Talk:Engelbert Dollfuss

Economic reform
He initiated a programme of economic reform ...doesn't everybody "initiate a programme of economic reform" even a new pope? This entry is unusually opaque. Must be something there under the surface. Wetman 03:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"In May 1934 Dollfuss proclaimed a new constitution modelled on that of Fascist Italy."

Was it? As far as I know, it was simply based on Catholic socio-political teaching, if anything.

"In order to install the so-called austro-fascist dictatorship,"

So-called by whom? No historian or political scientist that I know of, certainly.Vincent-D 23:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * To the present day, Dollfuß has always been a highly controversial figure. The German term Austrofaschismus gets 8,730 Google hits, and Austro-Fascism 392, so there are people who use that term, and it can be found in practically all history books dealing with the interwar years in Austria. However, there is no reason for Martg76 to, as he/she calls it, "revert vandalism" if someone just calls Dollfuß Bundeskanzler, which he was. You shouldn't do that.  18:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * can be found in practically all history books dealing with the interwar years in Austria. I have a degree, I'm working on my Master's, and no it can't. It's not quite a Wikipedia invention, but it's nowhere near that universal. At scholar Google it gets 19 hits (Regular Google is going to be more enamored of sloppy ahistorical renamings so is not reliable here) "Engelbert Dollfuss" gets 111 hits at Scholar Google. "Engelbert Dollfuss" "Fascist" however does get 61 hits. So I'm not objecting to it being termed a kind of Fascism. (Although I think it might be an exaggeration) I'm largely just being pedantic. Austro-Fascism is a description of his brand, but it's not the most common one or universally accepted in historical circles. In general I've seen him described as authoritarian or "like Italian-Fascism", without any effort to give his brand its own name. As he seems not to have ruled for very long not giving his version a unique name seems justified.--T. Anthony 14:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm coming at this from an Anglo-centric (Which may be no bad thing, in terms of objectivity.) point of view here, but people seem to be throwing around the F-word without any real substantiation. The fact that the German variant of the term throws up so many more results on Google - and the English term so few - is perhaps telling.


 * I'd actually argue that the Dolfuss regime probably has hardly any basis for being called 'Fascist' - certainly no more than Portugal under Salazar, for instance, and all the articles regarding that subject make it clear that while having Fascist overtones, the exact extent to which the regime can be called 'Fascist' is arguable - and therefore the unqualified use of the term in the article should be removed. To be honest, the whole range of articles dealing with this area need to be made more neutral. Political Catholicism, for instance, in the Austro-Fascist article proper is described as "Clerical Fascism" - a term loaded with bias and plenty of room for it being disputed, IMHO. -Vincent-D 03:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, irrespective of whether the term Fascism is warrented, the term Austrofascism is commonly used for the regime and thus necessarily needs to be included in the articles dealing with that topic here. Even the AEIOU Encyclopedia has an entry for it . That site is maintained by the Austrian Ministry of Education, which has hardly been a stronghold of left-wing politics during the past years. Furthermore, the Austrofascism article even now has a section on critcism of the term, which you are more than welcome to improve. With respect to Clerical Fascism, that section of the article was simply a translation of the German Wikipedia. You are of course invited to clarify things as you see fit. The criticism section there is not from the German Wikipedia. Martg76 05:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe "vandalism" is too strong language, let's calm down. However, I didn't really see a reason for the edit by User:PMelvilleAustin, who only removed information which (as you state) is certainly relevant for Dollfuss' historical role. Certainly the nature of state and government changed significantly under his and Kurt Schuschnigg's rule. Just to give a rather symbolical example, under the Austro-fascist constitution, Austria was no longer a Republic, but its official name was Bundesstaat Österreich. Martg76 18:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I said some time ago that this article needs a major rewrite. So let's hope someone will do that and include all the necessary and relevant information. It may be difficult for those not familiar with Austrian/European history to understand how someone can be a "fascist" and at the same time oppose the Nazis. Also, as you say, the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the constitution of 1934 need to be mentioned in some detail.  23:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I edited out the note because we don't have such notes in the Chancellor of Germany box for Hitler or Papen who were a dictator and authoritarian respectively - i was merely bringing it in line with the German Chancellor's infobox. PMA 09:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I know, and I do hope that this is no reason for an edit war. All the best,  11:50, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope so - and that Marty can understand. PMA 18:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality / Rumours
The following line in the article appears very much to be an anti-OeVP bit of information : It is rumoured that his portrait still hangs in the ÖVP headquarters. This is highly unlikely, as it would be of questionable legality under the current legal conditions in Austria. It seems to be, for the most part, included as an insult against the OeVP by implying that they are fascist. I shall refrain from removing it yet, if any one wants to disagree and debate this. If no one does, I'll remove the line in a few days, keeping it here on the talk page so that any one can discuss it and add it back later if they want. Beobach972 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Without a good source, it can be looked on as POV slander against the Austrian People's Party. You definitely have a reason to remove it. Picaroon9288 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in case you forgot, I'll do it. Picaroon9288 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Beobach972 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That´s no rumour, that´s a fact. Wich I should know because I´m from Austria and there are enough pictures in newspapers to prove it. Try this for a start http://no-racism.net/article/890/

Tomaschek Markus, Austria, 11 July 2006


 * Well, I have never seen any newspaper pictures showing the portrait of Dollfuß hanging in the ÖVP headquarter. On the other hand the legal conditions in Austria do not forbid it neither and I think, without having any prove at hand, it is actually hanging in the party's parliamentary office. Gugganij 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no slander involved, it's a fact reported repeatedly, e.g. http://diepresse.com/home/politik/innenpolitik/weltbisgestern/396232/index.do (July 2008). Die Presse is a conservative paper close to the OeVP. The location is not the OeVP HQ however but the rooms of their parliamentary club.  --QEDquid (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

it's ß, not ss
Can we please shange his name to 'Dolfuß'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1950salvador (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * No! Read the rules... 201.19.209.143 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do it on the german language wikipedia. --NEMT 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, no one named Engelbert Dollfuss ever existed. Only someone named Engelbert Dolfuß. Its just wrong.  If Novak Đoković gets a page title with those funny letters, the ß should be allowed, as long as this is used:  . --DerRichter (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is this funny wierd thing? I guess I better go to the English version to understand. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So I will ask that the article on Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia be changed to ቀዳማዊ፡ኃይለ፡ሥላሴ. After all that was his real name, it was not in the latin alphabet. For the fonts see the article. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to Enlil Ninlil, the article has been changed since then. Notice it redirected because at the time I wrote it, that was how the article was titled.  Thanks for noticing though.  As far as your analogy goes, that is not even an alphabet, but a completely different writing system.  Read the Latin Alphabet article.  Specifically, go to Latin Alphabet.  The German alphabet, according to the article, consists of the same 26 letters as the modern Roman alphabet. But remember to keep the discussion here on topic.  Thanks for your contributions and discussion.  --DerRichter (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I dissagree with you, can you tell me when I use that in the funny thing in english? Also the etiopian script is an alphabet arbeit more similar to arabic and cambodian than latin. My analogy is correct in a sence for that letter. Also there was not much of a disscussion down below. DerRichter this is also not an attack on you (just in case you think so) and thanks for you reply. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fyi my position is now to revert the article back to ss because the last time it was changed, no discussion took place. I wrote my January post before I realised Wikipedia policy.  Also, part of my January discussion was deleted because this template changed:  .  It was slightly different before.  --DerRichter (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't take the neverending discussion about Novak Djokovic/Novak Đoković as a role model. Although WP:GERCON is just a recommendation, it seems fairly reasonable in connection with the foreignchar template at the beginning of the article. --Komischn (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never meant to do that and would like to completely retract that analogy. In an unrelated incident, this page was moved to ss on the 14th of July after some discussion. It was moved back to ß on the 2nd of August with no discussion evident.  Maybe that should be reconsidered. --DerRichter (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It should only be considered as a lot of english speakers would not know what the letter is, or how to pronouce it. Though they could research it, many wont. The Novak Đoković is a similar analogy as people would say D and not Dj, so also not knowing how to pronounce the name. But his german name should be included in the article introduction. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that it feels a little inconsistent to use "ss" instead of "ß" here, while e.g. the article on Hermann Göring sticks to using "ö" rather than "oe" throughout the article. Am I to believe that the pronunciation of "ö" is widely known among English speakers, then? Calanor (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wenn ich nicht irre, the general practice in English-language publishing, including historiography, is to use ss rather than ß because the latter never appears in English. Regarding Göring rather than Goering, the letter o does of course appear in English and some umlauted vowels show up in English once in a while, so I favor continuing to use them in English articles. As to the putative inability of English speakers to pronounce ö, it's not important to readability or comprehension. Sca (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Re ö, make your mouth like an o and your tongue like an e. Cheers. Sca (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, as for open ö (in front of more than one consonant), just take the sound in "girl" but make it short and utterly non-rhotic.--46.87.139.125 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Article self-contradiction (height)
The "Early Life" section has his height at 150 cm. The "Trivia" section has his height at 155 cm. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article included major POV statements
I removed the most obvious POV statements, but there are many more things that have been added during the last months that are both uncited and are apparently wrong. Mostly somebody tried to distort history into the direction that Dollfuss wasn't a dictator and had "no choice" in eliminating democracy in Austria. Etc. Etc. The article is also in serious need of more citations and additional clean-up. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Engelbert Dollfuß → Engelbert Dollfuss — I don't have a strong opinion either way, but this was moved recently without consensus and I'd like to establish the preferred title with more certainty. (For the record, from what I can tell, "Dollfuss" predominates in English-language sources.) —Biruitorul Talk 14:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose per my discussion below. Additionally, the redirect helps any and all who cannot type in certain diacritics. --DerRichter (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly support This is how English writers spell the subject of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support preferably ASCII only titles are best for usability. As this isn't even an English letter, it's unacceptable, and not a diacritic. Keeping the eszett is racist and shows preferential treatment for Germans as opposed to everyone else in the world. English-only educated people are more likely to know Greek lettering than eszett, so why are Greek titles not in Greek? That eszett represents the German sounds better applies even more to Arabic. 70.51.10.197 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't go overboard: "keeping the eszett is racist" is absurdly hyperbolic. Biruitorul Talk 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely hyperbole; but based on this WP:POINT violation; this argument is keeping the Germans up with the South Slavs, whether that be racist or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow- okay I am really sorry I got involved in this discussion. I do not want to be involved with that kind of ethnic nationalism stuff, Pmanderson. My only point was that this move was made when the foreignchar template was deleted, something that happened because the nominator forgot to place a notification on the page.  Additionally I see there should have been a discussion when someone moved this page from Dollfuss to Dollfuß last time as well.  So no matter where this poll goes, I think the page could be reverted to Dollfuss before we discuss anything else. I just gave my position, but forget about it. 70.51.10.197, you may argue on the diacritic talk page about whether it is one or not.  I did not mean to offend.  --DerRichter (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. In any case, you posted long ago, irritated by a silly decision since reversed. Your opinion is always welcome; but do remember that English isn't German: our standard of correctitude is (English) usage, even with foreign names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose as ASCII only titles are best as re-directs, and the real name should be the name of the article. This is the age of Unicode, folks. -- Evertype·✆ 00:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The spelling Dollfuß works perfectly well in an English-language context, so there is no reason to change it, unlike what is the case with, say, Persian or Japanese names. Libary (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support This issue is already addressed in the naming conventions with the example of Franz Josef Strauss, not Franz Josef Strauß (which is a redirect). I can see using ß where not doing so could cause ambiguity, but the end of a word ain't one of them. Caerwine Caer’s whines  00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Perhaps (no doubt to the chagrin of some) this could be the starting point for a general discussion on use in titles of the eszett (ß) and other Latin alphabet "extensions" which are different from Letters with diacritics. See Talk:ß for some examples of other similar articles. Currently, some discussion about diacritics is occurring at WT:Use diacritics and WT:UE. —  AjaxSmack   16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have included:   This was a part of the article before this nomination, and is back on this page now.  It was gone for only a short while, and that is when this move discussion began.  The template was only deleted (then later reviewed) because the person who nominated it for deletion did not place a tag on the template page. I think it is very helpful, and if there was ever any confusion about ß, this template clears that up.  --DerRichter (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, not another "general discussion" of the esszett. We've had enough of them; they always divide between
 * those who say it's correct in German, whether or not it's ever used in English.
 * those who abhor foreign squiggles, of which this is indeed one of the most confusing. Monoglot anglophones will not read this as ss; some of them will read it as b.
 * As a compromise between these extreme positions, we have established practice to use ß when it is commonly used in English, or there is no common usage in English. The second is not the case here; the Austrian government of the 1930's is fairly widely discussed in English, and it is my belief that Dollfuss is normal. Evidence, which neither of the warring sides usually provides, will be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See for example the New Cambridge Modern History, which uses Dollfuss in text or index; they would use ß if they happened to quote German text containing his name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the Columbia Encyclopedia: Engelbert Dollfuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "We have established practice to use ß when it is commonly used in English, or there is no common usage in English." That is generally my sentiment too.  Is that codified somewhere? —   AjaxSmack   05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This move discussion could do with some more input, so I've asked a few other users to join in. Libary (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trivia
I think the trivia section (short stature) is very nice and informative and should not be deleted. Maybe the tag that is hanging there since 2007 should be taken down. -- C opper K ettle  08:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have boldly modified the title and removed the template. --Austrian (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Move (again?)
The article should be named Engelbert Dollfuß, and it should especially not make the impression there ever was an Austrian politician called Dollfuss. It does this currently in an - imo - unacceptable way: Funny that only the sources mention his actual name. --Regression Tester (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Engelbert Dollfuss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210120417/http://www.erfurt-web.de:80/PlanettaOtto to http://erfurt-web.de/PlanettaOtto&recommend_site

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engelbert Dollfuss. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327112923/http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8044/dollfuss-an-austrian-patriot to http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8044/dollfuss-an-austrian-patriot

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dollfuss was antisemitic
The article states: "Together with occasional allies like Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Robert Hohlbaum and Hermann Neubacher, he distinguished himself as a German nationalist and antisemite." This statement is not referenced. I am unable to find any statements by Dollfuss that are anti-Semitic, which is not to say there aren't any. Does anybody have a reference/evidence that this is true? I'm also not sure that he ever aligned himself with the German Nationalist movement. Is there any evidence of that? -- unsigned by User:Jafdip, 05:05, 27 January 2018


 * I have added a disputed tag because I am unable so far to find any reliable source evidencing that Dollfuss was anti-Semitic. -- unsigned by User:Jafdip, 00:58, 10 February 2018‎


 * According to German historian Harald Lönnecker (see German Wikipedia), in 1920 Dollfuß tried to introduce an official Aryan paragraph for the Cartellverband, although his faction lost the vote. See Lönnecker's Die Versammlung der „besseren Nationalsozialisten“? - Der Völkische Waffenring (VWR) zwischen Antisemitismus und korporativem Elitarismus (p. 7). --2003:EF:1702:7976:C494:9D24:23CA:3DD7 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)