Talk:Social Democratic Party of Austria

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

Rename the article?[edit]

Compare Social Democratic Party for a better entry heading. User:Wetman

(i.e. Social Democratic Party (Austria) I think he means) Mr. Jones 16:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Percentage of votes[edit]

The articles on the other Austrian parties gave their percentage of the vote in 1999 and 2001. Could someone put them in for this article too, please? Mr. Jones 16:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

edits in table[edit]

I had to revert edits by User:84.114.201.91 and User:Dave it and revert to the version of 11:47, September 18, 2006. The table was completely in the wrong format with strange pieces of information, probably done by users with little English knowledge, I will clean the whole thing up and try to pick the good bits and integrate them into the article. Gryffindor 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An instant classic...[edit]

I changed the sentence "The new regulation required all SPÖ candidates to be at least 40% female.", because I think a single candidate does not have to be 40% female, but rather 40% of all candidates. Blur4760 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SPÖ is also socialist[edit]

There is a group, called "Der Funke", in the SPÖ is socialist. That should be added to "Political Ideology".--Dave it 10:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true.--84.114.201.91 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions???--Dave it 10
36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Until 1994 a similar group (Offensief) operated within the Dutch PvdA, they did not affect the course much and they weren't officially recognized and were very small (less than 100 members). If they are similar I wouldn't include them in the template, but maybe just mention them in the text somewhere. C mon 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover Socialism is one of the leading ideologies, especaially democrtaic socialism. --84.114.201.91 09:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the SJÖ, they were very important for the party after the legislative elections (Interview => www.diepresse.com).--84.114.201.91 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't see your arguement could you please explain the nature of these organizations, shortly so every one, also people who aren't burried deeply in SPO politics can understand your argument. C mon 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SJÖ=Socialist Youth, a marxist organisation

For example: the SJÖ is important for the way the party goes, one week before the legislative elections they made a request not to go in a coalition with the ÖVP and the whole SPÖ agreed (100%)(1,read).And there are a lot more of requests. Another example is: Josef Cap, a leading person said, that he wouldn't accept a right-wing-coalition, because the socialist youth wouldn't want that(2,read).--84.114.201.91 09:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A political ideology differs from a political strategy. Not cooperating with the OVP is a strategic choice and not a sign of ideology. C mon 10:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this point you are right, but this is only an example.Another example is, that the SJÖ made another reject against racism in the SPÖ and it was also agreed.--84.114.201.91 12:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is not the same as socialism, you can be racist and socialist and non-socialist and non-racist. C mon 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but I only wanted to show how they influence the party.t has nothing to do with racism. --84.114.201.91 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the presumed socialist organization has influenced the SPO on two points: a non-socialist ideological point and a non-ideological point. I am not convinced of your argument.

Surely, anti-racism is a sign of socialism.--84.114.201.91 20:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SPÖ rejects neoliberalism (look at: 1)[edit]

Could someone possibly add that?If not, then I'll do. --84.114.201.91 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Views, Issues and Ideals[edit]

I think this article is in a rather desperate need of actually informing the reader what views the SPÖ actually hold, so they can discern if and in what way the party differs from its Third Way counterparts.
I have decided to write a little about this subject with the hope to be able to end this lacune. Any criticism would be welcomed.

The electoral programme of the Social Democratic Party of Austria identifies freedom, equality, justice and solidarity as the key values of social democracy. For the party, freedom not only means the absence of dictatorship, but also the selfdetermination created by the accessibility of information, social security and education which helps people to become independent.

I'll continue this later. Darth Viller (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

@Colonestarrice: You want to make a change to a stable page. Your change has been objected to. Per WP:BRD the onus of argument is on you.

Here's where we're standing right now:

  1. The stable version of the article includes the party flag.
  2. You claim that the party flag is somehow invalid or something and is an inappropriate thing to include here.
  3. You have shown no source, reliable or other, to support this claim.
  4. The stable version of the article, on the other hand, is supported by 4 reliable sources. One of them is an official party web site. Another includes a photo of the party using the flag on an official party rally poster... very prominently, about 4 or 5 months ago.

You've been reprimanded for edit warring just a few days ago, are you sure you want a second helping? You WILL need a reliable source that says inclusion of the flag is wrong. Until you have one, that's just your personal opinion and original research. Damvile (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice: As a token of good faith, I waited for well over an hour before reverting you again, in case you were going to post something to the talk page after all. Welp, you weren't. So I'm repeating my invitation: please join me here on the talk page and explain why you think the material should be removed. Damvile (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damvile - Discussions regarding a specific article and its content should be done on the article's talk page (here) so that other editors can easily find relevant discussions involving it and participate. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: I don't understand. Having a discussion on the talk page (here) is what I was trying to do. I posted a comment, summarizing the situation (as I see it) as a starting point. I made sure I pinged @Colonestarrice so he would notice. I also made sure I pointed to my attempt to start a disccusion on the talk page in an edit comment. After Colonestarrice's next revert, I posted a second comment on the talk page, pinging him again, and repeated the invitation to come to the talk page in a second edit summary. I also asked advice from an uninvolved third user (@Thewolfchild) who has experience dealing with edit warring and personal attacks from Colonestarrice. (There were several candidates. I picked one of them at random.) I sincerely believe I have demonstrated willingness to be proactive in the talk page department. Damvile (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Damvile - I appreciate you for summarizing your attempts to communicate with Colonestarrice and discuss the dispute with him. I agree that you've made reasonable attempts to ping and notify Colonestarrice of this discussion and allow him time to respond here. However, I'll note that your initial messages to him here contain phrases that don't provide a positive atmosphere for the discussion you started, and probably won't motivate him to respond to you. Your statements such as, "You've been reprimanded for edit warring just a few days ago, are you sure you want a second helping? You WILL need a reliable source that says inclusion of the flag is wrong" and "I waited for well over an hour before reverting you again, in case you were going to post something to the talk page after all. Welp, you weren't", probably come off to him as patronizing and an attempt to scold him and demand things. When you leave messages or comments toward other editors like that, it doesn't really motivate them to want to reply or talk to you - especially when you start discussions with messages like that from the very start. If someone did that to you, would you feel that it was positive and include and feel motivated to respond? :-)
I would perhaps update this discussion and ask him nicely if he could provide what you're looking for and offer to help explain or show him the relevant that will explain and provide instructions if he's confused about anything. Communicate in a welcoming, respectful, and positive manner and focus the discussion on the content rather than his character and his past warnings - and he might be more willing to respond to you :-). Either way, you and Colonestarrice need to work things out before this article becomes unprotected. I, nor the community, wants to see more Edit warring between the two of you and the way to resolve this is to discuss the matter. I hope you two discuss things, work things out, and that this dispute comes to a positive consensus and conclusion :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oshwah: You quote some edit summaries that you say were my initial messages to him, but they weren't. My initial messages to Colonestarrice (ping) in the context of this article are here and here. The first one is actively conciliatory ("I'm not convinced either") and the second is simply neutral. Besides, Colonestarrice and me have interacted in the context of several other articles before.
You think that my later messages may have come across as patronizing and as me demanding things. I do admit my tone was no longer excessively affectionate at that point, but you have to see these edit summaries in context. Colonestarrice has a looooong history of insisting on edits that are unsupported by any sources and that fly in the face of the sources already in the article. Polite and reasoned corrections are met with stubborn reverts, sometimes with abrasiveness, occasionally with weird insinuations regarding people's character. In some instances, hostile content forks of templates and articles have been made, although most of them have since been deleted so you'd have to do some digging. Several editors have tried to reason with Colonestarrice, usually very nicely (at least at first) and sometimes also veeeeery patiently. They all failed. If my messages look like I demand things, I guess to some degree it's because I am: I request that the persistent disruptive editing end.
As for patronizing, I honestly don't think I am. It's patronizing to treat someone as inexpert either performatively or for no reason. But this is not what's happening here. It's not patronizing to point out mechanisms and conventions to someone who genuinely needs to be aware of them and who has proven he isn't.
There is yet another edit war developing on yet another article even now.
For the record, I'm still not even sure myself that the flag should be in the article. I haven't seen an arrow flag in the wild in ages. It's just that the sources we are currently collectively aware of strongly suggest the flag should stay. Maybe there are reliable sources that clearly demonstrate the flag is obsolete and I'm just too stupid to find them! Maybe if someone cleverer than me looked at this issue it would be resolved in an instant! Is it really my fault nobody is even trying? Damvile (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Damvile, and thanks for responding and for explaining the series of events for me. I noted the edits, but didn't' look closely at the edit summaries. When it comes to dispute resolution and edit warring or other disputes, edit summaries do not count as attempts to properly communicate with another editor and discuss or work disputes out between one another. Edit summaries exist for the purpose of allowing editors to explain their changes, what was changed, and why they changed it (hence the name "edit summary" - it's a summary of your edit). Editors will sometimes add edit summaries aimed toward other editors, and doing so isn't against any policy in itself. However, once someone reverts your edits and as soon as it starts to become repeated, you're expected to begin communicating by starting a discussion and the edits should stop at that point so that you two can discuss things and come to an agreement. So, for the purposes of proper communication, your message at the beginning of this discussion was you initial message toward Colonestarrice and your first attempt to directly communicate with them using the proper channels and forms, and Colonestarrice hasn't properly attempted to communicate with you directly at all about this. I appreciate your acknowledgment about your communication here, and I hope that you understand where I'm coming from when I tried to explain how Colonestarrice might have felt when reading them... if it were you, would you be jumping for joy and excited to participate in a discussion where someone is pointing fingers at them from the get-go? I wouldn't :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oshwah – with respect, this position seems legalistic to me. I know that official dispute resolution proceedings operate under the legal fiction that edit summaries don't exist, as though editors didn't use edit summaries for debating things all the time. But why would that matter here? The messages you say we should pretend were my initial messages just really weren't. We know Colonestarrice noticed the earlier messages in my edit summaries because he replied to them in his own edit summaries. The reason Colonestarrice has been uncooperative is not that my initial messages to him were too unfriendly because my actual initial messages were not. In addition, I've left a message to him on a talk page at least once before. He ignored that talk page just like he ignored this one. You can't blame me for using edit summaries to message Colonestarrice when edit summaries are the only thing I know he will read!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you very badly, but I get the impression you're taking a position of bothsiderism. I don't understand why. I'm trying to work within established conventions and to do what leads to good articles – find sources, work from sources, don't remove well-sourced material from stable articles with no explanation and no debate. Colonestarrice just happily mutilates away, disingenuously tries to pass off his mutilated version as "the status quo", and proclaims it is beneath him to discuss his edits. How are these two approaches equivalent?
I apologize for taking up so much of your time but I believe the issue is bigger than just the party flag question. To me, the process seems broken. Damvile (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I'm coming off as a "wikiattorney"; I'm just trying to explain how this works from the other side of things. The reason that I was writing my responses in a "bothsiderism" manner was to try and work with the both of you in an objective and impartial manner so that you two could work things out. My goal isn't to determine whose right or wrong here; my goal is to keep disruption off of the article, work with you both, and help you two to discuss the dispute at-hand and come to an agreement. However, it's become clear that this isn't going to happen. Unfortunately, it sounds like we're at the point where no collaboration is going to occur between the two of you until the protection expires, and that the dispute is only going to just continue. For all purposes of this discussion, it appears that you're adding content that cites a number of different references and he's removing what you're adding in opposition. So long as your content is well referenced and by reliable sources, I don't see a problem with your attempts to expand the article - after all, that's the primary goal here: to build an encyclopedia. If no valid reason can be provided by Colonstarrice as to why the content doesn't belong, it should stay. What makes things even more difficult is the fact that half of the edit summaries all refer to what appears to be another discussion with someone on the German Wikipedia, as well as edit summaries written in German. I unfortunately cannot read German so really I can't help you there. The next thing to do in order to get this issue taken care of is to call in a few pairs of eyes and have them add to this discussion and state which revision they believe should be live. I'm going to ping some helpful users to see if they can't take a look. I also just received a ping from Colonestarrice on my user talk page, and apparently whomever you're talking to on the German Wikipedia does not believe that the flag you've been adding is their current one. It looks like we need a wider audience to participate in order to come to fair and complete closure. I'll see what I can do :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree that it's not cool to see Colonestarrice repeatedly reverting your edits while instructing you to start a discussion here so that things can be worked out, only to have him/her completely ignore you here after you do what was asked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah: I promise this is my last comment here. Just for the record, I never added any content whatsoever to this article. I only added sources in support of content that was already here long before I got involved. The only reason I ever got involved was that Colonestarrice removed the flag even though he knew (from a comment by Klofáč, here) that the inclusion of the flag was supported by reliable sources. Colonestarrice simply pretended (here) that Klofáč's comment didn't exist. This struck me as problematic. The edit where I called him out on the misrepresentation and added Klofáč's sources to the article (diff) was my first ever edit here.
If you want to call in a few new pairs of eyes, one expert on the Austrian party landscape would be Kramler, but he probably wouldn't want to get involved because he's had his own heated disagreements with Colonestarrice and they resulted in strings of revenge edits on half the articles in his contributions list. I previously avoided pinging Kramler because we've interacted before (in unrelated matters) and I didn't want to look like I was canvassing. Damvile (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - I am not involved here in any way. Damvile asked for advice on my talk page (the entire discussion is here) and I limited it to generic P&G guidance only. I don't know Damvile, and avoided this page after his post as I didn't want him to run afoul of WP:CANVAS. I have no opinion on this dispute. I do know of Colonstarrice from other articles, I have found him to be a problematic editor who is difficult to collaborate with. I prefer to avoid him if I can. Hopefully, this will be my only post here. Good luck, hope you guys can resolve this. - wolf 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Ding ding ding, the sources cited for the party flag don't impress me very much:

  • All sources can be read to imply that the SPÖ has a party flag, but none of them actually says it does.
  • The Demokratiezentrum source says the three arrows have not been an important part of SPÖ PR since the 1950s.
  • The Austria Forum source shows a picture of a May Day poster holding the flag. There is reason to suspect this poster could be deliberately anachronistic. A May Day poster would be the exact place where you'd try to evoke the glory days of the past. If I had to design a May Day poster that tried to remind people of the time when Vienna was a sea of red once a year, the arrow flag would be an element I would consider using.
  • The page also shows a picture of a borough party office flying the arrow flag. This is obviously very suggestive, but these people are one of hundreds of neighborhood party chapters, not the party.
  • The ORF source shows three party critters holding an arrow flag, but this picture too is in the context of May Day, i.e. this use of the flag too could easily be anachronistic. In fact these guys could be trolling. Two of them are described not as party but party youth officials. The article is about a labor law dispute. The vibe I'm getting is that this is a bunch of iconoclasts (purists, dissidents, whatever) demanding that the party snap out of its torpor and go fight for the little people like it used to. In other words, there is a chance the flag is in this picture not because it's current but precisely because it's not.

If it was up to me, the party flag would be removed from the infobox until someone finds a better source. It's more important that strong sources are cited for every controversial addition than that every article contains every possible piece of information right now. Besides, the flag is pretty much trivia anyway. One of the problems with Colonestarrice's approach to Wikipedia is his tendency to clutter up articles with inappropriate irrelevancies; why oppose him where he is doing the opposite.

I'm not commenting on any other aspect of this debacle. Kramler (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kramler: Reasonable criticisms. Assume for sake of argument I admit my sources are weak. Rather than 4 sources to 0 sources it's now 4 weak sources to 0 sources. There is still more support for keeping the flag than for removing it, if not as much more support as I used to think. Damvile (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kramler is right on this. The strongest of the references indicates that the Three Arrows was phased out in the 1950s. Notably there are some links showing recent use of the symbol. However, all of these indications are recent of the Vienna party branch. It appears that the symbol is being revived to some extent, but I'm far from convinced that it would be back as official party symbol. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damvile: No, sorry, bad approach. A source is "weak" if there are doubts about how verifiable, conscientious, or accurate it is, or about how well it has aged. A source that simply does not say what it is cited as saying is not "weak," it is void. Four times nothing is nothing. Your original points were that a change that has been challenged needs to be discussed and that an editor should not be able force a questionable edit merely through outpersisting the opposition in a revert war. Both points have been made. The attempt to revert war the flag out of the article has failed. The discussion has been had. The lesson here is not that you were wrong to make these points, the lesson is that if Colonestarrice had attacked the sources instead of the BRD, the flag would have been gone two weeks ago. Cash yourself in and relax. Kramler (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess much of this is probably true. I'm changing my vote from keep to remove. Damvile (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kramler: Hello, these are very bad sources, I prefer those original from German Wikipedia, which documents real status de-facto. Factical use is the one used mainly in Wikipedia articles, for example there is no other way to know symbols of historical political parties than by real usage.[1][2][3][4] --Klofáč (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Klofáč: the Schaukasten has already been mentioned a few times; Soman and me have already explained why it doesn't convince us. As for the other three links, don't you think they have the same issue? They show some party members using the flag – May Day marchers in one case, the Vienna regional party org the others. (Note that the picture in the SN article is really a picture of a picture, and the outer picture features Michael Häupl. So both inner and outer picture would have been taken in Vienna.) Neither the SN article nor the Freedom Party hit piece nor the Youtube video makes any explicit statement about the official standing of the flag. It's all just vague insinuation. Kramler (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sn.at/politik/innenpolitik/die-spoe-und-ihre-baustellen-23742421
  2. ^ https://austria-forum.org/attach/Wissenssammlungen/Symbole/Drei_Pfeile/SP_Schaukasten.jpg
  3. ^ https://youtube.com/watch?v=vcOu9leEPgI?t=57s
  4. ^ https://www.unzensuriert.at/content/0022021-Rote-Stuehle-als-Vorbild-SPOe-Stadtraetin-Ulli-Sima-wollte-ihrem-Mann-Mistkuebelhaus

References

Name[edit]

This article slightly contradicts the German-language version of the same article. This one states that the party was originally known as "Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Österreichs" (SDAPÖ). That one states that the party was previously known as "Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (SDAP)" and "Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Deutschösterreichs (SDAPDÖ)" (and doesn't mention SDAPÖ). Of course, perhaps it had all three names, but neither article makes that clear... 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Platform and ideology??[edit]

Can someone please write a section about the SPÖ's political ideology?? That is woefully missing from this article (but present on the ÖVP article). I have no credentials to write such information unfortunately QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_Democratic_Party_of_Austria&oldid=1207727077"