Talk:Social Democratic Party of Austria

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename the article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Percentage of votes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  edits in table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An instant classic... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that's true.--84.114.201.91 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ;Reactions???--Dave it 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The SPÖ is also socialist 

message: Could someone possibly add that?If not, then I'll do. --84.114.201.91 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SPÖ rejects neoliberalism (look at: [http://www.noe.spoe.at/images/Grundsatzprogramm.pdf 1]) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Views, Issues and Ideals 

message: 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  says the three arrows have not been an important part of SPÖ PR since the 1950s.
* The  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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.https://www.sn.at/politik/innenpolitik/die-spoe-und-ihre-baustellen-23742421https://austria-forum.org/attach/Wissenssammlungen/Symbole/Drei_Pfeile/SP_Schaukasten.jpghttps://youtube.com/watch?v=vcOu9leEPgI?t=57shttps://www.unzensuriert.at/content/0022021-Rote-Stuehle-als-Vorbild-SPOe-Stadtraetin-Ulli-Sima-wollte-ihrem-Mann-Mistkuebelhaus --Klofáč (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Klofáč: the  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)
thread_title:  Section break 

message: 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)
thread_title: Name

message: 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)
thread_title:  Platform and ideology??