Talk:Engelbert Dollfuß

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

Contents 1 Economic reform 2 Neutrality / Rumours 3 it's ß, not ss 4 Citations 5 Article self-contradiction (height) 6 This article included major POV statements 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion

[edit] Economic reform

He initiated a programme of economic reform ...doesn't everybody "initiate a programme of economic reform" even a new pope? This entry is unusually opaque. Must be something there under the surface. Wetman 03:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"In May 1934 Dollfuss proclaimed a new constitution modelled on that of Fascist Italy."

Was it? As far as I know, it was simply based on Catholic socio-political teaching, if anything.

"In order to install the so-called austro-fascist dictatorship,"

So-called by whom? No historian or political scientist that I know of, certainly.Vincent-D 23:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To the present day, Dollfuß has always been a highly controversial figure. The German term Austrofaschismus gets 8,730 Google hits, and Austro-Fascism 392, so there are people who use that term, and it can be found in practically all history books dealing with the interwar years in Austria. However, there is no reason for Martg76 to, as he/she calls it, "revert vandalism" if someone just calls Dollfuß Bundeskanzler, which he was. You shouldn't do that. <KF> 18:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

can be found in practically all history books dealing with the interwar years in Austria. I have a degree, I'm working on my Master's, and no it can't. It's not quite a Wikipedia invention, but it's nowhere near that universal. At scholar Google it gets 19 hits[1] (Regular Google is going to be more enamored of sloppy ahistorical renamings so is not reliable here) "Engelbert Dollfuss" gets 111 hits at Scholar Google.[2] "Engelbert Dollfuss" "Fascist" however does get 61 hits[3]. So I'm not objecting to it being termed a kind of Fascism. (Although I think it might be an exaggeration) I'm largely just being pedantic. Austro-Fascism is a description of his brand, but it's not the most common one or universally accepted in historical circles. In general I've seen him described as authoritarian or "like Italian-Fascism", without any effort to give his brand its own name. As he seems not to have ruled for very long not giving his version a unique name seems justified.--T. Anthony 14:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm coming at this from an Anglo-centric (Which may be no bad thing, in terms of objectivity.) point of view here, but people seem to be throwing around the F-word without any real substantiation. The fact that the German variant of the term throws up so many more results on Google - and the English term so few - is perhaps telling.

I'd actually argue that the Dolfuss regime probably has hardly any basis for being called 'Fascist' - certainly no more than Portugal under Salazar, for instance, and all the articles regarding that subject make it clear that while having Fascist overtones, the exact extent to which the regime can be called 'Fascist' is arguable - and therefore the unqualified use of the term in the article should be removed. To be honest, the whole range of articles dealing with this area need to be made more neutral. Political Catholicism, for instance, in the Austro-Fascist article proper is described as "Clerical Fascism" - a term loaded with bias and plenty of room for it being disputed, IMHO. -Vincent-D 03:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, irrespective of whether the term Fascism is warrented, the term Austrofascism is commonly used for the regime and thus necessarily needs to be included in the articles dealing with that topic here. Even the AEIOU Encyclopedia has an entry for it ([4]). That site is maintained by the Austrian Ministry of Education, which has hardly been a stronghold of left-wing politics during the past years. Furthermore, the Austrofascism article even now has a section on critcism of the term, which you are more than welcome to improve. With respect to Clerical Fascism, that section of the article was simply a translation of the German Wikipedia. You are of course invited to clarify things as you see fit. The criticism section there is not from the German Wikipedia. Martg76 05:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe "vandalism" is too strong language, let's calm down. However, I didn't really see a reason for the edit by User:PMelvilleAustin, who only removed information which (as you state) is certainly relevant for Dollfuss' historical role. Certainly the nature of state and government changed significantly under his and Kurt Schuschnigg's rule. Just to give a rather symbolical example, under the Austro-fascist constitution, Austria was no longer a Republic, but its official name was Bundesstaat Österreich. Martg76 18:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I said some time ago that this article needs a major rewrite. So let's hope someone will do that and include all the necessary and relevant information. It may be difficult for those not familiar with Austrian/European history to understand how someone can be a "fascist" and at the same time oppose the Nazis. Also, as you say, the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the constitution of 1934 need to be mentioned in some detail. <KF> 23:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I edited out the note because we don't have such notes in the Chancellor of Germany box for Hitler or Papen who were a dictator and authoritarian respectively - i was merely bringing it in line with the German Chancellor's infobox. PMA 09:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know, and I do hope that this is no reason for an edit war. All the best, <KF> 11:50, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I hope so - and that Marty can understand. PMA 18:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality / Rumours

The following line in the article appears very much to be an anti-OeVP bit of information : It is rumoured that his portrait still hangs in the ÖVP headquarters. This is highly unlikely, as it would be of questionable legality under the current legal conditions in Austria. It seems to be, for the most part, included as an insult against the OeVP by implying that they are fascist. I shall refrain from removing it yet, if any one wants to disagree and debate this. If no one does, I'll remove the line in a few days, keeping it here on the talk page so that any one can discuss it and add it back later if they want. Beobach972 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Without a good source, it can be looked on as POV slander against the Austrian People's Party. You definitely have a reason to remove it. Picaroon9288 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in case you forgot, I'll do it. Picaroon9288 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beobach972 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That´s no rumour, that´s a fact. Wich I should know because I´m from Austria and there are enough pictures in newspapers to prove it. Try this for a start http://no-racism.net/article/890/

Tomaschek Markus, Austria, 11 July 2006

Well, I have never seen any newspaper pictures showing the portrait of Dollfuß hanging in the ÖVP headquarter. On the other hand the legal conditions in Austria do not forbid it neither and I think, without having any prove at hand, it is actually hanging in the party's parliamentary office. Gugganij 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it's ß, not ss

Can we please shange his name to 'Dolfuß'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1950salvador (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

No! Read the rules... 201.19.209.143 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do it on the german language wikipedia. --NEMT 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, no one named Engelbert Dollfuss ever existed. Only someone named Engelbert Dolfuß. Its just wrong. If Novak Đoković gets a page title with those funny letters, the ß should be allowed, as long as this is used:
. --DerRichter (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article has zero citations. For someone who has learned about this in school but not researched it, it sounds pretty true. But thats not what wikipedia is about. There needs to be at least some unenthusiastic attempt to cite sources in the article. Also, there are two heights given for Dolfuß but also no citation. I think this article is in a sad state right now, but could be really accurate with some effort. --DerRichter 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article self-contradiction (height)

The "Early Life" section has his height at 150 cm. The "Trivia" section has his height at 155 cm. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article included major POV statements

I removed the most obvious POV statements, but there are many more things that have been added during the last months that are both uncited and are apparently wrong. Mostly somebody tried to distort history into the direction that Dollfuss wasn't a dictator and had "no choice" in eliminating democracy in Austria. Etc. Etc. The article is also in serious need of more citations and additional clean-up. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Engelbert Dollfuß → Engelbert Dollfuss — I don't have a strong opinion either way, but this was moved recently without consensus and I'd like to establish the preferred title with more certainty. (For the record, from what I can tell, "Dollfuss" predominates in English-language sources.) —Biruitorul ^Talk 14:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose per my discussion below. Additionally, the redirect helps any and all who cannot type in certain diacritics. --DerRichter (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly support This is how English writers spell the subject of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support preferably ASCII only titles are best for usability. As this isn't even an English letter, it's unacceptable, and not a diacritic. Keeping the eszett is racist and shows preferential treatment for Germans as opposed to everyone else in the world. English-only educated people are more likely to know Greek lettering than eszett, so why are Greek titles not in Greek? That eszett represents the German sounds better applies even more to Arabic. 70.51.10.197 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't go overboard: "keeping the eszett is racist" is absurdly hyperbolic. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Definitely hyperbole; but based on this WP:POINT violation; this argument is keeping the Germans up with the South Slavs, whether that be racist or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow- okay I am really sorry I got involved in this discussion. I do not want to be involved with that kind of ethnic nationalism stuff, Pmanderson. My only point was that this move was made when the foreignchar template was deleted, something that happened because the nominator forgot to place a notification on the page. Additionally I see there should have been a discussion when someone moved this page from Dollfuss to Dollfuß last time as well. So no matter where this poll goes, I think the page could be reverted to Dollfuss before we discuss anything else. I just gave my position, but forget about it. 70.51.10.197, you may argue on the diacritic talk page about whether it is one or not. I did not mean to offend. --DerRichter (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. In any case, you posted long ago, irritated by a silly decision since reversed. Your opinion is always welcome; but do remember that English isn't German: our standard of correctitude is (English) usage, even with foreign names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose as ASCII only titles are best as re-directs, and the real name should be the name of the article. This is the age of Unicode, folks. -- Evertype·✆ 00:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The spelling Dollfuß works perfectly well in an English-language context, so there is no reason to change it, unlike what is the case with, say, Persian or Japanese names. Libary (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support This issue is already addressed in the naming conventions with the example of Franz Josef Strauss, not Franz Josef Strauß (which is a redirect). I can see using ß where not doing so could cause ambiguity, but the end of a word ain't one of them. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

Perhaps (no doubt to the chagrin of some) this could be the starting point for a general discussion on use in titles of the eszett (ß) and other Latin alphabet "extensions" which are different from Letters with diacritics. See Talk:ß#List of articles with ß for some examples of other similar articles. Currently, some discussion about diacritics is occurring at WT:Use diacritics and WT:UE#Diacritcs and this policy. — AjaxSmack 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have included:
  ‹ The template below (Foreignchar) is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. ›

The title of this article contains the character ß. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Dollfuss.
This was a part of the article before this nomination, and is back on this page now. It was gone for only a short while, and that is when this move discussion began. The template was only deleted (then later reviewed) because the person who nominated it for deletion did not place a tag on the template page. I think it is very helpful, and if there was ever any confusion about ß, this template clears that up. --DerRichter (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, not another "general discussion" of the esszett. We've had enough of them; they always divide between

• those who say it's correct in German, whether or not it's ever used in English.
• those who abhor foreign squiggles, of which this is indeed one of the most confusing. Monoglot anglophones will not read this as ss; some of them will read it as b.

As a compromise between these extreme positions, we have established practice to use ß when it is commonly used in English, or there is no common usage in English. The second is not the case here; the Austrian government of the 1930's is fairly widely discussed in English, and it is my belief that Dollfuss is normal. Evidence, which neither of the warring sides usually provides, will be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See for example the New Cambridge Modern History, which uses Dollfuss in text or index; they would use ß if they happened to quote German text containing his name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the Columbia Encyclopedia: Engelbert Dollfuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"We have established practice to use ß when it is commonly used in English, or there is no common usage in English." That is generally my sentiment too. Is that codified somewhere? — AjaxSmack 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This move discussion could do with some more input, so I've asked a few other users to join in. Libary (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)