Talk:Austrians

Germans/Austrians population box

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

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

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

Thanks for your comments. I didn't have much time to edit this article. Before we begin, I would like to point out that you have removed a comment from an anonymous editor from Austria. Although he might not be skilled, his comment be symptomatic and does reflect the sentiment.

My argument is as follows: the ethnicity articles attempt (for whatever reason) to define ethnicities separate from national entities. I can see where this intention might be coming from, if we focus on people's ancestry and not their political circumstances. However, our modern understanding of a nation state and that a nation should ideally encompass one ethnicity runs contrary to this and is a source of confusion.

First off, Germany, and by extension the term German, includes descendants of several Germanic tribes, which have originally settled on the territory of roughly the former Holy Roman Empire. These tribes exhibited both linguistic and morphologic differences and have often undergone separate development and have over time assimilated different groups.

I have raised the issue of the Dutch as an example. They are barely mentioned in the Germans and are certainly not counted, although they situation mirrors the situation of Austria or Luxembourg pretty closely. I believe the Dutch descended from the Lower Saxons and the dialect spoken on both sides of the German-Dutch border are very similar even today, some 500 years after the political separation took place. The English name for the Dutch is virtually identical with the short form for German language: “Deutsch”.

What I'm trying to say is that the term German is applied to a varied mix of people. Who is included and who is not has always been based largely on political developments as evidenced on the example of the Dutch. If we wanted to be ethnically accurate, we'd probably have to split them into several groups roughly along tribal borders. The fact that they all understand and speak the same language (although their local dialects vary greatly) is again largely a result of political developments, not inherent ethnic or morphologic cohesiveness. The modern term German is therefore largely determined by the results of the political work of Otto von Bismark and the century-long precedent set by the Holy Roman Empire.

The Austrians descend largely from the Baioari. Many people of present-day Bavaria do too. The fact that Bavaria has a separate identity within Germany and most Bavarians put this identity before the their identity of a citizen of Germany is a testament to the differences between the people we call today German. Austrians have assimilated many immigrants from their former multi-ethnic empire and I'm sure that if genetic profiling was performed, this would come to fore and could serve as another differentiator.

The question of Sudetes and Banat Germans is valid. However, we need to keep in mind that these settlers came from different areas of what is today Germany. Some of the Sudetes Germans originated from present-day territory of Austria. This was mostly the case in the south, in the proximity of present-day territory of Austria.

AFAIK most of the forcefully resettled German citizens and ethnic Germans sought refuge in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. This was mostly related to a combination of ancestral ties and political circumstances. Bavaria was wholly under American military and initially also political control, which might have been preferrable to Austria, which was under joint Allied control and where the USSR pressed for political neutrality. Jbetak 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• The situation of the Dutch can not be compared with that of the Austrians as the Dutch are more distinct from the Germans both ethnically and linguistically. Although the surviving local Low German dialects and languages have survived in Northern Germany and are similar to Dutch, the majority of the people (especially younger generations) speak High/Standard German and the Low Saxon German languages themselves have been significantly influenced by High German for centuries, which can not be said with the case of Dutch. From an ethnic and cultural perspective, the peoples of Germany and Austria (as well as Swiss Germans) are much more related to each other than is the case with Germans and the Dutch. Obviously there is influence from the Dutch and Danish in the North (who have settled in areas of northern Germany), but the Dutch are culturally and ethnically distinct from the Germans and this is simply not the case with the Austrian Germans. The Political independence of the Netherlands in the 15th-16th cent. further aided in the distinction of the Dutch people while in contrast, the 19th cent. political and cultural re-unification of Germany increased the commonality between all Germans which had already existed since the time of the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Although Austrians and Bavarians do have a distinct regional identity that is also seen with most other Germans (and within other peoples such as French or Italians), this identity is not to the same level of disintinctiveness seen with the Dutch. Austrians can still be considered "ethnic German" no matter what name they choose for themselves and most Austrians still identify with being German to distinguish them from non-German Austrians. 69.157.121.76 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the anonymous comment becaust it was more vandalism than anything else and certainly not a valuable contribution. I do take issue with what you are saying about the definition of the term "German" in an ethnic context. Unlike the Dutch who have seperated from the Holy Roman Empire and developed a distinct national language in the middle ages, the German-speaking Austrians have only as a majority accepted a national identity seperate from that of other German-speaking peoples in the last four decades (since the 1950s and 60s). Although there is clearly now an Austrian national identity the idea of an Austrian ethnic identity is still not as clear and for the most part the issue is largely ignored. It's true the German-speaking provinces of the old Austrian Empire absorbed many immigrants from non-Germanic regions but the same is true of the modern Federal Republic of Germany where millions of Germans, especially in Eastern Germany and the Ruhr region, have Polish or Czech surnames. Regardless most modern day Austrians share common ancestry with Germans, especially the Bavarians and also share a common language - ancestry and language are probably the most important factors for defining an ethnic group. My point is that when discussing the concept of ethnic Germans it is logical to include Austrians in this category, after all its illogical to say German-speakers in South Tyrol or German-speakers of Sudeten ancestry are ethnic Germans, yet German-speakers in the modern Republic of Austria are largely excluded from this category. Its even more illogical to limit the category of ethnic German to today's Federal Germans. I have no problem with this article but it seem as i said to be largely based on a concept of Austrian nationality rather than ethnicity which is the only logical way to adress this subject.

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

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

The surname "Austrian"

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

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

Austria's Identity

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

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

Comprehensive re-writing of article

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

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

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

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

Encarta

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

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

Austrian Ethnic Group

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

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

EPF, not only are we on different pages of the book, but we're on different worlds. I understand you not, nor could I begin to. You apply different rules to how you regard the judgement of history in both a British context and the German/Austrian one. I say black, and you will say white. You are the perpetual driver of wedges between English and Scottish/Welsh relations/articles on wikipedia. You really need to chill Enzedbrit 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And you're constantly trying to bang the "we're all British gong". Sorry, the Scots, Welsh and Irish all came into "union" because of either invasion or corrupt treaties. By the way, I would refer anyone to "NZ Birt"'s edits on various Celtic articles if they're interested in his constant POV edits, which reflect his disturbed childhood, which involved a traumatic move from England to NZ, and his subsequent identity crisis. --MacRusgail 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Enzedbrit, I don't know what your trying to come across with here. My opinion disagrees with your controversial (in some cases minority) opinons, but so what. I don't see how I am "applying different rules" here since history obviously isn't some uniform set of commands for every people and and every culture to follow. Cultures and peoples have different histories and evolve in many cases differently from each other. I am not trying to drive some "wedge" between the peoples of the British Isles, I am trying to promote the cultural and ethnic distinctiveness of such peoples who are closest to a historically dominant English langauge and culture which has been (in many cases unwillingly) imposed on them. I value diversity, I take a great interest in my own ethno-cultural heritage, which includes Scotland and England and I am as chilled as ever. Ciao, Epf 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

By the same toke one could say that Rex, myself and some other editors are "trying to promote the cultural and ethnic distinctiveness" of what you consider to be a "wider group of Germans", which BTW seems to be a neologism. I believe Rex and I base this on first-hand knowledge of the situation in Europe. I grew up in Germany, in Southern Germany to be correct. I pointed out to you that this article originated from machine translation of an article on German Wikipedia. While you may call it unsourced, based on original research or worse - biased, I'd urge you to realize that there seems to be a number of editors who might agree with this is text as-is. Otherwise it would not have survived on German Wikipedia for so long. Although as it stands, it may not be representative of all POVs, be 100% correct or complete, it's not just a hodge-podge of unverifiable claims and non-facts. It's not something we have written over a beer with a bunch of friends for our entertainment or to push a particular agenda. 192.150.10.200 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no Austrian ethnic group, just as there is no Canadian ethnic group... Ameise -- chat 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

And where are the sources that say that Austrians are an ethnic group? You are the one making the claim that they are, and it is obvious that you would know, being Dutch. Ameise -- chat 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is referenced -- please see the CIA Factbook link in the references section. Furthermore, I don't know what being "Dutch" has to do with the ability to form an opinion on this matter. Or would you only consider his opinion if he declared himself to be German based on his ancestry? 71.198.59.81 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider his opinion because I have never seen him give me a good opinion on anything. And what you are saying, Herr "I don't want to make a Wikipedia account", comes awefully close to a personal attack. Ameise -- chat 05:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Look, liebster Herr Ameise, I don't care for his kind of company, your behavior is clearly out of line. As for your pointed comment, I and only I will determine, if I will return to Wikipedia as an established editor or not. And as long as it attracts and encourages the kind of discourse we're having, it is a not a very appealing place. 192.150.10.200 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook is ONLY a valid refrence for statistics -- it gives absolutely no information into Austrian culture, language, or religion (which is basically the same as German with minor differences) -- hence, it gives no supporting evidence to an Austrian ethnos -- show me actual evidence that Austrian's are their own ethnos, and I will support having the statement that they are their own ethnicity. Give me a REAL source that EXPLAINS how it is an ethnicity, not one that simply lists it as one. I can say that I am of Illinois ethnicity, that doesn't make it true. Ameise -- chat 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, however I hope you'll excuse me, if I won't recognize your authority as the self-appointed expert on the interpretation of facts listed in the CIA Factbook. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most, if not all demographic and country articles on Wikipedia follow it to the letter. There are several reasons for that, which I'm sure were disused at length before. THe Factbook changed the entry for Austrians as recently as two years ago and without wanting to speculate about it, I'm sure that it was for a reason. I empathize with your Illinois (or California) counter example. However, I'm sure that the CIA Factbook is not listing it. I have also included a link to Encarta, which should be a competing electronic encyclopedia and as such should be quotable. 216.104.211.5 21:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And besides statistics that mention an Austrian Ethnicity, I have simply not seen -any- evidence to back up the claim that Austrians somehow are of different ethnicity than Germans. Ameise -- chat 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To restate your comment: you don't think that an entry in the CIA Factbook stating that ~ 92% of the population of Austria are "ethnic Austrians" is enough for a reference. You don't think that linking to a government-sponsored publication citing a poll conducted in the 1990s showing that an overwhelming majority of German-speaking Austrians does not consider themselves to be "German" in part or whole is reflective of their ethnic identity. You don't consider the statements of casual Austrian editors on this page to be representative enough. If this is the case, then I'd like to know what exactly you are looking for. 71.198.59.81 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Common cultural, behavioral, linguistic, and/or religious practices that separate the Austrians from the Germans. I'd also point out that the factbook also lists more than 80% of American's ethnicity as 'White', so should we also have a 'White ethnicity/culture' article?Ameise -- chat 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OIC -- here's a start then, I'd also recommend reading Austrian culture, unless you have already looked at it. I understand the comparison you're drawing between the "White" ethnicity, however fail to see how can that put their classification of ~ 92% of the population of Austria as ethnic Austrian into question. Aren't 70% of the US population white? Or are you implying that they would simply make up a term or classification without any real significance? 71.198.59.81 17:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly do not care if 100% of Austrian's state that they are of Austrian ethnicity; that simply means that they misunderstand the difference between Ethnos and Nationality... they simply don't want to be called ethnic Germans, just like the Belgians don't want to be called ethnic Dutch/Flemish or French. Ameise -- chat 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What you just said above is pure speculation. Who does "misunderstand the difference between Ethnos and Nationality"? The authors of the CIA Factbook or 100% of Austrians?

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't care. You have ignored the link I have provided you in my last comment and you simply revert to repeating your opinion, which I have heard, understood and emphatize with. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but as far as I can tell, you have never been to Austria and have not brought forward anything except for doubts, German national bias and verbal arguments. Although I'm under the impression that might have only turned up here because of your personal argument with Rex, I'm open to discussing this further at a rational level. 216.104.211.5 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that there is an Austrian ethnicity besides references to one existing. Where is the common language differing from German? Religion? Culture? Behavioral? As far as I can tell most Austrians call themselves Austrians because they don't want to call themselves Germans... it makes as much sense as the Montenegrans calling themselves Montenegran ethnicity (and not nationality) versus Serbian. Ameise -- chat 12:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, that's your opinion and I'm not going to take it from you. However, the article is referenced and reflects the Austrian identity pretty accurately. They do not view themselves only as a separate nation, they came to emphasize the historical, cultural, linguistic differences from other German-speaking peoples much more than the similarities. This is the basis of their modern identity, they don't simply see themselves as a second German state. Now, whether it's justified or not and how that jives with people's opinions, convictions or research is another matter.

We could go an debate how the definition of a German changed over time, cover the entire history of Austrian lands, assimilation of Slavs and other non-Germanic populations, look into linguistic and morphologic differences and we'd still be where were now. You'd say that the differences are not significant enough and I would say that they are. I'd be a matter of opinion and I don't have that much time. Please do yourself a favor, continue learning German, visit all German-speaking countries, spend some time and learn some dialects. Perhaps you will come to appreciate the diversity and rich history Europe has to offer, it certainly will be more satisfying than the trolling you'll witness on Wikipedia. 71.198.59.81 06:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that I am a troll? Ameise -- chat 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- no I'm not, and I apologize if it appeared that way. I'm merely a bit disappointed with Wikipedia and its ineffective editing processes. 71.198.59.81 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Being an Austrian citizen and a strong opposer of the idea of ethnicity and nationality, I have to agree with Antman/Ameise. There is not way to distinguish between Austrians, Germans, German speaking Swiss people, inhabitants of Liechtenstein and frenchmen (just to pick up a few) on an ethnic basis. The idea of ethnicity is a ridiculous one, as what today is considered Germany and what today is left of Austria, plus parts of France, Liechtenstein and until the Treaty of Westphalia Switzerland and the Netherlands were all part of the SIR (Sacrum Imperium Romanum). And the majority of the inhabitants of the HRR, despite all their differences, shared a language and to some extent culture and traditions. Of course 1866 changed a lot - unification of the former parts of the SIR was suddenly far away. And at latest nationalsocialism made such a unification nothing desirable anymore. Austrian identity existed long before the HRR ended, just as Bavarian or Swabian identity did. And today most Austrians consider themselves a nation (whether you support the concept of nationality or not). Yet, that doesn't mean Austrians form a seperated ethnic group, or all Bundesdeutsche do or all Frenchmen do or any other country in Europe does. --193.171.131.249 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I said the majority, not all did! Obviously you have know knowledge about German dialects at all. While e.g. the Tyrolean dialect (part of Austria) is closely related to the Bavarian (Part of Germany) one, the Vorarlbergian Dialect (Part of Austria) is not related to the tyrolean one, as the latter is a bayuwarian dialect and the first (Vorarlbergisch) is an alemannian dialect and therefor related to the Swabian and the Swissgerman dialects. There is no such thing as a seperate and general Austrian German dialect. Ethnicity is indeed a funny thing: It can't have anything to do with genetics, as Europe is one big mix of slawic, germanic tribes, celts, etc. and therefor I claim it's impossible to distinguish between central European peoples on a genetic basis. Secondly Ethnicity can't be based on separate history - or are 140 years of separate history (1866 - 2006 [not counting the 3rd Reich) enough to create two separate ethnicities? The whole ethnicity thing is bullshit, just accept that it's a question of different IDENTITIES, not something rooting in genetic, language or cultural differences, as that is complete nonsense. --193.171.131.249 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Feel free to leave a comment on my German userpage de:Benutzer:Hagenk

I took off the ethnic group box, but if another box is added - one specifically made for nationalities - that would be much better. WilhelmIII 06:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article to the last concensus version. Wilhelm III, your username indicates you might be pursuing a certain agenda. Please discuss any edits you believe this article needs. 71.198.59.81 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote article

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

Your rewrite looks even more like crap. Its even more unfounded, unsupported and opinionated than the older version. I have reverted. You will have to come to a consensus with me before I can allow such an atrocity to this article and to German people and culture. Epf 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I for one appreciated Rex' attempt to contribute, and although I might not have had time to review it in detail I would like to point out that we presently have two editor opinions against one. You asked me to reference the article, which I did. You then proceed to either ignore or ridicule the references. And although you claim to be an expert, you did noy produce any references to the contrary. You claim not to know any Austrain who does not feel to be a member of larger group of Germans. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that term and can assure you that although most Austrians would agree to identify with other Germanic people, they most certainly do not consider themselves to be Germans or part of a larger groups of Germans.

You claim that this article is unfounded, unsupported and opinionated and use it as a basis for edit warring. I'm not sure if I follow, given that it is virtually identical with its pendant on German Wikipedia and several editors collaborated to clean up the text produced by machine translation. 71.198.59.81 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The article needs to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, no matter what language an article originally translates from. Its ok to not delete it but it needs to be mentioned how it is unverified and uncited. As for my edits, the article needs to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Ciao, Epf 00:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all you did bring to the table was a link to a website maintained by the State Department. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just this does not correspond to the attitude and level of emotional investment (there were two full reverts and two partial reverts in a 22 hour period a month ago) that you seem to have put into it. Don't be more certain than you need to be 192.150.10.200 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Austrians vs. Germans

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

hmm?

Rex 08:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I say "mere" Germans ? NO. Are they a more distinct group of Germans than Bavarians or Swabians, etc. ? Highly questionable. Can they form a fully distinct group ? Also highly questonable. Would most who identify as being distinctly "Austrian" also acknowledge their long shared history, shared descent, shared culture and shared langauge with other Germans ? Of course. SO I don't see why we can not have a separate article for Austrians while also acknowleding their close relation to other Germans. Epf 00:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did. If I may, I'd like to ask you to take a different approach. Consider your editing style; edit warring, hesitancy to engage on talk and unwillingness to work with editors who do not share your POV, albeit an expert one as you keep claiming, might not go down very well. I must admit that this comment would apply to Rex as well, although I believe that he's operating from what he might consider self-evident. I presume that you grew up in North America, even if you claim to pursue a scientific approach, you need to take into account how these people perceive themselves and how they're seen by their neighbors. I'm sure that there are ways we can capture the facts and the diverging POVs, edit warring is unfortunately not one of them. Although Austrians are not considered Germans either by themselves or by people living in Germany proper, we may need to describe how that leads to confusion outside of German-speaking countries, stress their close relationship and other ties. 192.150.10.200 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, your editing style. I believe that you've been removing the ethnic group info box since beginning of July. And unless this edit is yours too, your first comment on talk appeared on August 31. Care to comment why you would not engage in a discussion? We're all reasonable people, or at least so we think.

I have absolutely nothing against stressing the ethnic and cultural closeness of Germans and Austrians. I do object however to the way it's been worded thus far. What troubles me is that a "wider grouping of Germans" seems to be a neologism. There might be better and more established ways of describing the situation and their close relationship. I also object to "they are related and part of", which obviously makes them part of something they are not seeing themselves as belonging to.

I'm sure that if we all work on this, we can find appropriate wording that will satisfy everyone without compromising on clarity and accuracy. 71.198.59.81 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no proof on what "many Germans" and "many Austrians" think. Point is that Austrians are an ethnic group; by definition.

Rex 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is you equally have absolutely no proof saying that Austrians also don't identify with other Germans based on long shared history, shared descent, shared culture, and shared language, all factors in ethnic identification. They are an ethnic group but they are also part of larger grouping of Germans. Epf 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Epf, since you seem to know so much about so many European countries without apparently having ever visited them, let's entertain this as a purely academic discussion for your sake, shall we? Seventy-nine percent of Austrians not recognizing "Germanness" as being one of the attributes of being Austrian by 1990. This Web book is based on public domain material provided by the US government and has been compiled using Coimbra. It is also available as an installable eBook.

Is this good enough for you? Do we need to continue? 71.198.59.81 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anom IP there -- as an Austria, I can assure you that the feeling of "pan-Germanness" is a fringe opinion held by less than five per cent of Austrians. —Nightstallion (?) 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I kinda resent modern states usurping ethnicity. Austrians are Germans and considered themselves Germans for the millennium before the US and Soviets forced them to be separate states in 1945. In the first half of the 19th century, for instance, Austria - permanent president of the German Confederation - was the yardstick by which German culture was measured. States being separate does not mean ethnic groups are splintered. It's the same kind of logic that means Pakistanis are no longer Indians, or the San Marinese are not Italians. "German" is an ambiguous term; it means both a member of the German speaking nation of central Europe and a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany; Austrians are not German in the latter sense, but German in the former sense. But when it comes down to it, it is blatantly absurd to call Austrians an ethnic group separate from Germans; most Austrians are ethnic-Germans; for instance, historically Austrian emmigrants to the USA registered themselves as Germans, as Austrian was never regarded as a nationality and Austria being no more a separate ethnicity that Swabians, "Prussians", Saxons, Bavarians, etc, etc. But identities themselves are always fluid. Maybe in 100 years time Californians won't think of themselves as Americans, or Parisians as Frenchmen, or Londoners as Englishmen. Maybe Graz will become an independent state and become different from Austrians, and wiki will have Grazians as a separate ethnic group related to both Austrians, Germans and Liechtensteiners. Who knows? Who knows how politics will change ethnicity? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, I was trying to get for you guys a NPOV compromise, but you revert me and call me a "German nationalist". I'm not even German. If you think the perception of Austrians is important, then work this into the article. But most Austrians are ethnically Germans, and you can't argue with that unless you seek to redefine both historical German-ness and ethnicity. And you can't roll over facts because you don't like them, nor can you call everyone who disagrees with you a "neo-Nazi" or a "German nationalist". Besides anything else, it is a very ungentlemanly way to participate in dialogue and is not likely to endear itself to anyone. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

facts? you simply assert that yourself and ignore what 8 million Austrians say about that; such behavior not only ungentlemanly but it ignores the basic human right to assert one's own ethnicity according to one's own free will. Sorry, you are not talking about facts but about your own fantasy. Nahabedere 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The best compromise was the previous stable version I reverted to, prior to all the edit warring instigated by Rex. Additionaly, having an ethnic box for a nationality- with two (Bohemian) Jews, and a Salzburgian, was very cumbersome and beyond all standardized conventions, not to mention their eras vs. the contemporary usage of the term. Ulritz 20:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Where is Adolf Hitler?

Surely by far, the most famous Austrian of all time. What about people like Seyss Inquart?

Hitler isn't famous, he is infamous; there is a difference. Ameise -- chat 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seyss Inquart wasn´t a Austrian

• I don't understand why people do not put important figures of their day that dominated the era into the picture. He is one of the most important figures in the twentieth century and should atleast deserves to be in the tiny info box if nothing else. No one will shed a tear because it shouldn't be considered taboo or offensive 50 years after the Holocaust. and if that didn't convince you...C'MOOOOOOOOON...C'MOOOOOOOON!

Well, he didn't even really consider himself Austrian if you think about it. He took control of GERMANY, and ANNEXED Austria making it part of Germany. He concidered himself German, and faught for the German army in ww1 etc... also he is an extremely evil man who caused deaths of millions, it would make Austrian people look bad for people reaserching them. However, no matter how evil he is, he was a person from Austria, in very recent history, and caused WORLD WAR 2 for God's sake. So yes, he should be posted in there briefly, maybe just mention the evil menace Hitler was born in Austria or something, and add alink to his main article. It would be silly to do an article on Russia, for instance, and not mention Stalin. Also, to the idiotic person who posted above, he isn't really "important", he failed in what he was trying to do, murdered many many people, and caused the war that has had the most deaths in recorded history of war. I would say the world would be FAR better off today if he was never born. He is not the most IMPORTANT figure of 20th century, I'd say someone like Churchill would be, as the Allies shaped the world to what it is today, Hitler would be concidered the most EVIL person of the 20th century.

Seyß Inquart was an Austrian. Please check the german Wikipedia. --193.171.131.249 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

right wing

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

I suggest you once more carefully read the article, then come back here and show me/us where it says you're a neo-nazi when you believe Germans and Austrians are one and the same thing.Rex 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rex, although the article does not say anything about neo-nazis, I have left EPF a message explaining how these views came to be regarded as right-wing in both Germany and Austria. I believe that this goes back to their peace treaties following WWII and I put it into that context. I think he might have been upset about that comment.

To clarify, anyone is free to declare themselves to belong to any ethnicity they identify themselves with, that's what one could call a personal freedom. However, if one would like to extend that personal view to everyone in Austria, then it becomes a view currently represented only by the FPÖ, which is recognized as not only right-wing, but extreme right-wing and it earned Austria the honor of an EU ban following its election into a governing coalition a few years ago. 216.104.211.5 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• and who the shit is EPF ???

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

The autochtone Volkgroups

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

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

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

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

"related groups" info removed from infobox

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

Freud?

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