| Revision as of 17:55, 14 May 2013 editHyperboreer (talk | contribs)790 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:51, 20 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,374,776 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 8. (BOT) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
|topic=geography |
|
|topic=geography |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|AH-taskforce=yes|AH-taskforce-importance=|class=C|structureneeded=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|AH-taskforce=yes|AH-taskforce-importance=Top|structureneeded=yes}} |
|
{{eurohist|class=c|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Austria|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=High|AH-taskforce=yes|AHImp=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Croatia|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Czech Republic|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Czech Republic|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Slovenia|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovenia|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{old move|date=21 July 2023|destination=Austria–Hungary|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1167583161#Requested move 21 July 2023}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}} |
|
== Flag== |
|
|
|
<!--2160/24 = 90 days ~ 3 months--> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
The flag as shown here cannot be shown as any kind of national flag here. It was, as mentioned, just the civil ensign. I think to prevent confusion we should just show the coat-of-arms and no flag as it is in the article in german language. |
|
|
|
| age=2160 |
|
] (]) 05:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| archiveprefix=Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive |
|
|
|
|
|
| numberstart=3 |
|
== Political struggles in the Empire == |
|
|
|
| maxarchsize=75000 |
|
|
|
|
|
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
This section opens with this statement: |
|
|
|
| minkeepthreads=5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| minarchthreads=1 |
|
::"The political opponents of the "conservative liberal" aristocracy and gentry class were the leftist liberal "cosmopolitan" political parties in the parliaments of Vienna and Budapest. These leftist liberal parliamentary parties were backed by the big industrialists, bankers, businessmen and the predominant majority of newspaper "media moguls". During the war, they had a important functions in the organization of strikes, protests and civil unrest in the Empire. After the war (as consequent republicans) that parties had key-role in the disintegration and collapse of the monarchy in Austria and Hungary, and proclamation of the republics in Vienna and Budapest." |
|
|
|
| format= %%i |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
I would like to know the name of such "leftist liberal cosmopolitan political parties". For one, it is weird that "leftist liberal cosmopolitan political parties" would be backed by industrialists, bankers, businessmen, and media moguls. Besides that, what war is referred there? Since the proclamation of Austrian an Hungarian republics seems to be the outcome, then it seems it was WWI. But what "leftist liberal cosmopolitan political parties" had a role in the disintegration of the monarchy and the proclamation of the republics? The main parties in Austria immediately after the fall of the monarchy were social democrats and conservative (and anti-semitic) "Social Christians"; what happened to the liberals, who should have been so prominent in the process? Also, were liberal parties "consequent" republicans? Or rather constitutionalist monarchists? Or is the article lumping diverse things here, and calling the social democrats (who, for their part, were certainly not backed by bankers, industrialists, businessmen, or media moguls) "liberal"? ] (]) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Nutshell|title=Flags|Austria-Hungary had no official flag and the consensus, established over a number of years, is not to display any flags in the infobox. Any attempt to overturn this would need to take account of the past discussions: |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
:I agree that this is a strange assertion - it appears to be OR and is unsourced. I have changed the section somewhat to make it more neutral and reconcile with my understanding of what was going on at the time, and will look for sources. Sounds as if the editor was trying to link Marxists, leftists, liberals and urban suspects. I agree that they were hardly backed by bankers and industrialists or media moguls - anachronistic to use for newspaper publishers, even if I believed it.] (]) 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
::Similarly, this section says that Andrássy refused to take on more territories, but in 1878 the Monarchy was awarded Bosnia-Herzegovina and Andrássy's brinkmanship led to WWI. As the assassination of the archduke occurred ''more than a generation'' after Andrássy had served as foreign minister, I find this unsourced assertion hard to believe and will be checking Andrassy's article for more insight. |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
== Vittorio Veneto is an italian offensive == |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Why did the battle of Vittorio Veneto have been classified as a "Italian British and French cooperating offensive". In fact, according to the corresponding page of wikipedia, the ordre of battle was composed of:57 divisions, whom 51 Italian, 3 British, 2 French, 1 Czechoslovak and 1 US regiment. It appears that since during that battle the 89% of soldiers were italian, said battle must be defined as an Italian Offensive. In fact, in the corresponding page of Misplaced Pages associated to said offensive, there are a lot of source claiming the offensive was Italian. Otherwise should the prescne of other divisions taken into account, the Offensive should be defined as "Italian, British, French, Czechoslovak and US cooperating offensive". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
== Language of the article == |
|
|
|
|
==WWI Italian front== |
|
|
By reading this section it seems that were the austrian to win and war and not italian, and that only the allies were fighting and not the italians in this front. To rewrite completely, in my opinion. ] (]) 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article not neutral == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am asking the moderator to flag the article as NOT NEUTRAL. In fact the section related to Italy is clearly a POV presenting the Italian fron as a Frecnh English vs AUSTRian battle. Moreiver there are a lot of cosiderations about the aòòeged material support whcih Italy had recevied which is again not supported by any source. Either the moderator cancel the objected section or some citations should be provided. At this moment is eadlily apparent that the article is not Neutral and must be labelled as such <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I am no moderator, just a humble editor :-), but I have placed two tags to that section which warn the reader that the section may not be neutral and needs verification. Yours was not the first complain about that section. By the way: you are welcome to rewrite the section: all you need to do is to register to Misplaced Pages, then, you will be able to edit the article (this article is only semi-protected). If you do so, please, do not forget to cite reliable sources. Cheers, ] ] 09:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italy had fewer population, and Italy has lesser industry, therefore it is not wonder that Italy needed the strong support of allied powers. Despite that Italy had ONLY 1 frontline and Austria Hungary had 4 frontlines during the war. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bosnians == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems Bosnia and Bosnians were for some period of time under the rule of the AH Empire. Why were they not listed under the nations and languages? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Slovene an official language or not? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article under Ethnic relations, it says that after 1882, Slovene became the dominant official language in Carniola. But at the top where languages are listed, Slovene is listed as an unofficial language. Why is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it would be nice to write what the situation was like in the lands where Slovenes were not an absolute majority like in Carniola, but formed a sizable part of the population, like ]... Was Slovene one of the official languages there or not? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Official language in my area is spoken by common people. If you conquer a realm you can try and ask civilians to speak any/your language so they should want speak it and you win but doing it aggresivily will probably cost you dear,and not last. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Slovene has been an official language in the Empire of Austria since 1849. From this year until 1918 the ''Reichsgesetzblatt'', the empire's official law publication organ, appeared in Slovene language, too. See , where you find electronic copies of every page. -- ] (]) 14:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Then it should be removed from the unofficial language bracket and put into official, right? In the beginning of the wiki page, on the right, I mean. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==clarication use== |
|
|
Should you use “clarification needed” anywhere in the text? Are there any rulesfor the users? It `s unrude to let users do the digging or follow you,if you ask me. Also I don’t like such questions unless you start research it in talkpages.] (]) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==paul== |
|
|
<!---- please remove my section before decembre 2012-->Its name in romanian is imperiul austro-ungar,both name and titles in any print.The part romania that had foreign ruler and was under foreign realms (pretty often until ww1:) was transylvania only,and not whole romania (1908). Its chair has been owned by a hungarian origins I cant remember right now,representative of the central realm “deputy commisioner.”in rormanian principe] (]) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Culture == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The state of English in this article is frequently poor. I see the article contains no facility to edit, which I would gladly do but cannot, therefore I would recommend that an educated, fluent native speaker of standard English checks the article thoroughly and makes the required amendments. One silly example 'The population was composed by about 2500 people ...' What on earth is 'was composed by'? The author means, of course, 'was composed of' or 'comprised'. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
I'm interested in the culture of Austria-Hungary. |
|
|
For great power that has produced so many artists, musicians, architects, and writers around the time when the state still existed, it's a worthy addition, I imagine. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
== Ethnic census? yes in 1900 and 1910== |
|
|
The Empire counted ethnicity and language in the 1900 and 1910 censuses. for proof see {{cite book|author=Henry Wickham Steed et al|title=A short history of Austria-Hungary and Poland|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=dAJDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA145|year=1914|pages=145–46}} ] (]) 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:No it did not, only by language and religion, you are obviously misinterpreting the source which you may find scanned in its entirety here: . The text reads the following on p.146: ''The following table gives the numbers of different nationalities, '''as determined by the languages''' spoken by them in 1900'''. The language data was subsequently "racially" extrapolated, and in the case of Bosnian, Croats or Serbs, without making any thorough distinction between them. The principle was the same in 1910. ] (]) 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Needless to say, the extrapolation was of a conveniently arbitrary character which by no means reflected the reality on the ground. The Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats in fact perceived and continue to perceive themselves as sharply different communities between which there is often animosity, now as then. Historically, the Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats have lived under different empires, adopted different religions and developed different traditions and identities early on. This point is evident in the first Yugoslav census held a mere 10 years after the final AH one, which saw a clear separation between Croat, Serb and Bosniak (Muslims) self-identification. The question is now, should we respectfully strive to reflect the true nature of things or the substandard categorization imposed by an administration which frankly did not pay much attention to the sensibilities of their subjects. In any way, one cannot maintain that an "ethnic census" took place, when in fact such data was merely based on the secondary interpretation of language affiliation. ] (]) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The current way the flag of Austria-Hungary is shown, as of 26/5/2024 == |
|
== Edit war == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I appreciate the dedication to accuracy (and covering all of your bases,) whoever made the edit included the "military standard" of Austria-Hungary, unless I am mistaken, when they intended to include the flag of the Emperor and Empress. Furthermore, I don't believe showing the flag of the Emperor and Empress, or a military standard if that's what they wanted to do, is needed at all. The way I personally would represent Austria-Hungary in flags accurately would be to show the black and yellow Habsburg banner, over the flag of the Kingdom of Hungary, which is over the flag of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. If you see the way the article ] showcases both the flag of Hungary and Croatia, I would love to show this in a similar manner, just with 3 flags as the law in Transleithania required the flag of Hungary and Croatia be alongside each other or otherwise represented in the Hungarian diet and House of Magnates. If that is not possible, or not preferential, I would suggest merely showing the Habsburg banner of black and yellow and the "civil" flag of Hungary, without any coat of arms, as this was a common combination of flags to be flown contemporarily in the empire. Of course I would prefer flying the 3 flags, as by Transleithanian law Croatia-Slavonia had to be represented, and thus the flag of Hungary cannot suffice. If these changes cannot be made, I just suggest reverting back to showing the "see also ]," as it worked and prevented any discourse over it for the time it existed. Edit: It appears that it has been reverted back to the "see also ]." so this talk is essentially pointless unless you want to implement the changes I suggested. ] (]) 01:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have protected the page from editing as there appears to be an edit war regarding the inclusion of certain content. Once a consensus has been established as to whether or not the content should be included, the unprotection of the page can be requested at ]. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The rumored flag is just the civil ensign. The page can just use the Austrian Empire flag and move on. ] (]) 12:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Looking through the edit history, almost all the accounts (on both sides of the current edit war) appear to be blocked as sockpuppets. Perhaps what is needed are some uninvolved editors to opine on whether the content should be in or out? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Multiple flags == |
|
::: The problem is that this data is added by a sock of Stubes99 (]) and re-added with another sock . As such, some editors tried to remove this what appears to be a constructive but sock edits. ] (]) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if we add te flags of the multiple countries, such as Cisleithania, Hungary. Croatia-Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, while keeping the page about the flags, to explain it in more detail. ] (]) 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::It is true the text added by Stubes99 may be useful in this article, but unfortunately we talk about a long-time abuse (4 years old sockpuppeteer). With such users we must have no indulgence. We must apply radical solutions, namely to get rid of the whole text added, even if it is contructive. Stube99 behavior must not be accepted as behavior of normal editors and his edits must be completely nullified. Thread with this subject is also opened here ]--] (]) 10:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Unnecessary clutter in the infobox. We have a separate page that's even prominently linked. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Stubes99 copy-pasted in the article unprocessed paragraphs from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. He did not even bother to convert them to past tense (Example: "The judicial power '''is''' independent of the administrative power. The judicial authorities in Hungary '''are''').--] (]) 11:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Names of the cities == |
|
== Status of the Slovene language (1882) == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Beginning in 1882, there was a Slovene majority in the Diet of Carniola and in the capital ]; they replaced German with Slovene as their primary official language." |
|
I think it has to be some kind of order here. Eighter the names of the cities must be presented ''as of then, 1910'' or only in English. I think correct is as of official in 1910 + comments in other languages - the entire table. To use different principles for different cities makes no sence. ] (]) 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
I suggest following names and commentaries for "the city table" |
|
|
#. Wien ('''Vienna''', New Austria since 1919) |
|
|
#. Budapest (Hungarian since 1919) |
|
|
#. Prag ('''Prague''', Praha: Czechoslovakian 1919-1992, Czech Rep. since 1993) |
|
|
#. Triest (Trieste: Italian since 1919) |
|
|
#. Lemberg (Lwow: Polish 1919-1939, Lviv: USSR 1945-1992, Ukranian since 1992) |
|
|
#. Krakau (Kraków: Polish since 1919) |
|
|
#. Graz (New Austria since 1919) |
|
|
#. Brünn (Brno: Czechoslovakian 1919-1992, Czech Rep. since 1993) |
|
|
#. Szeged (Hungarian since 1919) |
|
|
#. Subotica (Yugoslavian 1919-2006, Serbian since 2006) |
|
|
#. Debrecen (Hungarian since 1919) |
|
|
#. Czernowitz (Czerniowce: Polish 1919-1939, Chernivtsi: USSR 1945-1992, Ukranian since 1992) |
|
|
All blue-linked to correct English article. "New Austria" is needed, I think. Austria after WWI was an entirely different nation that must not be confused with the Habsburgian Austria. |
|
|
I have previously stated that Hungarians (after native German speaking people) were the largest minority of the Habsburgian Empire. This was reverted as "good faith edit", but I only used another table from this article, which states that 24% of the population were native German speakers followed by 20% native Hungarian speakers. This do to some degree explain why the Hungarians got a higher status than for instance Czecks, Poles, Slovakians etc after 1869. And the Hungarian uprising began during the revolutionary year 1848. (There were revolutions and/or uprisings in many European countries that year. For example in France, where the second republic began. And also a Hungarian uprising in the Habsburgian Austria) ] (]) 10:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)] (]) 10:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any sources for that? I don't seem to find anything on that, also not in other languages on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Usual practice is to use the official name of that place (city) in that period of time, in this case in the 1910. After that name, if it is not the present day name, we add the present day name as blue-linked. Adding this kind of description after every city is too much. Anybody who is interested about the history and changes of this city can find that data on that city`s article. As for the "New Austria" term, this term is confusing to me. Hungary was a new state after the Austria-Hungary but I did`t saw "New Hungary" anywhere. ] (]) 11:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Year Needed Tag == |
|
== I made a flag == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made a flag that is non-official, can I add it? ] (]) 15:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Is the year needed tag necessary to be used in this article in a section when the citation itself is not existing for the mentioned statement? I feel the year needed should be removed and should be re-analyzed once a proper citation or clarification has been provided. The tag is currently un-necessary.] (]) 03:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Amit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:No, sorry. ] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==See also== |
|
|
Please include: ] ... thanks! -Hyperboreer 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
The state of English in this article is frequently poor. I see the article contains no facility to edit, which I would gladly do but cannot, therefore I would recommend that an educated, fluent native speaker of standard English checks the article thoroughly and makes the required amendments. One silly example 'The population was composed by about 2500 people ...' What on earth is 'was composed by'? The author means, of course, 'was composed of' or 'comprised'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.10.233 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate the dedication to accuracy (and covering all of your bases,) whoever made the edit included the "military standard" of Austria-Hungary, unless I am mistaken, when they intended to include the flag of the Emperor and Empress. Furthermore, I don't believe showing the flag of the Emperor and Empress, or a military standard if that's what they wanted to do, is needed at all. The way I personally would represent Austria-Hungary in flags accurately would be to show the black and yellow Habsburg banner, over the flag of the Kingdom of Hungary, which is over the flag of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. If you see the way the article Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen showcases both the flag of Hungary and Croatia, I would love to show this in a similar manner, just with 3 flags as the law in Transleithania required the flag of Hungary and Croatia be alongside each other or otherwise represented in the Hungarian diet and House of Magnates. If that is not possible, or not preferential, I would suggest merely showing the Habsburg banner of black and yellow and the "civil" flag of Hungary, without any coat of arms, as this was a common combination of flags to be flown contemporarily in the empire. Of course I would prefer flying the 3 flags, as by Transleithanian law Croatia-Slavonia had to be represented, and thus the flag of Hungary cannot suffice. If these changes cannot be made, I just suggest reverting back to showing the "see also Flags of Austria-Hungary," as it worked and prevented any discourse over it for the time it existed. Edit: It appears that it has been reverted back to the "see also Flags of Austria-Hungary." so this talk is essentially pointless unless you want to implement the changes I suggested. Hestatus24 (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
What if we add te flags of the multiple countries, such as Cisleithania, Hungary. Croatia-Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, while keeping the page about the flags, to explain it in more detail. Masachiku (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
"Beginning in 1882, there was a Slovene majority in the Diet of Carniola and in the capital Laibach (Ljubljana); they replaced German with Slovene as their primary official language."
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
