarians, over 7 million people in Austria are Bavarians, 300.000 are Alemanics - socalled german speaking Austrians and sometimes called German-Austrians ore Germans by language.--85.127.55.65 (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Differnce between austrians and germans

Hey, I see it already been discussed, but may be that someone can find a more parsimonies explanation: what is the difference between austrians and germans, and how is it bigger than the difference between germans from eastern germany to those of west germany. The all idea that austrians are "totally" different from germans sound, to say the least, very shaky for me.--Gilisa (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Austrians see themselves as Austrians, Germans as Germans. You don't want to go back to those pre-1945 notions of "German blood", "German soil", don't you? Nahabedere (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, do you? but it is not a possibility, I think that if germany and austria will return now to those days it will result with their own literally end sooner then they will expect. anyway, even if the austrians see themselves as being different from germans they still have to indicate in what exactly they are, so it will be objectivly valid and not a matter of different times/politics-I don't see any notable difference- so for me, as someone who look on it from distance, austrians are germans and vice versa- it is not like that austrians and germans are somehow relate to each other in the same way that Italian and Spanish people do. And why did you go straight to the blood??? it is not only the genes they share, but also the culture, language, history, food and etc-actually everything that is a part of the definition of ethnicity (which not consider citizenship), they even share the same soil when it comes to towns at the german-austrian (open) border. Anyway, you didn't answer my question.--Gilisa (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Gilisa -- did you read through the discussion on this page? The very question you are asking has been discussed at length here. The bottom line is that ethnic identity is as much a matter of self definition as it is a result of common and distinguishing hereditary traits, culture, language and its customs. You say that you don't see much difference between Austrians and Germans. And I say that before I had a chance to live in an English speaking environment I didn't really understand what the differences were between the English, Scots, Welsh and even the Irish. That may come as shocking to some but ethnic identity is often perceived through the language spoken in a country and through its customs. The truth is that the lands and peoples that make up the UK today appeared fairly homogeneous to me as an outsider who had limited understanding of English and its nuances. Now I know better and realize that the differences are significant and that the perceived homogenity of those lands and peoples was caused by my limited understanding of the language they spoke, their cultural, historical, and morphological differences. And last but not least, their self perception and identity. I was not aware of this because I did not speak the language well enough and did not have a chance to talk, observe and understand the peoples of those lands and countries.
These things we fairly unimportant to me as an outsider. I'd argue that the same is true of many countries that some point or other codified German or variation of standard German. By extension this also applies to all the countries, kingdoms, principalities, and lands that used to make up the Holy Roman Empire.
A similar, although probably less valid, comparison could be made between the US and Canada. To most people they are the same. Their cities and towns probably even look the same to a casual visitor. However, their identities, roots, customs, culture and even language are different enough for us to speak of two separate countries and for their residents not to consider to be identical with their neighbors across the border. Far from it, you will find quite a few people on either side of the border that will defend their Americanness and Canadianness vehemently. The US and Canada are not a particularly good example because it could be argued that they are multiethnic due to recent and ongoing immigration. However, it this example does highlight that a sense of identity can form independently of common hereditary and distinguishing features. It shows that common history, culture and customs can be quite important as well.
It's a fine line for sure and often it's not an obvious one or even one that can be easily defended against a different POV. Ultimately, it should be be the privilege of a group of people to define their own identity. If the Slovaks don't want to be Czechs, the Scots don't want to be English, the Ukrainians don't want to be Russians and the Swiss, Dutch and Austrians don't want to be Germans, then perhaps we should accept their reasons for not wanting such designators to be bestowed upon them. Wouldn't you agree? 98.210.188.48 (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)