Talk:Austria Voyage Tips and guide

"Austrians as a people generally "don't like" Germany or Germans at least in the competitive sense (???) and are quite sensitive about it. 80 million to the north in Germany and 8 million in Austria has made this an even more lively rivalry. Don't compare Austria negatively to Germany; you will quickly anger the locals as Germans are seen as over rich bad arrogant driving tourists on a bad day."

Is this supposed to be humourous, or perhaps just very badly explained? Otherwise it looks as though we're advising that in order to 'respect' Austrians, you're supposed to either tolerate or support xenophobia. And God forbid if you actually are a German in Austria, it sounds like you'd have an utterly rotten time. I have no idea about how accurate any of this is, but while "don't compare country x negatively to larger neighbour" would be good advice anywhere, the rest reads like it was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

Unless anyone who knows Austria can confirm the truth of any of this (in which case, would you be prepared to flesh it out?), I propose reducing this simply to: "Don't compare Austria negatively to Germany; you will quickly anger the locals." Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is not a joke, but is badly explained and should be rewritten. There is indeed some rivalry, usually (but not always) good-natured, between the two countries; a similar analogy might be the historically difficult relationship between Ireland and England. Austrians definitely do not like to be compared to Germans, and there are some significant cultural differences between the two countries. These may not be apparent to a casual visitor on a brief visit, though. (FWIW, I'm half Austrian and have lived there.) –StellarD (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing this out. I lived in Munich and went to Austria often and that section was just insanely inaccurate. Fixed Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Germans like to make fun of Austria (and the Schluchtenscheißer as they are sometimes derisively called) while Austrians like to complain about the Piefkes being uptight and overly formal. It's probably not all that different from other neighborly rivalries but to those involved it seems the most unique thing in the history of uniqueness. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, everyone. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

So Austria voted on Sunday and it is all but guaranteed, that the right wing populist FPÖ will form part of the next federal government. During the first and Second Schüssel government (the last time the FPÖ held federal power), there were EU "sanctions" on Austria and (semi-) regular protests. Besides that, there was of course the right wing populist politics of the government. I see it as highly likely that the polarizing, anti-foreigner rhetoric that both Sebastian Kurz (head of the ÖVP, the main conservative party and the strongest party in the new Nationalrat) and the FPÖ engaged in, will continue and as has been seen with Brexit, anti-foreigner rhetoric can translate into violence against people who "look foreign". Should we include some sort of warning or a "notice of caution" in the "Stay Safe" section? Should we - if and when the government is formed - inform people who might wish to not visit Austria for as long as the government is in place? Or is this too much us getting into politics? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think a warning at this point would be overkill – there is no similar warning for other nearby countries with far-right governments, e.g. Hungary and Poland. –StellarD (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well for certain there is "stuff" going on in Hungary and Poland. How relevant to travel newspapers being shut down or demonstrations are, I don't know. But iirc there has been an uptick in both antisemitic and xenophobic violence in Hungary ever since Orban got into power and Jobbik gained so many seats in Parliament. In Poland meanwhile, there are sporadic demonstrations against certain acts of the government and if I am not misinformed, the LGBT community (or rather its organized part doing marches and stuff) has bee co-opted or co-opted itself as a major force in the anti-government groupings (not all that much of a surprise, given the catholic-clerical tendencies of the government and the rampant homophobia that usually boils down to). Nonetheless, LGBT-travelers might wish to know of that to take it into account for their travel plans. I think we should at least mention Xenophobia, but I am no Poland or Hungary expert (I haven't even been to Hungary and my visits into Poland were twice as far as my legs could carry me on a day-trip and nothing more). Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's been years since I last visited Hungary and Poland, so I can't really comment on those countries. Regarding xenophobia in Austria, it depends on where exactly you are. In a remote village in Carinthia (the heartland of FPÖ country) you will certainly encounter it, but Vienna will likely be just fine for visitors regardless of ethnicity or orientation. On my most recent visit to Vienna last year I encountered a number women in niqabs in a middle-class neighborhood who didn't get a second-glance from residents – this would have been unthinkable just ten years ago. (Of course, it's probably not a good idea to go walking around in a niqab in every Vienna district, but then you could say that about Berlin, too). If we're going to mention xenophobia in Austria then we should mention it in relevant regions, and apply the same standard to other countries too, notably in the United States, as some visitors are much more likely to encounter problems in rural Kentucky for example than in Los Angeles. –StellarD (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well Austria now has a (passed by the previous SPÖ/ÖVP government) "anti camouflaging your face law" as it is more or less officially called, but everybody who doesn't live under a rock knows, it's a law to outlaw certain types of Islamic dress. I won't voice an opinion on that law, but it can certainly affect visitors from certain places (heck, one of the first people who had to pay a fine under the new law was some guy in a shark costume advertising for some shop-opening). Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well if we're going to mention the Austrian law, then we should mention the version in France, too, and any other variations in other European countries, and we should be consistent about it. My point is that Austria is hardly unique in this regard, either socially or politically – perhaps this would be best addressed on the Europe talk page. –StellarD (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think we do mention some of this stuff on some of those pages, but not with any consistency. I am not sure a one size fits all approach would be right, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits have excised or bowdlerized quite a bit of the factual stuff regarding politics, particularly the FPÖ and the very real Vienna/rest of the country split (which, btw, the FPÖ also acknowledges). I think we should take this opportunity to have an honest debate on this. And before all else, I do think that foreign visitors, be they Arab, Jewish, ex-Yugoslavian or black might have an interest to know about the FPÖ and their positions regarding antisemitic songs, Burschenschaften, "Tschuschen" (I apologize for using this slur even in quotation) or "Islamisierung". At any rate, I think it is by now well known that I am a notorious (((linksgrünversiffter Gutmensch))) but for the reasons outlined, I think discussing the FPÖ is necessary to give travelers a fair and complete image of Austria. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course anything bearing on safety and whether a visitor's reception may be hostile, even if not putting them in potential physical danger, is important to mention in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The passages I deleted were neither relevant for potential travellers nor were they politically neutral. In many cases they were not even factual. How, for example, are the Greens a "major party" with 3,8% of the vote in the last elections? How is Vienna "notably red" when the "red" party got barely a third of the vote? And how is the fact that you want to portray Vienna as cosmopolitan and the rest of Austria as conservative and xenophobic when this is an obvious partisan supersimplification relevant for travellers? I think Wikivoyage gains if we try to leave our political beliefs out of it (cf. here). Obviously, everything that is relevant for a visitor's safety and reception is important to mention, but presenting a biased view of Austrian politics is not, in my view. Perhaps we can agree on a more neutral wording if you think it needs to be included. Maltatal (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I now rewrote the section, please review and discuss. Maltatal (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Recent election results have no bearing on the fundamental strength of a party and you know that. Nobody would argue NRW is not structurally more "red" than the German average even though its current government does not include the social democrats. Saxony remains structurally conservative even when AfD and CDU have near identical vote shares. And the electoral disaster of the Green Party in the last election is so notable because it is so rare and it was caused in large part by the defection of that Pilz guy. I think we are not even getting into some of the more nasty stuff like the pretty clearly brown history of the FPÖ as well as the transparent lies Austria keeps telling itself about the Anschluss and the seven years after that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If elections have no effect on the "fundamental strengeth" of a party, what does? I understand you are angry about the results of the October election which made you start editing the Austrian politics section a couple of days later to adequately reflect your political views, but let's try to keep it (i) factual [there have e.g. been lots of times when "all uniformed forces" were in the "hands" of the same party because we have not always had coalition governments], (ii) neutral, and (iii) reasonably short because this is an online travel guide after all and not a compendium on Austrian politics as seen from the far left. Maltatal (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Maltatal on this. I don't believe this level of detailed focus on Austrian politics is relevant to a travel guide, and the joke is tired and not funny, either. –StellarD (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This seems to have flared up again (Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Disagreements regarding Austria) regarding edits culminating in this one. For what it's worth, the information seems fairly irrelevant to me. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I agree that the content that was removed seems irrelevant. However, I think there's probably other content in the article that falls under the same category. Also, the way I see it, Hitler's actions toward the Jews is a topic best avoided, because it was so terrible. The same is the case, I'm sure, with many of the actions of Stalin and similar dictatorial individuals who ruled around that time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

While I generally favour avoiding long discussions about politics, I think that deleting the section in question in its entirety results in glossing over Austria's Nazi past, which does a disservice to readers. I think that we can make the point without getting into an old example, and instead focusing on the current situation. Here is a suggestion. Instead of

"The widespread denial of Austria's Nazi past came to a head during the "Waldheim affair" of the 1980s where the Nazi past of Austrian President (and UN general secretary) Kurt Waldheim was put under scrutiny, leading social democratic Austrian chancellor Fred Sinowatz to sarcastically declared "Wadlheim was never a member of the SA, only his horse". Austria also had a significantly lower percentage of political exiles return after 1945 and the FPÖ (one of Austria's main political parties) got its start openly pandering to former Nazi Party members."

Let's use:

"There has been widespread denial of Austria's Nazi past, and the FPÖ, which has served as the junior coalition partner in the Austrian government since 2017, got its start openly pandering to former Nazi Party members."—The preceding comment was added by Ground Zero (talk • contribs)

Strongly oppose any mention of a current political party, even an implicit one. I think the article goes into enough detail on this as it is. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 22:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Many of our articles mention current political parties (US, UK, Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia...). Ground Zero (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right. I oppose it in this context, not as an absolute rule (although we would probably be better off without many of those mentions). ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

SelfieCity, without prejudice to this particular discussion, I couldn't disagree with you more. On that basis, the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia shouldn't be mentioned in the articles for those countries, either. It's definitely a disservice to travelers to ignore genocides that fundamentally reshaped countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The FPÖ getting its start in politics by openly pandering to Nazis is factual. Austria having fewer exiles return after WW2 is also factual. Austria "just so happening" to be the first major "western" (technically non-aligned at the time) country to extend diplomatic recognition to Iran after the major no-no they did with American embassy is also a fact. I think my politics are by now well known. But I think we'd do a disservice to travelers if we were silent about Austria - especially outside of Vienna - being, well, yaknow.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

We would be doing travelers a disservice by counterfactually portraying Austria as the sinister Neonazi haven that you are apparently imagining it to be. Maltatal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Where did I say that? And please do not leave the level of the factual. I will restore my version as I do not think you have made a substantial contribution to this talk page thus far. You are invited to do so without insinuating motives of any kind. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is really disappointing to have to protect this page from edit warring. Please let's keep talking in a productive and respectful way, everyone.

What substantive effects do the FPÖ, and the (alleged) denial of Austria's Nazi past have on travellers? Why does the traveller need to know about this? This is not rhetorical or provocative; I genuinely don't know. Is it just background information, or is there a respect / safety issue at play? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Things that are absolute non-issues to say in Germany (well, they were until recently) like "the Nazi era was bad. Germany did a lot of bad thing in that time. Too many people followed Hitler, probably a majority" are somehow controversial in Austria. And pretty open racism (e.g. using slurs I may have alluded to above) is much more "accepted" in Austria. When the FPÖ formed part of the government in the late 1990s early 2000s there were weekly demonstrations against that. And I must say there was - for whatever reason - less debate about the need to mention slavery or the American Civil War in articles where such is germane. I do not quite see the need by certain people to whitewash Austrian history. I also do not see why the "default" should be the removal of any mention of Austria's Nazi past and its - let's just say less than stellar - handling of same since 1945. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to leave a comment here re: "factual" information. It is a known phenomenon that people on one side of a political divide may say that their perspectives are "facts" and the opposition's are "propaganda" or "denialism." While this may or may not be true, it can also be seen as partisan point-scoring, especially to someone on the opposite side of the divide. Who gets to say who is right, if anyone? It's not our place; we're a travel guide. We avoid this issue by being fair and leaving it alone, issue or non-issue. If something is remotely controversial, even if one side of the controversy offends our sensibilities, we should imagine how a reader who shares that opinion may feel reading one of our articles, and leave it alone. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do we have to pander to people who say "the American Civil War wasn't really about slavery at all"? Do we have to pander to Shoah denialism? Do we have to pander to certain people who used to add in a lot extraneous stuff into articles on Brussels? Look, it is excusable to not know the history of Austria. It is after all, an unimportant country for the most part. What is not excusable is to call into question facts that - to my knowledge - nobody here, not even Maltatal denies. The only thing Maltatal denies is something nobody says, namely that Austria is a "sinister Neonazi haven". Nobody has said that. I have said that the Waldheim affair was a big effing deal. And that the FPÖ got its start pandering to Nazis. Both of those things can be looked up in history books, in wikipedia, wherever you care to look. Of course we can debate which of the various Burschenschaften that various high ranking politicians are members of are "Nazi" or just "right wing" or maybe even "cornflower liberal" (if you don't know what this piece of organic matter means in Austria, read it up) until the cows come home. But I do not think we should shirk from mentioning stuff about Austrian history because somebody insinuates stuff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Waldheim affair is worth a mention, I think, as it was a huge international incident. And be fair doesn't mean avoid anything that could possibly upset anyone. Moreover, the fact that some people will deny every inconvenient fact doesn't make it less true. Given current politics in the United States, I don't think that point needs to be elaborated on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In many countries, any connection to neonazis would be toxic for a political party,but in Austria, such a party is in government. I think that is important for Jewish, non-white and LGBT travellers. The Waldheim affair, while important in Austria's history, is too complicated to cover briefly, as is evidenced by the not-very-clear passage in question. User:Maltatal, your claim that User:Hobbitschuster is "portraying Austria as the sinister Neonazi haven" is harmful to this discussion. I think you should withdraw the comment and commit to refraining from misrepresenting other editors' positions in the future. Ground Zero (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

To be exact, I wrote that User:Hobbitschuster apparently imagines Austria to be a "sinister Neonazi haven". I get this impression from some of his statements like "Things that are absolute non-issues to say in Germany [...] like "the Nazi era was bad. Germany did a lot of bad thing in that time. Too many people followed Hitler, probably a majority" are somehow controversial in Austria. And pretty open racism (e.g. using slurs I may have alluded to above) is much more "accepted" in Austria." and insinuations such as "But I think we'd do a disservice to travelers if we were silent about Austria - especially outside of Vienna - being, well, yaknow.... ". Having lived more than half my life in Austria I find that these views do not reflect reality as I perceive it and I would not want them to make travelers see the country as something it is not. Austria has its share of right-wing and left-wing extremists, but certainly not significantly more or less than any other Western European country. Maltatal (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

How is the Waldheim affair so complicated? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The passage first explains who he was, then what he did, then tells a lame joke, about something that happened over 30 years ago. I think that telling the reader that the FPO is in government now provides more important and timely context to travellers on 2019. Ground Zero (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your last point, but I don't think the Waldheim story is really that complicated. He covered up a Nazi past and then when it came out, it was a big international story. That's all that needs to be said, and that he was a former U.N. Secretary-General and was then President of Austria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

No one is trying to whitewash Austrian history here. But we should not wrongly "blackwash" its present either. Was Hitler welcomed with open arms by many Austrians in 1938? Yes. Did many Austrians participate in the holocaust and other atrocities during WWII? Yes. Are these facts largely ignored or disputed in present-day Austria as Hobbitschuster claims? No. As for the Waldheim affair: It is relevant but certainly not relevant enough for a four-paragraph section on Austrian history in an online travel guide. Otherwise we might as well include the Fritzl case which has certainly shaped people's image of Austria more in the last ten years than Kurt Waldheim. Maltatal (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Trying to find a compromise, and avoid some repetition in the old version. How about:

"The widespread denial of Austria's Nazi past came to a head during the 1980s when its President Kurt Waldheim (a former UN general secretary) came under scrutiny because of his service as a Nazi intelligence officer. The FPÖ, which became the junior coalition partner in the Austrian government in 2017, got its start openly pandering to former Nazi Party members."

Ground Zero (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the transition between the two sentences could be more elegant, but otherwise, it seems fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

What is that even supposed to mean, "the widespread denial ... came to a head"? Seriously, I do not mean to sound petulant. Maltatal (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You should recognize that there is a lot of support for retaining these points. Feel free to suggest other wording. That would be more constructive than simply continuing to oppose. Ground Zero (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I suggest to rewrite the last two paragraphs of the history section as follows (I also took out the part about German students which has nothing to do with history):

"It was not until the end of the war that the mood changed and Austrians tried to distance themselves from Germany. In 1943, the Allies had decided to treat Austria as “Hitler’s first victim” and post-war Austrians happily agreed to see themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. A more honest examination of Austrian complicity in Nazi atrocities only gained momentum slowly, most notably over the course of the “Waldheim affair” in 1986, when Austrian presidential candidate and former UN general secretary Kurt Waldheim was accused of covering up his role in the German Wehrmacht. Nowadays, there is a national consensus that many Austrians welcomed the annexation of their country by Nazi Germany in 1938 and many also played an active role in the holocaust.

In 1945, Austria was divided into four zones of occupation like Germany. A treaty signed in 1955 ended the Allied and Soviet occupation, recognized Austria's independence, and forbade future unification with Germany. A constitutional law of that same year declared the country's "perpetual neutrality", a condition for Soviet military withdrawal, and thus saved Austria from Germany's fate of a divided nation with a divided capital. This official neutrality has been called into question since the Soviet Union's collapse of 1991 and Austria's entry into the European Union in 1995. Austria entered the European Monetary Union in 1999, and the Euro replaced the former currency Schilling in 2002."

Maltatal (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would dispute that this is needed purely on the basis of being an international incident. Interestingly, none of our Russia, USA, or Cuba articles mention the Cuban missile crisis, an even bigger international incident. Even more interestingly, Wikipedia's w:Austria encyclopedia article, out of ~135,000 bytes, dedicates just under 25 words to this incident.

This blatant politicizing is, to me, indefensible, and totally unlike the comparisons made. What I see is a textbook example of w:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that we should not be trying to find compromise on. Every proposal submitted so far devotes more writing, both absolutely and as a relative share of the article, to this minor incident than Wikipedia does. This is unneeded shoehorned information, elevated to relevance by one editor's own worldview and synthesis of history, and tendentious to boot.

At the end of the day, TT!'s very prudent question about why this is relevant to a travel guide is unanswered. I'll reiterate: why would this possibly be relevant to a travel guide? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 11:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

GZ answered half of my question with "In many countries, any connection to neonazis would be toxic for a political party,but in Austria, such a party is in government. I think that is important for Jewish, non-white and LGBT travellers." So there is a traveller-relevant case for mentioning the far right, and specifically neo-Nazism, in this article. On the other hand, how that entails the Waldheim affair is relevant to travel and therefore must be mentioned (which, for clarity, was not what GZ argued) is definitely not clear to me. But, like Granger, I don't really want to get too deeply involved with this discussion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The far-right is already mentioned in the Politics section. And the FPÖ is a right-wing populist party, not a neo-Nazi party. Maltatal (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

ARR8, if you think the topic of neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial and racism is sufficiently covered without mentioning Waldheim and others can agree on that, I won't stand in the way of not mentioning him. You're absolutely right that not all important incidents, including important international incidents, are mentioned in "Understand" sections of this site, and many of them don't need to be. I looked for a mention of Watergate in the United States guide and didn't find one, and the Cuban Missile Crisis almost destroyed the world, so maybe it should be mentioned, but apparently, it is not. That said, I think that a very brief mention of the Waldheim affair fits neatly into a discussion of Austria's uncomfortable relationship with its Nazi past, which is still a current issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree with a short mention of the Waldheim affair as a notable example illustrating Austria's way of coping with the past. Users who want to learn more details about the affair may consult other sources than a travel guide. --RJFF (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maltatal did a clever slight of hand that we know from the likes of Donald Trump saying there are supposedly extremists in both sides and insinuating they're equally bad. Oh and also other European countries are just as bad. Well when Austrofascism governed Austria, much of Europe was under a dictatorship. Does that excuse austrofascism? Does that make people who opposed it from the left "Extremists"? But please, show me where the equivalent to the cornflower wearing, Burschenschaft Olympia "Hitler had a decent jobs program" (Haider about Hitler) FPÖ is on the left. The KPÖ has what, one reasonably popular city councillor in Graz who instead of demanding communism advocates for lower rents? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to archive all the stuff that's over half a decade old, but I could save the stuff due to a link which is apparently on the spam list. Can somebody remedy this issue please? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wait a second, Hobbitschuster, you're not an admin? Is there some reason for that that I don't know about? If not I'll nominate you, if you're willing. Either way, I'll do the archiving in a moment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

To my surprise, admins can't override the spam blacklist either. I removed the links and added clarifying notes in the archive. If you do want to be an admin, please ping me—I don't want to watchlist this page because I want to avoid the temptation to get involved in the political debate above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is a MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for URLs blocked by Wikimedia that are fine on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

There is some disagreement - as evidenced by the edit history - whether and if so how to mention certain aspects of Austria's current political landscape and twentieth century history. Please opine here or on the talk page so that we can avoid an edit war Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The talk page would be the best forum for this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree with both of you, will check it out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

As a political geek, I find the discussion of Austrian politics to be interesting. But is this paragraph too detailed for a travel guide?

"A peculiar facet of the "Second Republic", as Austrians call the post-1945 incarnation of the state, is that for a long time important posts in government and civil service were appointed according to "Proporz" (~proportionality). This meant that certain offices were known as the "fiefdom" of either centre-left SPÖ or centre-right ÖVP, and thus (in accordance with the party colours) were known as "red" or "black" respectively. This was aided by almost uninterrupted "Grand Coalitions" between the two parties at the federal level. Some state constitutions explicitly called for the state government to be composed proportionally to all parties in the state parliament. Whatever the faults of this system, it helped prevent the extremely violent and unstable politics Austria had had to endure in the interwar era when "reds" and "blacks" were pitted against each other in open hostility. With the 1999 coalition between the ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ, this consensus-oriented way of making politics has started to crumble, and Austrian politics has since become a lot more like the politics of other European countries. Some "fiefdoms" remain with the formerly "red" railways producing an SPÖ chancellor (who governed 2016-2017), and Vienna still electing "red" mayors like clockwork, whereas the more rural states are firmly "black"."

I kind of think this is too in-depth, but would like other opinions. Ground Zero (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

A shortened version of the above would be welcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually proposing to delete the paragraph. I don't think that it is important for the average traveller to know, and I think that it this level of detail makes the article less useful for most people. Those looking for more in-depth understanding should consult Wikipedia, which requires references to reliable sources. Ground Zero (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Isn't a briefer background to the political scene in Austria useful and interesting? The past explains the present, after all:

"Post-1945 Austrian politics were dominated by "grand coalitions" between the "red" centre-left SPÖ and the "black" centre-right ÖVP. This meant that important posts in government and the civil service were shared out according to "Proporz" (~proportionality) among "red" and "black". Whatever the faults of this system, it helped prevent the extremely violent and unstable politics Austria had had to endure in the interwar era when "reds" and "blacks" were pitted against each other in open hostility. With the 1999 coalition between the ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ, this consensus-oriented way of making politics started to crumble, and Austrian politics has since become a lot more like the politics of other European countries."--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wasn’t aware that the two right of centre parties made a coalition, at least not a permanent one, since FPO recently lost to OVP following a scandal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Coalitions in multiparty states are rarely permanent. -- unsigned comment by anon contributor

This shorter version is better, but I think it is more detail than is needed for a travel article. I have removed some of the encyclopedic details (number of seats, constitutional provisions for over-ruling votes by the National Council), but I think the politics section is still very long. If there is consensus, however, go ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that there is consensus for my proposed wording, but there is consensus that paragraph is too long. I'll insert my wording and if the rest of you want to change the wording and/or argue for the paragraph's removal, that's fine.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, TT claimed that the IP address adding this information is that of Hobbitschuster. If this fact is true, per sockpuppet rules should we not ask this user to identify whether or not if he is Hobbitschuster, and if he is take action to ensure that a user does not switch to an IP address in an attempt to conceal his/her actual identity on wiki?

I do not see evidence this editor is Hobbitschuster, but if that allegation is true, I think we should consider it when deciding whether or not to maintain the paragraph(s). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's allowed to edit anonymously and to have alternative accounts. What's not allowed is to use multiple accounts to pretend to be different people in order to advance an agenda, which is not what's happening here. If this IP is Hobbitschuster, he's not breaking any rules.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have, on occasion, forgotten to log in when editing. I try not to do it, but I don't think there is anything sinister here. Ground Zero (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

That explains the situation regarding that editing, thanks. I thought I’d seen recently that editors had been required by admins to use either anonymous or an account, but not both, in discussions regarding some incidents but as I do not know them specifically I wouldn’t disagree with consensus.

As for breaking rules, edit warring would presumably be one of those, but when content is being added quickly and informatively, I wouldn’t object to a few statements accidentally being inserted into the text after already being reverted, as long as those incidents are addressed as they have been so far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've had this banner cropped since 2021-09-22, hoping that I'll eventually find a good article to put this in. And here seems a good one. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

0 is good, but 1 is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the existing banner, which seems to have far more foreground interest without the ugly cabin and blue septic tank (?). This with the caveat that I'm currently comparing them on mobile, so out of context to how they'd look on the page. If I don't give my desktop opinion within a few days, kindly prompt me to do so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Desktop confirmation: I still prefer the current one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether we should use banner 1 in Central Europe then. The banner there doesn't give much of a feel about the place. @Ikan Kekek? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's better than the existing banner for that article, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I prefer the existing one as the buildings "look Austrian". AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply