Talk:Jörg Haider/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial text

This is a stub article: much more needs to be written to bury this dreadful little man in the dustbin of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.209 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2002 (UTC)

It's no longer a stub, but more can still be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.209 (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2002 (UTC)

2002 elections

"In response [to the disastrous results in the 2002 elections], Haider stated that he had demanded that the leader of the FPÖ must step down to allow him to be leader, and on being refused, stated that he would leave politics permanently." (final sentence) --> As right now the situation keeps changing every single day, there is really no point whatsoever in trying to keep this bit up to date. So far, over the past few months, Haider has announced that he would leave politics altogether at least five times. However, despite the FPÖ's heavy losses, the current party chairman, Herbert Haupt, is determined to make Haider once again a member of the new Austrian parliament. In other words, even if Haider, of his own free will, resigned as Governor of Carinthia, this would just mean his switching from regional to federal politics. Keep the dustbin of history close by, but it's not quite over yet. KF 18:20 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

A quick update: Today, Haider confirmed his intention to remain Governor of Carinthia. It is still unclear what role he will play in federal politics in the future. Federal Chancellor Schüssel, the winner of the November 24 2002 elections, will have to form a coalition government over the next few weeks, and talks with the Social Democrats (SPÖ), the Freedom Party and the Greens are already underway. No one, including political analysts, can predict the outcome of these talks. If Schüssel decides on the Freedom Party again, Haider may again have a say in federal politics, too. Recent opinion polls show, however, that this is considered the worst case scenario by the vast majority of Austrians. -- KF 18:57 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

Another update on Austrian politics, posted here due to its ephemeral nature: Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) has been negotiating with the other three political parties for almost two and a half months now (while the old right-of-centre government headed by Schüssel is still in power) and has still not decided with which of them he would like to form a (necessary) coalition government. Today, both Schüssel and Alexander van der Bellen, the leader of the Green Party, announced that they would start Regierungsverhandlungen (talks to form a coalition government) tomorrow. This would not only mean a complete renversement des alliances for the conservative Austrian People's Party but also a new and unique constellation in European politics.

Haider, still Governor of Carinthia, has been keeping a low profile ever since the disastrous November 2002 elections. This of course is partly due to the media dropping him and turning to more exciting subject matters. --KF 23:53 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

After negotiating all night, van der Bellen (Austrian Green Party) announced yesterday morning that his party would not be able to form a coalition government with Schüssel's Austrian People's Party (headlines: "Back to the start" etc.). In other words, the Freedom Party could again become Schüssel's partner.

Meanwhile, Haider himself refrains from commenting on this. Recently, he was ridiculed by some papers which reported that he had criticized, in a speech, the loss of a valuable painting from an art gallery without realizing that it had been borrowed to be put on the wall of his own office. --KF 11:46 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

It was announced a couple of days ago that Schüssel would again form a coalition government with the Austrian Freedom Party. Haider, who is not involved in the negotiations, told the press in an interview (in German) that Schüssel would have to pay dearly for all the humiliations the FPÖ has had to suffer. Haider also said that he was busy writing a book of revelation. KF 21:02 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

2003 Governor of Carinthia

Over the past weeks, Haider, as Governor of Carinthia, has again and again been trying to antagonize the federal government and, by doing so, his own Austrian Freedom Party. For example, he heavily criticized the fact that, according to Austrian law, former cabinet ministers are entitled to draw their salary for up to one year after they have left the government and said that if the new government did not immediately stop that waste of public money he and his friends in Carinthia would form a separatist movement and secede from the FPÖ. There was even some vague talk of Carinthia separating from Austria, but no one takes him seriously any longer. --KF 13:39 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Recently, especially after Saddam Hussein's arrest, Haider has severely criticized the United States for their intervention in Iraq. Haider himself had visited Saddam Hussein in February 2002.

Somebody should info about the Saddam Visit in the Article.--Brainfire2008 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Regional elections are due early in 2004 in Carinthia, and Haider and his party, the Austrian Freedom Party, would need the support of another political party for Haider to be re-elected Governor. However, at the end of December 2003 it seems no other party is prepared to support him. --KF 09:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another update: Haider started his election campaign in Carinthia last weekend. It seems -- this is at least suggested by the Austrian Green Party -- that the Austrian People's Party is prepared to support Haider in Carinthia if Haider's Freedom Party refrains from nominating their own candidate for Federal President. If the Freedom Party did nominate someone, Benita Ferrero-Waldner would no doubt lose voters while Social Democrat Heinz Fischer would probably not be affected.

Meanwhile, a survey published by some Mediawatch institute showed that in 2003 Haider was (still) the person most often mentioned in Austria's mass media.

>KF< 20:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) (wondering if these notes will ever become part of the main article)

Probably additional candidates wouldn't have any effect on the result of the presidental election because the winning candidate needs more 50% of the votes anyway. If none of the candidates gets more than 50% of the votes, there will be a new election with only the two most succesfull candidates. --Hokanomono 02:32, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

2004 elections in Carinthia

Please note that the governor of Carinthia is not elected by the people but by the Landtag of Carinthia. The elections on March 7 2004 the FPÖ got 42.5% of the vote in Carinthia, which make Haider's reelection seem likely, but not sure. He will need the support of another party in the parliament. Before the election the ÖVP announced not to support Haider. --Hokanomono 18:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But today they did. <KF> 17:44, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POV?

I would like to get rid of the "neutrality" template that is currently in the article. It seems to me that the article is currently somewhat slanted against Haider (e.g. at the beginning "leader of the far right freedom party...his views are extreme right-wing" -- why the repetition?), but not very strongly.

• His political views are widely viewed as extreme right-winged. -- removed. Anyway the previous sentence states that the FPÖ is right wing. (also, at least within Austria, he is more criticised for populism, opportunism, vanity, and leadership style than for pandering to old Nazis)

• How exactly is the fact that Haider became wealthy when he inherited an estate bought from a fleeing Jew during World War II relevant for his role as a politician? I left the sentence there for the moment, waiting for opinions/comments.

• Is it true that he made (publicly) derogatory comments about Muzikant "several times"? (I remember only "Dreck am Stecken".)

• I removed On August 31, 2003 he announced that he would run again for Governor of Carinthia in 2004. This is true and NPOV, but outdated by the paragraph giving the results of the 2004 election.

I also reorganized the article into sections, and added a bit about Carinthia.

-- Austrian 01:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone like User:Old Right adds the "Neutrality is disputed" tag without bothering to comment on his reason or reasons for doing so (it explicitly says so on the template) it is justified to remove it again without giving it a second thought: We wouldn't even know where to look for POV.

About Haider's inheritance being relevant or irrelevant for his role as a politician: Who says an encyclopaedia article must only mention "relevant" facts? Apart from all sorts of trivia (have a look at actors' biographies), personal details (marriage, children, etc.) are interesting but certainly not "relevant" to a political career. I don't understand your argument. <KF> 20:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I removed "enthusiastic" from "Jorg Haider's parents were enthusaiastic nazis..." I feel that their joining early and remaining members after the ANP was banned is saying enough - that their 'enthusiasm' is implicit. We can state the facts without spoonfeeding opinion. I also removed the neutrality warning because there is no clear reason why it's there. As well, I've edited for spelling and sentence structure.

• So, what is "far right" anyways? His sly jibe about the central government not having an employment plan is actually implying that they're not enough to the left. If Haider is "far right", what is Hitler? Far, far, far right? Haider is a nationalist. He clearly thinks there is some sort of vital identity in the region of Carinthia and in the general region of Austria. As long as someone isn't calling for vigorous, governmentally-sponsored ethnic cleansing and a supra-national racialist identity movement it is silly to call them "far right". And, yes, I am supporting the notion that Le Pen, whom I abhor, is not "far right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.252.4 (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I will check back on this page in a few weeks and if no counter-argument is made then I will remove "far right" and replace it with "stridently rightwing". This gives it a more subjective feel as one could just as easily be "stridently centrist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.252.4 (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Here is how the political simplified linear spectrum works: 1. By definition you have 50% of the voters on the left and 50% on the right side. 2. This means, if you have only two major parties which are about equally strong, you only have one left and one right-winged party - such as in the US. 3. In Austria there are more parties that are in parliament - currently 5 parties. Of those 5 parties, you have 3 right-winged parties and 2 left-winged parties. Of the 3 right-winged parties there are 2 who are radically different in their political concepts to the OeVP (e.g. the call to expell all immigrants, even if they are legally living in Austria; etc.) - therefore those parties are further to the right than the OeVP - which is normally labelled "far-right". Themanwithoutapast (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• By that definition a political "spectrum" (a dubious concept already) that contains a centrist party, a leftist party and a far leftist party would identify the centrist party as "rightwing" and the part of that party closest to the center as being far right. In some countries Bill Clinton would be "far right". How is that even intelligible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.252.4 (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anschluss picture

It seems to me that putting a picture pf German troups marching into Austria in 1938 is problematic in terms of NPOV, as it suggests a link between Haider and events that happened before his birth, or even that he may be a Nazi. In spite of his numerous controversial statements, this should be avoided. It would be better to put a picture of his parents there, or a picture of him as a youth. Martg76 22:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In light of Haider's parents' Nazi past, I don't think it is NPOV. I just added some information, because obviously Jörg Haider is one of the "best-known" Austrian polticians outside of Austria - unfortunately... if you really think the pic is too POVed - please go ahead and remove it. In addition I would say we should add some more comprehensive infos on Haider's political views. Themanwithoutapast 14:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I will not reprove the picture now since I don't have a better one. Eventually some pro-Haider or at least pro-Schüssel activist is bound to turn up. I have also made the regrettable experience that people from Argentina to Kazakhstan have heard of him, even if they know little else about Austria. The international perception is quite different from the Austrian one. Is he a Nazi? Almost certainly not. Is he an anti-semite? I don't think we can really say, in spite of the Muzikant statement. But this is what quite a lot of people think. Martg76 22:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That Anschluss photo may have a place in a biography of Haider's parents or an article on the Anschluss itself, but is irrelevant here. My father was a protestant and I'm an atheist, should a picture of Martin luther nailing his statements to the church door be posted in my own biogpahy? I've removed it. NPOV shouldn't be violated simply for lack of a better photo. Reason. 8 October 2005

Far right extremist or populist?

This section is self-contradictory. It implies that a comparison to Belgium's extreme right Flemish Block is invalid because Haider enjoyed a large percentage of the vote, but ignores that fact that that same party has a following and percentage of the vote that is bigger than FPO's was at it's peak. In reality, populism and modern far right politics are essentially the same, and the section ehre trying to make it something different is just basically wrong on facts.

• I have removed this section and placed instead a link to his current party's Wikipedia page, where the policies of this, his new party are clearly stated. It can be assumed that since he is at the helm of this party, and because it was founded by him (essentially) that these policies of the party and his own are one in the same. - Reason. 8 October 2005
  • His policies are clear? You must be joking. Martg76 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the text I replaced it with was incomplete, due to my having had 2 editing windows open simultaneously. My apologies. I'll work something else out tonight and post that instead. Either way, the current section is nonsensical.
      • I think the current problem is that that section contains far too much interpretation. It seems like a position one might argue in a comparative politics class. 68.33.221.135 04:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

http://euronazi.blogspot.com/2006/08/joerg-haider.html --euroinfo 31.08.2006

Homosexual?

There have been unconfirmed rumours that he is a homosexual? can some one back this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.245.238 (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem conclusive of anything and I don't read German. Seems conveniently smear-like but it's a crazy world.142.232.51.249 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See the picture at the top of the main article. Someone has obviously answered your question. 59.167.67.154 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

there was rather sufficient incriminating evidence, but he never "came out", so this remains in the realm of tabloid gossip. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What 'rather sufficient incriminating evidence'? Werdnawerdna (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hours before his death he spent the evening in a gay bar as reported by most newspapers. I guess that's evidence enough for us now. The article doesn't really bring this out very well - perhaps someone should have a go. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Austrian newspapers wrote that he stop at a bar, which is frequented by some gays, to have a drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.56.33 (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this Austrian newspaper article says it best: (rough and shortened translation) "Austrian media treat the private lives of politicians relatively sane: sexual preferences are usually known, but not talked about - unless they differ strongly from their politics. But what if a politician drinks so much he kills himself and just by chance nobody else? How can we still talk around the fact that just before the accident he was in a bar that describes itself as a "Schwulenlokal" (gay bar) - which may touch his private life but also the cause of the accident? " Lars T. (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Far right extremist or populist?

Could someone work on this artice. It's all but NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.77.45 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to specify what is POV, so people can work on it. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject of article has died

"Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider has been killed in a road accident, police reports say." BBC News 03:14 GMT, Saturday, 11 October 2008 Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First Ian Stuart, then Haider, I hope they all drive themselves off of cliffs. XXVII (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic Aspects of Original Article

'No other vehicles were involved. However, several Jews were seen leaving the scene of the crash. The cancerous Zionist Entity denies it was involved.[9][10];

The above phrases smack of racial hatred. As far as I can discover, there are no verified reports linking Jewish people with the (apparently accidental) death of Herr Haider. 'Zionist entity' is a term used, normally with racist overtones, to describe the State of Israel and the author is clearly implying that Israel forces was involved. The adjective 'cancerous' does not suggest an unbiased viewpoint. If Mossad had murdered Herr Haider, they would have made quite certain that no identifiably Jewish people could seen at the crash site. The article is, I believe, an attempt to make political capital out of an unfortunate accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassoforte (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

sheesh, this was just vandalism, revert on sight and WP:DENY recognition by not making a fuss. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT: Brake-tampering can not be ruled out!!!

{{editsemiprotected}} At the end of the: "Death" section: "An initial investigation uncovered no signs of foul play". Remark to be added "Although it is not possible at this stage to rule brake-tampering out". Jacque the Great (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Has a serious newspaper or other source made that claim? If so, please cite it. If not, then it's simply an unsourced opinion and has no place in the article. Loganberry (Talk) 13:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources that suggest brake-tampering is even being considered. I'm not going to add this suggested edit at this time. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to get over itself and report that conspiracy theories are already floating. Just type " Joerg Haider Death conspiracy theories " in Google and see for yourself how many hits you'll get. Wikipedia's complex is that, it doesn't like to tell anything but the truth. But when conspiracy theories are consistently deleted like this last 24 hours, I think that the article has missed an important point (their existence, regardless of their veracity). Just like the Diana, Princess of Wales article, although conspiracy theories where never found to be true, yet skipping them would make the article incomplete. 64.55.144.15 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the conspiracy theories persist and are discussed significantly in solid sources, then there will be a case for including them, as with the Diana article. However, there are conspiracy theories after the death of just about every public figure. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Loganberry (Talk) 15:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the timing of the car accident immediately after the recent elections is difficult to explain as mere coinsidence from the POV of the conspiracy theorist, so a short senstence could be added that there are conspiracy theories and that they are feuled by this seemingly coinsidental timing. Just because the article mentions conspiracy theories, it doesn't mean Wikipedia believes in them. Just because there is an article about God, that doesn't means he exists. Or if there is an article about atheism, doesn't mean there is no god. Alternatively the two article could be deleted, for a balanced ignoring attitude (going with the logic of this article's admins). 64.55.144.15 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.144.15 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But both God and atheism are described and discussed at length in very large numbers of reliable and verifiable sources dating back centuries. If Christianity or atheism did not exist except as gossip on internet message boards, I would oppose their inclusion on Wikipedia, certainly until enough time had passed for their historical significance to be properly assessed. There is no comparison. Loganberry (Talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jörg Haider was not on the way to a family gathering at 1 AM. He was on his way home, which occurs to be the place where the family gathering would happen on Saturday.80.123.82.176 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

Cleaned up the intro. It was a little stilted and had some weasley words (unexpected(ly) (sic) good results for example) which is all relative. Although in general the Austrian press has claimed that the gains for the far right were unexpected. Changed "recent elections" to Austrian Parliamentary election as "recent elections" will not stand the passage of time in Wikipedia. --Candy (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Jörg Haider was born in the Upper Austrian town of Bad Goisern in 1950, a time when his parents' finances were rather moderate, and his elder sister, later Ursula Haubner, five years old." The Ursula Haubner artcile states she was born on Dec 22, 1945. When Jörg Haider was born she can only be in her fifth year (ie 4 years old). Also, the sentence is confusing.

It may be better to talk about his birth and then the history of his parents. Then the first sentence could be:

"Jörg Haider was born in the Upper Austrian town of Bad Goisern in 1950. He was the second child of Robert Haider, a shoemaker, and Dorothea Rupp, the daughter of a physician who was head of the gynaecology ward at the general hospital of Linz.[2] His elder sister, Ursula Haubner (née Haider) was already 4 years old at his birth."

or something like that. When this is sorted out, the rest of the article can be cleaned up.

--Candy (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the article needs a clean-up and the removal of the absolutely human-rights violating gossip about "sexuality". (Franz weber, Otcober 11, 2008). It is self-evident that in the political debate the real or alleged sexual orientation of a politician has no place whatsoever; and beyond that European law now quite thoroughly protects subjects against discimination because of his or her sexual orientation. I tried to put matters into a larger social science perspective by introducing references to internationally published works of leading Austrian political scientists on the subject and by quoting the well-balanced news item, which today (October 11, 2008) appeared in the Jerusalem Post. Ms. Haubner's official website as a member of Parliament lists by the way her birthday as December 22, 1945. She was Minister of Social Security, Generations and Consumer Protection from January 25, 2005 until January 11, 2007 (Source: http://www.bzoe-klub.at/Abgeordnete/Lebenslauf/Haubner.html)

The entire section on Haider's parents is irrelevant, in my opinion. There is only one reason for its length: the fact that Haider's parents were members of the NSDAP. But this is not about Haider's parents — this information is a subtle method of character assassination, as is information about the ethnicity of someone Haider purchased a house from. 81.158.55.241 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post passage

Way too long. Just a few quotes will do. Too much redundancy. Imagine Reason (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This Mossad gossip is stuff for Neonazis, not for a serious article on the Haider phenomenon in Austria [Franz weber) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section as unmotivated. Why include a lengthy citation of some random newspaper article at the end of this article? --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From Franz Weber: Well, random newspaper is absolutely uncorrect, because the JP is Israel's leading daily. Their article which stresses Dr. Haider's relative moderation over recent years is vindicated also by his very last interview for the print edition of the Austian Magazine NEWS (October 15, 2008), where Dr. Haider clearly distances himself again from the FPÖ under Heinz-Christian Strache and where he says that the current FPÖ leadership send clear positive signals to neo-nazi circles.

The entire section on Haider's parents is irrelevant, in my opinion. There is only one reason for its length: the fact that Haider's parents were members of the NSDAP. But this is not about Haider's parents — this information is a subtle method of character assassination, as is information about the ethnicity of someone Haider purchased a house from. 81.158.55.241 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ADMINS ATTENTION:

There's a line in the first paragraph, "Thankfully, he was killed in a car accident on October 11, 2008, shortly after leading the BZÖ in the Austrian Parliamentary elections."

Look, I'm left-wing, and I had no warm feelings for the guy. But "thankfully" is beyond POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.207.247 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So take it out then. Admins need not be involved. You can edit the article yourself you know. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not as long as he doesn't get an (autoconfirmed) account — the article is semi-protected. Lars T. (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Death as accident

Going by the article in The Guardian ([1]), it appears that Haider's death was an accident pure and simple.

Is there a list of politicians who died in or as a result of car accidents (David Penhaligon and Alexander Dubcek are two other examples) or travel-related incidents? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From Franz weber: All this talk about the car accident, Mossad and what have you is really unbearable. Go on Google Maps to the location LAMBICHL where the accident happened; shortly before entering the village LAMBICHL, to the north, there is this bend where Governor Dr. Haider drove his quite heavy car (more than 2 tons; technical details at the German language website of VW at http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/de3/modelle/phaeton/zahlen___fakten/technische_daten.html) at the speed of more than 140 kilometers per hour and in wet conditions at around 1:18 at night. It is clear that a driver's error or fatigue caused the car to miss the left turn and to crash (Newspapers in Austria stress that Dr. Haider campained quite heavily for his BZÖ party during September, and on Friday, October 10, Carinthia celebrated its regional holiday, commemorating the referendum of 1920, which finally re-united the province with Austria. As governor, Dr. Haider had an endless list of speaking engagiements during that day). Interestingly enough, Dr. Haider already had a near fatal accident on the same road years ago, and Austrian newspapers are full of reports that he did not like the conditions on this road at all (for example, ÖSTERREICH, Sunday, October 12, print edition). The print editions of practically ALL Austrian newspapers are full of reports, drawings, and photographs of the accident, and anybody can read them at the German language edition of "google news". The "ideal line" from a racing driver's perspective while overtaking another car (as Dr. Haider did) at this location would have been perhaps more to the left, but there is a very long double white separation line, which means strict forbidden passage (the road is separated into one track in northern direction, and two tracks in southern direction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 09:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

the alcoholic level was not only over the legal limit (0.5 permil). it was more than 3 times the legal limit (1.8 permil). http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/236426.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.202.58 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Given the evidence" - tiredness + alcohol + "potential accident blackspot at night" - nobody else need be involved (he could have chosen to have someone drive him). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

From Franz weber: I removed the absolutely disgusting "Mossad" passage at the end. Even with a Michael Schuhmacher in the cockpit in dry conditions and plain daylight, 140 kilometers an hour in that Lambichl left bend with a Phaeton would have been very risky indeed; in wet conditions, at night, far away from the ideal line and with 1.8 permil alcohol such a driving amounts to endangering oneself and other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

German source misunderstood.
ref. #7, 2nd link: The source (director general of Carinthia's administration) does not confirm H's intoxication, but merely says that in such a case the State would have the right of recourse, which I left although it is irrelevant Marschner (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

The following section has been removed twice by User:Cosprings:

Sexuality

On 21 March 2000, the Berlin-based left-wing newspaper Tageszeitung claimed that Haider may have been homosexual. Haider himself refused to comment on the matter. The Freedom Party's parliamentary leader, Peter Westenthaler, described the assertions as "sleaze-mongering".

Cosprings removed it citing libel as a reason. While recognising that the claim is highly contentious, I think it's noteworthy and ok to include once the correct context and caveats are given. The section isn't suggesting anything, but simply reporting what was suggested in the media. Anyone else have an opinion? GeneralBelly (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This could be a case of WP:UNDUE. Since this is not even an established fact it does not merit IMO inclusion in the article as it is just a peripheral rumour at this stage. Articles should not be collections of every plausible piece of info one can find. Dr.K. (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While WP:UNDUE should indeed be considered, a story carried in The Guardian is more noteworthy than simple rumour. The fact that the party commented on it surely also speaks to its relevance. Given Haider's right-wing ideology I think the material is particularly pertinent. GeneralBelly (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I still think that in addition to WP:UNDUE this news is completely out of context. First it is not confirmed, therefore it is a rumour or an allegation by definition. That the Guardian carried this rumour or allegation does not make it any less of a rumour. Putting allegations into articles makes them read like a tabloid not like an encyclopaedia. Even if Haider were gay I am not sure how noteworthy would that be absent of any context or scandal etc. Now that this fact is mere speculation, without any context to attest to its significance, makes me even more certain about its ineligibility to be added to the article. Dr.K. (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence that Haider was ever homosexual or bisexual - or was it just a baseless claim? Was it just propaganda, publicised by the left, in an attempt to discredit him and his party? Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Who or what is "the left"? See the sources provided - as far as I know this is how far it goes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you accept as "evidence" for his sexuality? Would the fact that the night club he spend his last hours at is in fact a gay bar count for anything? Lars T. (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTH. We need a WP:RS to verify unequivocally he was gay. Dr.K. (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is WP:OR, not WP:SYNTH. Anyways, we cannot state (and I think we never did state) that he was gay. What we can and should do is stating that several sources claim that he was gay. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a more specific form and a subsection of WP:OR which encompasses many forms of original research. Dr.K. (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That is no answer: What would be accepted as evidence?Lars T. (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It was an answer, that's why I copy and paste from my reply above: We need a WP:RS to verify unequivocally he was gay. i.e. the Times of London reporting: "Haider was gay". Dr.K. (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the deleted section mentioned above, the Tageszeitung is a RS.Lars T. (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. Even Tageszeitung wrote and I quote from above: Berlin-based left-wing newspaper Tageszeitung claimed that Haider may have been homosexual Notice the bolded may have been i.e rumours again. Encyclopedias don't peddle rumours. Tabloids do. Dr.K. (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that the tageszeitung has said he was gay period, not that there are rumors that he may be gay. But then we are back at "no answer" — you wouldn't accept a video with Haider in a gay sandwich yelling he was gay. Lars T. (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Again Lars your assertions are clearly bad faith and you seem to be losing your cool, being presumptuous and starting ad-hominem attacks. I refuse to participate in a debate under such degrading circumstances. Please consult WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL before you continue discussing this with me because I refuse to participate in discussions where people are levelling baseless accusations at me. I will not respond further to your innuendo for now, but in the future when you are ready I may give you another chance. But I can't guarantee anything. Dr.K. (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have refused to once answer my question what the WPs you hide behind would accept as proof pretty much says it all. Lars T. (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have toned down your rhetoric a bit so I will try to continue the conversation with you. I'll also forgive your transgression of presumptuously telling me that I hide behind policies by reminding you that policies are like the law. You don't hide behind the law. You invoke the law when you see someone breaking it. I saw you breaking some of these policies and I invoked the policies that you were breaking. Anyway see my reply below. Dr.K. (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely this article is notable? GeneralBelly (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No question about it. It satisfies the context criteria vis-à-vis the gay allegations as per my comments above. Go ahead and add it. Good work. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand now that I checked this a bit more thoroughly the Daily Mail is a famous tabloid and gossip newspaper and the article itself is rife with rumours of unproven conspiracies etc. I'd suggest we wait for things to settle before we report rumours on rumours. Dr.K. (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not the only source reporting it, take your pick: [2]. Lars T. (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lars. I would never have thought of doing it myself because I'm not that interested in the subject. I'm just interested in the principle involved in adding trivia to the article. So I would like to ask you. How do we include this piece in the article? "Haider was rumoured to be gay, he went to a gay bar and was rumoured to have been killed by sabotage to his car"? Does that sound like an encyclopedia to you? Dr.K. (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so hung up upon the sabotage bit, no other source seems to mention that. Or are you telling has that he can't have been gay unless his car was also sabotaged? Lars T. (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hung up about anything. I'm just saying what rumours do you want to put into the article? The gay rumours? Why? they're just rumours. Anything up to now is just rumours, not facts. This is tabloid stuff not encyclopedic. Dr.K. (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Also quote from your question above: Or are you telling has that he can't have been gay unless his car was also sabotaged? How could you possibly have inferred this from my comments? Let's keep this discussion serious. Dr.K. (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You brought up the issue, all you are saying is that your arguments can't be taken serious. Lars T. (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you lack understanding of the difference between bringing up issues and then connecting them in order to reach ridiculous conclusions. But that's ok. We may have a language barrier. Dr.K. (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You brought up the issue of sabotage. Nobody mentioned it before you did, not even the guy who tried to bring up the article as a notable source. The fact you are trying to make it an issue says it all. You are trying to discredit any sources claiming that Haider was gay by association with an article that say his car was sabotaged. Lars T. (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this one more time: Let's assume that we just throw the sabotage fact to the garbage for a moment. What we have left is the fact that a newspaper called him gay. So I ask: So what? Why do we have to report that a newspaper said he was gay? What's the big deal? If you can answer this question for me by giving a compelling and encyclopedic reason, then I can agree with you. But remember: Do not mention the sabotage fact again. It's gone. We just threw it in the garbage. Just answer my question: Show me a valid reason why we need to report in the article that Tageszeitung called him gay. Dr.K. (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize there was an active discussion about this here. I'll try not to make more (apparently) sensitive edits without appropriate consensus. I hadn't known Haider was gay until a few days ago when I read about it here. That's my reference. The article said that not only was Haider outed by both the German and Austrian press in 2006, but he was even drinking at a gay bar the night he died. A gay far-right politician seemed especially interesting to read about, since the 20th century fascists didn't like gay people. Pink News is a reputable gay and lesbian news service. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem Gilgamesh and welcome to the conversation. You followed correct procedure when you realised that a discussion was taking place. There is another reference just above (from Daily Mail) mentioning the gay bar so this is not disputed. I'm sure you read the above discussion so I won't repeat the arguments here. I'll reply to your last remark quote: A gay far-right politician seemed especially interesting to read about, since the 20th century fascists didn't like gay people. While you are absolutely correct in this we cannot mention this conclusion because we need a WP:RS to support it otherwise it would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. This leaves us with reporting that a few newspapers alleged he was gay which is the main topic of this discussion per above and which I think in and of itself is not encyclopaedic because it's just a bunch of allegations i.e. rumours. In my view an encyclopedia doesn't peddle in rumours and innuendo. Tabloids do. --Dr.K. (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to say is along the lines that such statements were made about him (including the 18/10/08 issue of The Week - which is a reputable magazine giving a summary of events). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect I think we're being a little disingenuous here. A lot of readers - me included - are interested in the fact that one of the leading lights of neo-fascism was homosexual (albeit fairly discretely). For the article to avoid covering the issue seems to me pretty odd. There's nothing wrong in principle with saying something like "x newspaper made y claims about Haider". This is not rumour-mongering. That the newspaper printed it is a fact - we do not need establish that the claim itself is a fact (unless we make a statement to that effect). Can we therefore put together some sensible wording that covers the issue without over-labouring it? thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is nothing disingenuous in the sincere quest to keep Wikipedia free of tabloid rumours. If we write as you suggest "x newspaper made y claims about Haider" then we have to print the rebuttal of parliamentary leader, Peter Westenthaler to balance it out. So what basically we are doing is adding a rumour, (a verified rumour is still a rumour), without any context as to why the rumour is supposed to be noteworthy and then we rebutt it. This will leave the readers scratching their collective heads for a long time. Dr.K. (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your context and I quote: A lot of readers - me included - are interested in the fact that one of the leading lights of neo-fascism was homosexual (albeit fairly discretely). is invalid on three grounds: First Wikipedia cannot print every rumour that's out there with the single criterion that it will interest the readers. Second: It is not established to encyclopedic standards that Haider was a homosexual. Third: Even if he were gay, someone had to come with a reliable source saying that he was a hypocrite, being a right wing leader and against gays even though he himself was gay. You see that's the only way that Haider being gay would be noteworthy. If we cannot provide such context we are just peddling rumours and innuendo. Dr.K. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The TAZ is many things, but it is not a tabloid. It is a left-wing newspaper, but it has an excellent reputation for fact checking and some of the best journalism in Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed this for this particular newspaper, which by the way I am not familiar with in any way, for that matter I learned about Haider's existence just last week. Tabloid or not it does not matter because I quote my comment above: Third: Even if he were gay, someone had to come with a reliable source saying that he was a hypocrite, being a right wing leader and against gays even though he himself was gay. You see that's the only way that Haider being gay would be noteworthy. That means that even if we establish he was gay this is insufficient to be included in the article in the absence of context. And that means even if we take Tageszeitung at its word that Heider was gay so what? Dr.K. (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there has been enough discussion on the topic - the most that can be said is that his tastes were "somewhat ambiguous", that he kept that area of his life discreet, and that there is/has been much in the way of media speculation/comment on the subject. Why not discuss his drinking habits instead - given that he chose to drive having consumed so much? Probably more relevant to his status as a politician. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jackie for your comments. I guess this is a moot point now. The latest events have provided the context which was necessary for a reference of his sexuality to be included in the article. I am very pleased that we did not rush to edit the information earlier when it did not have the proper context. I wish to thank all the participants of this debate for their civility and their restraint. It was a pleasure dealing with such civil, respectful and pleasant editors and in the process I learned a lot, actually more than I ever wanted, about Austrian politics. But that's why Wikipedia can be so much fun. Thank you, all, very much. Dr.K. (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are news today in this article of the Independent and this article of Fox News: "Haider's deputy reveals gay affair" and "Deputy Admits Gay Affair With Far-Right Austrian Politician Before His Fatal Crash" are only the titles. 82.186.157.138 (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that my "somewhat ambiguous"/private life statement still stands - and as with other people with "tastes and interests some people consider strange" (whatever the area of life), which they may consider part of their private life: the main significance is whether the areas adversely affect their behaviour, or they are guilty of hypocrisy, favouritism or similar. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No I still don't agree with this approach I'm afraid. Being homosexual isn't I'm afraid a "taste or interest" - although I don't doubt there are people who may argue it is strange (not me included). It's just a fact - the same sort that tells us that Haider was married, had children, was born in Austria. This is an encyclopedia so I really have little interest in preserving discretion, instead I want to read an article to learn something that perhaps I didn't know. Homosexuality is fundamental to a person's being, it reaches into every part of their life and to dismiss it as little more than hobby. Let's just tackle the subject head on. Sure let's not print rumours we suspect to be unfounded or scurrilous; but let's not shy away from stuff that really is beyong doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As with all labels we have to keep an eye on reporting facts accurately and read carefully what the actual citation says before we start sticking them. Sometimes there is a disconnect between the title of an article and what the article actually reports. For example: The title of a recent article was "Leader says Haider was his lover" but in the actual report there was not a single reference to homosexuality or "lover". Wikipedia being an encyclopedia should not put labels based on sensationalist headlines but rather on critical and careful analysis of reported facts. Dr.K. (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my god ! maxilol, what an a amazing conversation, who could tell ! (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now we found a solution, brought rumors are mentioned, but the usual gossip left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygen305 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Oxygen. We are not a tabloid. Leave the salacious rumours to them. And if we made a few people happy in the process it's not that bad. The stock market is so bad these days what would we be without some laughs? ;) Dr.K. (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment about "tastes and interests" was meant to be all-inclusive - and "the point has been extensively covered on the talk page" with sufficient references in the article and here for anyone wishing to pursue the matter further.

(Is the page long enough to be archived?) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jörg Haider/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Section "Far Right Extremist or Populist" needs revision for writing quality. Overall probably a B-class article. The rest of it is better written than the above-noted section.Dylan23 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)