Jump to content

Talk:Austria-Hungary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.164.154.220 (talk) at 19:51, 30 December 2018 (→Missleading maps of administrative internal divisions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeAustria-Hungary was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Requested move 9 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Austria-Hungary → Austro-Hungarian Empire – As the article already states "often referred to as the Austro-Hungarian Empire ... in English-language sources. The name "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is more descriptive than "Austria-Hungary". PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as the nominator. I was surprised when a Goolge Book search of "Austria-Hungary" and "Austro-Hungarian Empire" appeared to show that "Austria-Hungary" was the more common name. However when I restricted the search to 21st century, "Austro-Hungarian Empire" returned about 660 volumes while "Austria-Hungary" returned less than 380. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read with interest the discussion higher up this page #Austro-Hungarian Empire in which users Khajidha, KIENGIR, FkpCascais and Bolzanobozen participated. Yes FkpCascais you are right both names are used (see my Support comment above). KIENGIR you argument about redirects works both ways if the article is moved the redirect from "Austria-Hungary" will exist so we can put that on to one side. As to your arguments about not being the official name, as Khajidha pointed out most county names are not under official state names, and besides "Austria-Hungary" was not the official name of the state. A direct comparison is with predecessor states of Austrian Empire and before it the Holy Roman Empire neither article of which is at its formal self-identifying (German) name. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austria-Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for area of A-H

No source is given for the information in the info-box. Where does this come from? FOARP (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this, the only sourced statistic for area is that given for Austria Hungary as a whole in the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911 (239,977 square miles). However, it is not entirely clear from the description whether this does or does not include Bosnia Herzegovina (19,702 sq. m). There is no source given at all for the larger area of 1918 nor any explanation as to what additional area this includes. As such I'm striking both from the info box until a source can be found. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missleading maps of administrative internal divisions

All maps we have showing the internal divisions of both Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary are incorrect. They ignore the Military Frontier. The MF was a major factor within internal politics of the empire. It was a multi-ethnic province directly ruled from Vienna. Hungary, Croatia-Slavonia, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temiswar all claimed the territories atributed to the MF to be restored to them, since they lost all control and power of decition in the territories within the MF. Local languages were disregarded and German was imposed. For exemple, Croatian-Slavonian deputies spent decades in the parliament in Budapest demanding the restauration of their authority in parts of the MF earlier were part of Croatia-Slavonia. That was their main agenda and clearly means it was a major issue and that Vienna by creating the MF removed the local rule from the neighbouring provinces inside the territory of the MF.

Why is this important? Because it is a fact that Military Frontier existed as separate province from its neighbours for long time, and as such, it should be indicated in the maps, as otherwise gives a false perception that other provinces ruled over areas which they actually didn´t, and were part of MF directly ruled by Vienna, and with its own governers and authority structure. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed many mistakes in maps in many articles, but did not have enough time you care with them. If it was opened here, plus one addition:
- the "File:Austria-Hungary map new.svg" has a mistake, because Muraköz (Medimurje) is located at Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, although then it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and only after by the Treaty of Trianon it was ceded to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
However, as the Military Frontieres were abolished in 1881, not necessarily all maps are wrong if they depict the situation after 1881 (it does not have any connection to the other mistake I reflected)(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Military frontier can be put on a map, but the interpretation FkpCascais is giving here is incorrect and I will oppose it entering the article. Of course he hasn't backed up his claims with sources so here's one source which I found some time ago: "After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." [1] , page 157. This source is very clear with it's definition. Military Frontier is a part of Croatia-Slavonia, however it has a separate administration and representation. This separate administration and representation was abolished in 1881. I support adding MF to maps with this source that will give a context. 141.138.55.73 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed KIENGIR, you are right, Military Frontier was abolished in 1881. However, most (to say all) maps show the situation just prior WWI and fail to point it out, leaving the impression those internal borders were as such all time. Maps showing the internal borders in different time periods, and more precition in pointing out the exact period the maps correspond to, would be extremelly beneficial.
Dear IP, first, you should understand the difference between Military Frontier and its sections. Military Frontier was never part of Croatia-Slavonia, some sections of it were later incorporated into it. Second thing, your source is the result of the claims Croatian-Slavonian parliament made, but doesn´t indicate if all, some, or any, points were accepted and became reality. Croatian-Slavonian parliament made many claims and demands, but they were too often turned down by Budapest and Vienna, which had the power of the decition. FkpCascais (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem of inclusion any map that is correct, depicting the situation before 1881. However, before that it should be supervised by the community that surely it does not have any mistake, at least also that mistake - that is out of the context of the MF debate - should be corrected as well that I reflected above.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
It's not a hard sentence to understand. If the King has proclaimed something and that was signed by all 8 ministers, I would think it's pretty official. Luckily I don't have to think, I have a secondary source141.138.55.73 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, so what exactly are you not getting about this source? It says that Military Frontier will continue to exist as a separate administrative unit, but that it with Croatia and Slavonia constitutes a single land. Does the term land confuses you? A land in this term is a "crown land". 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you desparatively want Military Froniter to be something separated from Croatia, but it wasn't. Let's leave this wikipeida secondary source stuff aside. If the king has proclaimed something and it was signed, what else should have been done for you to be satisfied and accept it? 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, how is that I find duzens of sources saying Military Frontier existed as separate administrative unit dierctly ruled by Vienna (not Zagreb!) all way until 1881, while you just have one Wikisource with a Croatian text from 1905 basically not eeven saying what you claim but having that transcript of the declaration from 1850 which alsoo says "nothing was to change"? Find a real source, not Croatian, saying Military Frontier became part of Croatia in 1850, or back off and stop this madness. FkpCascais (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the only one desperate here is you. I have tons of sources and evidence backing me, and no, Croatia-Slavonia and Military Forntier didn´t became any sort of "single land" in 1850. Deal with it. FkpCascais (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a wikisource any more. And yes, it's not a count which matters, but quality. This source indeed says the first part of your claim, but it adds a second one by directly referencing the kings proclamation. Why are you focusing on one part saying about separate administartion and representation, and ignoring the second part which says that it will however with Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land? I don't have a transcript of the declaration. I wish i had it, because it would be interesting to read, but I only have a secondary source which is mentioning the declaration and saying that this declaration defined Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia to be a single land in 1850. So Croatian source is not good enough for you even though it directly references the kings proclamation? Look, you could have all those arguments before I found the source, but it's time to admit your defeat. I mean, the source is speaking for itself "However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." , what's not clear in this sentence? You are the only one of all editors on Tesla talk page who is complaining about the source. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not even going to read that... Just find a source saying Croatia-Slavonia and Military Frontier became same unit in 1850, otherwise don´t bother. SUch event would have clearly found its place in some more books other than one Wikisource of a etxt from 1905 which, btw, says that but also says more things which turn that affirmation down. Just find more sources. That would solve it, but you clearly don´t have more sources, because that NEVER HAPPENED. FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For years you were saying that it's separete because it was ruled by Vienna and I finally managed to find a source which says that your SYNTHESIS "Ruled by Vienna->Not same unit" is incorrect. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need anything more than the kings proclamations interpreted by a secondary source. If it says more things, you are free to quote the source and prove that I have lied, but of source you won't do that. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So no source? FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? The source is listed here, and I have extracted a qoute. You are the only one that is having trouble understanding that quote. Out of 6 or so editors on Tesla page. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your source doesn´t even say what you pretend. You need more sources, and preferably in English.
Exemple, this is a source: The Habsburg rulers menaged to free most of Croatia from the Turks by 1699. The Treaty of Carlowitz, signed in that year, acknolledged this. The newly freeded areas of Croatia regained domestic autonomy, including their own Diet, or legislature. However, the Habsburg rulers continued to exercise direct control over the area of the "Military Frontier" because of its strategic significance. The separate military governament for the "Military Frontier" was not finally abolished until 1881. The tradition of the frontier remained long after 1881. (Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2015-2016, by Wayne C. Thompson, page 432).
Scholar, in English, and speaking clearly, not citing some declarations. Just this one brings ttoally down all you pertend. Also, you really think Zagreb and Timisoara were part of a "single land" from 1850 till 1881? You see how much sources you need to back that up, don´t you? FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what my source says. "My:separate administration"="Your:the Habsburg rulers continued to exercise direct control", "My:separate administration"="Your:separate military governament", but my also says "single lang". Is it my problem you have a source which ommits to mention that? Mine mentiones it and further is adding a direct quote supporting this claim. It simply cannot be stronger than that. Your source doesn't have a footnote and you are considering it to be of higher value. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just find a scholar source that confirms that. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one confirms it by stating the kings proclamation as a reference. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn´t. It just cites what a declration issued by Croatian-Slavonian sabor in 1850 says. But also says "it all remained the same as it was". WHich brings down that anything changed. You need a source confirming what stated that declaration, really happened. And there is none, because that never happened. It was just an empty declaration. FkpCascais (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be clear once and for all:
Your source says: In 1850 Croatian-Slavonian sabor issued a declaration saying "Croatia, Slavonia and MF should constitute a single land. Despite this, everything should remain as it is".
Are you having problems with the native language of the source? This quote you stated doesnt exist. Especially the word "should" as you stated it141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source that says "Croatia, Slavonia and MF became one single land". Do you understand? You need a source that confirms what declaration said was done. FkpCascais (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can write "The Moon is pink". You may have then a source saying "FkpCascais wrote the Moon is pink and he signed it". That is not enough for going to Moon article and writing it is pink! FkpCascais (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it quotes the kings proclamation, not a declaration by Croatian-Slavonian sabor, as it is sayd "in 1850 the King's proclamation". Second, how can you not understand that it is a secondary source citing it, not me. By it being a secondary source, it gives the interpretation to that quote. If the author feels that the quote from the primary source is simple enough to understand, he can just put the quote. If the quote is misleading in any way then we can expect from the secondary source to explain. Why am I explaining to you most basic Wikipedia rule? The source is not saying it was just an empty declaration. Why are you adding this made up claims? "It all remained the same as it was" - are you referring here to the part of the source which says "it will remain within its present territory." after which in the next sentence says "However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land". Where does it say "it remained as it was" I would like to read the full context in the source.141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not putting the correct quotes. Whare does it say should? Where is the sentence "Despite everything remained the same"? Put a correct quote, you can do it on the native language, I can read it, but stop misquoting 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Za Krajinu odlučuje kralj, da će i nadalje ostati „unutar svoga dosadašnjega zemljišnoga prostora"; ipak će „sa svojom materom zemljom Hrvatskom i Slavonijom činiti jednu zemlju, no s razlučenom provincijalnom i vojničkom upravom, te s razlučenim zastupanjem".
I didn't even translate "sa svojom materom zemljom (With its mother land Coratia and Slavnoia)"? 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whare is the sentence "sve je ostalo isto kao prije (it all remained the same as it was)", I'm not seeing it. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what that declaration says. You need to provide a source peferably from a contemporary historian, saying that happened. You don´t have it because it didn´t happened. Moon is not pink despite me having written that. Without a good source you want get anywhere. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrelevant, and I have provided a secondary source from a contemporary historian saying that happened. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is because the source just cites the declaration and says "Bla bla should do this", you need a source saying that happened.
Where you provided a souce? FkpCascais (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you mentioning the word "should" which is nowhere to be found in the source? This secondary source is clearly saying that the kind decided in his proclamation in 1850 that Military Frontier will with its mother land Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land. Why would I need another source to say the same thing? Look at this "Za Krajinu odlučuje kralj (For Krajina the king decides)". 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire source speaks in future tense! You read it very well. Exemple "da će i nadalje ostati" (that should stay together). That entire part is writen suggesting what shall happened, and not saying it happened.
Now, where is that alleged conetmporary source you just now said you already presented? Was it you or was it Bilseric? ;) FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again incorrect. "da će i nadalje ostati" (that should stay together) is a direct quote that the secondary source does from the 1850 declaration. You are trying to say that your interpretation of the primary source is more legit that the one put by this secondary source. The secondary source is the one that we are discussing the whole time Najnovije_doba_hrvatske_povjesti_(R._Horvat). 141.136.229.217 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its all written from that period citing what the declaration said. You need sources to confirm everything said there happened. All sources indicate it didn´t and that Croatia had no matters with MF all waay until at least 1881. What happened with the source you said you already presented? FkpCascais (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you are completely wrong here, the secondary source is from 1906. It's perfectly legit for a secondary source to state a claim by citing the primary source. Ask any experienced editor on Wikipedia. If you want another source to confirm this one, how about the one posted on Tesla page which is saying the same thing: "At that time Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was sometimes referred to as the Krajina.". 141.136.229.217 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What now. Do I need third source because 2 aren't good enough? It's time to face it that youre interpretation is wrong. It's really nothing you can do to disprove this source since it directly references the kings proclamation. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FkpCascais:, I see that you are confused to which source I referring. Look to the top of this discussion. I posted on November 14. 141.136.219.74 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais and KIENGIR: , so if you don't disagree any more, I will put this source to the article. It already is stated in Military Frontier article. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Sock struck Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Especially, this part I did not participate in the discussion, only to the map question raised by FkpCascais, thus you cannot qualify me agreeing/disagreeing on anything in this matter. Seek consensus first, I recommend you to involve and Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Austria-Hungary task force.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Ok. I can have a look when I get more time. I'll do the edit and see if someone reverts. Then we can discuss. Bye until then. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any edits by the IP will be reverted per WP:DENY. As I have not looked into the details, I will not object if an editor in good standing wants to make any edits Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austria-Hungary&oldid=876041316"