This is an archive of past discussions about Germans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
How can 3 million Germans descedents still speak the language in a total number of 5 million? The vast majority of German-Brazilians only speak Portuguese. Further proof that the number of descedents is much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuser777 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"Journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke,from São Paulo, relativizes this date, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, including the Cook of Pedro Alvares Cabral. According to him, more than 10% of the current population has at least one German ancestor. Looks pretty, but is little compared to the 43 million Americans (15.2% of the U.S. population) who say they have at least one German ascending, forming the largest ethnic group in the country. "In Brazil, these numbers are much smaller, but without their contribution it is impossible to understand the history, culture and identity in Brazil," he concludes."
Are Sorbs German? It is apparent that they aren't, but the definition in the lead implies they are. Germans are an ethnic group, no "or". People can't become Germans merely by acquiring citizenship of the country.--Warenford (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
If you care to look at history parts of Germany were under Czech, Polish and of course the Holy Roman Empire. Germans do not want to admit that they had more Slavic tribes than any other country. Please Google search Sorbs wends Obotrites Limes Saxoniae Rani Gords Bolesław I Chrobry Lusatia Glomacze Polans Pomerania Polabian Milceni Margraviate of Brandenburg Mecklenburg King Charles IV Wenceslaus II Přemyslid West Slavs Bavaria Slavica Germania Slavica Germanisation Ostsiedlung www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.18.86 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the collage biased?
To cut it short: Why is Adolf Hitler not included? He is clearly one of the most well known Germans. The picture collection seems to biased towards presenting Germany as a country of philosophers, scientists and fine artists. Other persons that are missing in my opinion: Pope Benedict XVI and Angela Merkel, both representing the current perception of the country. Then, there is no representative for East Germany: The logical picks would be either Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker. On the other hand, Catherine the Great is not remembered for being German; in her place Frederick the Great would be the better choice. Also, I'm not sure about having allJürgen Klinsmann, Claudia Schiffer and Heidi Klum included to this "short list of famous Germans".--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
We really don't need this again - please have a look through the talk archive. There has been general consensus on several talk pages not to include dictators, criminals, etc. to the picture gallery; i.e. consensus that the inclusion should be based on merits. Also, Hitler wasn't a German by birth. Historically, Austrians were regarded as ethnic Germans, since Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and as part of the German Confederation. However, following the founding of the German Empire in 1871 without Austria (Lesser Germany solution), Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity and in the modern day do not consider themselves as "Germans". Salzburg, for example, became independent from Bavaria, but was part of the HRE, and did not belong to Austria till 1805 - Mozart died in 1791, and his father was from Augsburg. Historically, Germany has been called Das Land der Dichter und Denker ("the land of poets and thinkers"), because of the major role its famous writers and philosophers have played in the development of Western thought and culture, and German classical music comprises works by the world's most well-known composers. Also, Germany's achievements in the sciences have been significant, and research and development efforts form an integral part of the economy - so I don't think there is any bias in the picture selection. P.S. Somehow Klinsmann sneaked into the collage (for Otto Hahn) - don't know how? I also wouldn't mind to exchange him and Klum, for Frederick the Great, Pope Benedict, and/or Merkel, Hildegard of Bingen - however there was no consensus for any changes to the gallery. East Germany doesn't exist anymore - Bertolt Brecht would be a good pick. There is a tiny picture of Benedict a bit further down the article - also now one of Merkel (in exchange for Gauck). --IIIraute (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Well whatever we're trying to say it needs to be in better English than it has been for months and months (could no doubt be better still)"
The lead section of this article needs to be rewritten. It does not include some essential details. First of all, Germans are a Germanic European ethnic group native to Germany, which that share a common German ancestry, culture, history, and speak the German language as their mother tongue. The article is missing it.
The article's lead section is too much complicated.
First sentence: "those descended from the ethnic and ethnolinguistic group associated with the German language." - Austrians are associated with the German language, so are the Swiss people. The sentence has many meanings and lacks an essential sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Of approximately 100 million native speakers of German in the world, roughly 70 million consider themselves Germans. There are an additional 80 million people of German ancestry mainly in the United States, Brazil (almost all in South Region of the country), Argentina, Canada, South Africa, post-Soviet states (mainly in Russia and Kazakhstan), France, Australia, Chile and Italy (mainly in South Tyrol).[note 2] Thus, the total number of Germans worldwide lies between 66 and 160 million, depending on the criteria applied (native speakers, single-ancestry ethnic Germans, partial German ancestry, etc.).[7]
Today, people from countries with a German-speaking majority such as Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, have developed their own national identity, and since the end of World War II, have not referred to themselves as "Germans" in a modern context.[8][9][10]
While not wholly opposed to the changes, and agreeing that the previous lead was a badly written muddle, I think it would have been better to wait for more input before simply editing them in. I'm also concerned that the lead now places too much emphasis on the "ethnic" aspect. The point is – and previous discussions, involving a large number of editors, bear this out – that, like all such terms, the description "Germans" is applied in a variety of ways relating to current ethnicity, ancestry and citizenship, either simultaneously or separately, and the page needs to reflect that rather than limiting the initial definition to any one of them. More specifically, in terms of the actual wording of the new lead, I'm slightly wary of the repeated use of the term "native" and the implication that the descendants of immigrants into the third generation are only "German" in a "legal" sense. N-HHtalk/edits21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 11 August 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Trivial typo. In the subsection "Medieval period" (2.1) of the section "History" (2), in the following excerpt from the second paragraph:
German town law(Stadtrecht) was promoted by the presenceof large, relatively wealthy German populations, their influence and political power.
Brough87 is now proposing that the the whole categorisation of ethnic groups in infoboxes should be abandoned and has reverted my reliably sourced edit on the Breton people page on this basis. I note that the German people page has a similar infobox where English people are included for instance. Ghmyrtle said he would support him in this effort. I am posting this on this talk page so that we can have an inclusive discussion on this because this page will be affected by this proposal.Jembana (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Jembana, I am not suggesting that as of yet. I can only imagine that you do not quite understand the position. At present there is a discussion on about "related ethnic groups" of the Breton People. You and I are on opposing sides of the discussion; and until such a point where the community has come to a conclusion on this matter, there should be no inclusion of "related ethnic groups" on that page. It is quite acceptable for ethnic groups to have no section of the infobox dedicated to "related ethnic groups", and there a various ones throughout wikipedia; a prominent example being English peopleBrough87 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to reiterate the "understanding" on the Bretons talk page:
Of course it is relevant, there must be clear guideline in which they determine how these groups are related. If the community accepts that the English are related to the same groups in which the Breton's got their culture, then by extension the English and the Bretons are two related groups. Brough87 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to propose that the whole categorisation of ethnic groups in infoboxes should be abandoned, I'd support you. But, until that happens, we stick to what sources say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
...and you reverted my edit saying "Until such a point where the matter is resolved, there was an agreement that there would be no "related groups" section of the infobox." Now I didn't agree to that and the section has been on the Bretons page for a long time.
I provided 3 reliable sources to back up the claim that Bretons were ethnically related to other Celtic peoples and you reverted that change on the following basis. Apologies to the Germanic readers but what is being proposed here has wider ramifications onto this page and doesn't affect the English page because they don't have a related ethnic groups section there.Jembana (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Not at all, continue in whatever tack you want to take it this time (as long as it's sensible) on the Bretons talk page. I will revive the discussion here if you change tack again back to the whole question of inclusion of a related ethnic groups section as per the discussion of Ghmyrtle and the other editor contributing.Jembana (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler
Hitler is by far the most famous German, and probably the most influential in history. He should be included in the infobox just as Stalin, the most famous Georgian, is included in the Georgians infobox. 69.171.187.74 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hitler WAS a tyrant, but he was a very famous tyrant. The fact that most people think of him as a tyrant means that mst people must know about him. Correct? 2:57, 24 February 2014 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.206.114 (talk)
Hitler was NOT a German, but he was an Austrian. And, by the way, it is true: His horrible influence (12 years of a 1500 year old history!) has become one of the worst impacts Germany has ever seen - mentally, culturally, and politically. Being a German myself, I am happy that there are some more famous Germans: Martin Luther, Johann Sebastian Bach, Immanuel Kant, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schlegel, Ludwig van Beethoven, Karl Marx and many more ...--Imruz (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Heh, trying to argue that that Hitler was not German but Austrian is slightly more ridiculous than when Americans claim that EInstein was American. Hitler clearly identified as German and not Austrian, and he ruled Germany for more than ten years. I think that should be enough to qualify as being German regardless of place of birth.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Maunus, thanx for your words. In a way you are right, concerning individuals' own identification. And, of course, whatever he was, German or Austrian, doesn't mean anything: it's the same culture/civilization anyway. A criminal is a criminal, a mass murderer is a mass murderer, and an angel is an angel, and it doesn't matter where he is from. Hitler certainly was not an angel, he was a psycho, full of minority complex and megalomania – the latter being the other side of the same coin –, and, after all, he was a coward. I am hopeful that we won't have such figures like him anymore, at least in Europe ...--Imruz (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Btw. I am not arguing that he should be in the infobox though he is definitely among the best known Germans worldwide. I think it is reasonable that the infobox should be expected to include mostly people of which the members of the nation in question are actually interested in having as an example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well i am strongly opposing to the idea of the most-known murderer in mankind's history to be added in that collage. Please don't open up a conversation in Italian people about Mussolini too. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR)12:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Subjective opinions about Hitler is not even necessary. In regards to his Austrian roots, Hitler was well aware that he was an Austrian but like many people of his time in Austria and Germany he considered the Austrians to be just another kind of Germans, they are ethnic Germans and he always identified himself as such from a very young age and being a German nationalist. An early 20th century German nationalist would have considered him to be a German just as much as Bismarck and that Austria belonged to Germany as a "Greater Germany". He did not make any distinction between the peoples of Austria and Germany. The Republik Deutschösterreich or Deutsch-Österreich did not declare "German-Austria is a component of the German Republic" for no reason. The only reason the two countries never were annexed after World War I was because of the Allies agreements (Treaty of Versailles).
The court explained why it rejected the deportation of Hitler under the terms of the "Protection of the Republic Act": "Hitler is a German-Austrian. He considered himself to be a German. In the opinion of the court, the meaning and the terms of section 9, para II of the Law for the Protection of the Republic cannot apply to a man who thinks and feels as German as Hitler, who voluntarily served for four and a half years in the German army at war, who attained high military honours through outstanding bravery in the face of the enemy, was wounded, suffered other damage to his health, and was released from the military into the control of the district Command Munich I.
— Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris
Claiming Hitler was not German is ridiculous, he was an "Austrian German". Austrian-born citizen that later gained German citizenship (1932) but he was an ethnic German and considered himself first and foremost a German and so did everyone else back then consider Austrians as Germans. The distinction between Austrians and Germans as different peoples dramatically altered after World War II and not before. Even now the term 'Austrians' refer to the people of Austria as a nationality and not an ethnic group.--Policja (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Policja. First of all, what constitutes a "German" is somewhat arbitrary; if he was born in Austria, yet, as the quote from Kershaw shows, he was considered a German not only by himself, but also other Germans, most historians and also laymen, in addition to the fact that he was the dictator of the German state for 12 years, then it is appropriate to consider him a German. Also, there is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. Austrians are ethnically and genetically German, which the article states in the lead. This article is concerned with ethnicity. Whether or not you believe Hitler was a good person is irrelevant. Napoleon's actions also resulted in unnecessary war and suffering; however, he is still recognized in the "French people" article in the picture. Adolf Hitler was unequivocally the single most influential and extraordinary German to date, aside from maybe Martin Luther, and is recognized nowadays as the embodiment of modern evil. There is no reason to exclude him. JDiala (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely @JDiala. Before world war 2, and to this day, "Austrian" is merely a nationality, Austria, was merely a German state that wasn't part of the unification, as was Liechtenstein. Most Austrians are ethnically and indeed genetically, to this day, German, until after world war 2, there was never any serious person who saw them as 2 different people, I doubt anyone seriously didn't see the Hapsburg dynasty as ethnically German, at least, I doubt any experts didn't consider that. And yes, Hitler was Austrian by nationality, and German by ethnicity, he was born close to the German border, his family was clearly local (considering the fact that like in many rural areas, they intermarried with their own family, Hitler's parents were 1st or 2nd cousins, they were so close, that they had to receive permission from the pope to get married). Also, it should be noted that unlike Hitler, who was German by ethnicity, and ALWAYS, saw himself as German, Napoleon was Corsican by ethnicity, the Corsican people are genetically more like Italians, when he was born his name was "Napoleone Buonaparte" aka an Italian name, his parents were Corsican patriots, Napoleon was angry at his dad for collaborating with the French, when he grew up he barely spoke French, hated France and saw himself as Corsican, only when he returned to Corsica and came into conflict with Paoli, who had decided to split with France and sabotage the French assault on the Sardinian island of La Maddalena in February 1793, where Bonaparte was one of the expedition leaders, Bonaparte and his family fled to the French mainland in June 1793 because of the split with Paoli did Napoleon start seeing himself as French, at least, that's the generally accepted idea. So yeah, it's pretty safe to assume Hitler was more German than Napoleon was French. Guy355 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Klinsmann?
If your going to have a German footballer in the collage on merit then there is no way Klinsmann. Should be replaced with Muller, Matthaus, Walter, Rummenigge, Seeler or preferably Beckenbauer.88.104.211.195 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Jews in the infobox
There is a problem with the collage in the infobox. In the lead we learn that Germans are an ethnic group, but the pictures of people in the infobox deny that. Marx was an ethnic Jew, not a German, though his parents converted to Christianity and he was an atheist. Another problem Jew is Albert Einstein, he has nothing in common with Germans, except perhaps the fact that he was born in the same country as them and lived there for a time.
While they may be Germans by nationality and culture, they are not Germans by ethnicity. Because we are descended from the ancient Israelites, we are Semites.
German Jews who have assimilated into German society and culture are Germans, what divides them? Genetics? But we're all 99.9% identical, this is no excuse, the idea of "ethnicity" is about culture, linguistics and tradition, if German Jews who were historically separated from the rest of the German society from the high middle ages to the enlightenment period, have assimilated, replaced Yiddish with modern German and completely adopted German culture, linguistics and tradition, then they're German, just as German as a German Catholic, or a German Atheist etc, Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are a perfect example, they were German to the core, Albert Einstein had a German citizenship until he gave up on it in 1933 with the rise of Hitler. If you're going to say it's about "genetics" then why, Germans from Prussian descent aren't that German are they? Since they're descended from Baltic speaking peoples conquered by the Teutonic knights. Guy355 (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Karl Marx wasn't an "ethnic Jew", his parents converted to Christianity before he was born, he never saw himself as a Jew but an Atheist, he didn't identify with anything Jewish, so what made him Jewish? Nothing really. Guy355 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
So the problem is with the Germans living in other countries, Russia for example. By the same logic, as Guy355, the Germans in Russia are either not Germans (as they are culturally/linguistically assimilated with Russians), or they must also include most of the Russian Jews (the Ashkenazi Jews originally came from Germany). The same is about all the German diaspora worldwide - either exclude them from the Germans, or include all the Ashkenazi Jews. --84.94.165.130 (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (we) are East African primates, that's where we originated at, where are you going to put the line mate? No, people who were born and live in Russia, speak Russian and identify as Russian are Russian, it doesn't matter where their recent ancestors came from, since we're all East African and our differences are obsolete. So "Germans" who were born in Russia, raised in Russia, speak Russian and identify as Russian are Russian, it doesn't matter if their ancestors were German because there's nothing German about them anymore. Guy355 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to call Jews Germans due to surrounding circumstances, since the word "ethnic Germans", featured on many pages about Nazi racial ideology, links to this page. Basically on the page for Lebensraum if you click on ethnic Germans, it shows some Jews. That's NOT what Hitler meant by the word. Of course they were German nationally, but this is just an unusual case. --Monochrome_Monitor06:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The article says "Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe, who share a common German ancestry, culture and history, and speak the German language as their mother tongue. The term also refers to the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, regardless of ancestry, mother tongue, ethnic identity or culture". Marx and Einstein weren't ethnic Germans neihter citizens of the FRG. 84.94.165.130 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The article should be consistent. Either it's talking about Germans as an ethnic group or Germans as a nationality. Karl Marx was a German by nationality. Ethnically he was Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.127.162 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
They weren't citizens of the FDR because the FDR didn't exist at their time. -_-
Karl Marx was a citizen of Prussia most likely and Einstein was a citizen of the 2nd Reich and the Weimar republic, they were German by nationality and spoke German. However, the IP user above me is correct, but if you didn't know, I'm pretty sure THERE IS an article about Ethnic Germans, which isn't this article, perhaps this article should be about people who are German by nationality, culture and linguistics, which is the case for Karl Marx and Einstein, because, as I've said, there IS an article about actual ethnic Germans aka Deutschstämmige/Volksdeutsche. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_GermansGuy355 (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Ethnicity is not a biological race but a categorization reflecting the opinions of individuals and the society they live in. Marx was considered German so we include him. TFD (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What "genetics"? Russians and Ukrainians are probably the same genetically, but still see themselves as different groups.
While Einstein being here is debatable because maybe he didn't consider himself German anymore after Nazi persecution, but Marx should stay. He was baptized (unlike Einstein who remained a secular Jew) and lived a very German life, spoke German, was culturally German etc. Yuvn86 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please remove the pictures of Jews from the Germans article. This is extremely anti-Semitic and is the standard propaganda of Muslims and communists.
I agree. This is yet another attempt by the Germans to destroy the Jewish people.
This isn't anti Semitic, I for one see myself as an Aussie from German and Polish descent. And Karl Marx, while genetically perhaps descending from the Israelites, was by no means culturally, religiously, or by identification Jewish, as for Einstein, well he wasn't Jewish by religion, Einstein, perhaps, because he revoked his citizenship and was culturally and linguistically Jewish, but not Marx, please don't speak in the name of all people of Jewish ancestry, thanks. Guy355 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Australian is a nationality, not an ethnicity, so there is no conflict. However, this article says that German are a Germanic people native to Germany, but Jews are not Germanic or native to Germany. Jews are Semitic and native to Judea, Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.33.219 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And what people identify as is irrelevant. What matters is facts, not opinions. Karl Marx was a Jew-hating Jew. Even though he hated Jews, he was still Jewish because you can deny your ethnicity, but you cannot change it.
Indeed, Australian is a nationality. Do you know what's an ethnicity, what makes it up? Not genetics, but culture, linguistics and self identification, by these things, Karl Marx was German, whose culture, linguistics and self identification descended from the Germanic peoples of central Europe. If Karl Marx would have been Hertzel, then yes you'd be right, culturally, linguistically, religiously and by self identification Hertzel was a Jew whose culture, linguistics and self identification descended from the Israelites of the Middle East. 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Guy355 (talk)
You are wrong. That is Wikipedia's idiotic definition of ethnicity. The real definition of ethnicity is a people who share a common culture and a common descent. Albert Einstein was a Jew who lived in German, not a German Jew. Claiming that he was a German is cultural genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.33.219 (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No I'm not wrong, you said it yourself, people who sure a common culture, which puts them together, in the same way you can claim that Sicilians and Lombards aren't the same people because genetically they're completely different. You may have a point concerning Einstein, but not Marx. Guy355 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Guy255 yes you are WRONG. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that Germans and Jews are two separate ethnic groups. Einstein was an ethnic Jewish and a German citizen. He was NOT an ethnic German.
Your rambling on that humans are basically the same in DNA and that the small difference means nothing is also biologically wrong and again science proves this. You sound like one of them liberals who deny that race exists biologically in order to push forward your sad agenda. Thankfully, a lot of truthful people still prove that race exists biologically whilst ignoring the left wing crap of nonsense and the 'small' difference in the DNA does make all the difference.
This article is about Germans as an ethnic group and not people who have and/or do hold German citizenship. Ethnic Jews are not ethnic Germans and thus do not belong in the article.--Policja (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Einstein is either a Jew or a German. You can't be two ethnic groups. It's logically contradictory that Einstein is on the picture of both the "German" article and the "Jewish" article. Stop with the anti-white liberal PC nonsense. First off, acknowledge that the German people exist as an ethnic group, and secondly, that Jews are not members of that ethnic group. It's genetics. It's ethnicity. I think it's stupid, but, unfortunately, we have to use common sense here. You cannot be two different ethnic groups. You cannot be red and blue at the same time. Why is this so complicated?
And to the Jew who thinks this constitutes "antisemitism", get a hold of yourself. You people are much more racist than us. Israel has immigration laws based on ethnicity; the "German" Einstein would be considered an ethnic Jew by Israeli standards. JDiala (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that since Einstein and Marx aren't ethnic Germans, they don't belong in this article, but on the Jewish/Ashkenazi Jewish one (I'm pretty sure Einstein is on one of them). But Jesus Christ! To call that mistake "anti-Semitic", or "cultural genocide" and to call Germans "our enemies" is just... it's just silly. Guy355 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@JDiala Ominously, and ironically, the Israeli immigration laws are almost identical to the Nuremberg laws, in the ways of identifying a Jew. Guy355 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not ironically. It's done purposefully. Israel exists to protect Jews from persecution. Anyone who would have been deprived of their citizenship by Hitler would have been given Israeli citizenship. It's actually quite touching symbolism --Monochrome_Monitor07:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is about Germans as an ethnic and legal group
This is all really simple. If someone is legally a German then they can be in the article. It is not solely about Germans as an ethnic group. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is anti-white anti-german absurdity. Chinese is also a "legal" term. However, if I claim Chinese citizenship, am I "Chinese"? No. It is ethnic. A black man, for example, cannot be Chinese, nor can he be German. According to you, every nation and every people exist ethnicallyexcept white European peoples. They're just "social constructs" and "legal terms". JDiala (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, just because of a misunderstanding doesn't make it rational to start getting defensive and claiming to be persecuted or discriminated against. Now, this misunderstanding isn't only exclusive to Europeans, if you'll Wikipedia Chinese people, you'll see this:
"The term Chinese people refers to various individuals or groups of people associated with China, either by reason of ancestry or heredity, nationality, citizenship, place of residence, or other affiliations."
Chinese was a bad example, considering the fact that there is no distinct Chinese ethnic group (although the largest are the Han Chinese), even Russians are one the 56 recognised ethnic groups of China. Anyways, since Germany is not just an ethnic group (like the Saami or the Druze are) then being German can be by ethnicity, but it can also be by nationality, culture, linguistics or all above. Perhaps as I've suggested before, there will be 2 articles in the case of all ethnic groups that also have a country, one for those who are German/English/Dutch etc by ethnicity, and one for those who aren't such by ethnicity, but are by nationality/culture/linguistics etc. In fact, this is already the case for Russians and Chinese people, there's a page for ethnic Russians and Han Chinese, and one for Chinese nationals and what's called in Russia "Rossiyane". Guy355 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a constructive and meaningful proposition pertaining to how this article can be improved. I am discussing the article. I find it peculiar that Albert Einstein, an ethnically Jewish naturalized American man who, even if he had stayed in Germany, would have been de jure stripped of his citizenship as per the Nuremberg Laws, is, according to the image above the template, considered a German. I find this absurd. Furthermore, Wikipedia needs to apply the same standards across the board. If certain nations, say, the Ukrainian, Jewish, or Japanese people, are defined ethnically, whereas the German people are defined (as Dougweller is implying) ethnically and nationally (in other words, based on legal citizenship), then I feel that is a form of discrimination (hence I called it "anti white) and, in essence, denying the existence of the German people as an ethnic group. JDiala (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
"the Ukrainian, Jewish, or Japanese people" are not nations. And in Japan Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population. Our article Ukrainians says clearly "The Constitution of Ukraine applies the term 'Ukrainians' to all its citizens". And of course there is no Jewish nation. In the 90s the German population was 20% non-German, more now. Looks like you are saying "Remove any Jews because they are non-white". That's an attitude that is not going to help you here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are all nations, first of all. Simply check the article (Nation). A nation is more than a state. The Jewish people, the Japanese people, and the Ukrainian people are nations, and these nations are all defined based on ethnicity, not legal citizenship. Concerning Ukraine, there is, again, a difference between an ethnic Ukrainian and a legal Ukrainian. If Ukrainians were merely a legal construct, then why does the Demographics of Ukraine article explicitly differentiate between Ukrainians and other ethnic groups? A nation is not a country. A nation is not a passport. A non-ethnic citizen of Ukraine can be referred to as a Ukrainian, but he is nevertheless not a member of the Ukrainian people. There is a difference between the legal term and the ethnic term. Concerning Japan, you've proved my point. The demographics of Japan also explicitly differentiate between the Japanese people, which make up, as you said, 98.5% of the population and other ethnic groups. There are many people in Japan who were both born there and possess Japanese citizenship. They are not, however, considered Japanese. "Remove Jews because they are not white" is not an "attitude". This is about ethnicity. Ethnicity is a complex, hard to define thing; however, we can conclude that ethnically, Einstein was not a German. He was a self-recognized Jew born from Jewish parents. He had a strong Jewish identity. The Jewish people are an ethno-religious group. They are a unique people. If you're reducing the validity and existence of European peoples to mere passports, then you are being anti-white. Also, the term 'anti-white' does not make me a racist, nor does it take away from the discussion. It's a term. It is no less valid than the term 'antisemetic', which has already been used in this discussion with minimal backlash.I'd also like to add that the document which is cited to substantiate the statement "The term also refers to the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany" is only valid, as is stated, for the Federal Republic of Germany, or the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. This document, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, was not established during the time period in which Albert Einstein had lived, nor was the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, so it is not valid for his particular case. Even if we ignore all of this, Einstein was still not a German. He lacked German citizenship. I will try to put this really simply for you. Was Albert Einstein ethnically German? No. Did he possess German citizenship when he died? No. Had he stayed in Germany, would he have been allowed to maintain his citizenship? No. Therefore, why would Albert Einstein considered a German, since he, according to your and this article's definition, was not a German? He was an ethnic Jew and an American citizen. JDiala (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the same standards should be used on every article for ethnicity, however, I find the term "anti-White" in this subject inaccurate, since Caucasians are people who come from Europe, north Africa and west Asia, Ukrainians are Caucasian, as for Jews, the largest Jewish ethnic division (Ashkenazi Jews) are genetically speaking pre Islamic Mediterranean, sharing closest genetic similarities with Sephardi and north African Jews (who are the largest Jewish ethnic division following the AJs, are genetically speaking also pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian) and when it comes to non Jews, Sicilians, Greek islanders, Cypriots, Armenians, Druze, Samaritans and Maltese, all of these populations falling in the place of Mediterranean or west Asian i.e Caucasian, therefore most Jews (with the exception of Ethiopian and Chinese Jews) are Caucasian, my point is that because of this, the term should perhaps be "misunderstanding" or even discrimination, but anti White? No, assuming of course that you're talking about Caucasians as a whole and not just west/central/north Europeans, in which case, that's a different thing. Guy355 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Truth be told I think the simplest thing to do has already been done, for example, the largest ethnic group besides Germans in Germany are probably the Turks, so, there's an article for ethnic Germans i.e Germans, and for German Turks, there's the article "Turks in Germany", this is pretty much the case for all ethnic groups in countries where they're the minority. Guy355 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. However, there's a difference between ethnicity and race, Jews are an ethnicity/nation but not a race, some Jews are Caucasian, some aren't, Ashkenazi Jews are no less Caucasian then Sicilians and Maltese whom they genetically plot next to [11][12]. They're indeed a distinct ethnicity, but not too distinct to be considered a race, if this is the case, then the Druze who are also an ethno-religious group can be considered a race, and so can the Indians or the ancient Germanic peoples, because their religion was specifically Germanic. No, it all comes down to one question, do you consider Sicilians and Maltese White? If so, then AJs are White, if you don't, then they aren't. You can say that ethnic groups are sub divisions of race. Guy355 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Complex indeed, but ethnicity isn't a race, ethnicity is more like a sub group of race, therefore there's no problem of being AJ ethnically speaking and white racially speaking if you consider Sicilians and Maltese as white racially speaking. Other than that, it's true that Einstein was Ashkenazi Jewish by ethnicity, and not German. Guy355 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Why no pictures of Turks?
There are many more Turks than Jews in Germany, and surely the Germans have much more in common with Turks than with Jews. After all, the Holocaust was inspired by the Armenian genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.71.229 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Find a German of Turkish descent who is culturally, linguistically and by self identification German, and go ahead. Guy355 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No real Jew would self-identify as German. Germans are our enemies.
You don't seem to understand, there's no such thing as German or Jewish blood, we're all 99.5% identical, and we share a common ancestry in Africa less than 200,000 years ago, what really sets us apart is culture, linguistics and self identification. Guy355 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The 0.5% makes a huge difference.
Not big enough though, in the same way you can claim that Southern and Northern Frenchmen aren't the same people because they're genetically distinct. Guy355 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Or that Hungarians aren't Magyars because genetically they're anything but Finno Ugric, even though, culturally, linguistically and by self identification they identify as such. Guy355 (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about genetics should be forbidden here on wikipedia cause it always leads to senseless quarrels.Ernio48 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, some people literally think that humans of different recent backgrounds belong to a different species. They don't understand that everyone's mixed, and the real think that sets us apart is the way we identify ourselves, the way we express ourselves, the languages we speak and the customs we identify with. Genetics only work for fanatics if it goes their way, and indeed, it means nothing because we're 99.5% identical. Guy355 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What's your source of Mesut Oezil identifying as German?
Here: [13] He claims that his a third generation German, and that while he'll always hold Turkey in a special place, he had no doubt in his decision to play for Germany, and that he started to play for Germany in the youth team. Guy355 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
^alongside the slightly earlier term Almayns; John of Trevisa's 1387 translation of Ranulf Higdon's Polychronicon has: Þe empere passede from þe Grees to þe Frenschemen and to þe Germans, þat beeþ Almayns. During the 15th and 16th centuries, Dutch was the adjective used in the sense "pertaining to Germans". Use of German as an adjective dates to ca. 1550. The adjective Dutch narrowed its sense to "of the Netherlands" during the 17th century.
And, apart from anything else, the fact that he plays for the German national team makes him a German person - by definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Guy355, the small difference in humans does make a difference. If you studied humans, biology and anything else related to along those lines surely you would know that. Not everyone is "mixed" as you are trying to push forward and say. Also, acknowledging that the small difference among the humans (there is a lot of scientific evidence to support this) does not mean one is is claiming that different races are different species. I mean hey, we also share A LOT of DNA to bananas and mice for example but that doesn't mean we are anywhere close to them and that there is differences (obviously). Clearly you have not studied into this properly now have you.
Also the source given shows nothing of where he identifies as a German. All it shows is his preferred football team he chooses to play for and that Turkey is a special country to him since that is where his roots are.--Policja (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
As you have no idea who I am, please don't make assumptions. I know that we share about 50% similarity with bananas, but that doesn't make us very close, but there's a large difference between bananas and a fellow human being, it's kind of strange you even compare. Yes I know there are differences in those 0.5%, the differences that give people of West African descent an advantage on short running contests, supposedly give a higher average IQ to Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians etc. Perhaps the term "mixed" isn't very accurate, however we do share a fairly recent common ancestry, in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. As for the football player not identifying as German, here's a quote from the second link: "That the Gelsenkirchen-born zil chose Germany was not, he has said, "a decision against my Turkish roots". It was, instead, a positive expression of how comfortable the unassuming character feels in a firmly opened-up country that his father Mustafa moved to aged two. The different influences at work in the player's make-up find their expression in an invigorating on-field approach. "My technique and feeling for the ball is the Turkish side to my game," zil has said. "The discipline, attitude and always-give-your-all is the German part." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy355 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You've repeated the same crap on several different talk pages about how the difference does not matter and about your own ancestry, your subjective opinion does not equal fact. We share a lot of DNA with mice, rats, chimps, monkeys and so on... this does not mean we are the same. So now you are trying to push the theory of blacks being more athletic, then you may also want to add about whites being better swimmers. IQ again, whites, Jews, east Asians are higher than others. Indeed we do share a common ancestry but we also do with other sapiens, so what? Study evolution.
So again all he says is that the decision was not against his Turkish ancestry but rather he was born in Germany and has chose to play for Germany. This gives no indication that he self identifies as "German". He is not stupid, he knows he is not ethnically German - he admits his Turkish roots.
What is the problem here? This article is about ethnic Germans the Germanic ethnic group Germans not people who live in Germany or were born in Germany but rather people of German ancestry. Its not rocket science.--Policja (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And once again you compare fellow human beings to mice, chimps etc. The difference between these and fellow human beings is that fellow human beings aren't a distinct "race". The last distinct "human race" were the Neanderthals who went extinct roughly 30,000 years ago, since then we're the only "human race" around. While it's true that for example West Eurasians have Neanderthal ancestry and Sub Saharan Africans have none, we all overwhelmingly descend from the same sub species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Perhaps instead of swearing and calling me ignorant, go read a modern science book instead of a book on Eugenics from the 1880's. Guy355 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Because pointing it out is relevant. We share our DNA with animals and fruit that are not even humans. Neanderthals were never a race but a specie. Are you even aware of the difference between races and species?
Where have I swore at you? What I have done is pointed out your subjective opinion in regards to ethnic groups is wrong.
I have read many modern science books regarding race. The tendency to claim that race does not exist biologically is a straw man that derives from being politically motivated and is not even supported by evidence. Again, if you knew anything books on eugenics or the different races that were done decades ago are still very valid indeed such as the works of Coon's or Grant's. In particular with Germans, the works of Günther are still valid.
So away you go keep believing that you as a person of ethnic Jewish ancestry is of "German and Polish" ancestry. Whatever helps you sleep at night...--Policja (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What I typed here was from before, I realised I was wrong, look at what I typed on my wall and yours. Guy355 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, its fine. Yes we are discussing on the talk pages of our usernames its fine. But in regards to this article, it is meant specifically for ethnic Germans. People of Turkish ancestry are not that.--Policja (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, perhaps there should be an article about national Germans, I believe there is an article on for example national Russians i.e Rossiyane. Guy355 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Since the original question was "Why no pictures of Turks?", it because the article is discussing "ethnic Germans" not "citizens of Germany"; which is why the article gives a figure of 65 million "ethnic Germans" in the country of Germany when there are 80 million people in it. This is because the country includes "ethnic Germans", Turks, and other Europeans. This article is similar to the "People of India" were there are 100's of ethnicities in the country. However, all of these groups identify with the country of India. This allows us to include all of them regardless if they are Dravidian or Indo-Aryan. AcidSnow (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
These ongoing disputes about who should/shouldn't be included in the infobox just shows what a bad idea having picture collages of famous people in the infoboxes of ethnic group articles is. They have no encyclopedic value, don't make anyone happy and only cause fighting. We would be better off having an image like the one in the Irish migration to Great Britain article. Replace this stupid mug shot collection with a picture taken at a German pub or something. --130.156.135.213 (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all LOL. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that's the picture one gets on the "ethnic Germans" article, or perhaps it's a painting of ethnic Germans in Argentina I don't remember. Guy355 (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
New mosaic in Infobox
The images are arranged chronologically - by date of birth of the persons. The names under the picture are separate with dots to be more easily distinguishable. The number of persons is reduced to 25, because when are 30, as now, the viewer gets lost in picture. Some of the new persons are Friedrich Barbarossa (in current image has no one medieval German), sportists as Steffi Graf and Gerd Muller (more significant and popular than Klinsman, by me) and Lena Meyer Landrut as popular singer and member of new generation. The idea is to be proposed more people from different epoches and generations--Stolichanin (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
30 images are really too much. But this mosaic is not very well and looks like the current collage. Landrut is very good suggestion, because now we have none German under 40 years ago. Can you create a mosaic with 24 person like this you created for English people? It will be great if we have a such collage. --Kromert (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"The Foreign minister Guido Westerwelle and the mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, are openly gay."
Both are not on office any more ->
"The former Foreign minister Guido Westerwelle and the former mayor of Berlin Klaus Wowereit are openly gay."
Egn1g4 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: I've updated Westerwelle, but my understanding is that Wowereit will be in office until 11 December, so I haven't altered that. NiciVampireHeart12:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Today, people from countries with a German-speaking majority such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other historically-tied countries like Luxembourg, have developed their own national country identity and have referred to themselves as people from their countrys. --109.90.123.135 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is about Germans as an ethnic group. Given that Einstiens ethnicity was Ashkenazi Jew and not German it's unclear what his picture do in the mosaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.76.143 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Both Einstein and Marx are ethnically Jewish and German in nationality, hence they shouldn't be in an article about the ethnic group. I think it should be changed. --Monochrome_Monitor17:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You can't be ethnically Jewish and ethnically German unless you are born to mixed parents, but both Einstein and Marks are 100% Jewish ethnically. --Monochrome_Monitor00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Crap, it's a mosaic so I can't do that. That's irritating. --Monochrome_Monitor
I'd be happy to edit the mosaic once consensus is reached (with more editors of course). Just ping or message me when it's time. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say that having been born and raised in Germany, Einstein and Marx should qualify for inclusion in this article's pictorial presentation. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Genetics have nothing to do with nationality, otherwise there would be no Americans for example. TFD (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
But this article isn't about German citizens. It's about ethnic Germans. "This article is about Germans as an ethnic group." It's like saying that being born in Ethiopia can make a Dane ethnically Ethiopian. Also, Americans are different, since the article refers to American citizens, not Native Americans. If it said "ethnic Americans", it would be different, but it doesn't, so false comparison. --Monochrome_Monitor
Uhm... Just checked the Volkdeutsche article, it's gone, I suppose they merged it with this one. Fine, w/e. Guy355 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This article's lead says "Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe, who share a common German ancestry, culture and history, and speak the German language as their mother tongue" but I don't think the intention there is to use the term ethnicity with precision. I think that ethnicity is a term that has both a precise applicability and an imprecise applicability. In this article I think we would have to say that the term is used with imprecision due to considerable population inflow and outflow. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological one. As such some people could be described as having more than one ethnicity. But that is based on perception. TFD (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No, ethnicity is biological. Race is social. You can be of mixed ethnicity but neither Einstein nor Marx are. They are of one ethnicity, Jewish. --Monochrome_Monitor17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hindu and Zoroastrianism are religious. Jews are an ethnoreligious group, a peoplehood. A good comparison is the Druze and Yazidi. You can be a non-observant Jew and still be ethnically Jewish. You can be ethnically German and ethnically Jewish, but neither Marx or Einstein are. (Also, Einstein got rid of his German citizenship, so he can't even be called German by nationality) --Monochrome_Monitor17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Jews (and Gypsies) came to live among Germans and largely did not intermarry with them, or convert others to their religion. So people who define ethnicity in terms of genetics might exclude them. But the genetically pure race is a myth, at least in Europe, where there have been numerous waves of tribes. TFD (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ethnicity has many components. Our article (Ethnic group) lists quite a number of factors: "Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, ideology, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. Members of an ethnic group may be more closely related to members of another ethnic group than they are to one another. Northern Italians for example may be of predominantly Germanic ancestry, while some Scots and Irish may be of predominantly Scandinavian ancestry. Some Germans of predominantly Slavic ancestry. English aristocrats were primarily Norman ancestry. Einstein belonged to the Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA), also called E1b1b, as did Hitler and Napoleon and 9% of Germans and Austrians and 20% of European Jews. TFD (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I used to agree with your position(this topic has been previously discussed), though I have since changed my mind. Ethnicity is not necessarily genetic. It's considerably more nuanced than that; it is a social, not a biological category. Thus pointing out (usually trivial) genetic differences is superfluous--especially for a genotype as complex as that of Ashkenazi Jews. Indeed, as Shlomo Sand has noted, the erroneous usage of "racial science" to classify German Jews as being distinct from the "real" Nordic-Aryan Germans was one of the principal aspects of Nazi antisemetic belief, so it would seem rather odd that this view is being endorsed by Jews today, who prefer that there is a "Jewish gene" and that the Jewish people are racial group with uniform ancestry. Considering that Einstein and Marx were assimilated and non-religious, there is no reason not to consider them German. Other German Jews, like Hannah Arendt, explicitly refused to be regarded as Volksdeutsche, and therefore are not included in the picture. JDiala (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Being accurate about ethnic groups is different than being racist. German Jews were an ethnic group in Germany, just like British Africans are an ethnic group in Britain. Calling Jews "ethnically German" is like calling Africans "ethnically British". Calling Einstein ethnically German is just wrong. He even renounced his German citizenship. As for citing Shlomo Sand (a psuedoscholar and self-proclaimed "ex-Jew"), that just makes your case less credible. --Monochrome_Monitor05:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the comparison with British Africans, I will simply reiterate what another editor has already noted: "Members of an ethnic group may be more closely related to members of another ethnic group than they are to one another. Northern Italians for example may be of predominantly Germanic ancestry, while some Scots and Irish may be of predominantly Scandinavian ancestry. Some Germans of predominantly Slavic ancestry. English aristocrats were primarily Norman ancestry". If we wish to argue what does or does not constitute a Briton or a German, in genetic or ancestral terms, we must first define what they are, and there is really no way of getting around the ambiguity involved in that. Your comparison is flawed in several other ways as well; Africans are recent immigrants(Ashkenazi Jews are not). Africans are phenotypically distinct from Europeans(Ashkenazi Jews are not). Africans in Europe today are, for the most part, not nearly as assimilated as the European Jewish intelligentsia was in the late 20th/early 21st century. I am not interested in, nor is this talk page intended for, debating the scholarly credentials of Shlomo Sand. His claim was a straightforward logical inference which requires little actual scholarly research; impetuously dismissing it because of the radical theses presented in some of his works is silly. Is it not true that the Nazis regarded the Jews as not German, even when the Jews expressed a strong willingness to assimilate, and this belief that the Jews were innately distinct, and never could be a part of the German national character, played a major role in Nazi anti-Semitism, which happened to define Jews racially? Are we now to concede that they were indeed correct in this categorization? JDiala (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not an option of total assimilation vs. antisemitism. No one should have to discard their identity to be accepted. Jews can be proud of who they are while still being treated as equals. The notion that belonging to a foreign peoplehood makes you a threat to a proper homogenous state is offensive. Diversity means celebrating differences, not ignoring them. --Monochrome_Monitor22:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
And on phenotypes, Jews actually have some distinct phenotypic characteristics—not distinctly Jewish but distinctly Middle Eastern. These however are much more subtle than Africans since they don't involve actual skin pigmentation. --Monochrome_Monitor22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, indeed it is not. It is also not an "option" of ethnic German versus Jewish, as has been noted, since neither group is ancestrally homogenous. European peoples have never been "pure". It is a matter of identity and culture. I must say that that your response sounds more like a personal opinion based upon preconceived views regarding the nature of Jewish identity and nationalism. Please respond to the substantive issues raised. JDiala (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The entire discussion and the article itself are irritating, for the question of who is and is not ethnically German cannot be answered. It's too complicated an issue. What about Desiderius Erasmus? During his lifetime, the distinction between "the Dutch" and "the Germans" did not yet exist. He was, at least by German(ic) authors such as Ulrich von Hutten called German and regarded himself as such, too -- when he referred to nationality/ethnicity at all because he was a fierce cosmopolitan. If we talk about ethnic Germans, we would thus have to include Dutchmen like Erasmus or Rubens, at least until the late 18th century when the Dutch stopped calling themselves Nederduitsers. What about the Swiss, the Austrians, the Alsatians? What about Kant? He was of Scottish descent which means that he wasn't ethnically German. So Erasmus would have to be mentioned while Kant would have to be omitted. As to Einstein: like Hannah Arendt he did not regard himself as German. Most Jews living in Germany did, however, but most of those who explicitly mused about their identity stressed the fact that they weren't ethnic Germans, i.e. of German origin. Walther Rathenau, f.ex., wrote, just like Monochrome Monitor here, that Jews were not ethnically Germans -- but he hoped that they could be regarded as an own, distinct "German tribe" of non-Germanic origin. The question of who is and is not ethnically German really is a pain. -- Orthographicus (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that JDiala is a member of a genocidal, anti-Semitic hate group (see Special:Diff/660715905) that seeks to deny that the Jewish people exist. Citing the communist anti-Semitic propagandist Shlomo Sand and trying to claim that Jews are Nazis are common tactics of Muslims and anti-Semites.
Right... so since Einstein and Marx aren't ethnically German according to the description of the article, they shouldn't be in the mosaic. --Monochrome_Monitor01:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
For example, Niels Bohr can be listed on the page "Danes" because his father is ethnically Danish and his mother is ethnically Jewish. However, Einstein is of wholly Jewish descent. --Monochrome_Monitor01:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The article should really make clear that the definition of what "German" means has changed drastically. While a hundred years ago, it referred to an ethnic group including the Austrians and excluding everyone of non-German descent, it nowadays only denotes a nationality, namely the citizens of this small central European nation state that was founded in 1867 as the North German Confederation, enlarged four years later and renamed German Empire, and which nowadays is called Federal Republic of Germany. Those are two different things both using the same name. And then the article should make clear to what category it does refer. Germans in the latter sense naturally exclude everyone who died before 1867. Of all the "Germans" listed, the first two rows don't include any German save Bismarck and Marx (although I'm not sure about him -- was he a citizen?). Hitherto, the article mixes both groups, the ethnicity and the unrelated nationality, together. -- Orthographicus (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, my opinion is that this article should describe Germans in every sense, at every time throughout history. Splitting such an article in a few, such as:
-Germans (nationality)
-Germans (ethnicity)
-Austrians and their relation to the German ethnicity
etc.
...is pointless. Moreover, some other person will appear to merge those immediately.Ernio48 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed before (one can search for "scope" in the archives) and the sense then was that it should be about Germans in all senses (that way, it is encyclopedic). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
You do realise, that an immigration background in German statistics does not imply a non-german ethnic background? Most of the Immigrants which came from Soviet Union, Poland, Czechia and so on are ethnic Germans. --85.178.98.103 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Moreover people with just one immigrant parent or even one immigrant grandparent are included in the number of people with "immigrant background", even if they are born and raised in Germany, by their German parent, speaking German as their native language, living in a German cultural environment. Not every person can be unambiguously and exclusively assigned to a certain ethnic group. Ethnicity is primarily a cultural and not a biological category. --RJFF (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You are all correct. But I think we should publish the 65 million number as some kind of "core" estimate? I think that a separate note to this number will solve the problem. Then a reader can guess the number of Germans in Germany is somewhere between 65-80 million.Ernio48 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it is still dubious. There is no "core" estimate of ethnic Germans in Germany. You are making this up. People without "immigrant background" is not the same as ethnic Germans. "Immigrant background" is a sociological category, not an ethnic one. Any number would give a superficial reader the impression that there is a known number of ethnic Germans in Germany while in reality such a statistic does not exist. The Federal Office of Statistics of Germany does not ask people about their ethnicity - so there is no official number. In general, it is very difficult to estimate ethnicity figures in modern societies, because nowadays people migrate and intermarry. Membership of an ethnicity does not play a role in modern societies like the majority population of Germany. Most German nationals probably never question their ethnicity. They simply identify as Germans—without differentiating between German nationality and ethnicity. Only minority groups like Sorbs, Danes, Frisians, Roma and perhaps first-generation immigrants are aware of their distinct ethnicity. But you can't just exclude all second, third and more-generation descendants of immigrants, people of mixed background and especially not the ethnic German remigrants from Eastern Europe and ex-USSR, who make up more than 3 million people in Germany. --RJFF (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok just Several questions,Is "Germans of no immigrant background" synonymous with "ethnic Germans"？In germany, there are 65M germans without immigrant background,are they all ethnic Germans? also i want to know,Is there any chance that non-german Citizens could be Consider as Germans without immigrant background？just for for example if there is a Turk person living in germany，and his parents both born in germany as german Citizens，but his grandfather was born in Turkey，Will he be counted as german Citizen with immigrant background or just ethnic Germans without immigrant background？and，What is the exactly proportion of ethnic Germans in the end？80%or84%？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
other Germanic ethnicities
The small box entitled "related ethnic groups" is contradictory as the text suggests that Austrians are a separate national rather than ethnic identity. Furthermore, I think the list should include English and potentially Scottish people/Scots for completeness.
Peter Larsson 11:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etepeter (talk • contribs)
What we know as Germany was founded in 1871, and consequently, only citizens of said state can be called Germans in the modern sense of the word. I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on labelling deceased people. Why, f.ex., does it claim that Johann Sebastian Bach, Martin Luther or Johann Wolfgang von Goethe were Germans (and not "just" German-speaking) although the German people didn't exist during their respective lifetimes? (And nobody can argue that the term German here refers to an ethnic group instead of a nationality, for a) how would that ethnic group be defined, and b) others labelled themselves as "(ethnic) Germans" during their lifetime, too, but are not designated as such in their articles. Wouldn't it be much more logical to only use the term "German" for citizens of Germany instead of an ominous, not clearly defined "ethnic group"? Martin Luther wasn't more "German" than, let's say, Desiderius Erasmus. I at least don't get the current practice. -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Germans as an ethnic group, not about the citizens of the German nation-state. German ethnic identity has existed long before the German nation-state. In this sense, yes, of course there was a German people long before 1871. And no one seriously denies that Bach, Luther, and Goethe were Germans. They themselves identified as Germans (Mozart too, by the way, but I don't want to restart this sensitive discussion). --RJFF (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Locked?
What is the purpose of a wikipedia article like this if it is locked?
The intro says: "Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe,[3] who share a common German ancestry, culture and history, and speak the German language as their native language."
Quite a great deal of Germans do not speak German. And is there an exact geographic location of Germans? Should at least be updated for language. Most Germans in Russia, North and South America do not speak German. 112.198.83.179 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Are the Germans in East Germany have a Soviet Union ancestry now？
As you know，after WW2,East Germany has lost a large population，and when Soviet Soldiers arrived there...so，are there a lot of germans in east Germany have a Soviet ancestry now？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 October 2015
so，about this 300,000 children，will they be regarded as Germans or mixed（unspecified background）？and after war，How many German origin babies were born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.172.83.124 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Absence of information in the first sentences of the second paragraph of the "Identity" chapter (3)
"[...]Persons who speak German as their first language, look German[...]"
Seriously? I'd love to edit this myself but I'm neither registered nor would I do anything else other than deleting those parts. I mean maybe the appearance aspect may be further explained and justified by listing cultural aspects that define a "German style of fashion", or genetic influences based on diversity in ancestry (Roman and Germanic). But I doubt it would have a place here.62.143.182.118 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Absence of information in the first sentences of the second paragraph of the "Identity" chapter (3)
"[...]Persons who speak German as their first language, look German[...]"
Seriously? I'd love to edit this myself but I'm neither registered nor would I do anything else other than deleting those parts. I mean maybe the appearance aspect may be further explained and justified by listing cultural aspects that define a "German style of fashion", or genetic influences based on diversity in ancestry (Roman and Germanic). But I doubt it would have a place here.62.143.182.118 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Jews
I believe "Judaism" should be listed under the ethnic infobox for "Religion", given the huge influence and reciprocal relationship Jews have had on Germany and vice-versa. Einstein, in the photo box, was Jewish, and the word "Jew" (or variants thereof) appears in the article fourteen times. Thoughts? --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה03:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the religion label within the box is reserved for the most common religions among Germans, not historically influential (like the Jewish one) or insignificant minorities (like Islam, Buddhism, and many other religions). Jews had influence throughout history on almost every nation in Europe, including Poland, France, Russia, etc. Even though the Jewish religion didn't prove influential in the demographic sense, which the box describes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 October 2015
If this is the case, then Einstein's photo should be removed. Then perhaps we should have a "Minority" section the way other countries have? --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה05:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Judaism is an ethnic group as well as a religion and Einstein was certainly Jewish. It is completely possible to be an atheist Jew, and declaring a lack of belief in God in no way diminishes one's Jewishness (in contrast to some other faiths, like Islam and Christianity). Not believing in God is actually a position you can take in Judaism, and still be considered Jewish.
Also, while Einstein did not believe in a personal traditional God, he did claim belief in a Spinozan God (Spinoza was a Jewish philosopher, by the way). In fact, Einstein abandoned his post at the Berlin Academy and did not return to Germany while away on a visit in 1933 precisely because he was Jewish:
He was visiting the United States when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and, being Jewish, did not go back to Germany, where he had been a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences. (from his Wiki page)
Einstein was very much Jewish, and was even offered the presidency of the State of Israel. Do a simple CTRL-F on Einstein's Wiki and you'll see the word "Jew" pop up nearly 30 times. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה17:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to ask fellow editors how does the gallery from the infobox help the reader. What's it's role? How does this gallery provide encyclopaedic content? Why is it better to include such a gallery in the article? Hahun (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
"Germans (German: Deutsche) are an evil Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe,[3]"
Why is evil present ? This is obviously a troll, and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asthannoln (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The introduction of the article rightfully explains explicitly that Austrians, the Swiss etc. no longer refer to and regard themselves as Germans, thus insinuating that they historically did. But for someone who has no idea about German history and reads this article, this doesn't make any sense. The concept should be explained in more detail. Not even most modern Germans and Austrians are aware of the fact that only a hundred years ago, no one would have denied the Germanness of Vienna, Salzburg or Vaduz. The changed definition of the word German is vital, though. One must know it to understand why Mozart and Keller, Haydn and Meyer, Bruckner and Burckhardt thought of and called themselves Germans, and what they meant with the word: belonging to an ethnic group that would nowadays be called "German-speaking". -- Orthographicus (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"By the 2nd century BC, the number of Germans was significantly increasing and they began expanding into eastern Europe and southward into Celtic territory."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
can we please restore the photos of people in the ethnic group ethnic group, am sure many disagreed with its removal Dannis243 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose -Images of individuals should be used alongside related content in the body of the article.--Moxy (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mathematicians
There is a section on science which mentions the likes of Einstein, but No mention of mathematical greats like Leibniz, CF Gauss, GFB Riemann, Dirichlet, Jacobi, Hilbert, Cantor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.51.179 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
As you'll see at the top of the section you're referring to, the main articles are hatnoted. All of the above-mentioned are in the List of German inventors and discoverers. This is a broad scope article about Germans, therefore only succinct summaries are provided where there are main articles dealing with detailed, subject-related articles and links to lists. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Where is it? VarunFEB200313:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done for now: Could you confirm that the figure is 36,042? According to my reading of the spreadsheet, that is the number of people of German descent. The number of actual German speakers amongst them appears to be 24,549. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Relation to French and Romansch
I would generally like to remove these categories from the "related" people (and the same of Germans if they appear in the infoboxes of the other populations). I have made similar such edits these past few hours on Poles, though I cannot say from this point how that will eventually result. I am aware that the Romansch-speaking population is surrounded by the German speaking population, and that historically France took its name from a Germanic population who became assimilated by its Latin (or post-Latin) population. But if anything, these things may have more to do with the murky topic of genes. If this is so, I say these factors are irrelevant where determining whether a nation to assimilate your members should suddenly be "related" to you because those generations of persons gave up their identity and to suddenly take a random individual from the group who assimilated the other, there is no proof he will have the "assimilated" person's ancestry. This is why I believe related populations should be confined to the language groups since these are indisputable. --OJ (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Just adding to above observation, I particularly favour the model as at Austrians which lists Germanic people and that link in turn will guide the reader correctly so everybody know's what is what. --OJ (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Brazil
Please, stop inflating the figure for Brazil. There are sources claiming Brazilian census found 12 million people of German descent in Brazil, but Brazilian censuses do not even have a questionar about ancestry. The 5 million figure is closer to reality and other sources claiming similar figures. Xuxo (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:BURDEN "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
It is up to you to show where in the 2000 Brazilian census it was found that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. Xuxo (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
These so-called reliable sources seem to rely on each other for verification (which isn't real verification, and by working backwards they refer originally to the 2000 census. A quick look at what appears to be that census - http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/ - does not seem to give any data about ethnic origin (it might be there but I cannot see it). It looks to me that this might be a case of 'everyone says it's true so it must be true'. Seeing as the reliability of these latest edits has been questioned I think there is certainly an onus on the editor Iryna Harpy to be extra careful about his/her source evidence. Just because those sources meet basic WP requirements is not enough in this case, in my opinion.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger:. AFAIK as I can see there's nothing at the site you linked to that says no questions were asked about ancestry, the site also clearly states that it only reports selected results from the census, not all material gathered during the census. There's also a discussion on Talk:German Brazilians that might be of interest to you. - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 5 external links on Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On the diaspora section, please edit the link to direct to the article about German Brazilians (currently links to the country of Brazil) 75.131.192.175 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough Thomas W, my mistake. @Ernio48. Your extended list of sourced population figures is IMO overkill and detracts from the point of the article. To give seven (yes, 7) sources to say lots of Germans live in Germany seems excessive, especially when the point of the infobox, as in the heading, is simply to list countries with significant populations of Germans. Your sourced material belongs in another more appropriate article I think. Also, some of those sources do not seem to be the best, and the interpretation of what they report is open to various interpretations. I think your post should be reverted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Populations in infobox
I have removed several population figures from the infobox, stating different reasons in the edit summary field. Now they were simply reset without discussion, even without any reason. In order to avoid an edit war, I will put the different issues for discussion.
Germany (65 million): to my knowledge, no exact or approximate number of ethnic Germans in Germany is known. It may even be impossible to find such a number. German authorities do not survey the ethnicity of their citizens. 65 million is the number of Germans "without migration background". But even people "with migration background" may be ethnic Germans: e.g. ethnic German re-migrants from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or people of mixed German and foreign parentage who are born and raised in Germany, speak predominantly German and identify with the German culture. So, we cannot simply equal the number of Germans "without migration background" with the number of ethnic Germans and exclude all Germans "with migration background". None of the cited references claims so – this is simply original research or original synthesis.
United States (50,764,352), Brazil (12 million), Canada (3,203,330), Argentina (3.1 million), South Africa (1.2 million), Australia (898,700) and Chile (500,000): Having one or several German ancestors does not automatically equal German ethnicity. Many Americans or Brazilians of German ancestry do not speak any German and have barely any German cultural identity. I find it inadequate to summarise them as ethnic Germans just because of their "blood". Ancestry is not the same as ethnicity.
France (1 million): Alsatians do not necessarily identify as Germans, neither are they necessarily considered Germans. Both references only state the number of Alsatians in France, they do not mention them being ethnic Germans (moreover the number of 1 million is simply wrong, both references state 1.5 million). Also, there are Germans in France who are not Alsatians (e.g. Germans who have migrated to France for a job or retirement), they are disregarded by this figure which is only based on the number of Alsatians.
Russia (394,138), Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Denmark, Portugal, China, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Ireland: No reference at all.
Italy (314,604): This is only the number of ethnic Germans in South Tyrol (Bolzano province) – But Italy comprises more than just South Tyrol. There are ethnic Germans living outside BZ, too.
Paraguay (290,000): Reference is a self-published website ([2]), not a reliable source.
Switzerland (266,000): The figure cannot be found on the referenced page.
Peru (240,000): The figure is based on the share of Peruvians with a German (sounding) last name. Having a German last name does not equal German ethnicity. If they assimilate, stop speaking German and practicing German cultural traditions, they should no longer be considered ethnic Germans.
Austria (210,735): This is the number of German citizens. Not every German citizen is ethnically German, neither is every ethnic German a citizen of Germany. Arguably, a majority of Austrians is ethnically German, but this is a politically loaded question that should be discussed in the article and not simply decided in the infobox.
Mexico (140,000): The referenced book states a number of 15,000 to 40,000 Germans in Mexico, not 140,000.
Spain (138,917) and Greece (15,498): These are numbers of German citizens, not ethnic Germans.
Israel (100,000): This is the number of Israelis who also possess German citizenship, it does not necessarily equal the number of ethnic Germans.
Belgium (76,273): The German-speaking Community of Belgium is a territorial community. Its population is not 100 % ethnic German. Moreover, there are ethnic Germans living in the other communities or Brussels.
Sweden (49,359) and Norway (26,683): These are numbers of people born in Germany. Being born in Germany is not the same as being (ethnically) German.
It is better to state no population figure for a certain territory rather than a wrong or non-verifiable one. Perhaps we should avoid stating certain population figures at all if the number of ethnic Germans in most territories is simply unknown or indeterminable. --RJFF (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The actual references used to say that are 12 millions of descendets says textually "The country’s 2000 census determined that 12 million Brazilians claim to have German ancestors". It's says that 12 millions "claim to have german ancestors" not "are descendents of german ancestors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.78.30 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
German Nationality vs. German Ethnicity
Austrians, German speaking Swiss, and Liechtensteiners are still ethnic Germans and should be counted as them. There should be two categories one to refer to Germans by nationality (only Germans from Germany) and another to describe ethnic Germans (which would include Austrians, and German speaking Swiss among others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F472:CB00:1C3F:ADB9:2CDB:9B45 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I second this. I'd say count German Namibians and German Americans that still speak the language (which is 1,383,442), mennonites and amish throughout the Americas, South Tyrol and Transylvanian Saxons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.21.249.30 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on Germans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
300'000 german live in Switzerland
http://www.deutsch-schweiz.ch/home
In der Schweiz leben offiziel 300.000 Deutsche jedoch sind die Deutschen mit Schweizer Pass und die Grenzgänger nicht in der Statistik berücksichtig, dann wären es ca. 500.000.
"Officially 300,000 Germans live in Switzerland However, the Germans with Swiss passport and the frontier workers are not included in the statistics, then it would be about 500,000." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.235.82 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Related ethnic groups
other Germanic peoples - understandable
but Czechs, French, etc.? Germans are related to half of Europe, I'm not denying that. But if so, why not include the Turks, Russians, Italians, or even Chinese because I'm pretty sure there is a German woman who fucked with a Chinese and gave birth to a child that now perceives itself as German in Germany? Therefore, my suggestion is to keep it simple.Ernio48 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The whole thing about ethnic Germans is nationalistic nonsense.
Germans are Germans due to the culture and language they speak or due to citizenship.
There are no genes or something that can be used to differentiate "Germans" from the French, the Danish, Austrian, or Polish.
If you look at the "sources" cited then it is readily apparent that they do not make any claim that Germans are an ethnic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D2:970E:8577:7164:FEA1:539F:37DE (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. They who collectively identify by a specific demonym make up the nation. To that end, no nation's article needs to list related groups but they tend do so based on a narrow principle which is that a proto-group will have once existed, and the spread and prominence of this nation will be such that it absorbed others (assimilated them). So by declaring oneself German, even if both his parents declared Turkish and he has a darker complexion, it gets recorded in censa and this person adopts the German history over that which he leaves behind, and like this he moves forward. In reality it seldom happens so abruptly. Normally a fully integrated society member will have children with an outsider, and the outsider's culture is abandoned thus clearing the way forward. But the issues some of us have had in the past have been the conflation of listing related ethnic groups from the pool of modern-day nations descending from the ancestor race, but also unrelated ethnic groups with whom a nation has heavily mixed (which effectively means everyone is related to everyone). It is for the assimilation reason that I myself stick only to the groups descending from the ancestor. However, I favour a change to the current arrangement also. Either we should change "related" to "associated" so to add neighbours and traditional ethnic groups with whom a nation has mixed; or we should remove the section altogether and let the article speak for itself. Thanks for the points. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
German Australians
I think there are technically more Australians of German descent than there are Brazilians, although I can't find immediately find a source on that. Sure, Brazil is the bigger of the two countries but I recall reading that more Germans migrated to Australia with the promise of free land and economic opportunities than Brazil, and that their government really pushed to bring Germans down under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.237.58 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
lol gisele bundchen the most world supermodel is a german from brazil in brazil have other famous germans in tv ana hickman vera fisher xuxa meneghel etc the white people in australia have origin in the islands of great britain but in south brazil the whites have other origins north italians germans and slavs much more diverse than australia in the southern hemisphere and the center-south planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.83.197.237 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
the second most oktoberfest in all world outside of germany is from brazil in blumenau no in usa or australia and usa have much more germans than brazil and australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.83.197.237 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Australian German
Can someone add Australia to the reign s with significat populations? There are 898,674 by decent according to the German Australian page which is significantly more than other countries listed there. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4046:6100:474:AB37:D4E3:3005 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019
This edit request to Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
NEMETES WAS A "GERMANIC" TRIBE IN ROMAN NOMENCLATURE THAT MOVED TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE RHINE, TO HIDE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE ROME, WHILE ESCAPING FROM THE REST OF "GERMANIC" TRIBES THAT WANTED TO PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR BETRAYAL..
ROMANS USED THEM TO FIGHT ALL THE OTHER 'GERMAN' TRIBES, HENCEFORTH THE BECOME THE TOOL FOR CHRISTIAN CRUSADE DIRECTED AT THE EAST OF RHINE
POLES AND OTHER SLAVIC NATIONS/ TRIBES UP TO THE VISTULA WERE ALSO A MAJOR PART OF ROMES 'GERMANIA'.
THEY KNEW THE ENEMY, AND PRESERVED THEIR NAME, AND USED IT TO DENOUNCE ALL THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR THE NEMETY.
THE POLISH NAME FOR GERMANS IS NIEMCY, AND THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THE THEORETICAL PROPOSITION QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE THAT IT MAY MEAN: 'NOT US'.
NOR IT IS EVEN RELATED TO MORE PLAUSIBLE THEORY THAT IT MAY MEAN 'NIEMY', MEANING 'MUTE' AS IN NOT SPEAKING OUR LANGUAGE.
THEREFORE I WOULD SUGGEST CHANGING THAT PORTION OF THE ARTICLE TO REFLECT ALL THE THEORY AND NOT PROPAGANDA ONLY.
BESIDES, IT IS SAD TO SEE THAT ARTICLES ARE NOW LOCKED WITHOUT PEER REVIEW OR OPEN DISCUSSION.
THIS CREATES A DANGEROUS PROSPECT OF POTENTIALLY BECOMING VERY NARROW AND NARCISSISTIC ENVIRONMENT WITH SOME PEOPLE OR INTEREST GROUPS LITERALLY STAKING THE WIKIPEDIA ESTATE, THUS RESERVING IT FOR PROPAGATING SOME BIASED VIEWPOINTS (CONSCIOUSLY OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY DUE TO LACK OF THE IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOPICS), RISING THE RISK OF DOWNRIGHT MANIPULATION OF THE INFORMATION BY SELECTIVE CHOICE OF THE 'FACTS' AND THEIR PRESENTATION.
OPEN DISCUSSION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN AND BEHIND ARTICLES, WITH POTENTIAL CIVILIZING BUT IMPARTIAL MODERATION OF THE FORUM BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WIKIPEDIA, WITH ANY ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION FLAGGED AS SUCH ON THE ARTICLE INVITING ANYONE READING TO TAKE PART IN THAT DISCUSSION.
WIKIPEDIA INCREASES ITS ENGAGEMENT MODEL AND BECOMES MORE PROFITABLE ALL THE SAME.
WHILE READERS HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO VOICE OPINION, VIEW AND KNOWLEDGE AND CONTRIBUTE OR LEARN.
What I feel is missing and I haven't been able to find information on Wikipedia is information on the subgroups of Germans, regional identities, anything that would differentiate them from each other. Would be both helpful and interesting if this information could be found and listed here. Rikskansler (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Austria, Switzerland
Considering that Austrians are basically Bavarians and the Swiss Germans Allemannic Germans this needs to be listed in this article if it wants to be correct about the German ethnic group. Political correctness and anti german sentiments aside, those people did not come from behind the moon but are ethnically German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Incoherent usage of the term 'Germans' and anecdotal statements with questionable sources of the last segment "Reunification till present"
Hello everyone,
As a German I'm truy irritated by the seemingly interchangeable usage of "Germans" and "Ethnical Germans". My fellow citizen with migrational background are as much Germans as I am. They have been raised here and take as much part in German culture as I do - which is not much to speak of, we eat Italian food, watch American movies, use french idioms. Jokes aside, this article insinuates something else. Under the law everyone with a German citizenship is German and luckily that seems to have arrived in a lot of minds already. Specifically the minds of those who don't advocate for racist euphemisms such as 'Ethnopluralism'.
The last part "Reunification till present" caught my eye. There are some statements with lacking and/or questionable sources.
1. "Germans become more patriotic"
I obviously can't speak for all Germans but this link:
is laughable. The author writes something along the lines of 'A genocide might very well happen again' and 'A war between muslims and europeans (?)'. Anyone with the slighest grasp of history will know the first statement is straight up making it sound like there has not been much Erinnerungskultur (Culture of remembering) while also downplaying the singularity of the Shoah. Which is wrong.The second statement is alarmistic aswell. Even if the author was better at analyzing - without having a representative study that shows it I doubt patriotism has increased. Reactionary, nationalist forces obviously have (AfD) but ressentiments of those people have always been there. Aside from that throughout liberal and conservatives, urban and rural parts of society in Germany still rules a certain modesty and reservation when it comes to patriotism. Atleast there is much indifference when it comes to nationality.
2. "Study shows x% pupils would choose Germany as their country of living and x% feel patriotism"
Since I'm on my phone I can't citate properly but here is the study that would make the whole patriotism statement less anecdotal. However the problem is: German Citizen have been asked. Not necessarily ethnical Germans. So I ask myself what does this have to do with ethnical Germans?
3."The newer generation sees WW2 as a distant memory"
I would be part of that. I'm 23 and from Hamburg. I know a lot of young people. Nobody of us sees WW2 as a memory. How would we? We weren't alive. But luckily school has taught us one fucking thing - excuse my language - we must not forget. Now I really might not represent all young Germans but with the way how important teaching about the NS-Time is in this country I would argue 1) No one logically can see WW2 as a distant memory who hasn't lived back then and 2) We do remember why fascism and especially antisemitism has to be opposed.
A study that underlines my previous statement related to German identity can be found here aswell as in the German Wiki:
According to that study a significantly large amount of Germans think being able to speak German fluently qualifies one to be German. Which makes sense. We've had much immmigration for over 50 years now and ancestry is rather irrelevant.
In Jan Böhmermanns words: we are proud of not being proud.
...thanks for coming to my TED Talk. You might wanna check up on the mixing of the terms 'Germans' as 'German Citizen' (who can be of vietnamese, turkish, polish etc. ancestry) and 'Germans' as 'Ethnical Germans' (apparently not only defined by culture but also by ancestry) aswell as that highly questionable link that is used as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:4540:7405:7300:d952:8bd4:da24:cb1c (talk • contribs)
I fully agree with the bit about broadening the scope of the article, especially the lead and the introduction, to additionally (but obviously not exclusively) cover "people living in Germany" or at least "German citizens." But this is, as I see it, a larger problem of all articles referring to European ethnic groups (e.g. French people, Dutch people). --Tserton (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no problem, never mind a "larger problem" because the article deals specifically with Germans as an ethnic group, just like every other article for every other ethnic group. In the case of "Germans" being used in a wider context of meaning people of different ethnic backgrounds who have German citizenship, see the Germans#Society section and more specifically the Demographics of Germany article.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
There is. This article is called "Germans", not "Germans (ethnic group)". The equation of Germans with the ethnic group may have been acceptable some 40 years ago, today it is no longer acceptable in Germany. In Germany today, the normal use in the media is that "a German" is a synonym of "a German citizen", unless it is clear from the context that they are talking about a member of the ethnic group. Oxford Dictionary of English has "a native or inhabitant of Germany, or a person of German descent". The corresponding article in the German WP, de:Deutsche, wisely starts with the sentence, "The ethnonym German is used in a variety of ways." Then follow the definitions by ethnicity and by citizenship. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is justified to equate the English term Germans with the German Deutsche. Note that the formerly frequent term for ethnic Germans, Volksdeutsche, has almost completely fallen out of use, and that many European ethnic Germans have a hard time accepting that the 40+ million Americans who identify as ethnic Germans but don't speak German are Deutsche in any sense. The terms obviously don't match. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, the definition of Deutsche by the German WP and the definition of German(s) by ODE match. Both define the term as a nationality and as an ethnicity. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia's "German" disambiguation states:
"Deutsche (Begriffsklärung)
Zur Navigation springenZur Suche springen
Deutsche steht für:
Personen mit deutscher Staatsangehörigkeit (Deutsche im Sinne des Grundgesetzes), siehe deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit
Deutsche, Personen mit deutscher Herkunft im ethnischen, sprachlichen oder kulturellen Sinn"
The only real differences between the English article and the German article is that the latter article has a section about the assimilation hypothesis about whether or not recent migrants can be assimilated into the German nation and be considered Germans compared to those who are by birth (descent). Do you wish for the lede to state that the term "German" can mean different things or are you wanting some sort of exclusive definitions "ethnic group" and "citizens"?--LeftiePete (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@LiliCharlie: The reason "Volksdeutsche" has fallen out of use is because that is a Nazi term. The term Deutsche historically referred to people of German descent and then after the German Empire was founded there were terms such as Reichsdeutsche ("Germans of the Reich), but Germans such as the Austrians who were not German citizens were still considered to be and thought of themselves as Germans. Of course the definition of words can change over time so for example the vast majority of Austrians even though they are ethnic Germans do not consider themselves to be Germans and that separate national identity took quite a few decades to become fully established. But, whether a recent migrant considers himself/herself to be German does not change the fact that there is a very clear difference between a German citizen and Germans as an ethnic group. There are many cases of ethnic groups living in countries and never assimilating and still identifying as their ethnic group e.g. many Jews and Gypsies have lived in many European countries for a very long time and still consider themselves to be Jews and Gypsies. Self-identification goes a long way when it comes to the existence and definition of an ethnic group.--LeftiePete (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Anyone interested in the debate about whether an 'ethnic group' is fixed or arbitary should read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Even Max Weber recognised that ethnic groups were social constructs and who belonged to a specific 'community' was subjective. Nevertheless, people still do and will continue to believe in such arbitrary constructs and ideas. Even the most racist and die-hard Nazis could not define "German" in a racial sense.--LeftiePete (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: I did not propose that "(ethnic group)" should be added to the title of "Germans". It is not true that the consensus still asks the citizens of Germany to list their ethnicity and "German" is one of those ethnic groups, neither does the census. The article you refered to is correct, but your understanding of it is not. I think the German disambiguation page is pretty irrelevant here, especially its navigational elements like "Zur Navigation springen" (Click here for the navigation bar). --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This issue is overreacted. Of course it may refer primarily the ethnic group, but also as a nationality/citizens. Could not be otherwise, since just like that German ethnics and citizens may be summarized around the world.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC))
"German ethnics and citizens may be summarized around the world" is simply not true. In Chinese 德国人Déguórén can only refer to citizens (国 means country), and 德意志裔人Déyìzhìyìrén only to ethnics (裔 means descendent). There is no word 德人 or 德意志人 that covers them both, and Chinese isn't exactly a minor language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: Can you provide some sources that prove that the consensus in Germany does not ask people to list their ethnicity? If my understanding of that graph is not correct, how did the consensus manage to work out the people of an ethnic German background and people of different ethnic backgrounds? Hmmm... Again, why-on-earth should "(ethnic group)" be added as part of the title when Wikipedia has hundreds of different articles about the ethnic groups of different countries?--LeftiePete (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@KIENGIR: Exactly! Perhaps there could be one or two sentences mentioning that "Germans" can mean different things in the lede of the article, but anything else is just absurd.--LeftiePete (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Folks, don't continue the discussion here, in the next section's Wikiproject discussion I provided a more detailed answer, the thread should go on there, so please relocate and update there your reactions.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC))
Well done - it's inclusive, balanced and accurate. Pursuant to your edit I'm going to update the number of Germans in Germany in the infobox from 62 million to 82 million. --Tserton (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the idea of an ethnic group is already contained in the words "ethnic Germans", since a plural noun normally indicates a group. Your sentence has at least two problems: "Germans ... denote" is a very strange combination of subject and verb. Also, the ethnic definition is contained twice. If you need the group to be mentioned, we can discuss something like Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with Germany. The term may be used as a synonym for the citizens of Germany or may denote an ethnic group native to Central Europe, sharing a common ... --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Your short description was People of German ethnicity, ancestry and citizenship: Do I have to have all three qualities to be called a German ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
It is nominally an ethnic group, but also extended to German citizens and descendants, which your solution conceals. We may change the word denote, on the other hand people who are identified with Germany sound very strange, it's quite an unprecendented expression. I'll try to formulate it more then. No the shortdesc is in evident or relation.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC))
What does “look German” mean?
The article currently states, “Persons who speak German as their first language, “look German and whose families have lived in Germany for generations are considered "most German".” What does “look German” mean exactly? Even if we were to accept the problematic concept of race, specifically sub-races, then the Germans were/are, like any other ethnic group (again, another problematic term), considered a mixture of different sub-races such as the Nordic race, Alpine race, etc. There is no such thing as looking German, or any other ethnic group for that matter.--LeftiePete (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Full paragraph about the The Republic of German-Austria - is it needed?
The article in the sub-section 1918-1933 currently includes the full text of the provision of The Republic of German-Austria. Is it really needed to be included in the article? This article is about Germans and the section it’s included in is about the “Identity” of Germans. The attempt in 1918 for the rump state of Austria after World War I was not because of some sort of overwhelming pan-German feeling there - it was mainly down to economics and there was even one plebiscite which advocated the annexation to Switzerland. I don’t really think it’s worth keeping all that text when that section of the article is specifically about the identity of Germans during the early 20th century. And, it seems odd to have that much information about that failed attempt for a short-lived rump state to be annexed to the Weimar Republic and only a brief mention of the actual annexation of Austria in 1938 by the Nazis and even then there is still speculation amongst historians about how popular it really was amongst the Austrian population and for what reasons. I think the identity section should be about how by 1933 the general consensus was that “Germans” was a racial concept which had been accepted because eugenics and racist concepts had been a part of German society far greater than just within the far-right fringes.--LeftiePete (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I’ve removed material that was already covered in the history section of the article. There was no need for the history of Germany in the mid 1800s (the unification) and after World War I (the attempt made by the rump state of Austria to join Germany) twice.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
User:LeftiePete
Please note that User:leftiePete has been blocked as a sock of long-time puppet master User:English Patriot Man, [3] who is de facto banned from English Wikipedia per WP:3X. As a sock, they are not allowed to edit here, or to participate in discussions. Their contributions to discussions above may be ignored or struck-through, and their article edits reverted on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Per WP:EVASION, i have trimmed the section on German identity, which was largely written by the sock. It went far of topic with its details about Lothrop Stoddard, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other stuff of trivial relevance to the Germans. Some of the more relevant material could perhaps be reinserted if reliably sourced. Krakkos (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Content forking from Culture of Germany
The culture section of this article reads more like a section on the culture of Germany rather than the culture of Germans. Indeed, large parts of the culture section is entirely forked from the Culture of Germany article. There is also plenty of unsourced material and obvious original research in the section. We should update the section with content that is actually based on sources that discuss the culture of Germans. Krakkos (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: While you may have had good reasons to delete the old version, the new version is based on your notion that "Germans" primarily means "ethnic Germans". The smaller problem is that according to your list of writers and musicians, ethnic Germans seem to have died out about 1900. Worse still, the exclusion of Jews, Muslims and other non-Christian believers is well in line with the definitions of Germanness upheld by some far right groups (see my earlier comment citing NYT). Please remember WP:NPOV. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: The new version was carefully based on what is written in reliable tertiary sources on the culture of the Germans. I'm obviously aware that Germans practice a variety of religions, but the sources only discussed the prevalence of Christianity and irreligion among Germans. Moser mentions that more than 4% of the population of Germany practice Islam, but he does not discuss how many of them that are Germans. The list of German artists and scientists is also taken from Moser. Wikipedia content must be based on reliable and relevant sources, rather than our own personal knowledge and opinions. This blanking of the Culture section is not an improvement. Krakkos (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: Regarding "sources": Apart from the second sentence, which contains little meaningful content, I see only one source that you used. Regarding Muslims: It seems a bit strange to claim that you "carefully based" your text on the source if you ignore the Muslims mentioned there just because you don't know how many of them are Germans. Regarding Jews: You didn't explain why you didn't mention them. Regarding literature and science: You cannot justify the exclusion of all (sic !) German Nobel laureates from the list with a text written by an ethnologist who is not focused on those subjects and therefore not a prime source for them, cf. WP:RSCONTEXT. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The new lede
@Krakkos: Did you get a consensus before drastically changing the lede of the article? The lede reads in such an awkward way and quite a few people on this talk page (see above) are not too happy with the article at present. Also, the claim that “German” can mean “any of the Germanic peoples” is neither true nor what the sources state - the English people, the Swedish people, etc, have never been referred to as “Germans”.--LeftiePete (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the lede of the article to what reached a consensus (see above):
I don’t believe that anyone should be making any drastic edits to the lede of the article without reaching a consensus on this talk page. Especially when adding erroneous claims like “Germans” refers to “any of the Germanic peoples” which is just plain wrong and even historically was not the case. It’s true that historically some other German-speaking peoples e.g. considered themselves to be Germans, but the English people, the Swedish people, and other Germanic peoples were never referred to as “Germans”. There is a difference between “German” and “Germanic”.--LeftiePete (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There’s also no need for any of us to get our knickers in a twist over the validity of ethnicity because even though modern scholarship regards races and ethnic groups to be social constructs, an ethnic group still ‘exists’ in the sense of how a people in a specific society collectively view each other. The lede of the article that recently reached a general consensus (see above) includes the Germans being a Germanic ethnic group and that German citizens of different backgrounds are also considered to be Germans.
Also, for the last time, none of should be wasting our time reading too much into what some extreme German nationalists in the late 19th century and early 20th century thought constituted being a German meant; their views were irrelevant then and now. As I pointed out before, the most vile racists who ruled Germany between 1933-1945 and liked to preach a great deal about the alleged racial differences between “Germans” and “Jews” had to rely solely on the religious background of an individual to determine whether he/she was a “German” or a “Jew”! As soon as one advocates ethnic nationalism to determine whether someone belongs to an ethnic group or not then he/she starts to muddy the waters and it’s a slippery slope from there.--LeftiePete (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I have made one slight change to the lede and changed “immigration population of Germany” to “citizens of immigrant backgrounds”. My reason is that the former treated German citizens with immigrant backgrounds as a separate population to other German citizens and the latter reads like German citizens whether of a German background or an immigrant background are Germans and belong to the same population.--LeftiePete (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I consider the amount of pages that are suggested before the lead starts excessive. Is there a way to make that part shorter so it occupies one or two lines instead of three? By the way, as I did before, I have replaced "substantial majority of the ethnic Germans" by "vast majority of the ethnic Germans". SuperΨDro01:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
LeftiePete, "citizens of immigrant backgrounds" exclude people such as illegal immigrants or people from other countries who have not renounced to their native country's citizenship, which I think it's against the aim of several of the people debating the lead. I think "immigration population of Germany", perhaps we could add some note like "regardless of their ethnic background" as it was suggested earlier. SuperΨDro01:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: I basically agree with your interpretation of the consensus as Germans "being a Germanic ethnic group and that German citizens of different backgrounds are also considered to be Germans." But I would say that the consensus (such as it is) was to give the ethnic and non-ethnic usage at least equal weight in the lead - to me, this would involve the first sentence stating that the concept is complex, or that it is used in multiple overlapping ways. And again: I don't think anyone is trying to pretend ethnic groups don't "exist." --Tserton (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
These changes strike me as awkward attempts to mollify one side of the debate without actually addressing it head-on. I can't speak for others, but I do not think any of these changes do enough to give due weight to the German nationality and German ethnicity. I'm starting to think we should look at other venues of conflict resolution.--Tserton (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There is universal agreement among participants in this discussion that German ethnicity and German citizenship are distinct topics. However, the tertiary sources on Germans presented so far, particularly the most detailed, recent and reliable ones, clearly suggest that the primary topic for the term "Germans" is the ethnic group. With the possible exception of Waldman & Mason (2005), none of the tertiary sources cover "Germans" in the sense of citizenship. If the topic of this article is to be switched into being about German citizenship, it would be tantamount to an erasure of Wikipedia's coverage on German ethnicity. That would do more harm than good. This debate about the conflation of ethnicity and citizenship is not confined to the Germans, but is also relevant for other ethnic groups with nation states throughout the world, such as Hungarians, Romanians, Turkish people, Armenians, Albanians, Greeks and Vietnamese people. If this issue is to be taken to conflict resolution, it should be discussed in a broad sense involving our articles on all such ethnic groups, rather than just our article on Germans. Krakkos (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Krakkos, I agree with you, and I as well agree Super put back the regions with significant populations and also well eventually the geographic distribution section was restored. I wanted to say, did not want to intervene until the being under construction tag was active. I think the aforementioned is useful, informative and as well present in other akin pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC))
Krakkos, I don't understand how you can talk of a universal agreement among participants in this discussion that German ethnicity and German citizenship are distinct topics. The words "interrelated" or "overlapping" were used in this discussion. We also discussed the ideas of a "broad concept" and the like. I already pointed out that distinguishing between "passport Germans" and "bio-Germans" is confined to the far right end of the societal and political debate in Germany.
Mathglot (in his humorous comment introducing "astrobiogenesis") and I already pointed out that the sources you use to support your claim that Germans primarily are an ethnic group are irrelevant for that question. I hope you noted that Moser's statement Today, the German language is the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. cannot be reconciled with that claim of yours. Since Germany has received many immigrants over the past 60 years (and profited by them), you cannot compare the situation of Germans to Hungarians or any of the other peoples you mentioned. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Also among the nations and their states listed received/faced over the last millenium many settlers, immigrants, foreigners, especially Hungarians, similarly the regions comprise Romania or the territory of present Turkey were the subject of such, even affected by large border rearrangements and changes over time (with milestones greater significance and outcomes then the 60 years you refer). Despite ethnical interpretation were not shaded, on the contrary.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC))
@Rsk6400:, your campaign to cleanse Wikipedia of racism is very impressive. I fully understand the desirability of abolishing the concept of a German ethnic group. The current approach of this article is the opposite of the far-right agenda. The German far-right describes Germans as a race allegedly rooted in biology. This article describes Germans primarily as an ethnic group rooted mainly in language. However, the views of the far-right are quite irrelevant. It is the views expressed by experts in reliable sources that are relevant. Our task on Wikipedia is chiefly to build an encyclopedia. Abolishing German ethnicity may make Germany a more harmonious society, but erasing Wikipedia's coverage on the German ethnicity will certainly make Wikipedia less informative. The German ethnicity has, for better or for worse, played a significant role in European history. If Wikipedia is to cover European history appropriately, articles on Germans, Hungarians, Romanians and other ethnic groups of Europe are necessary. The fact that Germany has received more immigrants than Hungary during the last 60 years does not make German ethnicity less notable than Hungarian ethnicity. On Wikipedia, when a term has multiple meanings, our policies recommend that the article primarily covers the meaning which has the most notable coverage and the broadest meaning. An examination of encyclopedic entries on "Germans" clearly suggest that German ethnicity has greater encyclopedic notability for the term "Germans" than German citizenship has. In his article on the Germans, professor Johannes Moser estimates that there may be as many as 150 million people of German ethnicity today. The number of people with German citizenship today is less than half of that. German citizenship is therefore a narrower topic with less encyclopedic notability than the ethnic understanding of the term "Germans". In addition, German citizenship is already covered at German nationality law, while the people of Germany are covered at Demographics of Germany. Duplicating the scope of those article in this one, and thereby erase Wikipedia's coverage of German ethnicity, would not be an improvement. Krakkos (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Our task is to report on the factual world, not on an idealized one. If individuals obviously refer to ethnicity rather than citizenship by saying things like "I am ¼ German; my granny was from Hamburg" we simply cannot ignore them. What you call "the desirability of abolishing the concept of a German ethnic group" seems like an effort to abolish people's identity. Let's just present the facts and not suppress any of them. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: I don't think that my personal editing record or my motivations should be discussed here. But since you started that discussion, be comforted: I'm not conducting a "campaign" for anything and I don't edit according to the "desirability" of anything. You have already been told that nobody wants to remove the ethnic definition, let alone "abolish" German ethnicity or identity. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Map of the German Confederation
@KIENGIR: Since the human eye is attracted by colours, the viewer might understand that the coloured portions of the map show the extent of the German Confederation. That's why I added the second sentence. Prussia and Austria were the only member states having territory outside the Confederation. On the other hand, your expression "territories and crownlands" is confusing, since the normal meaning of "crown land" in English is different from the special meaning it had in the Austrian Empire. Also, your expression includes all territories outside the G.C., and the readers will ask themselves why it is worth noting that Tunisia was outside. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
No consensus for your additional wordage, since it is erroneus, and I uphold what I stated in the edit log. Even the original text was sufficient (however that has as well some inaccuracy, but even the whole map may be removed because it's a quite recent edit). No, Austrian territories outside the confederation were the lower part of Istria, the territories westwards and the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, etc. Btw., my expression is perfectly correct, since the word crownland is used widepread on the related articles as a standard (literal translation of the original German), there is not any confusion about this (my expression never referred Tunisia, it's evident by the red boundary and colors what did it mean.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC))
I didn't say that "crownlands" was wrong. It is just confusing for a reader who might not be well acquainted with Austrian history. My concern was to help a casual reader not wanting to spend a lot of time understanding the map when just looking for information on Germans. I guess with "erroneus" you mean that I didn't mention Hungary ? As far as I know, the official name of the state before 1867 was "Austrian Empire", so I think the expression is correct. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I did not want to mention Hungary, but you have to understand Archduchy of Austria, or the Austrian Empire is not so easily coterminous with anytime just like "Austria". Hungary's name was never "Austrian Empire", Hungary was a separate country not incorporated into the Austrian Empire, but was a crownland and shared a common monarch with it. Of couse, such complex details we should not to extracted in a short caption, I just wanted to be really accurate, as far as possible (and yes we may assume the average reader gets a red boundary and may associate two-three major entites by colors, and/or either we don't have to given mathematical definitons of inclusion). Krakkos anyway now solved the mistake I implicitly referred, unless we don't want to expand the caption, like this seems ok for now as a concise solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: I never claimed that Hungary was called "Austrian Empire", only that it was a part of the Austrian Empire. And that's what the caption still implies. Since you called my caption "erroneus", you should also call the current one erroneous. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Since you mentioned Hungary before the sentence, I could understood like that. Btw., let's say the current one is better since not simply Austria is written, resolve it would again end up the expansion of the caption (since the twofold interpretation exists, however given with the aforemention amendment, in case of no consensus of expansion I have to accept this for now).(KIENGIR (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
Pictures
@Tobby72: Since pictures should illustrate the most important points, and since Holocaust is certainly one of the most important events in the history of the Germans, I restored the picture of the Holocaust. I removed the "Völkerkarte 1937" for two reasons: First, language is not the focus of the history section. Second, it confuses peoples ("Völkerkarte" = map of peoples) and languages, which might be OK for many German thinkers, but is certainly not OK for most French thinkers.
I prefer the picture of the expulsion from Poland over that of Czechoslovakia just because of its quality.
I also removed the language map showing the situation after WWII, for the sole reason that a proper legend is missing. If you want to restore the map together with a better legend, I have no objections. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed it. Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser both identify language as a primary marker of the Germans. In 1940, around 90% of the inhabitants of Alsace appear to have been German-speaking. Haarmann writes that there are 1.2 million Germans in modern-day France, which i assume includes the German-speakers of Alsace. Although it is certainly a sensitive topic, i believe this article should have a map showing the geographic distribution of Germans in Europe before World War II. Krakkos (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Krakkos:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (see WP:SYNTH). But the second problem is even more serious: The question whether Alsatians were German or French has contributed to the tensions that led to two world wars. It cannot be answered based on two German sources that don't even focus on the problem, while totally ignoring French sources. This is a basic requirement of neutrality. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH applies to article content, not talk page comments by editors. The current version of the article does not make conclusions on Alsatians. What we have is a map with the legend: Map showing peoples of Central Europe in 1937.". World War I and World War II are highly significant events in German history, and the ethnic complexities of early 20th century Central Europe was indeed a primary catalyst for these wars. A visual illustration of these ethnic complexities is helpful, and i think the added map fills that role quite well. The map is of high quality and appears to be well sourced, and does not conflict with the source material of this article. Krakkos (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Since the map is part of the article, the current version of the article does say that Alsatians were Germans in 1937, it also says that they were not French.
You didn't answer to my objections regarding neutrality. Note that all the sources of the map are German sources.
The map itself is a striking example of WP:SYNTH. It is sourced to five German maps, the first one of them availble here. All of them are called Sprachkarte or Sprachenkarte (language map). The first one has a caption "Mundarten [language varieties] und Hochsprache [standard variety]". But our map magically transforms languages into peoples. So your (or the map's) WP:SYNTH consists in this conclusion: A Many reliable sources say that Alsatians spoke German in 1937. B According to you: Haarmann and Moser say that language is the key marker of Germanness. B According to the map: (none given). Therefore C: Alsatians were Germans in 1937. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I confess I am guilty as charged!
I understand that it was a mistake to equate languages and ethnicities. I was influenced by a map from 1926, which did this for German national reasons (in German today one would say "folkish sense").
I was wrong!
Your criticism is justified!
I started to fundamentally revise the file today. After that, I will have the map checked for errors in the German language Wikipedia via the language portal.
Since the creator said (at the German discussion linked above) that they will need more time, I deleted the map pending correction. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@KIENGIR: The map has two errors: One is the legend, the other one is the extent of German speakers in Poland (see the creator's statement in the discussion linked above). We have been knowingly providing our readers with wrong information for over a month now. Now the creator said that they will need more time; nobody knows what this will mean. You can be sure that I will be the first to restore the map as soon as it will have been corrected. Or, if you like, you may be first one. Please note that there was never any consensus for the map. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, if it has been present over a month, may treated as implicit consensus, however on this ground many other maps may be removed (which I would not find useful in some cases, but other cases yes). Here I would disagree. Well, unless no information will reach me about readiness, I have no other choice but oppose removal, because as I said, if a map is updated, will be autoupdated.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC))
I don't know more than you do about when the map will be ready. In the discussion linked above the creator said, they don't know, either. Providing wrong information for an unknown period of time ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I just said, 50%-50%. This case there is not such an ardent inaccuracy, however on this ground I could as well enforce removing long standing maps for years, including notable errors (not to misuderstand, I hate even the litltiest inaccuraccy and struggle against it, however if we are consequent, majority of WP maps could go to the litter....would it be useful? I doubt).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC))
KIENGIR sitebanned
For your information: User KIENGIR has been "blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges", see User_talk:KIENGIR#March_2021_2. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
.jpg)
Partly done: I've updated Westerwelle, but my understanding is that Wowereit will be in office until 11 December, so I haven't altered that. NiciVampireHeart 12:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done: according to the file details here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claudia_Schiffer_wax_figure.jpg, it's a picture of Schiffer's wax figure at the Grevin museum. Probably not the best picture seeing as its not really of her per se, but does seem to be her. Cannolis (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Done I assumed that you mean the geographic distribution section. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)