Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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:

• Austro-Hungarian army footage HD.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Australia-Hungary" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Australia-Hungary. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Flag of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia

Flag of the Triune Kingdm of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, used 1848-1918

It seams that some editors are not that familiar with history regarding this flag. So here are a couple of sources regarding the Croatian tricolor flag with the coat of arms and its official usage.

Also a soure that the flag either with the Triune CoA or with the Croatian CoA was used on all ships in Croatian posetion, as a variant of a merchant flag

Also a lot of paintings and photographs confirm the historic sources as well as opinions of historians and researchers on that subject Ban kavalir (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Fiume

@Havsjö:,

Hi, I am still awaiting your proposals regarding uncovered Fiume coined in the edit log. I presented regarding both interpretations a flawless predecessor/successor lines, but if you'd check some Poland related articles, you'll see some really many not real successors comparing to Carnaro...Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC))

Alright, we can re-add West Ukraine and Carnaro --Havsjö (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, in that case we have to remove Second Polish Republic, since the West Ukrainian People's Republic preceded it, and then we may as well put back State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to be totally flawless according to the successors without the necessity of recognition.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC))

Austria-Hungary as satelite state fantasy

A Romanian user "Transylvania1916" spread the misconception, that Austria-Hungary became "officially" satelite state of the German Empire, and he try to bounce on that fantasy claiming that he found such books and authors, which is a private opinion of the authors. Of course we can not see and find that in the public law or the constitutional arrangement of the A-H Empire. And this is a hard fact. In the reality it was only about wartime, and about war-economy, and the military coordination of Germany and Autria-Hungary it did not effect in any sense, that Austria-Hungary remained a 100% sovereign state.--Liltender (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Article under temporary full protection

As the situation has descended into edit-warring, I have protected the article for three days. Transylvania1916 and Liltender, you are expected to discuss the issues on this talk page as the first step in dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I for one have nothing to discuss. I provided my sources, and all I wrote was in them. Austria-Hungary surrendered control over its army to the Germans. One of the 5 sources I provided does explicitly state that this arrangement made Austria-Hungary Germany's satellite, another uses the term "loss of strategic independence", and another states that in September 1916, Ludendorff and Hindenburg became the effective rulers over both empires. Another specifically states that "sovereignty has been relinquished to a huge extent". I offered to provide a 6th source, which plainly states that by September 1916 AusHun became Germany's satellite. I'd also like to note that this status was short-lived: the death of Franz Joseph - whose signature gave this agreement power - negated it, and Karl regained control over the Austro-Hungarian Army. I myself consider that I have fulfilled my prerogatives as a good faith editor. As for my edit warring, I didn't consider it to warrant any discussion so long as I provide duly sourced content and my opponent deletes all of it, with no legitimate counter, let alone a sourced one. I'd like to add that, in my opinion, full protection should have come before this person disrupted my work once again. But this is all I have to say on the matter. I have nothing to argue, my sources do that for me, as should be the case for any editor that respects himself. G'day. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Temporary controll of the army for war-time did not mean anything related what you try to suggest. You can provide 10000 sources, it did not change the constitutional arrangement and public laws of Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary, and did not effect its sovereignty. British placed under French lead controll their army , according to you Britain became satlite of France...--Liltender (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, parts of it, not all of it, like the Austro-Hungarians did. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, it did not changed the constitutional arrangement and public laws of Austria or Hungary. It remained an independent state even on the level of diplomacy. The authors of that books are not real experts, they are not legal historians neither constitutional lawyers. This is typical case of "not enough good source".--Liltender (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know why I'm still arguing with you. This is the Wiki, your individual opinions do not matter in articles, I backed up my statements with 5 sources, and I could get even more if I wanted to. If you want to properly counter me, bring your own sources. As soon as the protection is lifted, I will put everything back in. For at this point it's not even about the actual information anymore, I simply refuse to concede to a plain disruptor like you. You've got nothing to back up your claims, you're just wasting my time with your unsourced poorly informed opinions. Transylvania1916 (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(1) First of all, please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, you should summarize source material in your own words, instead of copying the text of the cited books. (2) One single source (Richard Bassett's book) uses the term "satellite", so we could maximum regard it as a PoV, not as a fact. (3) All cited sources emphasize that the agreement limited the sovereignty of Austria-Hungary, but only on military issues. Most sources also mention that the agreement between Germany and Austria-Hungary was less limiting that those between Germany and Turkey/Bulgaria. (4) Therefore, please, properly summarize the cited sources instead of insisting on the use of a poorly verified term ("satellite"). Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The funny thing is that during the Cold War Romania would end up being called a Soviet satellite for much less than what AusHun would be called a German satellite for here. Seems to be a label of convenience, almost. Anyway, for me personally it is hard to think of it as anything else when a country surrenders control of its entire army to another country. Numerous sources have no qualms calling Romania during WW2 a Nazi satellite for agreeing to give its armies to German-led army groups, but when Austria-Hungary does it in WW1...crickets. As stated before, I can bring up an additional source which calls AusHun a satellite of Germany by September 1916. Also, I think it's really rich/hypocritical to dismiss a single source as "PoV" whilst we have plenty of articles without any sources at all, and many more relying on a single source. By this same logic, shouldn't all those articles be nixed altogether? And - again - I actually have two sources for the September satellite AusHun thing, just didn't want to overcrowd the paragraph: 1. Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. No, it is not funny: the status of the countries of the Soviet Block under Stalin can hardly be regarded similar to the status of Austria-Hungary during the world war. If the use of the term can be verified, we can use it, but we should also explain it. Borsoka (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can I please request that you re-add my edits, but amended according to your suggestions? I for one, am quite tired of this tug of war. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to edit this article for the time being. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, then tell me if this is right. I'd see fit to make 3 amends: fluff up the paragraph with more details, add the source above, and not include the satellite status in the infobox since it can be regarded as disputable. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not right, you try to interpret a war time military cooperation as a constitutional change in Empire of Austria or Kingdom of Hungray, it also did not effect the sovereignty of diplomatic life either. And you use so called "not enough good sources", neither a military historian or a political historians can be considered as expert in legal history and constitutional history. --Liltender (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Liltender you should not edit WP. You were banned from editing. Your above remarks show you have been unable to learn how to edit. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I for one changed my mind. I wash my hands of this whole ordeal. I am thoroughly disgusted by everything that transpired, and thus - rest assured - I shall not interfere with this article ever again. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have right to ask people on their talk pages, or start a discussion or put quetions about literally all edited articles on their talk page. (Talk pages was inented for such things). However now, you crossed a line: I don't know what is your problem and what is your point with the citation of my conversation with other people. It is a huge off-topic here, and it is really not your business to copy texts from other people's talk pages. What was it if not an agressive attitude? --Liltender (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary succeeded by Serbia?

User:CarRadovan, Austria-Hungary signed the armistice of Villa Giusti on 3 November 1918. The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) (between the victors of World War I and Austria) and the Treaty of Trianon from 1920 (between the Victors and Hungary) regulated the new borders of Austria and Hungary. How is was possible that Serbia which was dissolved on December 1, 1918 into a new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to succeed Austria-Hungary, which was dissolved subsequently. This is a nonsense. Jingiby (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Official languages

As for official languages of empire, Czech and Slovene had some official status in Bohemia and Moravia and in Carniola as so called „landesübliche“ Sprachen (see german wiki). As for Czech, provincial Codes in Bohemia and Moravia were published first in Czech and than in German (since 1850). The same is true for most of other official publication. Since 1880, there was explicit duty for officials in Bohemia and Moravia to uphold the status of Czech language in outer administration. At the municipal level, czech was the sole official language in many cities in Bohemia and Moravia (including Prague, since 1861). There were severe struggles to promote czech as obligate language of inner administration for the rest of 19th century (and for the rest of duration of Habsburg monarchy), which failed to enforce due to german nationalist resistance. But in a sense, it was pointless struggle from both sides. Actually, no law upheld any inner official language (German, Czech or any other). And because of plenty of Czech officials in Austrian administration, there was in effect quite a lot Czech language administration, if this or this particular official happened to be Czech. As for Slovene, I dont know exactly about status of Slovene in Carniolan inner or outer administration. But I know for sure, that Slovene was also recognized as landesübliche Sprache. And because Slovenes constituted 90% of inhabitants in Carniola, it can be assumed that Slovene also held at least some official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.101.201 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ip,

I re-added your comment properly - I did not notice when I edited the page -, as you say you don't know for sure regarding Carniola...but please provide some source about Czech, for the period between 1867-1918, I checked the German wiki (4 pages with the topic but I did not find related)...(KIENGIR (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC))

Here is copied text from german wiki: "Amtssprache: Deutsch und Ungarisch sowie in Österreich „landesübliche“ Sprachen: Polnisch, Böhmisch, Serbokroatisch, Slowenisch, Rumänisch, Ruthenisch, Italienisch", see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreich-Ungarn. As for Czech as language of outer administration since 1880: http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?apm=0&aid=lbo&datum=18800204&zoom=2&seite=00000034&x=20&y=12 for Bohemia and http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?apm=0&aid=lma&datum=18800004&seite=00000031&zoom=2 for Moravia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:9726:E0EE:89F7:6047:109B (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC) As for official status of Slovene, here are law publications of Duchy of Carniola since 1849: http://alex.onb.ac.at/tab_lkr.htm. As you can see, Slovene was also definitely not mere "spoken language". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:9726:E0EE:89F7:6047:109B (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Moreover, on imperial level, here is "Reichsgesetzblatt" in Czech: http://alex.onb.ac.at/tab_rbo.htm and in Slovene: http://alex.onb.ac.at/tab_rsl.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:9726:E0EE:89F7:6047:109B (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Landesübliche is not equal with official. The fact there was a permission/regulation of translation not necessarily equal with that (i.e., Romanian is listed because of Hungary, but it was not an official language, though they could have freely Romanian newspapers, or able to use their language in a certain level, etc.). Though, for the particular cases, I'll ask some check, especially on the analysis of the two regulation regarding Bohemia and Moravia. @Ermenrich:, could you read through as well what I refer to the latter sentence (the first two link the IP have shown)? Am I right with my assumption, or not? Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

I have never said, that "Landesübliche" equals official. I just said that "Landesübliche" means limited recognition. Definitely not equal to German or Hungarian, but more or less comparable to Italian, Polish or Croatian (which were also not fully equal to German or Hungarian). Czech and Slovene were never equal to German or Hungarian, I don't argue about this. But status Czech and Slovenes, as "Landesübliche Sprachen", was more or less comparable to other "Landesübliche Sprachen" as Polish, Italian or Croatian. On the other hand, Slovak, Yidish or Romani were just mere spoken language without any official status and even without any recognition. So I think, as for languages of empire, it would be more accurate to view as three layers: Firstly two official languages, German and Hungarian, secondly "Landesübliche Sprachen", i. e. Polish, Croatian, Italian, etc. including Czech and Slovene, and thirdly other spoken languages (i. e. without any official status) as Slovak, Romani or Yiddish.

Romani or Gypsy languages did not represent large community, their population was only around 1%. Yiddish was considered officially as a type of German language. If their local ratio reached the 20%, the Slovaks and Romanians could use their language in legal courts in public administration, they had newspapers too. They had even right to establish ethnic minority political parties and run on the elections. All of these things were unimaginable in other countries of Europe, because the pre WW1 Western European legal systems did not even know the minority rights.--Liltender (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

All I said was that status of Czech and Slovene as "Landesübliche Sprachen" was much more similar to other "Landesübliche Sprachen" (as for example Polish) but definitely not Slovak and other language which lacked such status. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, every private enterpreneur, even in Western Europe, could print newspaper in whatever language he want. There was not any legal prohibition in lets say UK to print newspaper in Welsh language. See example of Welsh language newspaper from 19th century: https://newspapers.library.wales/browse/4239147.

In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the world's first laws on ethnic and minority rights. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).

The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.

See the multi-national UK:

The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not The contemporary Irish question and tensions are well documented. The situation of Ireland was even a more brutal story. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.

See the multiethnic France:

In the era of the Great French revolution, only 25% of the population of Kingdom of France could speak the French language as mothertongue. In 1870, France was still similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools, minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!

The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories)

Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe:

The so-called "Magyarization" was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.--Liltender (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is completely off topic? No one except you has mentioned Western Europe. Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know it well, that facts (and international comparisons) hurt some people (Slovaks Romanians etc.), when they realize, that they had such extra unique rights in Hungary or Austria, which was not enjoyed by any minority groups in Western Europe. Why? Because it undermines their identity and "national history" which was built upon the false culture of victimhood since they started to learn their "national interpretation" of history in their elementary schools.--Liltender (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's EXACTLY how I feel right now... Good luck lasting here on Wikipedia hating on apparently almost every ethnicity. Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The knowing of history is not hatred, but the spread of falsified of history always come from hatred. Please do not use the Straw man fallacy. You can not make argument by using fallacies in a debate..--Liltender (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, knowing history isn't hatred, but the spreading of this history compulsively in places where it has nothing to do and apports nothing, as well as harassing other editors ([1], [2], [3], and specially [4] where you just mock the Romanian nation) seems hate to me. As I said, you won't last long with this aggressive attitude. Super Ψ Dro 12:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have right to ask people on their talk pages, or start a discussion or put quetions about literally all edited articles on their talk page. (Talk pages was inented for such things). However now, you crossed a line: I don't know what is your problem and what is your point with the citation of my conversation with other people. It is a huge off-topic here, and it is really not your business to copy texts from other people's talk pages. What was it if not an agressive attitude? --Liltender (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have the right to quote any discussion page as well and there is nothing you can do about it. Do yourself and other editors a favor and stop looking for conflicts. What is my point? That you obviously have problems with certain nationalities (especially Romanians and Slovaks), but let me tell you that Wikipedia is not the place where you can do whatever you want and disrespect others whenever you want. Am I aggresive? Did I insult you or your country? No, I didn't. Did you do it? Yes, you did as you can see on the links I left. Super Ψ Dro 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You started personal attacks. Nobody insulted your Romania. Does history hurts you, or what is your exact problem? I can't understand it. Can you explain it?--Liltender (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I will gladly explain! First of all, I said you insulted Romania as you can see in the links above and you said nobody insulted it so you can't blame me for quoting a talk page once again. Let's see the message you left to the user Transylvania1916. The header of the section includes the name "Romani-an", associating us with the Romani people (Gypsies) in a pejorative way. You then proceed to basically mock the Romanian army and the Romanian Kingdom itself. But the best part is the reason behind this message. You left it to this user because he/she was creating articles about Romanian military victories, when he/she also created articles about Romanian defeats and he/she clarified he/she was just following a chronological order. This person would respond all of your messages and your only response would be insulting the Romanian army once again. But that's not all! Let's see the edit summaries you left in the article Hungarian–Romanian War. You basically repeat that the Hungarian army was huge in comparison with the enemy armies. This wouldn't be a problem if you didn't repeat this several times in the same article and in other ones. I have a feeling that you do this to try to "humillate" the enemy nations or to "glorify" Hungary (or both). Back to the Hungarian–Romanian War, you added a video of the Transylvanian National Council protesting against the Romanian occupation of Transylvania (here too). Why would you do this? Perhaps to try to invalidate the possession of Romania over Transylvania, as you have previously done ([5] and [6])? In the last link you also say "Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country". What's the need to say "Orthodox" there? Well, I think I already know it... What is my problem then? That you are insulting nations and now you are playing victim. For your own good, stop with this behaviour. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with Transylvania1916's edits, that he try to falsify the history, he want to transform one of the worst WW1 army (the Romanian) into one of the best. About "Romani-ans" so according to your interpretation and "logic" the Romani people are less valuable than Romanians, so even a joke or the comparison of the Romanians and the "less valuable" Romani is hurt you, because of the racist world view. "be insulting the Romanian army once again." What's ypur point here? Are you a militarist chauvinist, who don't tolerate chriticism of his armymen, even if the history proved that Romanians had the highest KIA ratio in WW1 armies? Yes Romanian ww1 army rapidly fell in masses on the battlefields, like "paper soldiers". "try to "humillate" the enemy nations or to "glorify" Hungary (or both). " Writing about historic reality is not humiliating or glorification. So , do you really feel ashamed because of the smaller army of Romania? Jesus Christ... In your reasoning and especially in your grievance-list I can clearly read out an enormous sized chauvinism. --Liltender (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I go back to the original topic of this discussion?

All I wanted to say is that situation of Czech and Slovene was largelly similar to Polish, Croatian and Italian, i. e. languages with limited official recognition (i. e. not just "another spoken languages").

As Michaela Wolf in her book "The Habsburg Monarchy’s Many-Languaged Soul Translating and interpreting, 1848–1918" says: "To understand complexity of communicative in Monarchy's bureaucracy, it is useful to glance the spectrum of official language use in Austria (…). In 1910, the language of the offices of central government and of the highest level courts was was German. In Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg and Vorarlberg, the regional language (Landessprache) was German, as it was in Styria and Carinthia, although in the south of these two crownlands, Slovenian was the language in common use (landesübliche Sprache). In Carniola, German and Slovenian shared the status of both Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache; in Tirol, the Landessprachen were German and Italian. In the Austrian Littoral, German, Italian and Slovenian – and in Istria also Croatian – were valid Landessprachen, but the provincial diet held its proceedings in Italian. The situation in Bohemia was even more complicated. There, German and Czech enjoyed equal rights as Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache, but court used German, deviating from the principle of language equality (…) this caused considerable conflict. The same provisions applied to Moravia, but there Czech was fully recognized as language of the Courts. In Silesia, the prevailing Landessprache was German, while Polish and Czech were recognized in some districts as landesübliche Sprachen. In Galicia, the Landessprachen were Polish and Ruthenian (Ruthenian means Ukrainian in this context) and, in theory, also German; in Bukovina, they were German, Ruthenian and Romanian. Dalmatia's Landessprachen were Croatian and Italian, and Provincial legislation was published in both languages." (Wolf, Michaela, The Habsburg Monarchy’s Many-Languaged Soul Translating and interpreting, 1848–1918, p. 63; 2012 – Böhlau Verlag Ges.m.b.H. & Co KG Wien Köhln Weimar. All rights reserved. Translation: 2015 – John Benjamins B.V.)

So to sum up: In Austrian part of monarchy, the official language of highest level of administration was German, and then, on the level of particular crownlands, there were languages with limited official recognition as Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache:

Polish as Landessprache in Galicia and landesübliche Sprache in Silesia,

Ruthenian (i. e. Ukrainian) as Landessprache in Galicia and Bukovina,

Czech as Landessprache in Bohemia and Moravia (although predominant use of German in Courts partialy violated this status in Bohemia) and landesübliche Sprache in Silesia,

Slovene as Landessprache in Carniola and Austrian Littoral and landesübliche Sprache in south parts of Styria and Carinthia,

Italian as Landessprache in Tirol, Austrian Littoral and Dalmatia,

Croatian as Landessprache in Istria and Dalmatia,

Romanian as Landessprache in Bukovina.

As for German, in addition to be official language of the highest level of administration, it was also sole Landessprache in Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg and Vorarlberg and one of Landessprachen in Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Tirol, Austrian Littoral, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Bukovina and theoreticaly also in Galicia.

I am fully aware, that at the begining of this discussion, I omitted the fact, that there is difference between Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache. But anyway, the facts I have stated above, rather confirm my claim, that official status of Czech and Slovene was rather similar to official status of Polish, Croatian and Italian.

I am also fully aware, that situation of official languages or partialy recognized languages was quite different in Hungarian part of Monarchy, where linguistic rights of non Hungarian nationalities were much more restricted (of course, except for Croatian). Not to mention Yiddish and Romani, which had no official recognition at all. But it is just another reason to not put Czech and Slovene to the same group as for example Yiddish and Romani or any other mere „other spoken languages“. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:9726:E0EE:89F7:6047:109B (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Miority rights and linguistic rights were invented and enacted by the Hungarian parliament first in the world. The Austrians did not provide wider spectrum of minority rights than the Hungarians. Yiddish was considered as a dialect of German language. The ratio of Gypsies/Romani people were not so relevant that time. They were under 1%.--Liltender (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

---

IP's comment

A week ago, I drew attention to the topic of the official languages of Austria-Hungary (see discussion thread bellow). Unfortunately, it diverted to meaningless argument whether the minorities in Hungarian part of monarchy were treated better or worse than in Western European states. For the record, I did not participated in this senseless argument. Now I just want to come back to the original topic, i. e. the official languages in Habsburg monrachy, or more precisely the status of languages in Austrian part of monarchy.

I cited Michaela Wolfs book "The Habsburg Monarchy’s Many-Languaged Soul Translating and interpreting, 1848–1918". Here the situation of languages in Austrian part of the Habsburg monarchy is explained quite precisely: "To understand complexity of communicative in Monarchy's bureaucracy, it is useful to glance the spectrum of official language use in Austria (…). In 1910, the language of the offices of central government and of the highest level courts was was German. In Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg and Vorarlberg, the regional language (Landessprache) was German, as it was in Styria and Carinthia, although in the south of these two crownlands, Slovenian was the language in common use (landesübliche Sprache). In Carniola, German and Slovenian shared the status of both Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache; in Tirol, the Landessprachen were German and Italian. In the Austrian Littoral, German, Italian and Slovenian – and in Istria also Croatian – were valid Landessprachen, but the provincial diet held its proceedings in Italian. The situation in Bohemia was even more complicated. There, German and Czech enjoyed equal rights as Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache, but court used German, deviating from the principle of language equality (…) this caused considerable conflict. The same provisions applied to Moravia, but there Czech was fully recognized as language of the Courts. In Silesia, the prevailing Landessprache was German, while Polish and Czech were recognized in some districts as landesübliche Sprachen. In Galicia, the Landessprachen were Polish and Ruthenian (Ruthenian means Ukrainian in this context) and, in theory, also German; in Bukovina, they were German, Ruthenian and Romanian. Dalmatia's Landessprachen were Croatian and Italian, and Provincial legislation was published in both languages." (Wolf, Michaela, The Habsburg Monarchy’s Many-Languaged Soul Translating and interpreting, 1848–1918, p. 63; 2012 – Böhlau Verlag Ges.m.b.H. & Co KG Wien Köhln Weimar. All rights reserved. Translation: 2015 – John Benjamins B.V.)

So to sum up: In Austrian part of monarchy, the official language of highest level of administration was German, and then, on the level of particular crownlands, there were languages with limited official recognition as Landessprache and landesübliche Sprache:

Polish as Landessprache in Galicia and landesübliche Sprache in Silesia,

Ruthenian (i. e. Ukrainian) as Landessprache in Galicia and Bukovina,

Czech as Landessprache in Bohemia and Moravia (although predominant use of German in Courts partialy violated this status in Bohemia) and landesübliche Sprache in Silesia,

Slovene as Landessprache in Carniola and Austrian Littoral and landesübliche Sprache in south parts of Styria and Carinthia,

Italian as Landessprache in Tirol, Austrian Littoral and Dalmatia,

Croatian as Landessprache in Istria and Dalmatia,

Romanian as Landessprache in Bukovina.

As for German, in addition to be official language of the highest level of administration, it was also sole Landessprache in Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg and Vorarlberg and one of Landessprachen in Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Tirol, Austrian Littoral, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Bukovina and theoreticaly also in Galicia.

The facts stated above generally coroborate my initial claim official status of Czech and Slovene was rather similar to official status of Polish, Croatian and Italian. They were not just "another spoken languages" like Slovak, Yiddish or Romani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.101.201 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

More than two weeks ago, I proposed editing infobox about official languages in Austria-Hungary (see above). I provided sources which coroborated my proposals and asked to either challenge these sources or edit the infobox according these sources. Because the infobox was not edited I humbly aks what was wrong with my sources. Are these sources lies? If not please edit the infobox accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:9726:94A9:1B49:EC70:8292 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Read back please our above discussion, we are not sure and asked an editor for opinion, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

I have provided quite comprehensible arguments and even cited reliable sources. So I do not know where is problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.101.201 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Though I explained to you, read back please, and we are waiting also an editor's opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

Too long article

The size of the article is of 119,903 characters. Since each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters, it gives a prose size of 119 kB. According to Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline, this means that the article almost certainly should be divided. 86.120.179.38 (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Korwinski,

1. another topic was mainly discussed (about Czech i.e.), it just touched as well related topics, but the result was inconclusive.

2. 1850 has nothing to with Austria-Hungary, and "Ukrainian language" has not even been registered

3. We have to remain consistent, and not base our edits on possible assumptions or OR interpretations. Also in Hungary or in Austria, other languages may have had some kind of status, but not necessarily elevated in such a level, like Croatian or Polish

Hence and considering the source you provided which also does not approve your claim, these changes have no consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

1. I'm sorry to ask, but did you actually read the discussion above? It started with a discussion about Czech language, but in the end status of all languages was discussed. I do understand that there may be a confusion and misunderstanding of my source, as it is in Ukrainian. But source provided above is in English and it clearly states:

"Wolf, Michaela, The Habsburg Monarchy’s Many-Languaged Soul Translating and interpreting, 1848–1918, p. 63": "To understand complexity of communicative in Monarchy's bureaucracy, it is useful to glance the spectrum of official language use in Austria (…). In 1910, the language of the offices of central government and of the highest level courts was was German. (...) In Galicia, the Landessprachen were Polish and Ruthenian (Ruthenian means Ukrainian in this context) and, in theory, also German;"

So no, it did not have the same "just spoken" status as did Yiddish, Slovak etc.

2. On March 29th 1850 Constitution of Galicia (Polish: Statut krajowy dla Galicji, ) was adopted, that recognised Polish and Ruthenian as regional languages of Galicia. Later Polish was elevated to government language that meant that it replaced German in most of the government organisations, yet Ukrainian language regional status was still recognised as per Constitution of 1861. For instance see Language act of 1867:

In accordance with the resolution of the Sejm of my Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and the Grand Duchy of Krakow, I decide as follows:(...)

Art. 1. The right to decide on the language of instruction in folk schools is for those who maintain the school.

Art. 2. If a folk school receives an allowance from public funds, the right to decide which language, Polish or Ruthenian, is to be lectured, is exercised by the commune together with the national school authority in such a way that the commune's decisions are approved by the national school authority.

Art. 3. In any folk school in which some of the young people attending use Polish, and a part of the Ruthenian language, this language, which is not a lecture language, will be a compulsory subject of study within the limits of the relevant school. Beginning in the third grade of all higher folk schools, German is a must-study subject.

Grzegorz Chomicki, Leszek Śliwa, Wiek XIX. Teksty źródłowe. Tematy lekcji i zagadnienia do historii w szkole średniej, Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków 2001, s. 241.

3. So far I see 2 sources stated above + 1 of mine that state that Ukrainian (Ruthenian) was in fact one of the recognised Landessprachen languages. So the only "possible assumptions" or "misinterpretations" that I can see come from your side, as so far you had provided us with zero sources that state otherwise. My edit was strictly about Galicia. I don't know why you keep mentioning Hungarian part of the empire over and over here. Korwinski (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Of course I read it (I was a participant). No, other languages were not extensively discussed, the IP spammed recurrently with mass information the talk page. Again you have to undestand, calling a language "official" has some weight of level of recognition in this context.

2. Again, this article is about Austria-Hungary, so referring anything earlier than 1867 is not necessarily useful here. Also the Romanian language in Hungary had in some counties some recognition in various levels, however more thousand schools as well, but we could not call them in general terms official regionally or similar.

3. Nobody denied that Ruthenian had some recognition, but again, you own source stated the Polish language, thanks to this normative-legal act, became the official or second state language in Galicia, but it could not tell about Ruthenian...don't worry, I don't misinterpret anything. This article is about Austria-Hungary, so what you put in the infobox or you speak in general languages that were spoken both sides of the monarchy, then we cannot ignore any part.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

1. Regional language recognised by law and official language are not the same thing. I never said that it was a latter one. Check my edit again. It was used in school, universities, courts, parliament etc. You could not do most of that in Yiddish or other non-recognised language. So a) saying that it is just a spoken language is simply not true, b) if a language has official recognition it should be noted as such as otherwise it is a misleading to say that it isn't.

2. Any source that Constitution of Galicia of 1861 was replaced with anything else after 1867? And again you mention Hungary. And again I'm telling you that situation was not the same there. Rusyn-Ruthenian, Slovak etc. languages were in fact mostly spoken in Transleithania, but I have no idea how does that change language situation in Galicia (and possibly Bukovina, but I'll have to research that first)? Especially since I've quoted above Languages act of 1867 for schools in Galicia that gave no predominance for Polish over Ruthenian.

3. Yeah, you do. As you took only part of the statement there:

Based on the conditions of post-revolutionary events, the Austrian government by the imperial patent of June 29, 1850 adopted the "National Constitution" for Galicia, attaching to it the "National Electoral Ordinance." In our opinion, it is important that in Art. 4 of section I "About the Region" regional Constitution proclaimed a thesis similar to the one proclaimed in Art. 5 of the Olomouc Constitution of the Austrian state, namely: "Ruthenian peoples (Ukrainian - VM), Polish and other ethnic groups enjoy equal rights, and each nation (ethnic group) has an inviolable right to cultivate one's language, one's nationality, one's culture "[11, p. 54]. So, from the point of view of Austrian legislation, the existence of the Ruthenian people, which has its own language, was recognised, and the equality of the Polish and Ukrainian peoples was proclaimed. Thus, in 1850, Polish and Ukrainian languages ​​have received the status of "regional languages". (...)

The Ministry of Justice explained that the order was issued after the adoption of the Basic Law of December 21, 1867, which recognised the equality of all regional languages, so the order from June 5, 1869, which, although giving the Polish language the status of a government language, did not aim at any restrictions on the rights of the Ukrainian language.

If you'd like to add a note that Rusyn-Ruthenian was mostly just a spoken language in Transleithania, I have no objection to that. But otherwise you'll have to rewrite that whole section and remove for instance Polish, as in Silesia it did not even have the same status as Ruthenian did in Galicia. Korwinski (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Sure, a,->ok b,->yes, but the infobox is about official langauges

2. Sure there was a different a situation, I did not say elsewhere, I just mentioned Hungary to illustrate some of the points we are discussing, given this article and the infobox we present something in certain term on equal level.

3. No, becuase the end result is important. However, thank you for the full quotation, it proves being a regional langauge, but not official, as Polish has been raised (which is anyway not mentioned in Silesia, so the infobox is correct).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

Ok, just to clarify there were only two official languages of the state. Polish, Italian and Croatian were not official languages of the state, but government, regional languages of certain territories of AH. As to my understanding we were including there all languages officially recognised by the law of AH since there're specific territories mentioned were these languages had some specific but not "official language" of the region/state status. So in case your position is to include there only official languages (as in recognised in such status by law) of the state, we will need to remove mentioned languages as well and leave German and Hungarian only. As these are the only two languages that had that status.

Polish was raised to government language which according to the source above meant that most of Galicia's government paperwork was from now on done in Polish. My source does not say that it became official language even of Galicia alone. German was still a de facto language for Post, Railways etc. So in case you're implying that regional government language == official language, please provide us with a source to confirm that. Korwinski (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if speak about clarification, we speak about a monarchy of two states, not one state. We may remove Italian regarding Fiume, but not Croatian, since it has been the official language of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, also regulated by the Croatian-Hungarian settlement. No, I don't necessarily imply regional government language would == official language, but egarding the possible removal of Polish I have concerns, since it has been once added and argued, we should check how exactly Austrians defined official language, and if Polish could be raised higher than any other language but would remain always lower then German everwhere. Let's give a time for this, if nothing occurs supporting, then we may remove Polish also.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC))

Yeah, but in case we will leave it for now as it is, any reader would assume that a) Polish and Croatian were official languages of AH in mentioned territories, which wasn't true at least about Polish language in Galicia; and b) that other languages like Ruthenian, Romanian or Czech were a spoken languages that did not have any official recognition which as well isn't true. So what is the point of languages section at all since it has such major misleadings there? Currently I propose to either remove all languages but German and Hungarian, or keep it the way I made my edit earlier adding a note to each language. For latter one as an example see Mexico and Austria articles that have such languages included in designated regional languages section.

Also as we established that Ruthenian was in fact officially recognised language in Galicia and no source was provided for the same status of Yiddish I assume there will be no objection for me to return my edit in Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria article? Korwinski (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

a, just for a week, if noone present any contra, Polishin Galicia will be removed as well

b, they were not official languages like Hungarian, German or Croatian. This whole discussion have been about to conclude in case Polish or Ruthenian could have been the same level, so far we seen Polish has been raised higher, so no contradiction here

So again, if noone present anything for pro Polish referred above, it will be removed and the section will be consistent. Mexico and Austria articles are irrelevant here, since they are modern states.

No, we did not establish such, we still trying to conclude even Polish could have been regarded official, so no.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

It has been more than a week already. So far you yourself had presented us with 0 (ZERO) sources to prove your statements. No offence, but at this point your personal opinion on whats "irrelevant" and whats not, which languages should be stated as official/officially recognised and which not is no longer valid. If not reverted, I will be forced to request Administrators mediation. Korwinski (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to calm down, the discussion was clear, we gave chance to other to join the discussion, it has been not a deadline rush. Your overreaction is unnecessary, since we obviously set it will be removed - and it has been done right now, so you could have spared your last two sentences.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC))

Wrong flag

As the article itself says, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy did not have a national flag. As can be seen in the infobox of this article as well, before the merger both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Empire used the black-and-yellow flag of the Habsburg Monarchy, which, as the article also says, was for that reason occasionally used as the flag of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It makes no sense, therefore, leaving in the flag field of the infobox a "civil ensign" created for being used by civilian ships. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This isse has been widely and extendisely discussed earlier.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC))

Can you present to me the discussion and the supposed "consensus"? Just saw Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive_1#Flag_of_Austria-Hungary, former discussion where it was actually discussed that it was wrong having this naval ensign in the article. We should just remove this non-national-flag. It's simply a false information displayed in Wikipedia. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course ([7]), how could you miss a last year discussion and pointing to around more then 14 years old one?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC))

And, differently from what you said, the result of last year's discussion you just posted was "No consensus" as only three people participated, you being one of them. So here I am, yet another person making the same claim made by User:Havsjö last year and others 14 years ago. A civil ensign is not a national flag, I'll ask for external moderation here. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing differently, no consensus means no consensus for change and last stable version remains, so stop your recurrent reverts.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC))

Everyone associates the civil ensign with the duel monarchy, why not leave the civil ensign at the top and provide a link to the national flags? I made an account just to voice my opinion on this. I realize Austria and Hungary had different flags, I'm not stupid. Just leave the old flag up but clarify that it's not a nation flag. ArkayTheGreat (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments on correction of the flag

I got to the Austria-Hungary Wiki article some time ago and immediately noticed it displayed a wrong flag - in the place of the "country" flag, a "civil ensign" created for being used by civilian ships. As the article states, the country had no official flag, but the Habsburg flag, which as the article also shows was the official flag of both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Empire, was frequently used as an official flag. Since there existed no official flag, I believe the article should just not have any flag at all (like in the German wiki). I believe there is absolutely no reason why a naval "civil ensign" should be displayed in the place of the country flag. The exactly same point has apparently been made throughout the years - 15 years ago there was consensus that it was wrong but after the correction someone re-added the wrong civil ensign without discussion; in 2016, another user pointed out the same mistake, and the only response was agreeing with his comment and presenting a historical source in which the black-and-yellow Habsburg flag was used for the country; finally, in 2019, yet another user politely indicated that the flag was wrong, only 3 people participated in the discussion which was therefore short of a consensus, but yet another user concluded it was sensible to add the yellow-and-black flag to the article, except that it was removed afterwards by the same user who has removed it twice today. So I think we need the help of some experts here, which would be very much appreciated. Thanks. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out the above section and as well here by referring to the discussion thoroughly about the topic and it's special details discussed there last year (thus won't reiterate here), my offer still stands about a this kind of infobox, which may be the best solution ([8]), which was presented in a fellow editor's sandbox.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC))

And what about Template:Country data Austria-Hungary ? Loic26 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't seem historically correct either to display both the Habsburgs' flag, who ruled the entire empire, and the flag of just Hungary. Differently from what Wiki says without sources, the black-and-yellow flag wasn't also the flag of "Cisleithania", which has never even existed formally. I've spent the day reading all I could in old sources about the "national" flags used in Austria-Hungary and what I have are sources indicating that actually the red-white-red flag was used to represent the Austrian part - and sometimes even ended up being used for the entire dual monarchy. For example:

In 1786 the red - white - red flag became the Austrian state flag and ensign and, until 1869, the merchant flag (which had as an additional charge the shield with a crown) ; in Austria-Hungary it served as the national flag, the state flag being black and yellow. Webster's Concise Encyclopedia of Flags & Coats of Arms

and:

It is therefore not surprising that [red-white-red] were the colors declared as the national flag of Austria by Emperor Joseph II on March 20, 1786. It was also the naval and mercantile ensign. The red-white-red flag superimposed with the double-headed eagle bearing the red-white-red banded shield was the flag of the Austrian merchant until 1869 and - at least de facto - the national flag and battle ensign of the dual monarchy until 1918.

Therefore, according to these sources, it seems the historically correct position would be to have the red-white-red flag displayed in the Wiki box below the black-yellow one. Even though I have found no sources for it, I believe we could, as a compromise, also let the Hungarian flag in the infobox after the other two, making it three flags in total. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

- Loic26, I don't think that template would solve the problem, since it contains those flags that may be as well/similarly disputed.

- IP, Cisleithania existed. The Habsburgs ruled phrase should not be slubbered, the was the Emperor of Austria and the King of Hungary, which was the same person from the Habsurg House, but Austria and Hungary were separate states in a joint monarchy. Dragovit's solution has been almost accurate, but the Coat of Arms I'd keep as in the proposal shown above, and would remove the reference to the civil ensign, that is anyway may be seen below in the article at the fags section.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC))

The national flags of Austria-Hungary are only these, flag of Cisleithania (austrian part) and flag of Transleithania (Hungary)

I agree with colleague and join his side, that there is a wrong flag in the infobox. Perhaps previous debates have failed because no one has tried the option of both national flags, but I did (see here). Maybe it wasn't technically possible before, maybe the infobox wasn't that sophisticated, so the participants in the discussion may have come to the conclusion that they will use the Merchant ensign as a compromise. I don't know, I wasn't there. By the way Wikipedia is an open-source project and to say we can't edit because something happened in the past it does not matter. Using both national flags is the best solution. So therefore, please do not return my version to a older one where the flag is demonstrably wrong and inappropriate, because the use of two national flags is a better and more appropriate solution than use of the Civil or Merchant ensign of Austro-Hungarian navy as a symbol of "corporate identity" at the place where the state flag is to be displayed, which only these two flags are suitable for. Please do not put the Merchant ensign there anymore, it's not a national flag. – Dragovit (talk) 8:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Remove flag (ensign). The current article is forcing a late 19th century construct (flags of Nation states, arising from Revolutions of 1848) on a declining empire that was very much not a nation state. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's confusing. In addition, the article represents Austria-Hungary as a dual monarchy, so the combination of the two flags should not be surprising. – Dragovit (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I did some "cleaning" of the flags in the infobox. I replaced the angels-flag with the more common version of the flag without the angels. I also corrected the text, since its showing the flags of Austria and Hungary. (i.e. not Transleithania) as Transleithania had both the Hungarian and Croatian flag as co-flags. The superfluous and awkward info regarding more info about the civil ensign is also confined into the [a] note regarding usage of that national flags vis-a-vis that civil ensign with is already included. --Havsjö (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone should have first here presented the proposals, instead of edit-warring, Dragovit, you have to understand our policies, especially WP:BRD. The problem is as well that you reverts reintroduced some IP junks as well. I will now accept Havsjö's solution, but only with the angel flags, since then that was valid.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC))

I never revert anything for no reason. I revert once, if it doesn't help, then I choose a discussion. I don't see anything wrong with that. Reverting edits is a common feature in Wikipedia. If it wasn't allowed, it just wouldn't be here. Havsjo focused on my edits and I suspected him was directed against me or it seemed to me that his changes were influenced by his personal taste, which he then explained why he had done so. I emphasize that the article is about history and must be edited with respect for history and must not be influenced by taste or personal interests. – Dragovit (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:BRD is clear, especially when the discussion is already ongoing in the talk, as well per wikietiquette, reversion should only be made to the status qou ante version, while any concerns including others should be discussed an the talk first, and only if consensus reached editing the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC))

• I have restored the consular flag per the last RFC. It should not be changed until this discussions is closed. Better no flags, IMO, than two, neither of which is Austro-Hungarian. My position, as stated last year, is that the consular flag is the best symbol of the Austro-Hungarian state internationally. I am not adamantly opposed to the black-and-gold, but we should be clear (as we are in the current footnote) what exactly it meant if indeed it ever was a symbol of the state. Srnec (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It was I who opened this discussion, and, even though I still think that only the black-and-yellow banner should be used, with a disclaimer as you say, I was fine with the proposed solution of two flags, all in the sake of consensus. What I think we had clearly already moved on from, though, was that the "civil ensign" should never have been there and should definitely be removed, regardless of what should be put in its place. Therefore, and considering the manifestations for removing the civil ensign previously made by Gugganij, Peregrine981, Alexander Fischer , Eromae, Special Contributions: 202.0.15.171, Havsjö, Loic26, Dragovit, Vici Vidi, and finally supported by KIENGIR and myself, all in favor of the removal of the civil ensign, I believe the article should continue the way it has peacefully been for the past two weeks, having attained only one point of consensus among the eleven afore-mentioned users (the removal of the civil ensign). Thanks a lot. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Srnec, your move was legal in terms of WP rules. However, Austria-Hungary was not a state, but a monarchy of two states, even if outside the conflated assasment became common. Yes, I would better support current outcome or the previous offer with two coat of arms outlined at Havjö's sandbox then.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

It was a state in international relations. The current situation—two flags neither of which was that of Austria-Hungary—is bad. The civil ensign was an internationally recognized symbol of A-H and was used by the gov't as such. It is bizarre to me to label an Austro-Hungarian flag as "wrong" while replacing it with two flags nobody considers Austro-Hungarian. If there is no flag that can represent Austria-Hungary, then there should be no flag in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It was considered a state in international relations, while it was a monarchy, etc. International recognition here does not count, every entity may choose freely it's flag. I agree with you it's a complicated situation anyway.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC))

Just for the record: I explicitly endorse the removal of the civil ensign - no wonder, I already objected to it 16 years ago :-). The current solution is definitely an improvement. Gugganij (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem anymore. The same source (book) from which this civil ensign was taken in the first place clearly states that the Austro-Hungarian government itself and its diplomatic missions (legations, as they were called at the time) always used two flags, the black-and-yellow and the red-white-green one. I had also found other sources, listed above, that say the black-and-yellow flag was often used to represent the whole of Austria-Hungary, but I believe the current situation, showing both flags, is the most possibly accurate one. One completely different question regards the thumbnail flag to be used in Template:Country data Austria-Hungary, where only one image can be used; sources provided would indicate two possibilities: either the black-and-yellow flag, if we followed the sources that say it was used in practical ways as the country flag, or not having a flag-thumbnail there. The thumbnail of the coat of arms could be used instead, if no one objects to it. Cheers. 213.245.147.96 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Gugganij, Loic26, et al, what about the template Template:Country data Austria-Hungary ? Would you agree with having a thumbnail of the coat of arms replace the flag-thumbnail? 213.245.147.96 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the infobox, it should be like this : Austria-Hungary. Loic26 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, cool, I didn't know two images could be used. Could you please make the change, then? 213.245.147.96 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO, that could become a bit bloated. if a change to countrydata/thumbnail was to be made, I would rather support only the Habsburg flag in that context. --Havsjö (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No, only administrators can edit the template. Loic26 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In case of changing template, I support the double flag, it would be coherent with the current state of this article, and would symbolize correctly the monarchy of two countries.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC))

While I am not averse to the double flag, I think no flag at all is better. There was no one flag, it was more complicated and flag or heraldry use varied by context. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I too would prefer no flag to the double flag if consensus is that the consular flag is misleading (although I still think it's not). Srnec (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

From my researches, I think the yellow-and-black flag would be the one used in such occasions, but, for the sake of consensus, I too support not displaying any flag at all in the Template data countrydata/thumbnail, as no national flag existed. 213.245.16.198 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How is the "de-facto national flag" of Habsburg dynasty not a better choice than no flag at all, when flags existed which were historically used to represent the country? The currently used "empty flag" for the flag-template also looks like an error/glitch or something --Havsjö (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the best option would be: Austria-Hungary. There should be only one flag, and in that case it seems like the Habsburg flag would be used. Gravestep (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I still uphold the best would be the double designation soltution, not supporting the yellow-black-flag standalone.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC))

May I interject?

I am quite displeased to see so many infoboxes I worked on now with a blank rectangle where the AH flag should be. I find it quite pointless to change the flag now, after so many years in which it was used. Regardless of what the old flag represented, it was an official ensign of the Dual Monarchy, fairly representing both countries, neatly and conveniently suitable for infoboxes. I only skimmed through the talk, and I must concur against the usage of two flags for one country. I definitely oppose the usage of only the black-yellow one, because it fails to represent the Hungarian half, and that is quite plainly unfair. As long as it's an official flag - civil or otherwise - which fairly represents both halves of the country, it should - in my opinion - be good enough. If one such flag can be found that's a better representative than the old one, good, bring it forth. But otherwise, the old one was just fine. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I think I found the solution for a common flag, but, it's not one currently available, someone in the know should digitally render it. It's the mixed flag used in this Central Powers propaganda poster. Transylvania1916 (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916: Just some quick info if you were unaware, but there are many instances where only the black-yellow flag, likely used as the "Flag of the Habsburg dynasty" rather than as "Flag of Austria" was used by its own as the "flag of Austria-Hungary". (Although not really in very formal, "official" contexts such as by embassies etc, but rather when "casually" listing flags of the world and so on (in the then contemporary times))--Havsjö (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it does make sense. For while the Austrian and Hungarian halves were officially equal, the monarch reigning over both in personal union, was, after all, a Habsburg. I still mostly air on the side of keeping the old civil ensign flag, for infobox purposes at least. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is 1917's Flags of the World. Perhaps you can find the black-and-gold flag in it. I can't. Civil ensign is pretty prominent though, along with the military one. Srnec (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, agree with Gugganij, Peregrine981, Alexander Fischer , Eromae, Special Contributions: 202.0.15.171, Havsjö, Loic26, Dragovit, Vici Vidi and original poster Special Contributions: 213.245.147.96 that using a merchant ensign that was never an official flag in the place assigned to the national flag is not "encyclopedic". As all these before me, I support either using the Habsburg flag, as they were the reigning House of the Empire and sources have been presented where their flag was used to represent the Empire, or otherwise I support not having any flag at all, as it has been clearly established that it didn't exist an official national flag. Having a merchant ensign or something else in the place of the national flag just because we feel it's nicer to have a representative image rather than a blank space (when the truth is that a national flag didn't exist) is anachronistic and non-encyclopedic, in my opinion. Arrasarro (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

National flag could not exist if we are discussing about two separate country's monarchy. Srnec's arguments are strong, however, the current solution is as well fine with me, but no support for only Austria's (or Habsburg) flag.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC))