Talk:Anschluss

"Had the victors of World War I allowed it…"

"Had the victors of World War I allowed it, Austria would have united with Germany as a freely taken democratic decision."

Bottom of third paragraph. This may be an artifact of an article that, from what I read in the discussion, originally had a good deal of bias. I'm not a Wikipedian, and will leave this to the better judgment of those who know their business here better than I do, but I love Wikipedia, and I did want to point it out. This is not a statement that belongs in an encyclopedic entry. Maybe in an op-ed. Again, others here will know the standards for this type of thing better than me, but I feel like it's pretty clear that an encyclopedia writer's task is not a matter of invoking conditionals or "would have's." Their task is not to interpret history for the reader in order to inform them of how things would have been if history had have been different. The writer's task is to inform the reader of the history that did occur. So, statements that there was strong support in both countries for unification, if cited, seem very much appropriate. On the other hand, statements declaring the course that history would have taken are normative (or at least conditional), and not positive/descriptive. Personal judgments regarding history's "might have been's" ought to be excluded, yes? Or at the very least, a statement like this should require a great deal of support, and lots of citations (I see none). Anyways, just calling attention to it. Thanks for your time, friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:8300:C240:41BE:5783:31BE:CCED (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

" A plebiscite ... was held on the 10th of April, where the German Wehrmacht forced the Austrian population to vote for the annexation."

(cited from the introduction section, last paragraph)

Is there any reliable source supporting the above statement?

Even in the corresponding German article, which is highly influenced by Austrian writers, I can`t find anything supporting this claim. Don`t get me wrong I don`t question that the vote was highly undemocratic and a lot of presure was put on the Austrians to vote in favor of the Anschluss. But the above wording is implying that on the referendum day the Austrians were forced at gun point - or something like this - to vote for the Anschluss. And that`s something I never have heard about. 85.7.245.107 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: Even in the main article about the referendum itself I couldn´t find anything supporting this “Forced by the Wehrmacht” statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.245.107 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for change

"A plebiscite with open ballot was held on the 10th of April, and threats and coercion were employed to manipulate the vote, resulting in 99.7% approval for the Anschluss" -> my change.

"A plebiscite was held on the 10th of April, in which the ballot was not secret, and threats and coercion were employed to manipulate the vote, resulting in 99.7% approval for the Anschluss" -> the original.

2 words are obviously more concise than 7 words, especially when they're saying the same thing. How is my sentence inferior than the original? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Because "open ballot" will not necessarily be understood by readers to mean "a ballot that is not secret", which makes that version clearer, and therefore preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

See open ballot system. "A ballot that is not secret" is the exact definition of open ballot. I don't see anything that is hard to understand here. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If people don't know what the definition is, then it doesn't mean much of anything to them. You know the definition, so you assume that everyone knows the definition. I disagree. Let's leave it as it is, yours is a solution looking for a problem which doesn't exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, google is free. Second, are you implying the readers are uneducated? It's fair to assume that most people would know what an open ballot is. It's not rocket science here. Those that don't can use Google (takes 30 seconds). Third, conciseness is one of the key pillars of good writing. According to your logic, we should make each sentence as lengthy as possible? If 2 sentences are saying the exact same thing, the shorter sentence is superior by default. Fourth, mine is not a solution to anything; it simply is just good writing. Fifth, you made a claim that the readers don't know what an open ballot is -> you are the one who is imagining a problem that doesn't exist, not me. Sixth, if we (Wikipedians) are to explain every concept, the article would be filled with too many words and become a bad quality article.

We can agree to disagree, but we need a third opinion to be fair. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I wrote what I meant to write and mean nothing further than what I wrote. Re: WP:ONUS, you need a consensus to change a long-standing status quo version of an article when your proposed change is challenged, as I have done. So get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Implication is often understood without words. Ok, fair enough, I will. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the original is clearer. I have no idea what "open ballot" refers to (my first assumption is that it is a ballot in which you can write in an answer; I would not have guessed that it meant "non-secret"). Cheers, Number 57 18:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Fourth opinion: clarity is paramount, and reader time is valuable. If five extra words (storage is cheap!) will make the sentence scan effortlessly, and avoid making the reader stop, scratch their head, wonder what "open ballot" means, think about clicking, maybe clicking maybe not, maybe time to go surf to another article—then those five words were worth it. Original version, hands down. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Date of the Anschluss

@Jon698 - can you please clarify which edit you intended to revert? I can't tell from your edit summaries. I provided a source for the date of 12 March 1938, do you have a different source? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Kiwipete: I initially thought the sentence was about the military occupation of the country rather than its formal annexation. Jon698 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Jon698, I'm not sure what the difference is between "military occupation" and "formal annexation". The source I quoted refers to 12 March 1938. I'll restore my original edit, but maybe more detail can be provided in the body of the article. Would you be able to help with that? Kiwipete (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)