Talk:Germans/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

This article is basically anti German propaganda.

Every kind of people are mentioned as an ethnic group, but the Germans. What a bizzare form of political manipulation.

Some examples:

"Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a North Germanic ethnic group native to the Nordic region, primarily their nation state of Sweden"

"The French people (French: Français) are an ethnic group and nation primarily located in Western Europe that share a common French culture, history and language are identified with the country of France."

"Poles,[a] or Polish people, are a nation and an ethnic group of predominantly West Slavic descent, who share a common history, culture, the Polish language and"

Spaniards[a], or Spanish people, are a predominantly Romance-speaking ethnic group native to Spain.

"Italians (Italian: italiani Italian pronunciation: [itaˈljaːni]) are a Romance[36][37][38] ethnic group native to the Italian geographical region and its neighboring insular territories. Italian"

The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common history and culture.

The Russians (Russian: русские, romanized: russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Eastern Europe, who share a common Russian ancestry,

"The Dutch (Dutch: Nederlanders) are a Germanic ethnic group and nation native to the Netherlands.[28][29] They share a common ancestry and culture and speak the Dutch language."

...

Now the Germans:

"Germans (German: Deutsche, pronounced [ˈdɔɪ̯t͡ʃə] (listen)) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language"

Ahahaha... the natives or inhabitants. What a meaningless sentence. A chicken in a barn isn't a cow.

Germans ARE and always will be a west germnanic ethnic group who share a common ancestry, culture, history and language.

There is such a strong effort to falsify history and spread misinformation on this site when it comes to German history. It's so obvious it's laughable.

You (Whoever keeps on pushing their sick anti-german agenda on wikipedia) should be ashamed of yourself, in a way this is a form of anti-German racism. At the very least very offensive discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.246.224 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have a single reliable source calling Germans a "west germnanic ethnic group", please present it here. WP is based on reliable sources, see WP:RS. And please read WP:NPA and WP:TALK. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They speak a West Germanic language, German, there is your source. That is what the term Germanic means, moron. 79.66.113.154 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is pathetic, but you'll run into these issues all throughout English Wikipedia.

By the way, check out the Austrian article too, it just so happens that the only 2 ethnic groups they target with this are Germans and Austrians. Although they've been pushing and pushing this kind of thing on the English people article as well for a long time and trying to purge any mention of Germanic there.

The common ancestry part you might want to drop, or at least focus less on, as it's easily attackable (Germans, like literally ANY OTHER ethnic group in history, have absorbed and assimilated many non-German and non-Germanic peoples throughout time). The best example is the Norwegian article which just states they're a North Germanic ethnic group who share a common language and culture (which is what basically every ethnic group has historically been and is today barring some odd exceptions). This should really be the template for ethnic group articles on Wikipedia.

Germanic simply doesn't mean what people think it does, it was only ever originally an ethnolinguistic term referred to peoples who spoke Proto-Germanic or languages descended from it, it simply is not a racial term in the way people perceive it to be, and Proto-Germanic peoples were quite mixed to start with (roughly a threeway split of R1b, R1a and I among small minorities of other haplogroups) before expanding out from Scandinavia and northern Germany and mixing even more (albeit with very similar peoples of ultimate shared recent ancestry and close genetic relation to them).

Your point about chickens and cows in barns is utterly asinine, discredits you a lot and is frankly rather embarrassing. 79.66.113.154 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For starters you need to quit making personal attacks. People will just ignore your messages if you are going to continuously insult editors. 106.222.46.187 (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you consider me pointing out flaws in peoples' logic or beliefs to be personal attacks, it probably says a lot more about the person so offended they choose to ignore the entire rest of the comment than it does me.

Comparing a human from one ethnic group assimilating into another ethnic group to 'chickens in barns attempting to become horses' is incredibly bloody stupid.

It's beyond stupid. 79.66.113.154 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you but i think you are off on saying there is no common ancestry. Germans as an ethnic group have common ancestry and observable genetic closeness to one another. Actually quite a lot more than many other people labeled as being an ethnic group on this wiki. It's not just about language, ancestry can not be ignored. I do absolutely get your point about pretty much all ethnic groups being a mixed bunch of people ancestry wise and i agree with it. What interesting is that this is only ever pointed out when it comes to germanic groups (especially west germanic peoples). As a test i once pointed out that russians have all kind of finnic influence and so on and someone on wikipedia got so triggered, that they deleted my comment on the talk page. Later on i randomly found the same user on a talk page arguing against German ethnicity. There is a lot of strong propaganda at work here. 178.24.247.22 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, you are very right and it's very sad at the same time. This is a free encyclopaedia where scientific information based on reliable sources should be taken seriously not discarded or wrongly interpreted and then all of a sudden switching to personal attacks. And yes, there is no such thing as a pure people or race. Each and every ethnic group or people had previously assimilated other ethnic groups in the passing of time. This is clearly showcased by genetic studies, of course, as many are well aware by now. My disappointment with the article is that the Infobox is somewhat simplistic as it does not include enough information on other aspects of the German cultural identity, linguistic identity, or related peoples (not even a world map with distribution of ethnic Germans). I find the lack of these categories there quite peculiar because these categories are present on other pages of other ethnic groups/peoples. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Btw i'm not emberassed. :) 178.24.247.22 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

|}

Brexit

Brexit has affected the number of Germans living in the UK. More recent figures than 2014 are in the 2021 UK census, which put them around 135,000, around 66% lower! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.205.247 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the Infobox be expanded a bit, please?

Should the Infobox be expanded a bit with information on the language as well, please? Can that be deemed relevant as per a general consensus here? Nonetheless, as I have noticed so far, information on religion, the flag, and related peoples is not allowed. But what about the language, please? In my humble opinion (and I think other users or readers might think the same), the Infobox does not include enough content, just statistics regarding the total number of ethnic Germans in Germany or abroad. Any thoughts please? Thank you very much in advance! All the best!

P.S.: If the categories for flag, map depicting ethnic distribution worldwide, religion, and related peoples are not allowed, what about the language? I find not showing these categories quite peculiar because other Infoboxes of other peoples have them and they certainly depict a better encyclopaedic overview on them, in my humble opinion at least. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, perhaps another good idea for a better reading experience would be division of countries based on continent in order to maintain a better overall organisation of regions (with show/hide option, to be more precise; just a thought, according to my opinion and hopefully other like-minded people, be them Wiki users or readers), just as in the Infoboxes of other peoples. Any opinions please? If it's not useful please discard it otherwise. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, never mark a potentially controversial edit (like your addition of "Germanic people" to the first sentence) as "minor", see WP:MINOR. It's not the question of something being "allowed", but of whether something in the infobox is a good and relevant summary of the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, since when is 'Germanic people' controversial when referring to the Germans? It is in the very name of the Germans that it is crystal clear that they are a Germanic people (just like the Dutch and the English, both West Germanic to be more precise, by virtue of the language they speak, as categorised in comparative linguistics). That being said, where is the controversy, for real? It is just like saying that the Italians shouldn't be referred to as a Romance people and, on top of that, this is also allegedly controversial according to some (which isn't, in reality). As for the rest you pointed, if we take the statistics aside from the Infobox, the readers are left with little to nothing. That was specifically my point. I am just trying to improve the Infobox and thereby add more valuable information... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Linguistic classification is about languages, not about "classifying" nationalites/ethnicities. That's crystal clear. When talking about "Germanic peoples", it refers to something quite different, viz. the equivalent of German Germanen or French Germains (or the outdated term "Ancient Germans"). See what shows up when you click on Germanic peoples. It's like saying "Germans are Ancient Germans". –Austronesier (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Part of what you wrote is accurate and I truly agree with. Secondly, with all due respect, when you click on Germanic peoples and read the entire article (including the introduction) it's not necessarily as you point out. Germanic peoples existed in the antiquity and they still do, of course. They are still part of the Germanic family of peoples in Europe, that was my point (analogous to how Irish are part of the Celtic family of peoples, for example, along with the Scottish). And Germans are also ancient Germans, by descent, heritage, and history (it's part of their history). By that reasoning, if someone would write 'Irish are a Celtic people' that does not solely or necessarily mean 'Irish are an ancient Celtic people'. At the same time, some Germans even speak older (not necessarily ancient) dialects of German (e.g. Transylvanian Saxons). Anyway, as you wish. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The terms Germanic and Celtic have different histories in modern English, and are painfully difficult to handle on Wikipedia. Both terms were rediscovered in modern times and then attached to various types of political movements etc. From an encyclopedic point of view the clearest meaning is linguistic and this meaning can easily be clarified by saying Germanic-speaking or Celtic-speaking. The others ones require discussion and careful balancing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I see, you have a very good point indeed, thank you very much for sharing it and indeed, you are very correct. We'll just leave it the way it is there. At this point, I think it's also superfluous to include other modifications in the Infobox. It will also be left as it is. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Señor Keesh: For the question whether Germans can be defined as an "West Germanic ethnic group" you can find some comments here. Please take part in the discussion instead of edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sorry: Can I at least put the languages and their religion? that’s all that I will put. Señor Keesh (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to the language. It seems you found a good solution there. But before adding the religion, I'd suggest you read the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Map of Germans

@Rosenborg BK Fan: The map you recently added shows Switzerland as inhabited by "Germans". Swiss people normally don't identify as Germans or "ethnic Germans". So we can't call them "Germans" in the voice of Wikipedia. Similar things could be said about the "Germans" in the U.S. (many of whom fought against Germany in WW I) or those in Palestine (probably those Jews who emigrated before Hitler came to power). So the authors of the map seem to have a very specific idea of who to call a "German". I fail to understand why you want to translate "Deutsche" with "ethnic Germans". BTW: My own edition of Diercke's atlas (some 50 years later) has a similar map of the peoples of Europe which labels the people of Switzerland correctly as "Schweizer", but the Austrians are still (incorrectly, as I think) labelled as "Deutsche". Questions of ethnicity are complicated, and all of us should be aware that there might be controversies we didn't think of in the first place. That's why I'd really like to ask you not to mark potentially controversial edits as "minor". Rsk6400 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is beyond any point of normal discussion, sincerely, with all due respect. The small black dots representing Germans (sic!) not between quotation marks as you put them, living in Switzerland at that time do not represent all the German-speaking Swiss but rather part of the German diaspora which emigrated there (please note that the German-speaking Switzerland would be depicted there to a larger extent, hence why there are only a couple of small dots). The same can be said about other German-speaking groups in Central-Eastern Europe on that map (some with roots since the Middle Ages in some places there, e.g. Transylvania), of which I know for certain they are not "Germans" but Germans (and many more other things).

At the same time, the exact source must be placed in the caption (which I did and you erased it, I really don't know why). Furthermore, if you don't understand what 'Deutsche' or 'Deutschen' means, then you certainly do not even have basic understanding of the German language. Next thing you'll do is probably make similar edits in the language section claiming they speak "German" and not German. But at least put a period there, in the caption, signifying the end of a sentence... (not using quotation marks for it as well, please, if it's not too controversial). Also, as a historical side note, the German diaspora has been very large historically and, among others, objectively and historically speaking, even the Austrians perceived themselves, up to a certain point in time that is, as being part of the larger German nation. After a certain point, they no longer did so, long story short. I can go in detail about it here, including in German, but if you do not understand even what 'Deutsche' means, then there's really no point in discussing anything with you, for certain. For some odd way of reason, the term 'Deutsche' is very controversial to you indeed...

P.S.: At least correctly translate the caption there entirely and put into quotation marks properly, if it's not controversial. Also note (as above on this talk page) that many people are truly offended by these sort of 'potential controversial' things according to your subjective and arbitrary way. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosenborg the details can be discussed but it is clearly not a "minor edit". That is not the way we are supposed to use that tag. So please at least accept that. Coming to the details remember that this article as it is written is intended to be about the situation today, as understood in the best published sources. Here we are discussing one old map, not a top quality modern secondary source. Let's keep that in perspective. I also think you should admit that saying something like even the Austrians perceived themselves, up to a certain point in time that is, as being part of the larger German nation is a bit fuzzy and dependent upon which period we are talking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A long time ago in a nutshell, without going too much into details. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenborg BK Fan: I'm a native speaker of German, and I'm teaching history at a German gymnasium. I suggest you read MOS:CAPTION and WP:CIVIL and then reconsider your comment. Switzerland is found to the west of Austria, meaning on the left side of the small dots you mentioned. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course I know where Switzerland (Schweiz) is, it's definitely to the west of Austria. And I know that west is left in that context. Anyway, I know German very well as well and German history (including, most notably, the history of several German communities outside Germany in Central-Eastern Europe), just saying...

P.S.: According to recent censuses in Austria, some Austrians still identify themselves as Germans, just saying... And yes, this can be a bit of a controversial topic, but Austrians also have many cultural affinities with the southern German-speaking space and these are very facts. Ethnicity is another topic altogether, that I do agree on. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that none of us who edit this article are "anti German". I think it is the complexity of the topic which can make things difficult to discuss.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, of course, you have a very right point and well balanced point of view. For the record, I am of German heritage myself. I even did a genetic test, recently. I had Germans in my family in the past as well (and still do). The thing is we need to comply with some technical requirements here as per the rules of Wikipedia and I wholeheartedly agree with these things. However, some things are not as controversial to me for example, all the more that I happen to know a lot of German history myself and have contributed much here on Wikipedia with respect to the history of the German groups in Central and Eastern Europe (see for example Germans of Romania, Transylvanian Saxons, Bukovina Germans, Zipser Germans, etc.). I even created and I am still creating brand new articles regarding German culture, history, and linguistics for example Transylvanian Landler dialect, Transylvanian Saxon University, etc. Therefore I really know what I am writing about (all the more in good English, of course). Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The reading of German as a nationality vs. ethnicity is a continuum that very much depends of context, as your examples also illustrate. In the historical diaspora (i.e. in Central and Eastern Europe), German minorities like the Transylvanian Saxons are clearly part of the (vanishing) ethnic patchwork in these areas, and there is little reason not speak of these minorities in ethnic terms. In the German-speaking core area, things are however quite different. You mentioned the interaction between Germans and Austrians: in this context, "German" is almost always used as a term denoting nationality, in spite of close cultural cross-border commonalities. Also in the modern global diaspora, "Germans" relates to people originating from Germany as a country, and not necessarily to their ethnicity. In the usage of contemporary Germany, "German" predominantly is employed as a demonym for the country (as is reflected in the lead), although the ethnic meaning of "German" increasingly gains traction in intra-communal discourse as a tool of some kind of reverse othering: immigrants and their descendants refer to "non-immigrant" Germans as "Deutsche" even when the former are German citizens and often will chose to refer to themselves as Germans in other contexts. –Austronesier (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, indeed, you have very strong points and I agree with you. In these regards, the usage of the term can be quite problematic. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I re-worded the caption once again. According to MOS:CAPTION, it should be "succinct". Also, I'm quite sure that we should make it clear that the idea of Germanness the authors of the map have is different from ours. That's why I added the phrase about Switzerland. However, I'm not sure whether this is already over the line to WP:OR. If it is, we might have to remove the map. Rosenborg BK Fan, if you want to reply, I'd really ask you to be concise and civil. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, there is no problem regarding civility or conciseness on my behalf (also about adding reliable sources in captions and otherwise), there seems, however, to be a problem regarding constantly removing content on behalf of someone else, but that doesn't bother me anymore (it can others though). And yes, you are right, the idea of German identity (or 'Germanness' as you pointed out) the author of the map has is definitely distinct from the present-day general understanding of it. I really don't know though why you have deleted the German diaspora from the caption, but I am certainly not going to revert that. I would just conclude that if I were to be a German history student where you teach, I'd probably be very confused, to say the least. Nonetheless, in the future I would really like to see positive improvements on your behalf in the article overall, all the more that you can claim to be a history teacher and a native German speaker (therefore you have the legitimacy to improve this page). That would be great, for certain! All the best!

P.S.: If you know German history (including ancient German or Germanic history as well), on the ancient history map, doesn't the areas populated by Saxons, Thuringians, Angles, Jutes, Frisians, Alamanni, or Burgundians make you think they are Germanic indeed? Why having doubts regarding them for this particular label or origin, that I can clearly not understand... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how we can preserve the map without a good caption. That's why I restored status quo, i.e. I removed the map. The problem of your latest addition is (besides being less succinct) the inclusion of Austria and the word "anymore". At the time the map was created, most Austrians identified as "Germans", but Swiss people normally did not. That's why I think that mentioning Switzerland is important, mentioning Austria is confusing. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As you wish, it's beyond the point for me adding the map anymore... All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ancient map

With all due respect, on the ancient map, not only Franks and Vandals had a kingdom back then, and that is clearly written there. There is also the Kingdom of the Gepids, the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths, and the Kingdom of the Visigoths (just to name a few). Can this be well understood when it is written there or not? Nothing more simpler...

P.S.: Also Rugiland or the Kingdom of the Rugii in present-day Austria... One wonders... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Among the kingdoms and major gentes depicted on the map, only 4(!) fully or partially contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Germans: the Franks (including subtribes), Alemanni, Saxons and Frisians. While the map is a good illustration of the impact of the Migration Period on the Roman Empire which is summarized in the sentence "During the 4th and 5th centuries, in what is known as the Migration Period, Germanic peoples seized control of the decaying Roman Empire and established new kingdoms within it", it is only marginally relevant to German history. The idea of German "ownership" of wider Germanic history (especially the Migration Period kingdoms) is deeply rooted in 19th-century ideology and is very obsolete, to put it mildly. I suggest to replace the map, instead of bickering about its caption. Maybe someone knows a better map that focuses on actual German (pre-)history. –Austronesier (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the first concern about the map is its lack of relevance to the article, but if we want to consider the accuracy of the map itself it raises a lot more issues, and that makes it difficult to use in this article. We know very little about what was happening in 476 (the year Odoacer became king) in many of these areas, but the idea of Europe being divided into neat states with clear borders in this period is certainly misleading. Actually there is even controversy about what the terms like Frisian, Saxon, or Allemanni would have meant in this period. Frisia seems to have emptied out and been resettled later, and the continuity of the term with Roman times is likely to be misleading. "Saxon" may have not have been an ethnic term at all at first, and is a term more associated with groups recorded acting in England and France. We know basically nothing about the Thuringians in this period. (Gregory of Tours seems to have thought they lived west of the Rhine. Vegetius mentions their horses. They had a king in the following generation who was important enough to correspond with Clovis and Theoderic. That's about it.) In summary these borders and ethnic names are largely speculative and based on popular/older history writing which tried to connect earlier and later history. We have one mention of the supposed Roman kingdom of Syagrius but there is little consensus about it. (Another record implies Childeric was seen as rightful ruler of the Romans in that region.) You can find many such maps but they are all different. I think maps from earlier and later periods are easier to use for a history of Germans, and less controversial. This one is focussed upon a period which is critical for Italian, French and Balkan history. We know a little about individuals like Childeric and Odoacer, but it is a period where we know almost nothing about geographical divisions in Germany. In terms of the origins of German identity it is difficult to use this map. The medieval "Stem duchies" were Frankish creations, and Germany's beginning is as a Frankish kingdom. In this article we might carefully want to address the question of what was before these stem duchies, but I think this mainly makes sense to address from a Frankish and Roman perspective. The region between Rhine and Elbe had been a sort of recruiting area, and heavily influenced and even controlled by the Western Romans and their increasingly Germanic military. The Frankish power structures were essentially built upon Roman ones, and logically needed to focus upon stabilizing the eastern neighbours which had always been connected to them. It is also possibly relevant to mention the obvious impact of Atilla's period as a source of disruption, although the details of the effects in Germany are basically unknown. Whatever we do on this topic, I think it needs to be short and focussed upon things really relevant to later German identity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I liked the map because we had similar maps in school when I was a boy, but, Austronesier and Andrew Lancaster, you are absolutely right. I just removed it. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Constantly removing/reverting edits

I truly wish that in the future this article will not have to deal with constant reverts of good faith and accurate edits by a specific user who:

a) has bad will; b) doesn't even know what 'Deutsche' means; c) doesn't seem to know what is and what is not relevant in a historical context (e.g. there are definitely not only two Germanic kingdoms on that respective ancient map); d) expresses no reason or logic in his reverts (e.g. the precise reason for which something is not relevant, not just mere subjectivism); e) pinpoints towards unrelated discussions as a means of reason for otherwise unjustified reverts; f) has been previously told several things by unsigned users (sadly which happen to be not far off from his overall editing behaviour).

Until then, this article cannot be improved in my humble opinion (and it can be) by users like me. 'Good luck' in the future with constantly reverting and trimming others' edits. I truly hope you are proud and satisfied! :) Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenborg BK Fan: I'll reply to your points c) and e) - you might want to strike the other ones: c) seems to refer to this edit of mine. Of the five peoples you mentioned in your version of the caption, three had no kingdoms: Saxons, Thuringians and Alamanni. Since I corrected your version of the caption, I was referring to that, not to all the groups shown in the map. e) Seems to refer to this edit of mine. The discussion I mentioned there (Talk:Germans/Archive_8#Flag_of_Germany) is not "unrelated". It mentions the problems of figures that the map is based on, see File:Map of the German Diaspora in the World.svg, and explains that I removed the map because of exactly those problems. Maybe next time you read more than just the headline of a discussion or use CTRL+F to search for the word "map". Rsk6400 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenborg BK Fan: Enough ! You constantly use misleading or wrong edit summaries (e.g. when you add a map, you should not write "Updated section"[1]), you call edits "minor" that are not minor (WP:MINOR says A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.) and require review, correction, or - often - reverts. You also keep ignoring MOS:CAPTION which clearly says there is no period at the end of captions if the caption doesn't contain a complete sentence. This is disruptive. Period. I reverted your edit to the text on Ostsiedlung because the settlement on invitation is mentioned in the same paragraph, some lines below, where it belongs. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I will only reply with what you mentioned 'A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute' (i.e. this is mostly a matter of perception on behalf of the editor). Secondly, on some of my edits being disruptive here, I will not delve more into the subject, but rather find your statement quite amusing, stemming on behalf of someone constantly erases content (that, of course, is not disruptive). Do you really think that what I wrote did not contain a sentence which, naturally, did not a require a period there? You seriously behave in a very authoritarian manner... But, at least, you were able to see my point in adding the map. Perhaps I did not have enough time at that time to write the full details of my edit, but, so long as it adds value to the respective section, that is okay, at least for me, and no, it doesn't break any rules nor is it a form of vandalism (or constantly deleting content, which you are an expert on). I hope you can understand that. If not, that is absolutely okay with me as well.

P.S.: The same can be said about your reverts' summaries. Aren't they misleading if you keep the content of a previously edit with a supposedly misleading summary (deemed by you, of course). One wonders... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

When you removed the map, for some odd way of reason, that also left a bit too much empty space between sub-sections. You weren't necessarily supposed to erase the map completely... Do you think it is OK and not disruptive in terms of reading to leave a bit too much empty space between two sub-sections? Perhaps that is not disruptive then... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible erratum: or, whoever erased the map, I am not certain now. But, in my humble opinion, if you'll keep at it this way, you'll end up deleting more and more visual content from the article. Keep up the good work in this regard. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There is possibly a misunderstanding here, because Rosenberg did indeed make a real minor edit today. I understand Rsk6400's concern based upon previous "minor" edits which were not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Good day,

First of all, it's Rosenborg BK Fan (definitely not Rosenberg under any possible regard), secondly you are right for today. Thirdly, some of my other edits were also minor edits in the past in this article as well. Have a great day! All the best!

Sincerely,

Rosenborg BK Fan (and not Rosenberg, as you wrote) Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, when I complained about "minor" edits, I was thinking about that one[2] of yesterday (11 March), which I reverted today (12 March).

Rosenborg BK Fan, I didn't call your edits "disruptive", but your repeated use of meaningless standard edit summaries and your refusal to listen to me (and other editors) regarding "minor edits". Since I had already told you on this talk page about MOS:CAPTION, and you disregarded it for at least the third time, I also mentioned that. We all make errors (you mentioned my error with the empty space, thanks for correcting it), but we should be able to learn. We are here to build a great encyclopedia, not to heap up a lot of information, so deleting content is not disruptive per se. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you with you in terms of being here to build a great encyclopaedia and that is specifically my intention (with as much neutrality as objectivism as possible, believe me, I truly strive for that). As for your claim regarding allegedly ignoring your advices on caption, are you able to identify verbs in this phrase: 'Map depicting the short-lived Roman province of Germania Antiqua, situated between the rivers Rhine and Elbe, a region which the early Roman Empire attempted to conquer and/or control'. If so, and if there are 3, do you agree that it is a phrase and it needs a period at the end? That phrase was added by me and yes, I am well literate to understand the fact that a phrase requires a period at the end, be it as a caption or otherwise. That is specifically my point. And, if you do not find deleting content disruptive per se, you'll end deleting more and more until nothing is left... I was referring to content that truly is linked and meaningful and relevant to the next to it. If that content is constantly deleted, then that is a problem... At least, in my humble opinion.

P.S.: Thank you for writing my username correctly, that is a relief at least. :) Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosenborg BK Fan you are posting a lot about how your edits are getting reverted or adjusted. I think this gives a misleading impression about your fellow editors when looked at in context. A lot of your edits have involved the adding of parenthetical remarks, often literally in brackets, and generally outside of the main topic of the article. I think it is normal that if this is your main type of edit, then not all will be accepted by other editors. You are testing the boundaries of the article. OTOH no one is denying that a full stop was needed, and the remark of Rsk6400 is not about a full stop, so please do not imply that. I also think that other editors have tried to adapt some of your proposals into your article. So to me everything seems to working "as usual" on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As you say. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosenborg BK Fan, I hope that apart from noticing that I wrote your name correctly, you also noted that I said that I didn't call your edits disruptive. It seems that we are in disagreement about the definition of "Germans". Some 50 years ago, the view of Germans as a (West) Germanic people as in your edit of nearly a month ago[3] was still widely accepted. But as I firmly believe, this understanding has changed a lot and current sources don't support such an idea of Germanness any more. This is indeed the reason for many of my reverts / adaptions (especially in our dispute over the caption of the map of "Germans on the Earth"). While I believe that you truly strife for neutrality, I'd like to ask you to believe the same about my intentions. With regard to the MOS: According to my ODE, a sentence is "a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses." The caption you cited is no complete sentence. The only finite verb is "attempted" and that belongs to the subordinate (relative) clause. A complete sentence would read "This is a map depicting ..." (Subject is "This") or "A map depicting ... can be seen above." (Subject is "A map") But of course, this is a minor problem, and I see now that you didn't disregard the MOS intentionally. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply! I did not have a dispute with you per se, but rather did not understand initially quite well your intentions. Subsequently, I did. That respective map can be potentially controversial (since it was made a long time ago). However, for me, it wasn't, in a historical context, that is. Thank you very much for understanding that I did not disregard the MOS intentionally. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

Low Saxon is an officially recognized language and no dislect of German. Additionaly High German includes Upper and Central German. So the part "languagee" should be changed. Westfäölsk Meyewiärker (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Westfäölsk Meyewiärker: I've made a first attempt at tweaking it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Now it is much more better. Westfäölsk Meyewiärker (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

List of countries in the infobox

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored ...). The article only has a short section on the German diaspora,Germans#Geographic_distribution. Another problem of the infobox is its tendency to aggregate figures from various sources, which seems a bit like WP:SYNTH, and the distinction between German citizens and ethnic Germans. I think we should remove the infobox. Any thoughts ? Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I share these types of concerns, but I tend to see the current infobox as something which represents information which many readers will inevitably want. So if this is not the right way of presenting it, then someone needs to come up with a new way, such as a larger section discussion with a more explanatory table. So with that in mind I suppose the situation right now is like a temporary fix?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Miss the 20.000 or more German Namibians

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

Add the German diaspora map to the infobox.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:German_diaspora_around_the_world.png 107.197.218.252 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It was removed after a discussion, see Talk:Germans/Archive_8#Flag_of_Germany, at the end of the discussion.

Ethnic Germans after WWI

@Hildeoc: You have been reverted by two different editors, please stop your edit warring. There are many situations in which somebody may be called an "ethnic German", not only because there place of residence was ceded to another country in Versailles. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400, Andrew Lancaster: As I tried to show by invoking several sources, "person of German extraction and inherited non-German nationality" is the main connotation of the term in question. As this redirects here, how would you include it then? At any rate, it has to be somehow included as per WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

PS: Confer also, e.g.,

• here: "The Federal Expellees Act defines ethnic German resettlers as ethnic Germans who left the republics of the former Soviet Union after 31 December 1992 in the framework of an admission procedure and established their permanent residence in Germany within six months in line with applicable law." or
• here: "Although immigrants, principally ethnic Germans, continued to drift in from the east, their numbers were overshadowed by a mass desertion of some two million people from East Germany."

Hildeoc (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hildeoc I am not sure, but perhaps you misunderstood the concern, which is more about the wording. The term "ethnic German" can imply different things in different contexts, but even though it is often used in the context of people who are not German citizens, it would also generally be understood to include all or most German citizens. At first sight I think your latest more careful edit has taken more account of the need for clarity. In general though, for cases where there is a wording concern, it can be quicker to post an explanation on the talk page, because it is sometimes difficult to communicate using edsums. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing this helpful insight! Best, Hildeoc (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

PS: Indeed, I now tried to state the context more precisely appearing most notable to me in this particular respect; though I certainly would not at all mind if someone came up with a broader definition either in the lead or a corresponding (separate) paragraph. Hildeoc (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I removed the bold face from "ethnic Germans". Although the term redirects here, the Germans outside Germany are not the only "ethnic Germans". Rsk6400 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: The addition of "ethnic Germans" is tautological. Since the section is not about ethnic Germans, it is also confusing for readers who might have come here following the redirect from ethnic Germans. BTW: There is something like WP:ONUS and WP:EW. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: But WP:R#PLA is clear, so why have a redirect whose lemma is not even included? That is really confusing for readers, isn't it? It just doesn't make sense that way. Hildeoc (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends what others think, and also what sources say, but I can imagine this search term fitting in the first sentence. We are already noting that the term is sometimes used to refer to people of German descent. (Actually we are also saying that it is used to refer to German speakers which seems wrong to me, at least in modern contexts.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hildeoc, I suppose that people searching for "ethnic Germans" want to learn something about German culture, language, or similar. These questions are answered by the whole article, so IMHO to have the term in bold in one section would be confusing.

Andrew Lancaster, how would you suggest to include the term in the first sentence ? One of the problems I have with the term is that I don't know what it means. I am German, living Germany and I never hear or read the possible German equivalents applied to people like me - "Volksdeutsche" is used in historical context for the German diaspora, while "ethnische Deutsche" or "Ethno-Deutsche" is simply not in use. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

True. Does that not imply that there should be a separate article for that concept? Perhaps a can of worms! But I guess this type of question will come up again. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Germanness is a broad concept. Some time ago I spent some time looking for sources on that concept, but I didn't find enough for a serious overhaul of the "Identity" section, where maybe the relationship between Germanness and ethnicity could be treated more extensively. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, but what do we do for people seeking an article about the concept of "ethnic Germans". The obvious two choices are that we mention something about it here, including something in the lead, or else we consider it a sperate concept to being German (for example when the term is used to refer to people emigrant communities) and then maybe it needs another article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The only solution I can imagine is changing the current redirect ethnic Germans into a disambiguation page. Something like "The term e.G. may refer to

• historical minorities in Europe, see Volksdeutsche
• the German diaspora
• a historical concept of Germanness, now considered outdated or racist, see Germans#Identity."

I see a big practical problem: E.G. is linked by some 100 articles, we'd have to check all of them. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In principle WP is never finished and everything which moves towards a better WP is ok, but I agree it might be a big call. I am wondering whether any of the more specialized sub communities such as those who work on dab issues might be better at this type of decision.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a crazy idea but what about having articles specifically about ethnic Germans during the specific periods when this term was important such as after WW1 and after the cold war? Ethnic Gemans could be a dab, instead of coming here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Diaspora and ancestry population estimate

BauhausFan89, in this edit you added a diaspora and ancestry population estimate of 68 million, sourced to this, which contains no such figure (or indeed any figures). Judging by the URL, it is also a wiki, which means it's not a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned about the state of the international numbers in the infobox. It is obviously not a good thing to have a table where nearly ever number is put in doubt by a scond number which is completely different! I can not think of any good faith reason for doing this. These are "apples and pears" numbers and there is no quick and easy way for readers to assess the different ways they are being estimated. If there is not simple way yo clean this up I would prefer removing these numbers. At the moment the information looks deliberately misleading. Lists of estimated numbers of citizens is probably something we can achieve but hand waving about people who have some other sort of German identity seems undoable in such a table.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

World Map of German descent

In all other major national ethnic gropus there is a world map. can I insert one here? BauhausFan89 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The map was removed after discussion on the talk page. I'm afraid I don't remember where the discussion has been archived. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest removing the Geographic distribution section and the world map. The information is sourced and interpreted in an eccentric and misleading manner. By using a coloring scheme based on absolute numbers the largest counstries in the world automatically have a tendency to shower dark colours. We also need a clear and agreed methodology about what definition of German is being used. That method, and the sources would need to be clear. These are very straightforward and fundamental problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@BauhausFan89: Feel free to search the archives for the discussion I mentioned above or to add to this discussion using arguments based on RS and WP policies, but please remember that WP is a collaborative effort, meaning you should not add the map by way of edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@BauhausFan89: I saw that you restored the section „Geographic distribution“ which I removed following the suggestion by Andrew Lancaster above. I think you should explain why. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

it was there before the recent edits of me and others. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

and geographic information seems to be a basic part of any article about a group of people with global spread. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but how the map is designed and the definitions being used need to be made clear, as explained above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How to handle total population in text

The final sentence of the first paragraph currently states:

Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, most of whom live in Germany.

The ref quote states:

The Germans live in Central Europe, mostly in Germany... Estimates of the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 million to 150 million, depending on how German is defined, but it is probably more appropriate to accept the lower figure.

Here's the thing: the population of Germany is given in the side bar as 72,569,978, meaning that the upper estimate of 150 million would imply that slightly less than half of Germans live in Germany. The source states that the lower estimate of 100 million is "probably" more accurate, which weighs in favor of the most of whom live Germany clause, but it's still quite confusing. Is anyone aware of additional sources that might help us arrive at a more definitive figure and therefore less contradictory language? Generalrelative (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the longer term problems of this article, including those messy numbers, comes down to one thing. We've got an article here which is about Germans in the most common 21st century sense, which corresponds reasonably closely to citizens of Germany. That concept is pretty clear, and if we could stick to that we would solve many problems. However, around the world there are various types of people, who for various types of reasons, want to extend the term to people who speak German, or even people whose ancestors spoke German, and so on. This is very difficult to handle, because while an American or Brazilian might be happy to think of themselves as Germans for such reasons, they clearly won't be seen as German for most Germans (or other people), and what's more this type of definition would even be offensive in some parts of Europe. Most importantly, if we get flexible about this then this article's subject is no longer clear. I believe we already have enough articles to track where the German language is spoken. The concept of "ethnic Germans" outside Germany probably needs its own article. It would not be easy to write it though. In the meantime I think this article has to try to limit its coverage anyway. I suggest we remove all the extra numbers and stick to citizens.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

your view is fair, but other nationality pages like Italians also count non citizens. I would say lets agree on "100 to up to 150 million". what do you say? BauhausFan89 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the Italians article needs to be changed too, or perhaps there is a special situation with Italians which I am not aware of. I think in general Wikipedia has had problems in the past with this type of article, and there is still a lot of cleaning up to be done. In any case, my main concern is to make sure any numbers which are not based on a clear definition like citizenship need to be properly labelled and easy-to-understand. The current situation also appears to be designed to confuse and create deliberately overblown numbers. I think any such numbers should be pulled out of the infobox for a start, and if they are to be kept at all it needs to be in distinct sections or articles where there can be proper explanation. For example, do they include people who simply speak German, people who identify in a secondary way as Germans (German-Americans etc.), people who have German ancestry? I suspect our numbers come from a dog's breakfast of all of these. Anything which is not properly explained or sourced should be removed. The infobox should be kept very simple, and should IMHO only show the citizen numbers. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@BauhausFan89: in your recent edits you are insisting on treating all or most Austrians and Swiss as Germans. You have no consensus for that. The text is also not making it possible for our readers to understand the basis of the numbers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Lancaster. Articles about nationalities like Germans, Italians or Japanese should include only people who hold nationalities of those countries, not "descendants", many of whom have zero conection with their great-grandparents' land. In many cases, the number of "descendants" is made up and come from nowhere. I'm from Brazil and I'm aware that people here made up the number of descendants of certain ethnic groups (they usually inflate the numbers) but these sources are unable to provide how they got to those numbers. In the case of the U.S, Canada or Australia, the number of descendants come from self-classification, which may be also incorrect, because people may lie or do not know their real origin (for exemple, people who are adopted and do not know that). Of course that the number of "descendants" may be exposed along the article, but I think that the main table must include only the numbers of people with German citizenship. Xuxo (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

These arguments make sense, but I wonder: are there any scholarly sources that discuss the question explicitly, e.g. critiquing the methodology whereby "descendant" numbers are calculated? I'm wary of deciding for ourselves how to define "German" in the absence of a survey of reliable sources –– and unfortunately I don't have time to conduct this myself right now. Generalrelative (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking whether there are publications which have discussed the methodology of Wikipedia editors editing this one Wikipedia article? It is here on Wikipedia that the cocktail is being mixed. Our job here, which we are failing to do, is to report information from good sources in a way our readers can understand clearly. This does not mean all the sources are wrong (nor the opposite). In the meantime, this article is primarily about Germans as citizens, now in the 21st century, and that is at least one number which is easy to identify. The other types of numbers need discussion for various different reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No that is not what I'm asking. Generalrelative (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you just saying that we should be careful to use reliable sources and follow policy? If so then yes, fine. The article has evolved on that basis and you could perhaps also look at the talk page archives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Culture - Carnival

I think it is misleading to suggest that carnival is particularly important in Southern Germany, as one branch of the tradition is located in the Rhineland. Carnival in the Rhineland is distinct from the traditions in Southern Germany, and most people would propably agree, that the biggest carnival cities Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Bonn are in Middle/Central Germany rather than Southern Germany. Those cities also aren't even listed on the Southern Germany page. I would suggest either not singeling out a region in particular, stating it's insignificance in Nothern Germany or adding the Rhineland as a region, where carnival is a particularly important tradition as well. 134.100.137.10 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't search for sources, because I think this is not likely to be challenged. Every German knows that. Only: The third centre of German Karneval is Mainz, not Bonn. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Genetics section

AngelusVastator3456 in general there is a fair bit of caution about the tendency to add genetics sections. Probably they are to some extent unavoidable, if there are relevant studies. However, looking at the one you have added here, I note that the sources being cited concern German speakers and Germanic speakers, and therefore not "Germans". To be honest I am not sure anyone has done a good study of German genetic diversity, either internally or in contrast to neighbouring countries such as Denmark, France etc? That would be the kind of source we would need though? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:PSTS, the article should be based on secondary sources, while studies are primary sources. AngelusVastator3456, you also confused "German" and "Germanic" in your addition to Anti-German sentiment. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The first paper seems to conflate German speakers with ethnic Germans living in Germany though. AngelusVastator3456 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

AngelusVastator3456 I presume that is a reply to my post, rather than that of Rsk6400. If I understand you correctly, when you look into the details of the paper you can make some conclusions about Germans as such (not just German speakers). However this might raise the concern of Rsk6400. If we on WP are the ones interpreting the data to make relevant conclusions then we are risking WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Whatever we do with genetics articles, it needs to avoid those problems. My impression of the literature is that there has not yet been much study of Germany's population as such, like has been attempted in Britain relatively recently, only specific questions such as whether Germans are genetically distinct from Poles or Wends. Sometimes it is uncontroversial to report isolated interesting facts, but of course in many such cases involving population genetics such reports can imply things to our readers, which go beyond what the publications justify. People have a look at this case with those concerns in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Map and number of diaspora wiki standard

the map and the numbers added are wiki standard. if some wants another set up for the page, they have to change the wiki standard and rules. if all pages look like that you can do it to the Germans page too. ;) BauhausFan89 (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. We have guidelines and RfCs, but in the absence of those, we have local consensus. We had some discussions about this on this talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The onus is upon people adding new material to convince other editors that it is suitable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

the numbers of the Germans living worldwide was here for years. its usus on all wiki pages. I recommend it should be added again. BauhausFan89 (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please consider WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please make proposals which address the known concerns of other editors on THIS article. For example, as you know that table combined different kinds of numbers, about different kinds of "Germans". It is not the case that all similar articles have the same magnitude of split between citizens and people in a diaspora. In the case of Germans the diaspora, the speakers of the German language, and the citizens are completely different groups with completely different articles. Infoboxes are NOT needed in every Wikipedia article but at least if we have them they need to be relevant and clear, and not mix apples and pears. In the case of this article here that would mean that the definition of "Germans" should be citizens. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

but that defintion isnt anywhere else on wiki. one cant create his own standart. it confuses people. this site is so poorly done compared to other ethnic group pages. and that is the wiki wide defintion: ethnic group. I would like to ask all users in this talk, who want to see the info table be done, do answer this post. BauhausFan89 (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

An ethnic understanding of Germanness in a sense that excludes non-ethnic Germans from being fully part of the German people is contrary to how the vast majority of Germans see themselves. There has been much discussion about that recently in Germany, including decisions by the judiciary in the context of what leading members of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland said. So, it's highly problematic to call this article an "ethnic group page". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Science

why is there a science section missing. should be part of the Germans page, like its on all other ethnic group pages regarding major ethnic groups. BauhausFan89 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of any special reason to have one or not have one so maybe you should start with that. Can you give a concrete relevant example of such an article, instead of continually writing about "all other" articles? I do not think it is common for articles about peoples to have a science section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BauhausFan89, you already created a "science" section twice. In both cases, it was poorly done and in violation of our rules and guidelines. Better to have none than a bad one. Since your name has a certain similarity with that of Rosenborg BK Fan (talk · contribs), I'd like to ask you to confirm that you are not identical with them. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Reminder for all page-watchers: @Rosenborg BK Fan is the guy who said: I am of German heritage myself [...] I even did a genetic test. –Austronesier (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

dont know who that is. then I will make a new, nice sicence section. thank you for the advice. BauhausFan89 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem, but please remember that arbitrary decisions about whom to include and whom not are WP:OR and that copying within WP requires attribution (you have been told that many times on your talk page). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)