Talk:Politics of Austria

message: wasn't there a major 'house cleaning' ? the whole gov't stepped down didn't it? the whole jorg haider thing?
----
I've never heard the terms ‘upper house’ or ‘lower-house’ in context of the Austrian parliament. Is there reason for using these terms here?
-- 131.130.1.135 13:45, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The ‘Parlament’ is only the name of the building housing those bodies. Their names are Nationalrat, Bundesrat and Bundesversammlung as you mention correctly. Nevertheless even Austrian media calls the Nationalrat ‘Parlament’ from time to time. --Wirthi 19:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It's not quite correct that the states of Austria have no independant iurisdiction, because Austrian iurisdiction is generally independant from legislation and execution, iurisdiction doesn't fall into the federal system of Austria. Anyway, first instances in the iurisdictional process are normally based on the different nine states and not on the whole country.
* Yes it is quite correct. Jurisdiction does certainly fall within the federal system in Austria. The constitution clearly specifies in Art. 82 that "Alle Gerichtsbarkeit geht vom Bund aus.", ie all jurisdiction is a federal matter. "Urteile...  werden im Namen der Republik verkündet und ausgefertigt.", all rulings and judgments are to be pronounced and executed in the name of the republic. Bottom line: all courts are federal in nature. Unlike, say, Germany, or the US, of course, there are absolutely no state courts in Austria. Greil 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  federal states

message: Some of the issues I've got:
* No citations
* Might contain original research
* Missing neutrality e.g. "degenerated into a clerical fascist dictatorship between 1933-1934, in large part, as a response to the external threat posed by Nazi Germany" ('really?') or "begun ceding core responsibilities to supranational institutions at an increasing rate." 
* Not easy to read (Part "political conditions")
In my opinion the article has to be almost completely redone --Completefailure (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the article 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/austria.html
*:Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: What's wrong? I can't see what the problem is, but the top infobox doesn't render. DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 00:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox is broken 

message: For years now editors have disagreed on whether to use the word 'federal' as prefix on articles related to Austrian politics and public administration (especially when it comes to the president, the chancellor, and the ministries), e.g. Ministry of the Interior (Austria), Federal Ministry of Finance (Austria).
Arguments for omission: 
:1) User:Kramler has written an essay on why it is misleading to use the prefix from a legal and scholarly perspective 2) The vast majority of English language sources omit 'federal' (examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6)
Arguments for inclusion: 
:1) It is the literal translation 2) The English language websites of government ministries use the prefix (examples: 1 2 3 4 5)
Thus should we include or omit the word 'federal' as a prefix? Colonestarrice (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Omit in non-formal contexts per assay by , English sources above and Google Ngram results, but include everywhere where there is need for political entity reference (akin to how its done to Russian Federation: informally were refer to it  simply as Russia). Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: use of 'federal' as a prefix 

message: :Omit in non-formal contexts per assay by , English sources above and Google Ngram results, but include everywhere where there is need for political entity reference (akin to how its done to Russian Federation: informally were refer to it  simply as Russia). Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey