Talk:Bruno Kreisky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Bruno Kreisky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] older entries

"Conservatives hold Kreisky responsible for, as they see it, Austria's subsequent economic difficulties."

I added "as they see it" because Austria is often listed among the richest countries in the world, so the "economic difficulties" are really of minor importance. --KF 20:37, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] A warning

From User talk:213.162.65.14:

TM, please reconsider messing around with one of Wikipedia's featured articles. The ridiculous edit war at Wolfgang Schüssel is bad enough, but this is too much. Let me refer you to Adam Carr, who wrote the major part of the article. Please use talk pages before making substantial ideological changes to articles. <KF> 17:41, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A response

The article written by Adam Carr was balanced and fair. But the additions of KF make it unbalanced.

To make it more balanced I did:

1. Correct a fact: Kreisky did just promise to shorten the mandatory military service to six months. But after the election it was cut just to eight months (if it was done at once) or six months plus eight weeks later on. The real cut to six months was proposed now (2004) by a military reform comission headed by Helmut Zilk and is proposed for being done (I think) 2006.

2. The second last paragraph of KF is just pure propaganda. A paragraph starting with

Today, Kreisky's premiership is still the subject of controversy.´

should really mention critical points of Kreisky's premiership. But what follows is just something which looks like "a prayer to the god of Kreisky". In fact not only Kreisky opponents but also many of his former followers see him now very critical. The reasons for the controversy (tax raises, bigger deficits, more bureaucracy, etc.) are not mentioned in KFs paragraph. Such political propaganda belongs in the homepage of the SPÖ, but not in an independend wikipedia.

KF seems to be a 100% political follower of the SPÖ. He seems to remove every critical view of his party comrades. For members of other parties he does it just the other way round (just critic points and nothing positive is mentioned).

Because KF insists to make just unbalanced statements and removes every critic view of his "comrade" I consider the article with KFs changes unbalanced.

I make a last try to balance the article with the following paragraph: But also many of Kreisky former followers see him now very critical. His reforms did cost a lot of money and some of them had to be withdrawn later on because of financial reasons. During Kreisky's premiership the taxes where raised significant and deficits grew bigger. The number of lifelong officials (which cannot be quitted by the gouvernment) and the bureaucracy grew drastically. A lot of money was given to gouvernment owned companys which just made losses. With todays knowledge we see also: Under Kreisky was the right time to create a fair pension system for younger people. But Kreisky and his successors did not touch the pension system for around 20 years.

In hope vor a politically neutral wikipedia which contains no left-, right- or other political propaganda, but just facts.

Greetings TM

[edit] Reply to TM (and TM's answer to this reply included)

TM, please calm down. And don't make a fool of yourself by generalizing and exaggerating things. I do not write "pure propaganda". But let me answer each of your points separately to show you that I take your objections seriously:

  • The article written by Adam Carr was balanced and fair. But the additions of KF make it unbalanced.
Anyone can look up the changes I made in the edit history. Anyone can see for themselves that this is not true. For example, I added the snippet about Kreisky's way with journalists and political opponents, especially during live broadcasts. Everyone agrees today that Josef Taus's personality did not come across favourably during that first TV confrontation; he even said so himself decades later. Why does this make the article unbalanced?
  • To make it more balanced I did:

1. Correct a fact:

Kreisky did just promise to shorten the mandatory military service to six months. But after the election it was cut just to eight months (if it was done at once) or six months plus eight weeks later on. The real cut to six months was proposed now (2004) by a military reform comission headed by Helmut Zilk and is proposed for being done (I think) 2006.
I'll comment on this point later (see below).

2. The second last paragraph of KF is just pure propaganda. A paragraph starting with "Today, Kreisky's premiership is still the subject of controversy." should really mention critical points of Kreisky's premiership. But what follows is just something which looks like "a prayer to the god of Kreisky". In fact not only Kreisky opponents but also many of his former followers see him now very critical. The reasons for the controversy (tax raises, bigger deficits, more bureaucracy, etc.) are not mentioned in KFs paragraph. Such political propaganda belongs in the homepage of the SPÖ, but not in an independend wikipedia.

What do you want? I add the pros and cons, not in one, but, for the sake of clarity, in two paragraphs, and you criticize that one of the two lists the pros ("a prayer to the God of Kreisky")?
TM: Then "Kreisky's premiership is still the subject of controversy" should be a (small) headline (otherwise you search for the controversy in the wrong paragraph).
  • KF seems to be a 100% political follower of the SPÖ. He seems to remove every critical view of his party comrades. For members of other parties he does it just the other way round (just critic points and nothing positive is mentioned).
Oh yeah, Gusi is my greatest buddy. Freundschaft!
TM: :-)
  • Because KF insists to make just unbalanced statements and removes every critic view of his "comrade" I consider the article with KFs changes unbalanced.
  • I make a last try to balance the article with the following paragraph:
But also many of Kreisky former followers see him now very critical. His reforms did cost a lot of money and some of them had to be withdrawn later on because of financial reasons. During Kreisky's premiership the taxes where raised significant and deficits grew bigger. The number of lifelong officials (which cannot be quitted by the gouvernment) and the bureaucracy grew drastically. A lot of money was given to gouvernment owned companys which just made losses. With todays knowledge we see also: Under Kreisky was the right time to create a fair pension system for younger people. But Kreisky and his successors did not touch the pension system for around 20 years.
  • In hope vor a politically neutral wikipedia which contains no left-, right- or other political propaganda, but just facts.
Greetings TM

On TM's (User: 213.162.65.14's) December 3, 2004 comment at Talk:Wolfgang Schüssel (and TM's answer to this reply included):

  • KF, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY REVERT CHANGES OF OTHER PEOPLE
I do not "generally revert changes of other people". I once (as in "on one occasion only") reverted your changes to the Bruno Kreisky article because I think they were detrimental to a very good, and balanced, "featured" article, i.e. an article that had gone through a stage of peer approval.
There is hardly any hierarchy here at Wikipedia, so anyone, including anonymous users, have the "right" to revert changes if they feel this is necessary. However, if you want to press the point, I am specifically entitled to revert what is usually referred to as "vandalism" in my capacity as administrator, and I will continue doing that job, whether you like it or not.
  • KF, it is obvious that in the political area you have by far no "Neutral point of view". For all politicans of the SPÖ you add praises of their politics and want to remove all critical points while for politicans of the ÖVP you want just to mention critical points.
First of all I must say I'm glad that this is the impression you got. For example, I personally consider Viktor Klima one of the most stupid and incompetent politicians that have ever appeared in the Austrian political arena. (I even hated his looks, with those XXXL teeth sticking out of his mouth.) When I wrote his biography I of course tried to suppress my prejudice, and I take your comment as proof that it worked. For details, have a look at the "writing for the enemy" concept.
Secondly, if A criticizes B for publishing biased writing and vice versa, why not step back and let a third party finish the job or decide who is "right"? I have suggested this particular course of action several times now, the only problem being that, on a global scale, Austrian politicians are such unimportant figures that no one from the English-speaking world wants to have a look at those articles. Let's keep on waiting.
  • Examples of critical points ommited at Kreisky's page:
    • Kreiskys first gouvernment was silently supported by the FPÖ which was headed at that time by a former member of the SS. Kreisky just said: "I decide who is a NAZI".
True. Should/Could be added. I don't know why it is not already there, but two reasons appear logical: (a) Adam Carr, who wrote the biography, did not know. Or, much more likely, (b) he did know but chose not to mention it because what he was writing was an encyclopaedia article rather than a monograph on Kreisky.
    • Kreisky did not reduce the military service to six months. He promised to do this before an election and after the election reduced it to eight months (when done at once) or six months plus eight weeks later on. As I mentioned elsewhere the real reduction to six months was proposed by a commission headed by Helmut Zilk and is sceduled by Schüssel for (I think) 2006.
So what? Why would that be important?
TM: If Kreisky really had reduced the military service to six months, the reduction sceduled now would not be necessary. So if both reductions are mentioned they should contain the real and not the promised numbers. And second: It is also a good example of an election promise (I know, done by all politicans).
    • Kreisky ignored a voting of 1.3 million people (Volksabstimmung) aggainst the "Konferenzzentrum" (1.3 million people is by far the all time high of this sort of votings). This gave all later gouvernment's excuses to ignore such votings.
Even if this is true, I think the sentence, "Voters were reacting against what they saw as Kreisky's complacency and preoccupation with international issues" says it all. You just can't go into greater detail in an encyclopaedia article.
TM: Excuse me, it was a "Volksbegehren" (my fault). I guess you are to young to remember (not your fault), but "the ignoring of the voters will" by Kreisky (for a "Volksbegehren" you have to show your passport and write your name and address) is really true and should be seen in the context of the protests aggainst Schüssel (both politicans refer to their majority in the parlament and the majority voters (I know: In the case of Schüssel there is a coalition). So if a big picture and a lot of text about protesters is shown at Schüssels page, the weak points of Kreisky (in this case ignoring 1,3 millon voters of the "Konferenzzentrum Volksbegehren") should at least be mentioned.
If you did, you would probably confuse readers from, say, the United Kingdom or Finland. Just have a look at the biographies of James Callaghan and Kalevi Sorsa, which are relatively short.
TM: If praises for a person are added, critical points should be added as well.
    • Kreisky not only raised a lot of taxes (for example the "Umsatzsteuer" which was 8% in the year 1970 and was raised by Kreisky to 10%) but also invented whole new taxes like the "Luxussteuer" (30% on cars for example) which also is not mentioned.
But in spite of that more and more people could afford more and more things so most of them didn't really mind. Also, the idea of a Luxussteuer is appealing, isn't it: If you want to live in luxury, by all means go ahead if (a) you have the money and (b) your conscience is not protesting, but don't expect tax deductions for it.
TM: If you can afford more and have to pay more taxes the total effect is not so big. This is the politic of taking money from your right pocket and giving money to your left pocket. The critic is: If the gifts of Kreisky have been smaller, the tax raises could have been avoided.
TM: Of course there are pro and contra arguments for the "Luxussteuer" but this are not facts, but depend on your point of view. The EU does not allow such tax and most people do not see a car as luxury.
Again, this is irrelevant in an encyclopaedia article.
TM: You see massive tax raises as irrelevant. Can it be that you do not pay tax? Introducing of study fees you see as extremely bad (Just to show my POV: I also think they should be avoided). But this is something depending on the point of view. A student sees study fees as bad and a employee sees the income taxes ("Lohnsteuer") as too high. (Btw. Schüssel did raise several fees, but the income taxes remaind unchanged) Conclusion: Mention Tax and fee raises in the same detail for all politicans (when mentioning positive things) or omit all tax and fee raises. There is no distinction between good (left party) and bad (right party) tax or fee raises.
    • Kreisky's politic of supporting gouvernment owned companys (vor example VÖST) with lots of money (deficit spending) did just postpone worker layoffs for a few years and was done before elections. After Kreisky this politic had to be stopped because of financial reasions. The subsequent economic problems (which in your opinion do not exist) where layoffs in the supported companys, which where necessary, in the time after Kreisky. So the enormous sums given to companys had only a short effect on the employment but a very long and negative effect on the budgets.
One of the richest countries in the world cannot have serious "economic problems". Let's adopt a global perspective, shall we? While Austria has lots of problems, they are nothing to do with the economy of the country.
TM: I did not write of serious economic problems. But if you loose your job it is serious for you. The heavy industry shrinked at the end of the Kreisky area and there where big layoffs. This has nothing to do with a country beeing rich or not. If you loose your job, you want it back or something new and probably do not care about the country beeing rich. Kreisky tried to avoid layoffs by giving money to gouvernment owned companys. If you praise Kreisky for this, you should also write how it worked out: For the huge amounts of money only a short postpone of the layoffs could be reached. His approach just did not work very well (other countrys took a different and more successful approach: E.g.: Giving the money to new growing industries instead of a dying one). And this funding was only done for companys with close connections to the gouvernment, For layoffs in privately owned companys Kreisky did not care very much. The fact that Kreisky gave only money to "red" companys and before elections is also a good example for an election gift (I know other politicans ... ).
    • You insist that the raises of fees that Schüssels gouvernment did and all the protests aggainst them should be mentioned in detail, while the heavy tax raises of Kreisky's time should not be mentioned.
As I pointed out above, in the 1970s people did not experience any particular feelings of deprivation. Rather the opposite was true: Study fees were abolished, for Christ's sake, not re-introduced. The only parallel I can see is that Herta Firnberg was just as haughty as Minister as Elisabeth Gehrer is today.
TM: If somebody feels deprivated or not depends totally on the point of view. In your point of view there was no deprivation under Kreisky (certainly not NPOV). I guess the name "Mallorca-Paket" is unknown to you. Older people know: Kreisky invented several of them, and they contained a lot of fee and tax raises. I guess the "Sparbuchsteuer" is also unknown to you. The good Kreisky who did not make mistakes and had just gifts and never raised taxes is just a dream of his hard core followers. To your denying of Kreiskys tax, fee and deficit raises I can only cite him: "Lernen Sie Geschichte" (In english: learn history).
  • KF, this are just some examples which come into my mind quickly, but they show that your point of view (in the political area) is by far not neutral.
  • This leads to the following conclusion:

KF, when you start to generally remove all my changes, I have to mark some of this pages as having no "Neutral point of view". I hope this is not necessary, but when neccessary I will do this very carefully and document all the reasons for this decision.

Think about it again before doing anything rash: This project here is about writing rather than rewriting history. All the best, <KF> 12:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
TM: I will follow your advice and calm down. Btw.: What is writing and what is rewriting depends also on the point of view. By mentioning or omitting facts an article can get a tendency towards a certain point of view without containing any POV statements.
TM: Kreisky once said: "The rule that you tell just good things about dead people is not to be used for politicans." Greetings TM

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kreisky 1935.jpg

Image:Kreisky 1935.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)