Talk:Anti-Austrian sentiment

Untitled

Should this be deleted? There's obviously not very much to say. megamalx (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette and WWI

Hi Yue, Marie Antoinette was French Queen at the beginning of the French Revolution. So that's a very special case that has little to do with anti-Austrian sentiment. The same is true for the situation during WWI - surely not typical for the sentiments towards the small Austria of today. BTW: Using edit summaries helps other editors. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I don't think I understand what your objection is.

• The text I wrote does not say that Marie Antoinette became Queen of the French because of anti-Austrian sentiment.
• Austria / Austria-Hungary of the 1910s is still Austria. This article's scope isn't limited to the Austrian republic after World War II.

None of the text I wrote is my opinion or original analysis; it's written in the sources I cited. Do you have a policy-based reason for reverting everything I added? Yue🌙 07:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course she didn't become Queen of France because of a-A. sent. She was attacked (and later executed) primarily because she was Queen, not because she was Austrian. The policy I refer to is WP:NOR: We have to avoid an arbitrary selection of facts or events. IMHO, therefore we should only report things in this article which are also found in good sources focussing on a-A. sent. I also think that it's against WP:SENSE (and against the expectations of our readers) to call an article "a-A. sent." and then focus on two short episodes from a remote past when Austria was something very different from what it is today. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: In regard to WP:OR, I did not choose those three events in particular to draw the reader to a conclusion; they're just the topics covered by the sources already given in the article before my edits, as well as one other source I found online.

There's no intent involved on my part aside from a desire for general expansion. Anyone who wishes to can expand this article to talk more about (or focus on) other points in Austrian history, including present-day Austria. If you dislike the article's current state, the solution is to add more content, to add your own work, instead of erasing mine and reverting the article to one sentence that just repeats the title.

Regarding sourcing, in your humble opinion, the article should only include content corroborated by "good sources" focusing on anti-Austrian sentiment. Source focus isn't a policy but your personal preference, and I don't know which sources you consider unreliable. Blom, Kaiser, and Reiter are / were historians with doctorates in European history. Anti-Austrian sentiment is also clearly a major topic of the two Kaiser articles, which I cited frequently in my additions. Yue🌙 20:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

As I see NOR, it includes that reliable sources should inform our ideas about what is relevant and what not. Marie Antoinette is highly relevant for the French Revolution, but IMHO she is near the top of the list of irrelevant points to mention when talking about anti-Austrian sentiment. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to be able to comment on the subject matter and I'm busy, but Rsk a one line stub for this article isn't acceptable. If you disagree with the content, please make the effort to write something using good sources yourself and perhaps you two can find some middle ground. Simply make the effort to improve it if you have an issue with it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Again, your personal opinion is not policy. Evidently you're valuing your own preference above the analysis of scholars I've cited appropriately inline, not even to dispute what is written but to wholly remove added content and revert the article to an inferior state.

This article is about anti-Austrian sentiment. The sources cited directly talk about anti-Austrian sentiment. You claim WP:OR but still haven't made any arguments even resembling the policy's guidelines; nothing about the reliability of the sourcing, how the sources were misrepresented, synthesis of materials, etc.

I am formally requesting a third opinion since a middle-ground can only be met if we discuss sourcing complemented by policy, not vague gestures at an argumentative policy like WP:OR. Yue🌙 05:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me clarify that my problem is with relevance, not with verifiability, see WP:ONUS. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But you're making no effort to come up with a start class article based on what you believe is right. Leaving it as a one line stub isn't acceptable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Historical examples of Anti-Austrian sentiment are all stepping stones on the way to getting a well-developed article. The article was in far better shape at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Austrian_sentiment&oldid=1284837698 than it is now. Greenshed 15:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I didn't restore my additions out of respect for the resolution process, but I can't engage with vague and changing citations of policy, nor criticisms if they're not specific with their allegations. You're asking me to prove the validity of what I added against nothing because I'm essentially responding to "in my opinion I see relevancy issues" after I asked which sources were problematic in response to "in my opinion I see verification issues". Yue🌙 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said that. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

What I said from the beginning was that the sources were arbitrarily selected, and that our selection of sources should be informed by sources focussing on the subject, see my comments above. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

Thread retitled from Speedy deletion.

I came from the Third Opinion noticeboard to give a third opinion, but after looking at the article I think it should be speedily deleted because it has no content. This article has been around for 10 years and it is still a single sentence without references. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It had content but was fully reverted by Rsk. It would be more helpful if you comment on the content which was added by the editor and destubbed it and whether it should be restored to his version. From what I gather Rsk seems to be objecting to Marie Antoinette being irrelevant to the article subject which may or may not be a valid concern, or an UNDUE issue, I've not looked into it. But I'm certain that there is a way forward which everybody is happy with and something productive comes out of this. It's a valid article topic and would be more productive to expand it than delete. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the removed content and I think it has WP:DUE and WP:NOTABILITY issues, it relied on primary sources. Some of the content had tenuous (at best) links to "Anti-Austrian sentiment", like the WWI bit, which had more to do with German speakers potentially being spies for central powers, rather than being motivated by hatred/dislike of Austrians.

I am not saying the information shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but I think it is more suitable for articles about Marie Antoinette, WWI and so on, rather than its own, separate article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the Antionette content, but content like "Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908 caused the Bosnian Crisis, during which Russia actively promoted anti-Austrian sentiment in Serbia and Austria-Hungary's Balkan provinces." seems perfectly valid to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we come up with a way forward which avoids the UNDUE weight concerns on Antionette and has some relevant information rather than delete it everybody?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But that sentence/claim relies on a single source that a lot of editors have deemed either unreliable or that it should be used with caution. I don't think that justifies a whole article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Can the source be replaced though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have another source? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The sentence(s) won't be exactly the same, but anti-Austrian works being created by Russia and Serbian groups during WWI is an uncontroversial, attested to historical fact.

• "Anti-German and anti-Austrian printed text propaganda in the Russian empire at the beginning of World War I", scholarly article by Olena Kolomoiets and Yurii Kolomoiets
• The National WWI Museum and Memorial in Kansas City
• Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Yue🌙 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But does it warrant its own article, rather than being part of the WWI article? Is there no other place on Wikipedia where that information is mentioned? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: Yes, because focused coverage in journal articles by multiple PhD historians with specialties in Austrian, German, or European studies passes the general notability guidelines. Yue🌙 18:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage"

I don't think it has received significant coverage. I have listed it at AfD, we'll see what other editors say. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: Which sources are the primary sources? Yue🌙 18:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Journal articles are considered primary sources, no? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: You're kidding. Yue🌙 18:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, then it's my mistake. Scientific journal articles are usually primary sources, I never considered journal articles in history to be any different. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: I'm not a scientist by profession so I don't know how scientific journals go, but in history and other social sciences, journal articles published by reputable authors are not considered primary sources, unless the scholar in question was writing when Marie Antoinette was alive (or shortly after her death).

Scholarly works in history build upon or critique other analyses and are not wholly based on the author's reading of primary sources; that's the first thing I learned as a historian and the first thing I teach my students. They are secondary sources, and if they do not follow this rule (which is not the case with the articles I cited, but if you need more than just my word you can read it yourself), they don't become primary sources, they're just bad sources.Yue🌙 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected, they are primary sources. I still don't think it is notable enough, remember WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Especially cause I think the information is more suitable for other articles rather than its own. It has been 10 years, even if we add that sentence or two on the WWI Anti-Austrian sentiment, I still don't think that justifies it having its own article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: I don't know what definition of primary sources you're working with, but the definition on the Wikipedia policy page (WP:PRIMARY) is the same as the one in social sciences I just described:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."

Since you're focusing on notability in the context of deletion though, we should keep that kind of discussion to the AfD you started, as less people are likely to read either of our points here. Yue🌙 19:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)