Talk:Austrians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Austrians historically regarded as Germans

I've added sources sorry can't "edit" other topic hope it's okay now, removed German Confederation and official language spoken in Austria as it is irrelevant

As mentioned at Talk:Austrians#"Sources", none of the sources make the claims you are adding to the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even in the article itself even states there considered themselves Germans and them sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordi2011 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are not listening, which is why despite having this message posted to your talk page you proceeded to make this edit. If you had attempted to discuss your edits before making them as requested on multiple times, you would have found out that this source is a self-published source and not reliable, and appears to be a mirror of our own Pan-Germanism article. O Fenian (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that putting that German being the official language in Austria and part of German Confederation is irrelevant but even the article itself says Austrians still considered themselves Germans and before I added extras like the language and German Confederation it used to be something along the lines of :

Historically, due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, German-speaking Austrians were regarded as Germans but after the founding of the German Empire, World War 2 and Nazism Austrians have developed their own distinct identity.

Why can that not be added again? The Austrian article itself even tells you it.

I don't want to edit no more without asking don't want to be perm blocked.

You wouldn't need to put German-speaking Austrians as that is 99.9% of Austrians seeing as it is the countries first language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nufc2011 (talk • contribs)

Of course it is true that "historically, German-speaking Austrians were regarded as Germans". Say for about 400 years, 1400-1800. At least if you are careful with terminology (what do the English nouns Austrians and Germans mean here, exactly?). They aren't now.

Be aware that Germans comes into use in English about 1350, meaning "German-speaking population of the Holy Roman Empire". At that time, and for another 300 years, there wasn't even a noun Austrians. That noun appears about 1650. So for the period of 1350 to 1650, it is difficult to say that "Austrians were considered Germans" because the term "Austrians" didn't exist in the first place, and it is meaningless to even discuss "Austrians" for times prior to the 17th century. In the period of 1650 to 1800, things become interesting, and it may in some sense be claimed that "Austrians" were a subset of "Germans". Between say 1800 to 1945, you get the Pan-Germanism issue, and it becomes disputed whether "Austrians are Germans". After 1945, it is clearly the mainstream view that Austrians are a group apart from Germans. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

'Austrians' have been 'German' since they came into existence, at least as an extension of being Bavarian; and at least the time of the Moravian Slavs, who passed their word for Nemci into Magyar. There is undoubtedly a diachronic conceptual continuum between how they are first distinguish themselves from Walha and Slavs and how they thought of themselves c. 1800. Austrians are the inhabitants of the margravate then duchy of Austria. They were a kind of Bavarian, then just one political grouping of Deutch/Netmci/Teutonici. Austrian in its current sense is recent, in that it referred only to people in the duchy as a extension of being in the duchy (and thus didn't include Styrians, Salzburgers and so on). In the 19th century there was no doubt that Austrians were Germans, just whether or not Austria could be in a new German state; it was only questioned because Austria had a large empire, not because people thought it wasn't German. If anything the problem was the opposite; what was the difference between Austria and Germany? The Ottomans referred to both [what we would regard as] the Holy Roman Empire AND Austria as Nemçe, borrowing the Slavic word for Germany (so Berlin was in Austria according to translators of Ottoman documents!). It's comfortingly easy to backdate Austria as a core identity of the Hapsburg Empire, but in reality Austria comes about only because of the decline of the Hapsburg Empire, the rump German Austria left after the Great War; and then because the Soviets and Americans said they had to be different to quiet future German threats to themselves. Austrian/German distinction can be better traced to the political machinations of Stalin's mind than to the minds of pre-Great War 'Austrians'. Incidentally, the traditional English word for the Germans is 'Dutch'; 'German' is a more recent Latinate borrowing speakers have found convenient because of the separate identity of the Netherlandic 'Germans', though 'Dutch' survives in use in Pennsylvania and in terms like 'Dutch courage' and 'double Dutch'.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Before editing can I just discuss it first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordi2011 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

O'Fenian I understand you blocked me before on 'Geordi2011' can I please just have a new clean sheet on this name and before making big edits discuss it like on this one before editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So is there going to be any addition to the top that Austrians were regarded as Germans but after 1945 the identity of an Austrian has changed to some degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is putting something like Historically, due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German being the official language in Austria. German-speaking Austrians were regarded as Germans. Following the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2 and Nazism Austrians have developed their own separate distinct identity. good enough? Something has to be said about them being historically regarded as Germans it is necessary so people understand the new Austrian nation and separate identity from Germans.

I firmly believe that what was on before should stay there.

Historically, due to Austria's common history and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, Austrians were historically regarded as Germans. Following the founding of the German Empire in 1871, and after World War II and Nazism, Austrians have now made their own distinct and separate identity.(with references) is that okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Austrians in the past may have considered themselves Germans, but they are not Germans now, they figured out they were different like the Swiss did. All Austrians say and know they are ethnic Austrians. The found their differences from the Germans by their culture and history. Over 90 percent of Austrians say their different. If Austrians are German than the Swiss are German too, or that Scottish are English. Just leave Austrians as a ethnicity they say they are not Germans, so why should we say anything back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.205.210 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Germans

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

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

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

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

Is anyone here really trying to claim that Austrians are not ethnic Germans?--IIIraute (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes me. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other... but Austrians, as sourced in the article, don´t identify as Germans anymore. And I´d love to read some sources about the genetic similarities between Germans and Austrians. Studies I know conclude that genetic differences correlate mainly with geographic distances. In this study for example the genetic structure of Germans is more similar to Dutch and Danish people than to Austrians: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/abs/nature07331.html. Andrej N. B. (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ethnicity is not a matter of choice.--IIIraute (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

the definition of the term ethnicity: ...is relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, and cultural heritage.--IIIraute (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Austrian society supporting the Nazi regime

In the World Wars section, the following phrase has revisionist tendencies: "Though only small portions of Austrian society supported the Nazi regime, the Allied forces treated Austria as a belligerent party in the war and maintained occupation of it after the Nazi capitulation."

With more than 10% of the total population being NSDAP members (therefore, a much higher percentage of the adult population) to talk about "small portions of Austrian society" does not seem to represent the truth.--IIIraute (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I can support that - will you change it? Andrej N. B. (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Austrians are Germans - The Facts

In Austria-Hungary the "Austrians" of today saw themselves as Germans. After WWI "Deutschösterreich" wanted to join the motherland Germany but the winners of the world war forbid it (Anschlussverbot). They even forbid the word "Deutsch-" in the name of Deutschösterreich. In every political party there were politicians who wanted to join Germany. Ignaz Seipel for example said that on both sides of the river Inn is the same nation. He also said that when he is talking about Germans that he means both weimar-republic-Germans and austrian Germans. Dollfuss wanted Austria to be the "better german state". Austria is not only lingually german but also culturally. The Austrians are part of the german lingual and cultural area. So they are ethnic Germans. But why Austrians think that they are an own ethnicity? Because of WWII and because of manipulation through education in schools. If Austria wanted to join Germany after WWII it would have been forbidden too. Many people come with arguments like "When I am in Germany and I speak my language then nobody understands me." These are regional german differences. In the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" we have even more german dialects. If an Austrian is not german because of his dialect then a Saxonian is not german too because they speak Saxonian. Austria is german as same as Liechtenstein, the german territories in Switzerland, Luxemburg (the state and not the district in Belgium) and Eupen-Malmedy. These territories should come together. anonymous 12:01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.176.66 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's me again. I just want to add something. Austrians CAN'T be an ethnic group, because: The difference between Munich and Linz is smaller than between Linz and Innsbruck. So where is your ethnic group? It's just ridiculous.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.176.66 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of difference are you talking about? --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So that's me again. The most visible aspect is the linguistic one. The Austrians do not even have an own austrianwide dialect. the middle bavarian dialects in Upper Austria have more in common with the middle bavarian dialects in Upper Bavaria than with the south bavarian dialects in Tyrol. Real Austrians are real Germans. But you should be happy, because together you are stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.176.66 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler?!

Good heavens! Why should Hitler be mentiond in the photo galery? Where is Stalin in the Russians article? Hitler's also not mentioned in the article about Germans, although he saw himself as one of them. For good reasons: He's been a mass murder! And there was neither a consented Austrian nation nor an ethnicity at that time! As the article says, Austrians have evolved as a nation only in the last decades, why should Hitler be mentiond being one? That would of course also be a reason to delete others like Mozart or Haydn.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

see previous discussion: [1]

The fact is, that you have put Hitlers picture in the article without even discussing it in the fist place and although there's been an older discussion about that measure. On what ground, if i may ask, have you put in that picture and what gives you the right to defend it with an edit war without even responding to my arguments? Your last argument was that Hitler was an ethnic Austrian. Well, i prooved the opposite of it. Show me one serious source that states that there's been an Austrian Ethnicity or Nation before 1945 and you can keep your Hitler if you want to.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And what i also want to know: Why did you claim that Hitler was ethnic Austrian on the 14th of March in this discussion while reverting edits that said, that there is an Austrian ethnicity at all on March 18th? Did you change your mind four times? On the other hand I think that this statement was quite reasonable. --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It was more an issue between Andrej N. B. and Mutt Lunker. I said I was fine with removing Hitler - but you did put Mozarts picture back on the page - [2]. Remove him and use Lorenz - that's fine with me.--IIIraute (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. ...but I hope you do know that your argument lacks any substance[3] - otherwise you should think about deleting almost every person in the article - and start it in 1945. Actually a good point you are making - maybe we should do that. --IIIraute (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A few observations. Stalin is included in the gallery for the appropriate article, Georgian people. Likewise for Austrians pre-1945, should all people born before 1991 be excluded from that gallery? Are you seriously suggesting there are no Austrians before 1945? The gallery will thus just have Arnie and Elfriede Jelinek. Of all the pictures in the gallery, Hitler's would be far and away the most recognisable throughout the world, probably followed by Arnie. Is being the most recognisable pictorial example of the subject not a higly compelling reason for inclusion? Who are you accusing of being a sock puppet and why. Remember, this isn't a vote. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And since (regarding to the creation of this article) ethnicity has now become a matter of choice - we might also have to remove Arni ...because he doesn't even want to be an Austrian.--IIIraute (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The gerneral Problem of the Article is, that it mixes citicenship with nationality and ethnic affiliation. History and statistics show that the intellectual basis for an Austrian nation was layed between the 1920s and 40s, but that only between 1955 and 1965 a majority of Austrians began to feel themselfs as members of a distinct Austrian nation. Of course there were Austrians before 1945, but they were not Austrians in a modern - ethnic, cultural, national - context. Before 1918 you had italian, polish, cech or german speaking Austrians and more. Some of them might have even felt as Austrians, but not as members of a modern Austrian nation. Georgians on the other Hand had an own language and ethnic culture for centuries and felt as one people before they gained independence from the Soviet Union

So if it's the Article about Austrians in every sense you can take Hitler and Mozart, if it isnt you'll have to stay with those who took part in the process of an developing Austrian nation and those who were born after that period. But beside that discussion i strongly resist to show Hitler in the gallery anyways. You are right when you say that he might be the most well know (Ex)austrian citizen, but what does that gallery stand for? By picturing him there you might make the impression, that he's one of the "nation's best sons". I personally was shocked, when I saw him there and I mightn't be the only one. I don't oppose his appearance because I want to keep the picture of the "glorious Austrian nation" clean, not at all. But I think we should consider that we might give a massmurder and his adherents a plattform for their hate propaganda if we show his picture without any explanation and context. I'd say that all nation-ethnic-articles could spare those galleries at all, but since they are a fact that'd be hard to change, I want to make a sugestion for this one:

• Remove Hitler and all those who didn't consider themselves as part of an Austrian nation or were born before 1945 from the gallery.
• Make clear that there are several understandings and meanings of the word "Austrian".
• Choose pictures of modern Austrians for the gallery (Jelinek, Figl, Waldheim, Kreisky, Handke, Bernhard, Nitsch etc.) I know they weren't all born after Austria became a nation, but those who weren't somehow expressed their feelings about Austria being one during their lifetime (read Figls first speach to the National Council in 1945 e. g.).
• Picture other famous people who are considered to be Austrian in an other than the modern way in the article. Thats also the place where we could show a picture of Hitler - and Mozart - with an explanation and within the content, not just the picture itself as it is now seen in the gallery.

The whole thing is not an easy topic and I have to admit, that its also emotional for me, but we should focus on a good and historical accurat solution. I hope i made a step towards it. --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mozart is a particularly bad example, as Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) was born in Salzburg. Salzburg became independent from Bavaria in the late 14th century; then was the seat of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1805, Salzburg was annexed by the Austrian Empire. Mozart died 14 years before the Austrian Empire annexed Salzburg.--IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to most peoples/nations/ethnic groups/citizenships, with not necessarily all of these categories applicable to the grouping in question in some or all contexts. Far from being problematic, as these overlap it's surely more realistic to deal with them together. This article clearly deals with Austrians in the wider sense, not simply citizens of the post war Austrian nation state. It is not mixed up but all-encompassing. There is no need to limit it to "Austrians in a modern - ethnic, cultural, national - context". The term existed and meant something before that. If the article does not reflect the wider and/or earlier meanings, bring your sources and expand/amend it accordingly. So "it's the Article about Austrians in every sense" (so we can) "take Hitler and Mozart".

Your next rationale strikes me as bizarre at best. What does the gallery stand for? Notable examples, pure and simple. To assert that the inclusion of something in Wikipedia asserts a positive value judgement about it is patently ludicrous. Would you like all pictures of nasty things to be excised? Notability does not imply worth. Would you like to see the article on Hitler himself go, in case Wikipedia is seen to be approving him? For a highly notable example of the subject matter, arguably the most notable, not to be shown would seem like a glaring omission. What would it then be but a "picture of the "glorious Austrian nation" clean"?

Please don't allow emotion to cloud your judgement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As you might've seen I didn't write emotionally although i'm a bit disappointed that no one seems to cater to my arguments. Illaurate only talks about Mozart - wich was about 1% of the topic, but well - and you do not understand that i did not mean the gallery to be a presentation line for noble spirits but most people'd do. So tell me: If the Germans article has the same alignment as this one. Why is Hitler not represented there? 1. He saw himself being a German. 2. He was German citicen in the last period of his life. And 3. he even was the German head of government and state. So why isn't he prictured there? Because he's a massmurderer and the greatest criminal within the 20th century! And you want to make him appear uncommented on this page?! Stalin is the only example you can bring. Where ist Pinochet in the article about the Chilean people? Where ist Quisling in the Norwegians article? Not even Mao is pictured in the article about the Han Chinese! But you want Hitler? In the article: yes. In the gallery no! And please respond to my arguments and do not philosophy about Mozart and the history of the Holy Roman Empire... --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up the editors here. I said I am fine with Lorenz. Mozart however, was neither born in Austria, nor was he an ethnic Austrian. That's not philosophy - it is a historical fact.--IIIraute (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

These people and peoples pertain to other articles; argue for their inclusion or otherwise on the relevant talk pages, including Hitler at the German article, if you believe you have a strong case. Let's not be distracted from this being an article about Austrians, so let's stick to Austrians. Your reasoning for excluding Hitler still appears to be that he is notable for very bad things, not that he is not notable, and that some other articles omit potential candidates known for bad things. That simply is not a valid reason. Whether or not other articles are deficient in who they choose to depict is not pertinent here. What is your basis for saying that "most people...mean the gallery to be a presentation line for noble spirits"? That is a dubious claim. Is there a policy on this? You have yourself said this is emotional for you and your arguments are purely emotional appeals that you are hurt, rather than ones that stand rational analysis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you haven't clarified who you are accusing of socking, or have you dropped this accusation? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot recognize, in which kind the photos of all these peoples are composed. So I cannot find the cause, why hitler is located at the first point. His importance was not as a austrian people. Also Schwarzenegger has not importance as austrian governor only perhaps as actor. So I find both are not important with an photo in the box, because they are not the importants people for Austria and as Austrians. --K@rl (Bitte hier antworten) 05:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Karl has a strong point here too: Hitler isn't famous for being Austrian at all. He's famous for being a German dictator. In fact he hated everthing that was Austrian and let the name be whipe out after the Anschluss. He only visited Austria for a few times after he joined the bavarian Army in WW I. Let's face the facts:

• Hitler was an Austrian citizen for 36 years, for his last 20 years he wasn't.
• Hitler lived in Austria for 24 years, for 32 years he didn't.

In his speach at the Heldenplatz in Vienna he called Austria his "Homeland" (Heimat) but also "the German people's oldest Ostmark" ([d]ie älteste Ostmark des deutschen Volkes). He also wrote:

"As my heart never beat for an Austrian monarchy, but only for a German Reich, the hour of the decay of this state could only appear to me as the beginning of the salvation of the German nation."

(Da mein Herz niemals für eine österreichische Monarchie, sondern immer nur für ein Deutsches Reich schlug, konnte mir die Stunde des Zerfalls dieses Staates nur als der Beginn der Erlösung der deutschen Nation erscheinen.)

So the fact that Hitler was an Austrian citizen was nothing important to him. He even plead to be dismissed from the Austrian citicenship in 1925.

And of course it's important what other articles show. This is not a isolated question. So i may ask again:

• Where is Franco?
• Where is Pol Pot?
• Where is Mussolini?
• Where are Breschniew and Churstschow?
• Where is Pétain?
• Where is Mubarak
• Where are father and son Assad?
• Where is Chavez?
• Where are Achmadinejad and Chamenei or even Khomeini?
• Where is Hussein?
• Where are Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il?

This are not isloated rulings, these are creative precedents! And i ment that you start divagating if you only discuss about Mozart. As I said, it's not about emotion its about arguments. (P.S. If socking is your main objective now: User Quadruplet seemed to be only interrested in this topic and then left.)--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

People are not generally famous for being of their nationality or ethnicity. None of these people are famous or notable (more importantly) for being Austrian but are notable for a variety of reasons and happen to be Austrian, hence their inclusion. Notable and Austrian, not notable for being Austrian. Picture galleries would be rather sparse if the latter was the type of criterion.

Your ever-growing list of horrible-people-from-somewhere-else is, as I have indicated, irrelevant to this article unless you can demonstrate that they are being excluded from what might be their pertinent picture gallery by a WP policy or convention to exclude genocidal maniacs. Is there such a policy or convention? If not their inclusion or otherwise in other articles is a matter for the talk pages of those articles.

That Hitler was a pan-German nationalist, with complex feelings about his Austrian-ness and German-ness does not make him not Austrian, particularly as he, as you have said, described it as his homeland. People can have several identities which are not mutually exclusive. The article is not about citizenship.

Socking is not “my main objective” – you tossed that one into the discussion then did nothing to back it up. The user you refer to was editing 3 years ago and it seems like a long shot and a distraction to peg them as a sock in the current debate. What’s more, you seem rather fond of this topic yourself but nobody is wildly accusing you of socking.

What is "divagating"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I just clocked the rather anomalous inclusion of Hugo Chavez in your list. Some of the others in the list have also been elected democratically, if possibly questionably, but I'm not aware of Chavez having committed murders or massacres, or perpetrated genocide. But as I said, that ain't relevant here anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I ment that he wandered from the subject. If you don't know it: Opposition has a hard life in Venezuela.[4] And Hitler was elected too, don't forget that neither. And even if you say that all the arguments that were braught froward in these discussions that opposed the picturing of dubious people in the galery theres one big question left: You say this article isn't about citizenship. In which way was Hitler an Austrian beside his citizenship? But as I see it, it's not arguments that count here. Because all you say is "He was Austrian after all." and "Those examples do not count here." I made a compromise proposal (Put his picture from the galery in the article.) none of you even considered it. I shall rejoin this discussion if anyone comes forward with some new ideas.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave Chavez etc.? That's so far off-topic it really is going to prove fruitless.

Can I ask again, what is the policy basis for "opppos(ing) the picturing of dubious people" in WP galleries in general? I find the notion bizarre. I can't find such a policy and, apparently neither can you since you haven't indicated it despite repeated requests. If you believe there should be such a blanket policy throughout WP, an individual article is not the place to propose it or argue it.

Citizenship is not in any way the sole means of conferring an identity. Besides his citizenship Hitler was from Austria, making him an Austrian whether Austria is regarded, by him or anyone else, as a nation state in its own right or a constituent part of a greater Germany. I am Scottish, I have British citizenship, I do not only have the choice of one or the other.

I'm puzzled as to what the benefit would be of your proposal to move the picture into the article. If it's ok to have him in the article, you may as well have him in the gallery. Unless your aim is to single him out as someone who doesn't really count under your stipulations. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the image in question as its inclusion is obviously highly controversial and far from being useful. This debate is not over, and furthermore I can't see any majority for the inclusion. Let's wait for the outcome, if there will ever be one. Personally I have to say I'm quite doubtful about the motives behind such actions. Studying some respective edits, I'm prone to assume a certain, very questionable agenda. If 'history' is the basis for any argument, then it is rather strange that the image of a Nazi-Fascist massmurderer and dictator was given a 'starring role' in the gallery, right before a composer from the 18th/19th century (Haydn). From much earlier edits I remember users arguing against Austrians as an ethnic group, against Mozart qualified to be called an Austrian, but strongly supporting the inclusion of a Hitler image. There seems to be a political-ideological pattern, and this is certainly not a rationale for contributing to Wikipedia. --Catgut (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me as having a motivation of being an advocate of Hitler? I can't speak for the much earlier edits you talk about and as to whether their agenda may have been dubious; I have given my rationale and will speak to it. I would say the non-inclusion of a picture of a notable (in WP terms) and certainly the most recognisable Austrian is highly, highly contoversial. If you are looking for dubious motives, could this not be seen as the whitewashing of one of the darkest periods of history and the failure to face up to what "Austrians" are in their entirety, warts and all? The article is not a celebration of nice Austrians, it's an encyclopedia article. And once again, this ain't a vote -a majority either way is not the deciding factor. I wasn't aware that the order that pictures appear in a gallery denoted anythng - rank, worth, height, whatever - so I'm perfectly happy for him to be placed in any position you prefer in the the gallery if you think he's currently in the starring role. (Have just quickly tried doing this, the formatting has defeated my limited abilities in this regard - may try again if I have time.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just re-read your comments regarding Hitler being placed before Haydn and finding this strange as I couldn't grasp what you are driving at. Are you saying they should be ordered chronologically ('history' is the basis)? Is there a convention as to how gallery pictures should be ordered? Personally, I'd never given it so much thought. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, do you find anything compelling about any of the arguments as to why Hitler "doesn't count" for this article effectively, or was it more that it was upsetting people but not on the strength of their arguments? Mutt Lunker (talk)

To be blunt: It its quite obvious that you have one single issue here. And that is the inclusion of a Hitler image. This, and your reaction to my words proves this, makes you so nervous that you can't even wait for any consensus. But this is good practice here. If you don't know that, then this is the right moment for you to realize that, as you seem to have problems with the term 'majority'. What consensus is not: you against the rest. You also cannot see any 'convention as to how gallery pictures should be ordered'. Then you will accept the fact that there is also no convention to include and thus promote racist ideologies in the gallery by inserting images of those ideologies' most prominent proponents. Whether images are included or excluded depends on the consensus of the users, otherwise we'd have dozens of images here. Btw, have you already argued for including a Hitler image in the article on Germans? --Catgut (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually serious in flinging around a wild accusation that another editor holds a repellent ideology on the basis that they believe it appropriate to include content regarding a monstrous proponent of that repellent ideology when said happens to be without question the most widely known and, sadly, notable example of the subject of the article? On this logic the inclusion of an image of Hitler (and presumably also the text about him) at the Hitler article also "thus promote(s) racist ideologies". What's more, my "issue" is more that the airbrushing out of this racist mass-murderer appears to be on the basis of an agenda to sanitise a dark aspect which forms a constituency of the article, rather than any convincing argument as to why such a notable example should be excluded. Much as I question the removalists motives I am not leaping to a reductio ad hitlerum conclusion, as you do so swiftly and baselessly. To portray me as the only editor advocating the picture's inclusion against "the rest" is also clearly false as a brief look at the talk history, recent and less recent will show. There is a spectrum of views within each camp (not that all of these definitively fit in one camp or the other) and certainly no more of a consensus to ban the image than to include it; my views are my own. By all means debate with me on a rational basis for the inclusion of the image or not but instead to stoop to the most offensive of ad hominem attacks is disgusting and outrageous. If you have a scrap of decency you will withdraw your accusation and apologise immediately. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand not everyone who supports the inclusion of Hitler ist automatically a Nazi. On the other hand it's not the exlusion of the picture that is highly disputet, it's the inclusion. Stopp edit-waring immedeately! Beside that i agree that the picture should stay removed. --Zoris Trömm (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Until the last 3 days, although there has been rigorous debate about the inclusion or exclusion of the photo of Hitler, in the recent threads at least there are absolutely no grounds to believe anyone is arguing on the basis of being supportive of Hitler's ideology, or anything approaching such a standpoint. In fact to my memory of these posts, all have been highly negative about him. Nobody had been daft enough or cavalier enough to sling around accusations of Nazism at each other. To state that "not everyone who supports the inclusion of Hitler ist automatically a Nazi" is rather backhanded to say the least, effectively saying that a reasonable assumption would be that they are - a ludicrous assertion. If this debate can not be carried out without users baselessly smearing each others as Nazis, that would be appalling and only serve to distract us from the material in dispute, which I would hope everyone would aim to avoid. To say that the inclusion is disputed, not the exclusion, is simply wrong - that is the very nub: there are those that dispute its inclusion, those that dispute its exclusion. I hope I am not misrepresenting User:IIIraute's general stance (in which case please set me straight IIIraute) but they seem fairly relaxed about whether the image is included or not but voiced criticisms of the rationale of some who wished to exclude it - i.e. the exclusion is disputed. I entered the debate on the same basis: I found the arguments for the exclusion of the material questionable; those arguments initially being that a) Hitler is not an Austrian b) that some galleries in similar articles did not include prominent and monstrous examples so the obvious prominent and monstrous example for this article should be actively excluded. To that we seem to be adding c) to include material about something is to promote it. Your characterisation of the removal of the material, my reversion of this and the reversion of my reversion, three full days ago, as an edit war is somewhat hyperbolic. Lastly, you say you agree the picture should be removed but you do not provide the basis for this belief. Without this you are voting, not debating. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

On March 7th User:IIIraute has put in Hitler's picture [5] without debating it and although previous discussions had'nt found a consensus on that topic. As you seem to be quite into following wp-policies, you'll probably know that it's usual to keep a version until the debate has ended - if not please correct me. Apart from that I'd say that - assumed that this article is not about citizenship, as you said - Hitler can not have been an ethnic or national Austrian since there has not been such a thing like the modern Austrian Nation in 1889 or even 1945. But even if you'd say that Hitler was Austrian in some other mysterious way than citizenship or ethnicity, it's just not scientifically appropriate to show him in the gallery, because he wasn't famous for being Austrian but rather famous for being German and a mass murderer. So answer me one question: In which manner was Hitler Austrian aside from being an Austrian citizen until 1925? --Zoris Trömm (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted to you before, to have the criterion for inclusion to be famous for being Austrian is not what we're dealing with here; it would be a narrow category at best, if not empty. Inclusion is on the basis of being notable and an Austrian, an important distinction.

To avoid repetition, I refer you to my previous answers above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

...and Sigmund Freud - being born in what is now the Czech Republic? If Freud is Austrian, Hitler must also have been Austrian[6]. Mozart wasn't even born in the Austrian Empire, yet the Austrians still do claim him as having been an Austrian??? Whatever suits them best...--IIIraute (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If this article is about the Austrians as a modern nation, neither Mozart nor Hitler should be shown in the gallery. Take them all out and show them in the Text within the context if you want. It's ok to picture those persons in the articles about Austria and it's history, but not in the article about a people that is merely 60 years old. If you don't agree with that one could get the impression that you act yourself like you prejudiced the Austrians: Keep Hitler, whatever siuts the best?--Zoris Trömm (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you - but why is Freud still in gallery, or any of the other pre-60 year old history persons?--IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? You and Zoris Trömm agreeing over something doesn't make it a fact. The article's introduction clearly states "Austrians [...] are a nation and ethnic group, consisting of the population of the Republic of Austria and its historical predecessor states [...]". The idea of a nation/ethnic group emerging at one specific point of time (e.g. 1945) seems pretty preposterous to me and so far nobody was able to present any sources supporting it. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. I guess that makes Hitler an Austrian as well. So what's the problem, really?--IIIraute (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's nationality isn't disputed by stating there were no Austrians at all at the time of his birth or before – it is due to his very person and life. Yup, Hitler was born to Austrian parents and maintained Austrian citizenship until 1925, but he all his life denied the existence of an Austrian ethnicity (envisioning himself as "utterly" German) and heavily disliked the idea of an independent Austrian nation (separated from the German one). He moved to Munich in 1913 and therefore spent most of his life in Germany (32 yrs v. 24 in Austria), not to mention where he did everything that now can be considered notable. Please also acknowledge that his own article depicts him as "Austrian-born German politician" and the German counterpart completely spares a national classification within the introduction. So, probably your point of view isn't as universally shared as you might think. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, of course.... so Hitler, who became a German citizen in 1932, renouncing his Austrian citizenship in 1925[7] was not Austrian (Hitler was born/had Austrian citizenship for 36 years, vs. 13 years German citizenship). And Schwarzenegger, how many years did he spend in Austria - didn't he also take another citizenship, leaving the country? Jelinek was born to a Romanian-German mother and Czech Jewish father..... but of course, she is Austrian. Freud was born to jewish Galician parents in the Moravian town of Příbor, now part of the Czech Republic, but of course he is Austrian..... only Hitler, he, is not.--IIIraute (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Schwarzenegger moved aged 21 (younger than Hitler), regards himself as "utterly" American, spent most of his life in the USA (45 vs 21 years). "Please also acknowledge that his own article depicts him as "Austrian-born American politician", not to mention where he did everything that now can be considered notable." --IIIraute (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither Schwarzenegger nor Jelinek are the subject of debate here, coming up with them makes your reasoning seem a bit POINTy. By the way, as far as Schwarzenegger is concerned, I totally agree with you (I'd favour Hitler's description, "Austrian-born X", for him as well), but Jelinek isn't comparable at all. The point is, that whether Hitler is Austrian, German or both is not a (detectable) matter of fact but a matter of opinion, and therefore we can't side with either opinion, especially not that obviously as we would by putting his photo at the top of this article (or Germans, respectively). --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But I have made Schwarzenegger the subject of debate here, so can we please romove him. The outcome of the Hitler argument seems applicable to Schwarzenegger as well.--IIIraute (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Historically Austrians regarded as Germans!

Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German being the official language spoken in Austria. But after the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2, and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct identity.

What is wrong in that it is the exact truth, why are people disagreeing? (keep Austria being part of the German Confederation) out of it like before when I tried to put it in but it wasn't revelant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No sources, no addition. O Fenian (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur. See WP:RS and WP:V. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you winding me up? There is loads of sources to back it up.

The even article itself here says even after German Empire was created German-speaking Austrians still considered themself German and were counted as cenuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.166.81 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Then citing those sources should present no challenge to you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. On the user's talk page, I've encouraged him/her to make sure s/he cites a reliable source if s/he decides to try to add the information again. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Austria doesnt consist just of german speaking austrians, so you can't say AUSTRIANS were regarded as germans. This would be discriminating against the croatian, slovenian, hungarian speaking Austrians even today. Some austrians regarded themselves as germans, but not all of them. During the empire there were many austrians who didnt (all the czechs, poles, hungarians, ruthenians,...) and even afterwards the slovenes in carinthia or croats in burgenland were never considered as germans. There IS an austrian identity, there IS an austrian culture. Most austrians dont even have any german ancestors, since todays austria was mostly inhibitated by celts not germanian tribes. So no reason (except for nazis) to call austrians germans. Eromae (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: this would be the same as saying, americans are all british...just because they speak english Eromae (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Austrians consider themselves to be Ethnically German. I don't think this is about German Austrian identity. This is about which of the pictures has Austrian Nationals, and German Nationals. Which, if you are an Austrian National of German Descent, you would of course be German...

Duh...

"Sources"

Regarding this edit, this is a blog which is not a reliable source, and this is a travel website which does not appear to be a reliable source, and furthermore I cannot see anything on there that sources "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of The Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and German being the official language spoken in Austria". While it may mention German being the official language of Austria, it does not source the conclusion that "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans...". O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This source is of questionable reliability and does not source "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806", there is nowhere it draws that conclusion. This source does not even mention 1871 or the German Empire, so it does not source "Following the founding of the German Empire in 1871, World War 2 and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own identity". Since the preceding sentence is not sourced, it makes no sense to leave that sentence in anyway.

I strongly suggest the editor provides sources here for discussion, since this is going badly already. O Fenian (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What about this: Republic of German-Austria?--IIIraute (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@ O Fenian: If you want sources check out Madame de Staels famous account on Germany "De L'Allemagne" (1813), in which she points out that "The Germans" are split into Bavarians, Austrians, Prussians,... 131.130.224.94 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is Hitler?

This ethnic infobox has become a retarded attempt to follow political correctness. Come on, this is encyclopedia, things don't have to look cute here. Italians don't put there Mussolini, Autstrians hide Hitler, even Russians removed Lenin from their infobox. It seems that only Georgians are brave enough to put Stalin on their page and not be such hypocrites. Wikipedia will never win over those trying to hide unwanted or unpopular characters from respective pages, so maybe it is a good reason to get rid of that little galleries completely? They only show how hypocrite and biased Wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.198.169 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler is taboo, Stalin is taboo, Mussolini is taboo that is why.

Italians put Napoleon even though he was Corsican.

Also Hitler always considered himself German not Austrian (he was ethnically German). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely not correct so. Hitler considered himself always as Austrian and German. His roots, where his ancestors lived was Lower Austria. But like most German speaking people in the Austria-Hungary empire, he considered the German speaking inhabitants of the empire as part of a German ethnicity. But it's understandable, that Hitler doesn't belong to such a gallery, because it's no good advertisment for a country. Better Mozart, who was no citizen of a Austrian territory and wrote about Germany as his 'beloved fatherland'. But his birthtown belongs today to Austria and he is a better advertisment.

Regarding Stalin: It seems, some people from his birtharea are still proud of him.78.43.102.178 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that being more unbiased rather than being proud? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini - those were the people who really stood out and left a HUGE impact on the world. Notorious, but well-known. Wikipedia doesn't have to always look nice. 92.46.182.251 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No you are wrong because when he was growing up like most Austrians back then he always called himself a German first and even more so when rebelling against his father and singing the German national anthem and going into the German army not the Austrian army, he always considered Austria part of Germany. --GeordieWikiEditor (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That´s definitely true, but don´t you think that Mozart would have considered Austria a "German" country as well? You see, I am Austrian, and I think that excluding Hitler is denying our "dark side". Austrian participation and guilt concerning WW2, the Holocaust and all these things, used to be denied for a long time. Therefore, in Austria, your exclusion of Hitler from the picture collage could be considered a political statement of that kind, you know, like saying, "we didn´t have anything to doo with this, not us, that´s the Germans´business." Interestingly, he also hasn´t been included in the collage on the "Germans"-page as well, because people there argue that he was Austrian... So, it seems that nobody had ever anything to do with this kind of person, and all are happy.... --Mike F2 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, I agree.--Львівське (говорити) 07:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Hitler was either an ethnic German (but then we do not need this page: "Austrians" as etnic group, because they are NOT an own ethnic group) or Hitler must have been an ethnic Austrian! Same goes for Mozart. Sorry, but can't have it both ways.--IIIraute (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Mozart is not a good choice – but neither is Hitler. He never identified as an Austrian and is a mass murder. I would change it into someone neutral and honorable – Konrad Lorenz. Andrej N. B. (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That he didn't self-identify as something is questionable justification - it's not his article. To exclude him because he is evil is a whitewash. It's a selection of Austrians, not "nice Austrians". Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it is a selection of Austrians he wouldnt be a good choice either - after 1925 he was a German citizen. And - Mussolini is not in the italien article, Franco not in the spanish,... all whitewashed? Andrej N. B. (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have views on the Italians and Spaniards articles adress them there. After 1938 all Austrians were Germans whether they like it or not - that's not more pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The comparison is not correct since Hitler activly rejected his Austrian citizenship in 1925. Even in WW 1 he did not fight for the A.-H. but the German Army - by choice. Andrej N. B. (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

All of this citizenship stuff doesn't even matter. This article says that Austrians are an own ethnic group. This article is about Austrians as a nation and ethnic group - so, Hitler was an ethnic Austrian, so why shouldn't he be part of this article?.--IIIraute (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. I am fine with Lorenz...... but, to be clear on this one.... if there is no Hitler - there is no Mozart!).--IIIraute (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The concept of ethnic Austrians only became prominent after World War II, and Austrian ethnicity became popular precisely because Austrians did not want to be associated with Germany due to Nazi atrocities ordered by Hitler. Prior to World War II, Austrian identity WAS not based on ethnicity but it was based on a civic nationalism - that Austrians were Catholic Germans who did not want to be part of the Germany developed by Bismarck because they viewed it as a Protestant and Prussian dominated state as demonstrated by Bismarck's anti-Catholic Kulturkampf; as such they supported Austrian independence. Not all Austrians shared this view nor this civic Catholic-German identity, pan-Germanists like Hitler identified themselves as Germans alone with no prefixes nor religious conditions of allegiance to their ethnicity. Hitler despised the very existence of an independent Austrian state, he did not identify as an ethnic Austrian, and definitions of ethnicity do not merely rely on geneaology, but they rely on culture and language - as such they require a conformity of an individual to those factors and Hitler did not conform to the Austrian culture of promoting itself as an Catholic-German society free from Protestant and Prussian domination, Hitler did not support such culture.--R-41 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Austrian ethnic identity only arose as prominent after World War II, I believe that neither Hitler, nor Mozart, nor any pre-1945 era Austrian citizens should be included on the list if their is no evidence of them identifying themselves as part of Austrian ethnicity. The infobox should only include people who self-identified as being part of an Austrian ethnicity and not citizenship.--R-41 (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Eichmann was not Austrian

Adolf Eichmann was listed as prominent native austrian German. But he was born in Solingen, Germany, so he was not native austrian. I deleted him from this list. Eromae (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

dear eromae! as an austrian living in austria, and after seeing the tapes from his trial, i can assure you that he was austrian in every way. just like the austrians of jewish religion he sent to the camps. nation is not a question of birthplace. and for the austrian nation, which is of unsure ethnicity, of unsure culture, of unsure language and has/had many members who were born outside of its todays borders (and still manages to be a true nation), his vita is not unusal. 87.243.151.162 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

Does Austrians in this article only refer to German speaking Austrian natives? _{(unsigned comment)}

• Today´s Austria only consists of german-languaged regions. In former days (in the Austrian Empire), there have been regions that were not speaking German (e.g. Hungary), but today it is not. --BeanMe (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Not true. Just have a look at "languages" in the box on the right-hand side of the article. Nahabedere (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Celtic ancestry

The vast majority of Austrians belong to the German ethnic group. Is there much need to say about the Celtic heritage? --English Patriot Man (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hitler??

Is it really necessary that Hitler be included in the portraits of famous Austrians?? Really?? And Mozart should really be there.JohnnyR997 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Historically, Austrians were regarded as ethnic Germans, since Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation until its ending and as part of the German Confederation until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which effectively saw Prussia exclude Austria from Germany. Following the founding of the nation-state German Empire in 1871 without Austria (Lesser Germany solution), and along with the events of World War II and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity and in the modern day do not consider themselves as "Germans"."--IIIraute (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, its necessary. If Hitler isn't the most well known person in history, let alone Austrian, he's certainly right up there. The infobox isn't there to show the ethnicity in a favorable light at all costs, but to objectively represent it. Its silly even to suggest excluding Austria's no.1 anti-smoking and vegetarianism activist :). -- Director (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We really don't need this again - please have a look through the talk archive. There has been general consensus on several talk pages not to include dictators, criminals, etc. to the picture gallery; i.e. consensus that the inclusion should be based on merits. Also, Mozart was not Austrian. It's nothing more but a popular myth. Although Salzburg became independent from Bavaria, it still was part of the HRE, and did not belong to Austria till 1805 - Mozart died in 1791, and his father was from Augsburg (his mother also from Salzburg, HRE). Apart from that, historically, Austrians were regarded as ethnic Germans, since Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and as part of the German Confederation until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which effectively saw Prussia exclude Austria from Germany. Only following the founding of the German Empire in 1871 without Austria (Lesser Germany solution), Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity and in the modern day do not consider themselves as "Germans". --IIIraute (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"There has been general consensus on several talk pages not to include dictators, criminals, etc. to the picture gallery; i.e. consensus that the inclusion should be based on merits. "

I have 3 things to say to you

1) It doesn't matter what consensus you've reached between fellow editors; The rules are the rules and consensus to break Wikipedia's NPOV has no standing. I can't legally shoplift from stores, burglarize homes, or defraud the elderly just because I can assemble a group of like-minded criminals who think its ok. Its obvious from the content of similar nationalities pages that the "consensus" you all arrived at was only selectively enforced. As such, you and everyone else who reached that "consensus" have violated Wikipedia's NPOV, circumvented the rules, and openly called for the continuation of such unethical violations of both the rules and the trust of us readers.

2) You are breaking Wikipedia's rules by replacing them with selectively-enforced ones are blatantly ignored. The page on Georgians displays an image of Stalin, recognized as a dictator by consensus on this site and by the international community and as a brutal war criminal due to human rights violations including, but not limited to, massacres of POWs, use of concentration camps, and other clear examples of unnecessary dictatorial abuses of human rights. It's clear an obvious by the fact that Stalin is still present in the collage on the Georgians page even after over 3 months of you making that statement. If you are unable to remove his image but have time to justify the removal of another dictator's image then you are breaking Wikipedia's NPOV.

3) According to those very same rules made up in your "consensus", the fact that Vladimir Lenin's image is presented in the collage of famous Russians on the Russians page is an additional example of you selectively enforcing the made-up rules formed in some 'consensus'. Since you have openly fought the inclusion of 1 dictator based upon selectively enforced rules that you are selectively enforcing in this TALK page, then why is Vladimir Lenin, a political usurper, dictator, and violates of human rights, still visible on on the page about Russians?

Here's the deal: I don't edit these pages because of the very corruption you're openly defending. If you are unwilling to remove, or even call for the removal of, with reasonable effort, the image of Vladimir Lenin in the page on Russian and that of Joseph Stalin on the page on Georgians, then you're openly and intentionally violating the very rules and agreements you've brought to this discussion and you'll have clearly violated Wikipedia's NPOV by selectively enforcing a prohibition you've openly enforced here due to ideological bias. By posting your comment, you're clearly willing and able to enforce the rules unless your intention is selective enforcement which clearly violates this sites rules.

Are you willing to uphold the prohibition on the inclusion of dictators and criminals in image collages focused on specific nationalities or are you intending to only selectively enforce that prohibition? If you intend to only selectively enforce that prohibition, is that because you can't manage to enforce those rules/agreements or are you unwilling?

Here are the pages that need changed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.91.98 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it not be worth adding at the top about Austrians historically being regarded as "Austrian Germans" but now have developed their own distinct national identity?

Would something along the lines of "Historically, Austrians were regarded as Austrian Germans due to Austria being part of the Holy Roman Empire until it was dissolved in 1806 and the German Confederation until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which consequently excluded Austria and the six million Austrian Germans from Germany. Following the founding of the nation-state German Empire in 1871 and the events of World War II and Nazism, Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity."

I (as well as others) can back this up with cited sources and books but this would be good to mention and it is mentioned in the article further down but is a key information, I'm not saying "Austrians are Germans" now at all but before 1945 the distinct national identity was not separate or as broad as what it is today since 1945, I do think this is worth backing up as a key point as important to understand how things are different now and the quick bit of Austria's history.

I of course will not vandalise the page and ask before adding this, but I definitely think it's worth mentioning.--SubaruImpreza2.0 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, an (german)Austrian identity was established only after WW2. Before the term Austrian refered to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and was a political term not a ethnical term.--Dappsi (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A german Austrian identity was created in the years before and after WW1. After WW1 Austria was defined as the german speaking rest (leftover) of the Habsburg empire. People regarded the use oft other traditional languages of Austria as some kind of a non-loalty with the Asutrian state. What happened from 1945 onwards was to some extend new in the European context: The new Austrian ethnic identity was not that much defined by language, but by history, culture and territory. Thus nowadays Austrian ethnicity includes also Slovene speaking Carinthians, Croatian speaking people from Burgenland and other linguistic groups. --Liebeskind (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Liebeskind, I am finding your post very difficult to understand and I think the ideas you express are important (I do speak German.) Would you mind if I rephrase it according to my understanding? Then you can tell me if I got it right. Otherwise I fear it may be ignored. Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism/removal of the file "Freud" without consensus!

Some POV pushers continuously delete the image of Freud, saying he wasn't Austrian. --IIIraute (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1. You are the POV pusher here, lets start with that.

2. Freud was Austrian by nationality but not by ethnicity! There is a need to clarify the definition to the article before putting him in the infobox. If the Article talks about Austrians as a nationality it's fine, if an article talking about Austrians as an ethnic group then Freud shouldn't be here simply because he's not ethnically Austrian but ethnically Jewish. As much as we know you IIIraute don't like to hear it, Jews exist and they are a separate ethnic group. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The picture has been on this page for years - and you don't remove it without taking it to the talk-page first. Period! Stop your edit-warring and canvassing or you will be blocked → [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]! --IIIraute (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The links you gave has nothing to do with that discussion. The picture being here for years doesnt mean it should be here. He wasn't of Austrian ethnicity, we need to define the nature of the article. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a separate Austrian ethnicity, they're basically ethnic Germans who weren't part of the German unification, like Liechtensteiners. Guy355 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mozart should be in the portrait section.

Probably the most famous Austrian (and composer) in history.46.194.242.185 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if you consider Austrians as Germans (they are) because Mozart was not born in Austria, it was under the German Holy Roman Empire and his ancestry was all German, his parents were also born in what is now in Germany.--92.23.126.88 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not ok to depict Mozart here IMO. As already said, he was born and raised in Salzburg, which was not part of Austria until 1805/15. It was also part of the Bavarian imperial circle, not of the Austrian. Mozart as an Austrian is modern fiction.--78.51.15.103 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Freud

Freud was a Jew. Not an Austrian. Remember, this article is concerned with ethnicity, not nationality. JDiala (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told there's no such thing as a separate Austrian ethnicity, they're basically ethnic Germans who weren't part of the German unification, like Liechtensteiners. And since there's already an article about German Austrians, I suppose this is more about the Austrian nationality article. Guy355 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fully honest we should argue that german saxons share common ancestry with anglosaxons. It's a mess to identify ethnicity with certainty, don't you think? --82.48.141.68 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous because everybody knows that Austrians are ethnic Germans.--88.16.152.94 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Afrikaners became a different ethnicity from the Dutch, and Americans are on the verge of becoming a different ethnicity from the English, but Austrians are part of the same German ethnicity as Bavarians, Saxonians, Thuringians, Haburgers etc.--88.16.152.94 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Austria and German Unification

Hello. The reason why Austria did not join the newly created Germany was not just because it had been expelled from the Bund. You should bear in mind that neither the ruling dynasty, nor the non-German majority of Austrians intended to do so. --Zik2 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Austria wasn't expelled from the German Confederation. The German Confederation had been dissolved.--MacX85 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)