Talk:Germans

Beethoven and Bach

Add them to the pictures on the table? They should be added, since there are many prolific German composers, and the three most noted ones, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach, should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelio72 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Austrians pre WWII=Germans?

"Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity. It was only after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II that this began to change. After the world war, the Austrians increasingly saw themselves as a nation distinct from the other German-speaking areas of Europe, and today, polls indicate that no more than ten percent of the German-speaking Austrians see themselves as part of a larger German nation linked by blood or language." Being Austrian myself, I would regard this as an exaggeration; distince Austrian nationalism and a sense of national identity can easily be tracked back to the time of the Napoleonic wars; Austria became an independent empire in the early 19th century, at latest then the sense of German nationality versus distince "Austrian-German" nationality arose and co-existed in the multi-ethnic Habsburg empire.

Austrians are Germans, because I am an Austrian and the most austrians "feel" German.

Are you sure about that? Maybe you shouldn't leave a comment like this without signature. This could be misunderstood as a try to tell other people nationalistic bullshit. I know many Austrians myself, and none of them consider themselves as "Germans". Please overthink what you want to say before you say it. --Pletet 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, is it possible that you misunderstood the Anonymous? He speaks in the past tense. And it is hardly to be doubted that there was not a sense of an Austrian national identity prior to World War II. Except in the same sense as there was a feeling of a distinctly Bavarian or Silesian identity.Unoffensive text or character 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

well considering germany wanted to call itself Deutsch-Österreich after WWI...--Tresckow 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Balkans, Montenegrins have the same language and the same religion as Serbs which makes them even more identical to each other than Germans are to Austrians (because of religious divide). But many Montenegrins do not consider themselves Serbs. As a Canadian, just because I speak English or neighbour the United States which is almost exactly the same, I do not consider myself American or English. The Canadian people articles are divided between English, French, Native Canadian and others. If someone wants to create a page specifically about German ethnicity itself in Austria, rather than the Austrian people, they should put it under "German Austrians", this is what has been used to describe the German ethnic component of Austria for many years.--R-41 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

95 % of Austrian see themself as "Austrian" , not "German".

Complaint About NPOV Issue

I'm a second generation German-American with German citizenship. What exactly gives foreigners on Wikipedia the right to claim that I'm not German? If it were any other nationality/ethnicity you wouldn't dare make these sorts of assertions, but because this is anti-German Wikipedia you can say whatever you like. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right of anyone to repatriate at any time for any reason. Specifically, this Wikipedia author advocated violating our human rights persuant to Article 15 section 2 of the UDHR when he suggested that we shouldn't be allowed keep our German nationality.

Don't be silly, no one here denies you your citizenship. If you hold a German passport, you're German per definitionem. Period. But as a German I have every right to challenge that ancestorial concept of "Germanness": IMO I have nothing in common with American people who happen to have (some) German ancestors. Culturally they live American lives. What's German about them?

You're talking about such a vast segment of people. I would agree that Germans have little in common with someone whose great-grandfather came to America... but you as a German surely must understand enough of your own law to realize that people like that generally don't hold German nationality. Even still, if citizenship were arbitrated on the basis of how "typically American" or "typically German" a certain person was, a lot of people would be stateless.

"if you hold a German passport, you are German per definition" ie by "definition of citizenship" (not to confuse with "definition by ethnicity"!) Americans have many (!) German anchestors and that didnt "just happen". I dont see anything wrong with being aware or "in contact" with your own ethnicity - it is undeniably a part for all of us: Germans, Mediteraneans, Africans, "Red" Indians and "East" Indian, East-Asians or anybody; obviously it shouldnt "make" us but it is a part of us. Germany today is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country: formed by German citizen. They all make up ONE community which is mainly formed by a large stock of ethnic Germans (but also other ethnic communities (and all those part-communities within).

I think they should clear up this confusion by creating one article for ethnic Germans and another for actual citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany.

"citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany" should be covered by demographics of Germany!

No, because not all Germans live in Germany. What about FRG citizens who live overseas? There are a lot of these people. Germany was a source country for immigration well into the 1960s.Cyclopean typewriter 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We are running in circles: Germans are 1) Ethnic Germans who share a common ethnicity and share (or shared) a common "social culture" and 2) citizens of Germany who have no common ethnicity but live together within an environment that once produced things like "social and employment laws", a "welfare state" and the "theory of marxism". A citizen of the FRG can be any of the two: Still this article here is irrelevant and should be split between Ethnic Germans and Demographics of Germany (or "German Society"). April 1st 2006

I tend to agree. The Ethnic Germans article is really a worthy treatment of the subject. The current mess seems hardly worth the bother, and it's also confusing to people who come here. Cyclopean typewriter

I just want to make a point briefly. I'm trying to study identity and the problem is not with Wikipedia or the views of any of you well-meaning people. Human identity is one of those Platonic indefinables: no matter how you go around in circles about it you will never get a consistent definition. We aren't definable, now, are we? That was the Hitler's problem, he wanted to define everyone. Are you definable? Do the concepts in this article capture you and pin you down like a butterfly? I doubt it. These are only expedients. They never will be consistent, they never will be perfect, and they never will capture anyone. It is not really identity, but is only considered to be so. History just can't DO any better. Wikipedia can't abolish all your nightmares or throw light into the dark of existence. Sorry. We need an article here and it won't be a perfect one.Dave 04:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, bring Hitler into it.

Austrians are not allowed image representation?

I think some users are having trouble understanding this article is an article not only for Germans from Germany but also Germans from Austria, the Baltic states, old Prussian territories, Switzerland, etc etc. There is no reason not to include Mozart. Antidote 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Three Germans/One Austrian...seems fair to me. Antidote

Austrians are none other than politically distinct Germans. Ksenon 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is nothing more than culture - which there SHOULD be an article on...and it is in the works Austrians. Antidote

This is is a fairly common misunderstanding. I'd recommend that you read the German version of this very Wikipedia article for explanation. Part of the problem are obviously the popular misperceptions created and promoted by relatively recent megalomaniac politics of a certain controversial individual. And obviously, there was the Holy Roman Empire as well.

However, your argument could be applied to all states with predominantly Germanic populations. I'm thinking especially of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. While people in all of these countries speak Germanic languages, mutual understanding is only possible with a great difficulty, if at all. In the case of Switzerland, Germany and Austria this is somewhat simpler, since they have all agreed to support one and the same codification of the German language. This does not mean however, that verbal understanding is equally easy or that the great variation of local dialects has vanished with a stroke of a pen.

These dialects are indicative of the people's origin and their historical development. Interestingly, they typically converge with the dialects spoken in other countries on the fringes of national territories. This however, does not mean that the Swiss, the Danes, the Dutch or the Austrians would consider themselves German. They have developed their own national, cultural and linguistic identities and one would face fair amount of difficulty if one wanted to convince them otherwise. For the lack of better comparison, I'd point you to Russians and Ukrainians. Or perhaps point out some panslavic tendencies popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which might have resulted in other equally popular misperceptions. Jbetak 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a post-modernist, reviosionist (post ww2) view, as Austrians have always viewed themselves as Germans. One could say that the south German culture is "Austrian", or that Hessians differ from Brandenburgers. This is all a result of Germany's complex politics. Ksenon 23:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you can call it that if you like. However, we are writing the article today with our present understanding of what constitutes a German. This is closely related to our present understanding of the importance of a nation state and a common language. The article should obviously include historical evolution of the term and I believe the German version is better at this than the English one. Conversely, I believe that the present understanding of German goes back further than WW II, it is largely based on the work of Otto von Bismarck and the historical developments that preceded it.

One could consider the border between Austria and Germany as arbitrary and a result of a complex political process. However, similar thought could be applied to other borders of Germany, as discussed above. There are strong regional differences within Germany and if we agree that the Bavarian southeast is very similar Austria, we also have to see similar blurring lines between Schleswig and Denmark, Lower Saxony, Holland, Luxembourg and Flanders, Swabia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Alsace.

Although a strong sense of a separate Bavarian identity has survived until today, hardly any south Germans would describe themselves as Österreiche. Similarly, the majority of Austrians would not refer to themselves as Deutsche. Although this use gained strength in the latter part of the 20th century, it is based on earlier historical developments.

To settle this and find a proper place for Mozart, we should probably translate de:Österreicher into English. I seriously doubt they will want Hitler though ;-) Jbetak 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to have an article on Austrians but I think the population box is unnecessary and it will be close to impossible to accurately represent the Austrian population descent numbers in it. Antidote

Someone wrote the following: "Obviously you can call it that if you like. However, we are writing the article today with our present understanding of what constitutes a German." -- This, to me, is meaningless, because our understanding of what constitutes a "German" is exactly what is being called into question.

I think that I will have to contest the claim that Austrians are a completely separate people from the Germans. If we want to reach a truly coherent definition of "German people", be it in the ethnic, linguistic, political, or other sense, then we will have to agree on various principles. To appeal to an ethnic definition, we ought to regard those persons with a certain proportion of given genes as German (genes which ought to be circulating throughout the politically German people in a high enough consistency for this to be a meaningful variable). However, since it would be impossible for us to determine the genetic makeup of an entire nation, it should be safe to assume that a person with a German name, living in Germany, who spoke German, and whose family lived in Germany for some quota of generations, would most probably be an ethnic German. Obviously, linguistically, the Germans and Austrians are compatible (with some discrepancy for the Swiss), so a linguistic determination of "German people" would, under most reasonable circumstances, include Austrians. I think the Austrians' trend to distance themselves from Germany is, as another editor suggested, a post-modernist, revisionist tactic used by the Austrian people to remove the connections between themselves and the Hitler-Germany. Historically, the German people were scattered over Northen Europe in a vast collection of principalities, thus obviously not unified. Given this, it is not surprising that the Austrian Empire (a cohesive political entity) didn't bother to create an identity that included the Northern Germans. It should be noted that to say that Austrians are not Germans seems to raise a universal identity crisis for nationalities and peoples. Before Charlemagne united the Frankish tribes, the tribes considered themselves separate people, but I have never heard of dozens of different populations within France demanding political and identity-related independence. I am still not sure on what basis it is being argued that Austrians are separate from Germans, except that the Austrians want to be seen as separate. I also think that this argument leads to incoherent consequences. For instance, Hitler considered himself a German, but Metternich considered himself an Austrian. For us to have a coherent picture of what a "people" is, they can't both be right. To make a very long point short, I think that we need to adequately define what a "people" is, or else we will get nowhere. 65.185.213.33 04:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)2-22-06

First thing should be that the intro (maybe the very first sentence) should clarify the definition of German as by a differentiation between "citizenship" and "ethnicity" - regardless of language or culture. And have a link to Demographics of Germany. - This is in respect to an open society in Germany and per self-definition of neighboring communities (or people) who have no, little or larger German or Germanic influence (or background) or who do share (or decide not to share) a common sense for more. However both definitions are interlinked through history and herein are a number of defining moments:

1) Germany and the Lands of the Germans lie in the center of Europe with neighbors on all sides (obviously). 2) Germanic tribes (on the territory of Germany) were the only to stop Ancient Romans in the expansion of their Empire. 3) The basis for Charlesmagne and Otto the Great being coronated as Holy Roman Emperors to protect the Pope was not based on the rule of Roman law but the Emperor's supposed faithfullness to God. - Consequently German rulers saw it in their (good) faith on how to fullfill the given duty to the pope. Parallel to the (self-chosen) adoption of Roman law & culture, this aspect became characteristic for most of the Middle Ages and early Modern Times. 4) Countries (like the Netherlands and Switzerland) left the antiquated "Empire of faith". 5) In 1806 Austria inhabitated the Holy Crown and set a change in fate. 6) With the emerge of national movements (elsewhere first, I want to stress), above aspects became aspect of national pride. 7) Avoiding Bismarck's Small German Solution would have calmed national desires of many at that time. 8) After the breakup of the Habsburg Empire, "German-Austrians" voted by large majority to join Germany but this was rejected by the Ententé. 9) After 1945 some Germans went back to regionalism. (One of the reasons why I think defining seperate regional Germans is more than neessary: Bavarians, Hamburgers, Rheinländers and Saxons have a hell lot of differences!) 10) Others came to an understanding of the right application of faith (ethics) and law - still the outcome for life is different than - for example - the UK. 11) Imported English law (from the US and the UK) sets new social adoptions in the Federal Republic.

I would like to see this article a lot more contemporary, cause I guess a) most people reading this article arent European and b) are mostly under age of 30 (or even 20) and have no idea about Central European history and our perception of it. For this reason couldnt the portrait bar include one living person - or at least (!) one 20th century personality? Michael Schumacher or Adolf Hitler? Jil Sander or Marlene Dietrich? One female representative would be appropriate in any case. February 25th, 2006

I agree with Ksenon. German is ethnic and culture, Austrian is political. An Austrian is an Austrian in political context and if an Austrian wants to consider himself over his political status (citizenship), this should be fine with everyone. This, though, cannot rewrite history. And an encyclopedia should also bring some historian views, not only political correct views from today. The english-speaking community of Wikipedia must feel like some Austrians may have founded some kind of, unplaced in the EU, state-nationalism.

The whole Austrian/German matters are very complicated and have a lot to do with history and politics. Before 1866 there was no such thing as a real united german states. There were a lot of small and large german states that were all members of the so called "Deutscher Bund" (German Alliance). Among those states were Bavaria, Prussia, Austria and several others. Austria had a bit of a special role. While most other german states had only a german population (and maybe some minorities), germans were a minority in the Austrian Empire. Germans dominated the Empire, but still most people were slavs or belonged to another ethnic group. Now Austrian citizens felt of themselves of Austrians and Germans, and Austrians and czech or Austrian and Hungarian. It used to be exactly the same in Bavaria - people feel (and still do) they are Bavarian and German. Those regional identities were pretty important in a disunited Germany. The real identity trouble really started after the lost World War I in 1918. Suddenly the german parts of the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire, were all that was left and suddenly there were only germans in Austria. People still felt of themselves as austrian and german and some wanted Austria to become part of the new German Republic and some didn't want to. With the "Anschluss" in 1938 Austria became part of the German Reich. While many Austrians were fierce Nazis, some others realized that being part of this bigger country and being part of a country that was about to start wars in whole Europe was not that good. And soon many people wanted their old, little Austria back. Now that was the part when people started to emphasize their Austrian identity much more than their german one. The political and regional identity was suddenly much more important, than the "ethnic" one. And especially after WWII was lost and Austria re-established, nothing was more handy and easy than to push this Austrian identity and forget about the german one. Suddenly everyone, even those that had voted for unity with Germany, were Austrian patriots and it was "them", the germans, that had been the Nazis and committed the shoa. Austrians and germans, they have some sort of love-hate relationship. While german-bashing is very common in Austria, this has nothing to do with a real alienation with Germany and especially the german people. It has a lot to do with a feeling of inferiority, while claiming superiority, and being the younger and smaller one of two brothers. Now just a few words about me: I was born and raised in Austria, I still live there and study history and political science at university. Hagenk --193.171.131.249 17:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"youngerand smaller"? I think many of your compatriots would disagree. Austria is a successor state of the Holy Roman Empire, on equal footing with Germany, and it has a rather more glamorous imperial past. Austria was Austria from 1804, when "Germany" was still a patchwork of provinces. Austrians as a group are treated at Austrians, not here. Of course they are intimately related to the Germans, especially the Bavarians, but they are not known as "Germans" and hence fall outside the scope of this article. dab (ᛏ) 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I used "younger and smaller" to describe the brother-like relationship between Germany and Austria. Of course you are right, about the history. I do not support the ideology of nationalism, neither german nor austrian nationalism. All I wanted to do was to explain the whole austrian/german thing to people from elsewhere. But I think you are making a little mistake. From a nationalist point of view, Austrians are of course germans. The only reason why your regard so called Bundesdeutsche as the only germans is, because Prussia defeated the southern german states in the german - german war and united them in there empire and Austria remained a state of its own. In a post-nazism society stating Austrians are Germans has a bad connotation of being a supporter of nazism and german nationalism. While I personally despise both of them, I also do not support new national constructs such as an Austrian Nation. Bascially I don't care whether Austrians are mentioned here or in any other article, as I believe identities like that are obsolete and have always been obsolete. de:Benutzer:Hagenk --193.171.131.248 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

well, there are several kinds of "German nationalism", I suppose. The kind you refer to is the Grossdeutschland kind, which considers all continental West Germanic groups "Germans", including Austrians, Swiss (German speaking), Netherlanders, Flemish, everybody. This is nationalism based in the 19th century and the German Empire. Then there is "local" nationalism of the actual nations making up German speakers, viz. Alemannic, Austro-Bavarian, Franconian, Saxon. These are trans-boundary, there is an Alemannic sort of nationalism spanning Switzerland, Swabia and Vorarlberg, for example. Finally, there is "modern" Bundesdeutschland nationalism, as observed in football, which takes as its object of pride the contemporary state of Germany. Grossdeutschland nationalism has been completely discredited since 1945, with only Neonazis adhering to it. Nobody but a fascist bent on provocation would call Netherlanders, Swiss and Austrians "Germans" all and sundry. We can discuss all this, in a "nationalism" section or something, but the fact remains that this article is on "Germans", not on "continental West Germanic speakers". The "ethnicity" of most of Austrians is first Autro-Bavarian (Bavarii), and then generically Germanic, the term "Germans" is not well-defined as referring to an ethnic group (except for its obsolete meaning of "Germanic" in general). dab (ᛏ) 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really going to argue anymore, since this is really a kind of debate I don't want to participate in. But you know perfectly well, that there's a difference between swiss people and people from the Netherlands on the side and Austrians on the other. Switzerland and the Netherlands segregated from the HRR, finally with the peace treaty of Westphalia, but in fact much earlier, whereas Austria remained part of the HRR until it ended in 1806. Even after that Austria led the German Confederation. In 1948 Archduke Johann of Austria even became Reichsverweser. In the Battle of Königgrätz Prussia won the Austrian-Prussian war, the German Confederation ended and Prussia managed to united most german states in a new German Empire, but not Austria and Liechtenstein. That doesn't mean that german-speaking citizens of the Austrian-Hungarian Empires were suddenly no germans anymore - not at all. Only with the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1919, Deutschösterreich (German-Austria) hat to change it's name to Austria. But even the Christian Social Party, the so called Austrofascists, always emphasized that Austria was the "second german state". Only after 1945 for various reasons, no one was german anymore. One reason for that was, that Austrians didn't want to compensate of even show liability for the Shoa/Holocaust and lived to myth of being the first victim of Germany. This was one of the biggest lies in the aftermath of WWII and know and tolerated by the allied occupation forces. And btw. do you think Sudetendeutsche are of german or austrian nationality? Following your arguments, they are austrian of course, yet they are widely regarded as germans. Now I know exactly why you oppose my statements, as I read your userpage and found this statement by Albert Einstein "Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkranheit, sozusagen die Masern der Menschheit". I absolutely agree to this statement! I even think it's ridiculous to construct national identities like it is done in this article. Because a construction will always be subjective and relies on what I consider valid of invalid and important and unimportant. I would prefer to see and article about germans that states "citizens of the federal republic of germany" and an article on austrians that states "citizens of the republic of austria", because everything else just doesn't work. de:Benutzer:Hagenk --138.232.1.229 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The dividing of austrians on the one hand and germans on the other hand is very new in history. In former years Countrys were owned by dynasties which had no problem to rule over italians, germans, french people and so on. The National States are new in history and are not older than 200 hundred years. Before 1871 every bavarian would had answered that he is bavarian but his culture is also german - the austrian dialect is in fact a kind of the dialect of the german tribe of bavarians. The people in noth of germany were by example saxons and spoke (and many speak at home today) a dialect which is more analog to dutch (dutch and "deutsch" sounds analog or not?) than to bavarian or austrian dialect. It`s a fact, that the political breakup between austria and germany (which were diveded into a few tens states) was not before 1871 or if you want before 1804 when austria become an empire (it was bevore this only the dynasty of habsburg which was also the emperor of the holy roman empire). Before 1945 no one in austria realy said, that austrians are something else than germans with another dialect and an own country. The whole discussion is odd, because if history where a little bit different we would discuss today if thuringians or bavarians or saxons are germans or an ethnic groupe for its own ;) Napoleon and later Bismarck found the nation of austrai if you go deeper in history. Enkidu78 12. Feb. 2007

---

Of course Austrians and SchweizerDEUTSCHE...

...are Germans. In fact, Austrians for centuries were the protectors of German culture, "the most German of the German". Only reason I reverted the anon contributor was to salvage the refs, though I will add an explanation for the low figure of "German Austrians", post-WWII politics and such. That after vacation. Ulritz 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We count Germans as Germans in USA too. No reason to have reverted. 72.144.114.157 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

72.144.114.157 are you planning on incorporating the Dutch as Germans as well? That would give you another 25,000,000.

Rex 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Austrians and "SchweizerDEUTSCHE" are not Germans. "Schweizerdeutsche" is not a word. There is a reason they are called Deutschschweizer instead. If you include the Swiss, you have no reason not to include the Dutch, and neither group will thank you. I refer you to de:Deutsche, which doesn't have these stupid ethnoboxes, but observes correctly that

Die Staatsangehörigen Österreichs, der Schweiz und anderer deutschsprachiger Länder sind, auch wenn sie die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, im Sinne der Festlegung keine Deutschen mehr, sofern sie nicht auch die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit besitzen oder sich aufgrund ihrer Abstammung gesellschaftlich mit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verbunden fühlen. So gibt es knapp über 100 Millionen Menschen, die die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, wobei sich davon nur noch weniger als 75 Millionen Menschen als Deutsche verstehen.

The Netherlands and Switzerland have been independent from Germany for 500 years. By comparison, the USA have been independent from England for a mere 230 years. Consequently, it is twice as wrong to refer to a Dutch or Swiss person as "German" as it is to refer to a US American as an "Englishman". As for the 50 million "American Germans" (twice as many as USians of English ancestry!), apparently it is customary to include them in the count. But I note that this is essentially a self-declaration: we are simply counting the number of USians who opted to make a tick in the census' "German ancestry" field. We don't know if, say, 10 million of these were just having al laugh. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Small correction, the Netherlands, and in the same way Switzerland were never part of Germany in the first place. Rex 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

not of the Bundesrepublik, of course, but it is fair to use the adjective "German" to refer to the Holy Roman Empire. See for example German pope: Pope Adrian VI is rightly listed there, even though a pope from the same place wouldn't be called "German" now (Adrian VI is a good example, because he falls squat on the transition when it is beginning to make sense to distinguish "Dutch" from "German"). dab (ᛏ) 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Netherlands and Switzeland were never part of Germany ... both countries outdate Germany (as in, "country of the Germans") by far. before its founding in 1871 most of the area we now see as Germany was inhabited by many different tribes, later thousands of little states emerged. The Holy Roman Empire was far from solely German, it would be hard to regard it as a general empire, let alone country, really. As the HRE was more of a pact between all these tiny states.In most of the states German was spoken, but in the East there was the ancestor of Czech, in the south Italian, in the South West French, and in the West there was Dutch.

The Dutch became an ethic group around the same time the Germans did, so they were never "one", at least not for the las 2200 years. Rex 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

in that case, the Germans were never "one", at all, and it would be pointless to even have this article. You appear to defend some kind of Dutch nationalist point of view here, which I suppose is one way of looking at things, but you cannot expect others to endorse your terms and definitions. dab (ᛏ) 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not a nationalist, I just mean to say that the German and Dutch people were never 'one', at least not after roman times. I get the idea, I'm slipping into what could look like a bit of a look alike nazi ideology here but try to stick with me.

Germanic peoples consisted of tribes, when the tribal classification ended (Eg.no longer were people Bavarii, Saxons, or Alemanii but Germans) , separate ethnic groups had emerged. For example, people in the north of what is now Germany had a different language that the ones in the South, different rituals and different (but not too different obviously) culture.

In the course of time these "old tribesmen" mixed, and became a new people, in this case the Germans.In the case of Germany I think this meltingpot started around the beginning of the Frankish Empire (For example, the Franks conquered the Saxons, after the Frankish empire was gone, the Saxons and Franks were gone too). After this, we start using different terms.Charlemagne, for example was a Frank, but someone like Carloman of Bavaria is generally seen as being German, or at least king of the Germans.Do you get what I mean?

"The German people aren't a big branch from which other Germanic people of today originated, like the English or Dutch. No, Germans are just a small twig like everybody else" Rex 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

as I said, it is pointless to argue about this, since the terms are fuzzy. The Dutch were part of the Frankish Empire too. No, the "Germans" aren't the source of anything, but if you take the trouble to distinguish the Dutch, you should take just as much trouble to distinguish the Saxons, the Swabians, the Bavarians, etc.; in the end, you have no "Germans" left at all. "Germans" is a term encompassing several sub-ethnicities. Up to the 15th century, the Dutch (and Swiss) were included in the term, from the 16th century, they weren't, that's all there is to it. dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's where our opinions differ, the Dutch were never Germans.But if you want to believe they were that's fine. I of course wonder ... "maybe the Germans were part of the Dutch before they splitt", which of course is just as plausible as the other way around.Don't you think. Rex 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

they were, in a way, since Dutch was originally the comprehensive term. Anyway, since we seem to agree on the headcount of 75-130 million, which was really the point at debate, I suppose we can drop the topic. I do not think we disagree in substance, it is really just a matter of terminology. Since the anon has already re-inserted his 160 million figure (lol, 4.7 M Swiss, but only 0.75 M Austrians?), I'll be grateful if you keep the article on your watchlist. regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes in a way, but was that "way" German, Dutch or neither? I think the latter. Rex 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

About what a shit your are speaking? Are Austrians and Swiss German or not? The question is by what we understand German?

1) By nationality, then yes Austrians and Swiss people are not Germans, because they are not a part of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2) By language, then both of them are German

Now you say the people who went to America have German ancestry and you put them into this statistic. But nor their culture nor their language is really German.

German doesn't mean only language, but more culture!

The people of South Germany as sample the Alemannen are living on both sides of the border. In Germany and in Switzerland.

Btw. the Swiss call their languge Schwitzerdütsch(Deutsch).

Btw. the Austrians, Swiss and people of Germany see theirself not as one nation, but as ONE people! Ein Volk

yes? your point being? Pan-Germanism went out of fashion a while ago, you know. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dab was talking about how the dutch and swiss people were annexed from germany 500 years ago and created there own countrys and it took centurys till they were considered there own people, then he said that german american people to be consided not german and have nothing to do with germany like the dutch would take 500 years and the US was only 250 years old and german americans should be considerd german but what your forgetting is that most german americans came here in the 1900s not during the creation of america 250 years ago.

Zitat "Btw. the Austrians, Swiss and people of Germany see theirself not as one nation, but as ONE people! Ein Volk"
95 % of Austrian don´t think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.136.125 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

References

for why the 75 Million Germans is wrong:

http://www.deutschland.de/home.php?lang=2 - giving 82,5 million

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/index.html# - giving 82,5 million

http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/inhaltsseiten-home/zahlen-fakten/bevoelkerung.html - giving 82,5 million

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No Str1977, that is in fact totally wrong.

You see those are figures of the total population of Germany, this article is about Germans as an ethnic group. There are more than 15 million people of non-german descent (first and second generation), about 7 million of which are foreign residents. That's why the number isn't 82,5 million or similar.Cheers.

Rex 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, plus the number is sitting right where it should, over at Demographics of Germany. Please read an article before debating about it. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Austria and Switzerland

May I ask who are those german spaking people in those countries? 85.107.214.53 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the Swiss and Austrians?

Rex 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They are names of regional people, such as "Australian". There are also English Americans but their figure was cited in English people page. KreshnikD 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I do believe those are the inhabitants of Switserland and Austria.

Rex 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you say they are not germans though they speak german? KreshnikD 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I speak English does that make me English? Rex 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

look, Wikipedia is not for arguing, it is for reporting. Swiss (regardless of native idiom) and Austrians are not considered Germans, ethnic or otherwise, by anybody, and haven't been for at least 350 years (if not 500). Now if you claim there are competing views, by all means quote your sources. thank you. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

nice one -- so the CIA factbook lists Swiss German speaking groups as "ethnic Germans", but Austrian German speaking groups as "ethnic Austrians" -- what gives? That's a rather strange solution, since the historical ties of Austria and Germany are rather stronger than those of Switzerland and Germany. If Swiss German speakers are "Germans", I see really no way of saying that Austrian German speakers are not Germans. Thank you, CIA, I am sure the Swiss will be very interested in learning that they are Germans now. dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

dab, the CIA factbook changed the entry for Austrians only relatively recently. Perhaps a similar change is pending for the Swiss? 71.198.59.81 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

Have removed but expect to see it back. The issue of related ethnic groups is contentious as it really makes no sense - on what grounds are groups related or not? Culture; Language; Blood; History; Political assocation? Why link the English to Germans but not Scottish? There is no basis for this, only personal preferences. Enzedbrit 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups about the related groups. --Nydas^(Talk) 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

this lame edit war has got to stop

it's all the fault of the infobox. we'll either remove the infobox altogether, or we'll give a high and a low estimate for each country (one based on language and one on 'ethnicity', if you like), just as long as everything remains sourced. It is not sufficient to provide a source that 94% of Austrians speak German (which is undisputed. 82% of US Americans speak "English" and still are not "English"). You have to provide a source that 94% of Austrians are considered "ethnic Germans" by somebody (by whom?) dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, so the CIA factbook has "ethnic groups: 91% Austrians", and the US department of state has "ethnic groups: 92% Germans"? very funny, I think the Americans are too busy looking for WMDs for other intelligence, how about we cite actual Austrian sources instead? dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your abusive and arrogant style of editing and discussion is not welcomed. With regards to the source, it is still a valid source that you simply can not delete because you have some awkward feelings about it. If you find actual Austrian sources, go ahead, but I doubt your going to find ANY that would ridiculously deny that Austrians also see themeles as ethnically Germans based on shared descent, history, culture and language that is very close and nothing compared to that with any other people. The number is currently referenced, please do not remove again without providing a source somehow arguning against the numbers. Ciao, Epf 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

your stubborn revert orgy isn't very welcome itself. So if Austrians aren't an ethnic group in their own right, I suppose Austrians should just redirect here, then? The CIA factbook, if you would kindly read talk pages, says 91% of Austrians are ethnically, well, Austrian. See also de:Deutsche:

Die Staatsangehörigen Österreichs, der Schweiz und anderer deutschsprachiger Länder sind, auch wenn sie die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, per Definition keine Deutschen mehr

dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Austrians do see themselves as a distinct sub-group or regional group of Germans. The CIA Fact book may say that 91% are simply ethnically "Austrian" but this is in cotrast with the more detailed and sourced information on the US Department of State link which states 98% of those in Austria are ethnically German. I do not speak German but that quote from an article on the German Wikipedia is unreferenced and unsourced and is not a valid source here. Epf 08:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

so is "Many Austrians do see themselves as a distinct sub-group or regional group of Germans". But I am willing to entertain such a comment in the footnote to Austria, or in a separate 'high estimate', see above. dab (ᛏ) 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• What do you think of the current format. Epf 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• according to de:Deutsche, 'empirical studies' show that less than 5% of Austrians (i.e. those of extreme right-wing 'nationalist' bent. to be perfectly plain: Neo-Nazis.) consider themselves "Germans". You may mention the position as extremist fringe, but not as anything like mainstream opinion. I am afraid the study is not cited though. We'll have to hunt for it. It seems obvious that we will not be able to document the intricacies of the question without resorting to German language sources. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While the current wording is a progress over the senseless edit war, I disagree with the notion that the info from the State Department is "more detailed and sourced". Based on this source, we're now assuming that 98% of the population of Austria may be ethnic Germans, which is clearly incorrect. I have also provided a source indicating that 80% of Austrian population did not consider themselves to be Germans over in the Austrians article. Epf would chose to ignore or misinterpret the wording of the source and keep claiming that there's no proof that Austrians do not consider themselves Germans. All the while the only contribution he did was to find State Department source, thanks to which we are now counting the entire muslim population of Austria and various other minorities as ethnic Germans. Good job! Throw in the senseless edit warring and one can only be impressed with this guy -- who on top of everything claims to be an expert in the area of European ethnicities because of his apparently ongoing undegrad? studies in anthropology at a North American University. 71.198.59.81 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

according to a reply I got on de:Diskussion:Deutsche, just about 30%-40% of Austrians voting FPÖ (nationalist conservative) are "deutschnational" (meaning, they consider Austrians as part of a larger German nation/ethnos), which would amount to some 3% of all Austrians. dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. Only 11% of the Austrians vote the FPÖ!!!!!!!!!!!

You are misunderstanding. He just said that 30-40% of the 11% Austrians who voted for the FPÖ are "deutschnational"..., which would make them 3% of all Austrians. 30-40% of 11% ~ 3-4%. Though I don't find that comment conclusive (nothing says how many of the Austrians not voting for the FPÖ...).--Caranorn 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This Pan-Germanism thing pushed by American editors of imaginary German ethnicity is getting ridiculous. Why can't we just restrict the use of "ethnic Germans" to German nationals and German-speaking communities in monolingual countries (meaning Austria, Belgium, Switzerland excluded)? Miskin 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that any sane person will actually believe that 45M of US citizens declare ethnic German, and even if they did, no sane person would take that seriously. Those "estimates" seem to be getting out of hand in most ethnic articles - see the figures in Italians, Portuguese and Spanish people to get the idea. Unless we forbid countries like Brasil, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria to have the right of a separate national identity, those articles will contradict each other. Dbachmann's last edits are reasonable, let's leave it at that. Miskin 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

the "ethno infobox" was a horrible idea in the first place, and its "Regions with significant populations" entry in particular. We should try to get rid of it altogether, nothing good comes from it, its only purpose seems to be serving as a playground for nationalists of every couleur, compiling silly collages of portraits of their respective ethnic luminaries. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How would you/we get ridd of that box? Wouldn't it require a large vote?

Rex 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

we don't have to delete it. it may have its uses for actual "ethnic groups" in the sense of minority "first nations", "aboriginal tribes" etc. It is just an obstacle here. This article isn't sure if it is about ethnic Germans or German nationals. ethnic Germans is about ethnic Germans who are not German nationals (because that's how the term is used, German citizens are not classified as "ethnic Germans" because they are already "Germans", and obviously German authorities will not be keen to reconsider Volksdeutsche as an offical status). This article is first and foremost about the term 'Germans' and its use throughout history. It is, in particular, the article on German nationals, analogous to Austrians and Swiss (people). My suggestion would be to get rid of the infobox, but keep the population data for a list to be created in the article body (no information will be lost, but we'll be rid of the misleading format of the infobox). dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's possible to explain the meaning of the term German, and exactly who are, who might and who aren't part of this group today ... you have my support. Rex 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version is a somewhat suitable compromise, though mixing German nationals (in CH's case) with ethnic Germans (in A's case) serves nothing to standardize these slippery topics. Nevertheless, the overcoming of the tendency to totally negate Swiss and Austrians links is indeed a positive step forward. Ulritz 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

nobody negates links :) being linked to something isn't the same as being a subset. dab (ᛏ) 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. There are two definitions of "German". "Ethnic German" and "German" (citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I believe this article is about Ethnic Germans, so Swiss Germans and Austrians should be included for it to be accurate. Ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship. Austrians can very well be independent and seperate from Germany, still that doesn't make them less "German" linguistically and culturally ...

This discussion is kind of silly actually ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, dear editor from Singapore, but most German-speaking Swiss and Austrians would not consider themselves to be German. Not nationally, not ethnically, not at all. German-speaking and related to Germans: yes, German: no. Simple as that. The only question is if the people outside of these countries can deal with it. 72.235.4.117 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is rather whether they ARE ethnically and culturally Germans than whether they CONSIDER themselves as such... (194.9.5.12 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Please do a complete rewrite

This article is inacceptable to an open-minded german like me. I strongly request you to completely rewrite it.

1. Germany has about 82 million inhabitants. It's absolutely idiotic not to count all german inhabitants as germans, I don't know what racist ideals you've been thinking about.

2. The swiss are not ger--Caranorn 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)man. They don't talk german (they talk swiss, italian and french), they don't live like germans (look at internet access, styles of newspapers, public school population etc pp.), they live in another country, most of them have nothing to do with it. To count these people as germans means that nothing has been understood by the author(s). This is not the same issue as with Austria, which has been a part of the Deutsches Reich in times before WW2.

3. In the "Religion" para., the article jumps from Luther to Jews to Nazis. This is absolutely inacceptable. Even if you're looking at german ethnics (which I deny to exist, but anyway), "germans" have a long, some hundereds of years lasting history of religion, including wars, prosecution, kind acceptance etc pp. State it or delete that paragraph.

4. "The dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire after World War I led to a strong desire of the population of the new Republic of Austria to be integrated into Germany. This was, however, prevented by the Treaty of Versailles", "Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity." This is fascist propaganda, as is the writing style of the whole article, and obviously wrong.

5. If you're talking about Austria and Prussia after the fall of Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, why not talk about the other douzands of countries, which are now on german territory?

I could go on further.. Please consider deleting this article or do a complete rewrite, which in my opinion must be an historical overview of the emigration of nations, the political enclosures on german territory and an overview on where germans live.

--Gecos 05:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany has 75 million citizens. It is unacceptable to include only part of these in the "minimal count". I have fixed this. You are free to fix the other points. Trust me, I have tried to impress on people that neither the Swiss nor the Germans consider the Alemannic Swiss "Germans", but the Americans wouldn't believe me. This article is supposed to be about whatever is the referent of the term "Germans". It is becoming increasingly clear that it is overlapping too much with other articles to be independent, and I suppose it should really be made a disambiguation page, between Demographics of Germany, ethnic Germans and history of Germany. dab (𒁳) 08:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem lies with the choice of name of the country, namely Germany ("Deutschland"). People in Switzerland certainly don't identify with the country, but those from the German speaking cantons are by definition Germans ("Deutsche"). The same applies to a number of other countries who never (voluntarily) adhered to any of the modern German states. At least after 1945 it should have been obvious that naming the country Germany ("Deutschland") was a mistake (interestingly enough the "DDR" did not make that mistake, at least not in it's official title), what made matters worse was the entire definition in the "BRD"'s constitution on who is German etc.

By the way, the Swiss cantons obviously were part of the (Holy) Roman Empire. Offhand I can't tell at which point they came under the rule of the eastern part of the former Carolingian Reich, but it must at the latest have been with the annexation of Lotharingia. The cantons only left the Empire several hundred years later, after the sucessful rebellions, but failed attemps of conquest (carrying the revolt outside what is now Switzerland).

And yes, part of the article is problematic, but one of the reasons is the post WWII constitution.--Caranorn 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I can’t follow. Are you seriously suggesting that the country, in which the Germans live in, shouldn’t be named Germany? Apart from wondering which name you might have in mind that would have been highly unhistorical with no integrative factor. BTW, your explanatory example, the artificial DDR, was commonly known as East Germany, and it imploded as soon as the Soviet party was over, so distancing from one’s history, which was the case with the DDR, doesn’t really do the trick. Furthermore, it really isn’t tangent to Germany, if the neighbouring German speaking populations do or don’t identify as Germans. They need to figure it out for themselves. Teodorico 21:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the DDR was known as GDR in English, that is "German Democratic Republic". And I was clearly referring to official names. Otherwise as already mentioned, a number of other states, with large or dominant German populations, predate the creation of the modern state Germany which creates problems of terminology. But now that I've had a few days to think about my previous comment I recognize that that's largely just my point of view and as such is pretty much irrelevant here.--Caranorn 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article talks about ethnic Germans...If you want to talk about immigrants, you should see Demographics_of_Germany...I know there is also an Ethnic German but it has this clause: Ethnic Germans – often simply called Germans – are those who are considered, by themselves or others, to be ethnically German but do not live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany, nor necessarily hold its citizenship. Lukas19 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• So maybe we can redirect Germans to German which would link to German people (as an ethnic group)(most of this current article), Ethnic German and Demographics_of_Germany....Lukas19 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To your point 3: It is right that the Germans have a very long history of religion, but it is only because of the religion and church itself, not because of belief. In fact, that is what the Germans differ from other folks and what they have in common: they are atheists deeply in their heart, they don't go every sunday into the church, they stand above religion and god, they were always free of mental bondage, they believe in science, not in creationism and the genesis. Maybe some arch-catholic bavarian will demand this point of view promptly, nevertheless it is the truth. 83.135.157.228 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will say something

I think the banner Ethnic Germans should have the same article under it. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 13:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

National Character and image

It would be nice to have section which attempts to deal with the national character of the Germans, like there is in the article about Swedes. It would also be interesting to have something about the image of the germans, like the following topics from the article about the Dutch:

The image of the Dutch
6.1 Symbols
6.2 Self-image
6.3 Dutch image worldwide
6.4 The Dutch in popular culture
6.5 Dutch views on others

I realize that it is difficult to sum up an ethnic group in this way, but it would be informative to talk a bit more about culture rather than history and ethnicity. Someone else should do this because I don't know enough about the Germans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.127.233.162 (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, as one of the chief editors of the particular section at the Dutch article, I'd say it is possible, but will probably be really hard. When you look at the Swedes national character section, you'll see that it's completely unreferenced. You have to make sure you have the right sources, like the Dutch article, before you write such a section. Also, I think such a section could be a potential lure for trolls.Rex 10:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But the skilled writers on Wikipedia are up to the challenge, don't you think? Won't someone write this section, am I the only one who thinks it's interesting and important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.233.162 (talk • contribs)

Oh I think it's interesting, but such a section is someone abstract. One needs a lot of sources. Nevertheless I'll look into it, a small section will probably be possible.Rex 21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, Rex. The Dutch image section you helped write was one of the most interesting parts of the article. That's the reason I was a bit dissapointed not to find a corresponding section for the Germans. This article was therefore somewhat lacking compared to the Dutch article. I think it's worth it to include information about image and character even though it is abstract and difficult not to make unfair generalizations. I have respect for anyone who takes up the challenge. I would help, but like I said I don't know that much about the Germans (which is why I came here seeking information!)

WHY IS NO ONE WRITING THIS YET? I MUST KNOW ABOUT THE GERMANS!!!

Hitler

Haven't you guys thought of adding hitlers portrait, as hes one of the most influential germans on human history. --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He's also one of the most hated figures of the 20th century responsible for the deaths of millions. Have you ever thought about that?Rex 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree on him being one of the most influential, notorious yes, influential no.--Caranorn 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ok maybe I'm wrong, hitler isn't a german hero. user:Walter_Humala. --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason he isnt a German Icon now is becase he lost the war. If Germany had of won it they would all love him. also he was Times Man of the Year in 1939 [1] so perhaps a reference to how Germany loved him right up untill he lost the war? --I don't like football 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's pretty obvious. Generally I'd say Germans would not murder milions of other people because someone they all hate tells them to do so.Rex 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Germans would not murder milions of other people because someone they all hate tells them to do so..." a fair point, but isnt this exactly what happened in WWII? also the Germans didnt not despise Hitler, they adored him, although I think most people would blame the biased media at the time, none the less they held him in very high regard, and did what he said implicitly. remember Hitler was elected under the same voting system that is still used in Germany today. --I don't like football 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, in world war 2 they murdered millions ordered by someone they all adored, not someone they hated. There are of course still Germans who adore hitler, they just dont form the majority at the moment.Rex 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, would someone please be so kind as to remove the "natsi basterds" title? I don´t think this is exactly classy or intelligent an addition. AND, may I also add, that the current voting system of Germany was changed from the Weimar Republic one which brought Hitler to power (though not as simply as many people like to put it, it´s not like 51% of Germnas voted for Hitler in 1933, but indeed it´s not like many protested either when he seized power after a mini coup im Parliament a few months later), so it is simply wrong to say Germany has the same voting system now as it had in 1933. Unless you meant Germany is now a democracy, like it was between 1919 and 1933. And lastly, there are still Germans who adore Hitler today, but they will most likely never form the majority again. Germany´s most dangerous contribution to the current and future world fascism is indeed the lame habit of some of them to reserve their lounging chairs in Mallorca with their towels. And those might indeed be loving Adolf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.5.56.35 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I think Germans just aren't that proud of Hitler, and would rather not see his head as a symbol for their nation ;) Krastain 11:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

is anyone here at all aware of WP:DFTT? dab (𒁳) 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

There is no mention of the well known German trait of reserving a space on the sun lounger by putting a towel out very early. Is their a reason this has not been included?--I don't like football 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.153.66 (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Orgins

The article tells that German origin only is from tribes from the north, but what about the inhabit there lived in Germany that time, or about the people from the south. --Arigato1 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The Germans are a mixed of germanic tribes, celtic tribes (in the south and west) and roman soldiers also (south of the river danub and west of the rhine) and also in the east of germany with slavic tribes. It is an illusion to believe, that only the germanic tribes are ancessors of the enthnic germans. I am german, and only people who read books from the 30th years believe that germans are pure germanics ;) Enkidu78 12- Feb. 2007

---

Wikipedia ethnic articles generally focus on cultural heritage rather than bloodlines. Using language as a main determinant, I don't see much of a point in counting how many Slavs might have been Germanized over the years. Besides, surviving Slavophones are not counted as ethnic Germans (I think). Anyway the POV-fork Ethnic Germans should be merged or just ditched. It seems to be the work of frustrated american editors who vainly lay claims on German ethnicity. Miskin 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a cleanup pronto. Miskin 02:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

it's a bit more complicated than that. on de-wiki, de:Deutsche ("Germans") and de:Volksdeutsche ("Ethnic Germans") are treated separately, since the terms are indeed not synonymous. In current usage, "Deutsche" are anyone with a German passport, while "Volksdeutsche" are people without German passport who nevertheless have significant German cultural heritage (such as in the USA, Brazil and Kazakhstan). That's two related but different topics. Regarding "origins", both culture and genetics may be discussed, that's not a problem. It is important to point out that the origins of the Germanic peoples ultimately lie in Southern Scandinavia, while the German people, heterogenous as it is, emerged in Eastern Francia/ the HRE in the course of the Middle Ages. dab (𒁳) 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the way I see it I don't think this requires a separate article, people of German ancestry or German-speakers could be easily incorporated into a section of "Germans". I don't know what happens in German, but in English there's definitely no proof that terms such "German" and "ethnic German" are used equivalently for "Deutsche" and "Volkdeutsche". In the Americas there are many people of British and French ancestry as well, but there are no different articles on 'Brits' and 'Ethnic Brits'. Miskin 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

that's different, "Brits" not being an ethnicity at all (as you'll be sure to find out if you look it up). Still, while I don't agree that it is a pov fork, I agree the "ethnic Germans" article should probably be merged here (the merge suggstion is in fact mine). dab (𒁳) 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler?

These are probably the two most famous and influential German people. Why not put them on the picture list? --Arigato1 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here I only see old people who lived many centuries earlier. It is better to have people who are famous today like Herbert Grönemeyer or Michael Schumacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jked (talk • contribs)

Yeah, lets put Adolf Hitler - it doesn't matter whether it's offensive to Jews, Gypsies and other people who are not pure Germans/Whites. The point here is that Hitler was a great, charismatic leader for Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.101.164 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You forget always that Hitler was born in Austria and so he was originally Austrian !! --89.182.151.147 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler is NOT representativ for the germans (maybe for german history). At least not to a point that he should be between the four persons shownm on this site. 22:40, 4 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.73.112 (talk)

The 68 million Ethnic Germans in Germany

Where does this number come from?? It's spoken about with such surety on this page yet I cannot find a link to some sources...Unless this 68 million is not counting the repatriated ethnic Germans from the USSR... In either case, someone enlighten me. --CorneliusStump 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That number is plain wrong, I corrected that and added sources. Cheers, MikeZ 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Diets

I^(f)I R^(ecal)C^(orectly) the etymology of Diets/Deutsch is originally just something analog as current terms of "(the) people" (most notably one's own people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.72.36 (talk • contribs)

More or less yes.Rex 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Continual POV-pushing of incorrect maps marking Dutch as German.

Hopefully this is the last time I replace a map which somehow want to create the illusion that the Dutch language (and Frisian for that matter) was somehow German untill the First World War. I carefully advise people to make a very clear distinction between the Continental West-Germanic dialect continuum and the German language ."Continental", "West-" and "-ic" have a reason you know. Dutch isn't German, it never was, and will never will be a part of German. Thank you very much. Rex 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As you say it is a dialect continuum. Friesian does not belong to that continuum, but most dialects spoken in the Netherlands do. These maps are quite common and can be found in English literature, too.

You can check how the late medieval dialects of the region covered by the Netherlands were called. As opposed to your claim, they start with Middle and they end with German. The region breaking away from the Holy Roman empire did not change this fact. So, when you approach it from a political point of view Dutch is not German, and when look it at as a continuum, it is usually called German. However, this is not German as in New High German, the official language of the country called Germany (but not even the only German language spoken in Germany). -- Zz 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Learn to read what I said. Both from a linguistic and a political view, Dutch isn't German. The fact that you think Middle German dialects were dominant in the Netherlands, shows me you're a layman on the subject, and clearly unaware of Low Frankish. A standard language cannot be a part of another standard language. It's impossible. As I said before, do not confuse the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum with German. Rex 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will return the compliment. You do not read what I write. I said the name of the dialects will start with Middle and they will end with German. That is entirely different to Middle German. Rather, it refers to Middle High German, Middle Low German, even Middle Middle German. The Low Saxon dialects of the Middle Ages will be labeled as Middle Low German, for instance. Yes, even if they were in what is called the Netherlands. Same for the recent dialects, they are New Low German. I guess you got the point.

Referring to an old Frankish language somehow different to German does not make sense, as that language was spoken in Germany, too, and is usually seen as just another of the many dialects of German. -- Zz 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, I suggest you read a linguistic book on Germanic languages. I was not talking about Old Frankish (hardly German btw) but Low Frankish. Which, when you get a book, you'll find is in the Low Franconian-Low Saxon group of Germanic dialects. Low German, in contemporary linguistics either refers to Low Saxon (which has never been Middle German) or simply means that the language in question did not experience the High German consonant shift, not that it's part of the German language. You do know the difference between German and Germanic don't you?Rex 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You still do not get it, because you are too busy projecting. I never implied the late medieval dialects in the Netherlands were "middle" (as in the distinction middle, high, low). Instead I pointed out they belong to a temporal middle, as in Old Low German, Middle Low German, New Low German.

The late medieval dialects in the Netherlands were Middle Low German (well, most of them). You can find that in many books. Cope with it. I will explain the other points after that. -- Zz 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think I'm the one who needs explaining? What you call Middle Low German in the Netherlands is what most linguists call Middle Dutch. A form of Dutch, preceded by Old Dutch (and not Old Saxon). Low German in English can mainly refer to 2 things, either Low Saxon (I believe you people call it Platdüüts) and "Low German" (Niederdeutsch) the first is a German dialect/West Germanic language and the other is a linguistic marker concerning soundshifts. Not a language. Cope with that.Rex 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You needed explaining, because you misunderstood all the way long. Only my last comment got that straight.

And again, I am not speaking about Middle Dutch, which would refer to Low Franconian dialects, I mentioned the mix of Franconian and Saxon dialects (which are not restricted to the Netherlands, just for the protocol). This mix belongs to Middle Low German mostly - as opposed to Middle Low West Germanic.

That brings us back to one standard not being included in another standard - which is correct. But the maps do not refer to standard languages, they refer to the continuum of dialects, and dialect is opposed to a standard here. Like it or not, this continuum is seen as the German continuum. Which is ok, when you do not confuse German the standard German language here. I actually do not mind pointing out this difference. -- Zz 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a mix of Low Saxon and Low Frankish called Middle Low German. Then let me point out what you're effectively saying; Dutch is a separate standard language, but the dialects that make up the Dutch language are German? That makes absolutely no sense. Again you confuse German with CWG...Rex 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You say: There is no such thing as a mix of Low Saxon and Low Frankish called Middle Low German. I did not say that. Read up what I actually did. Your continually misunderstanding and misreprenting makes a discussion futile.

You will not find any source inventing labels like Middle Low West Germanic or even Middle Low Continental West Germanic. Go figure.

Since the discussion is at a dead end, try to find people who support your point of view. Maybe we can check for the general opionion. Feel free to have the last word. -- Zz 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere will you find terms like "Middle Low West Germanic" or "Middle Low Continental West Germanic" written down by me. Those are your own personal inventions. The continental Germanic dialects aren't a personal invention as wel. But linguistics.Rex 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Danish would be a Continental Germanic dialect, too. Linguistics, er, for sure. -- Zz 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked we were speaking about the West Germanic languages, not the North Germanic ones.Rex 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked you pulled the rabbit Continental Germanic dialect out of the hat. Because that would include Danish by definition - even though the nice map attached to it forgets this -, I suggest we do not use this rabbit for cooking.

I already mentioned that there is no label Middle Low West Germanic or Middle Low Continental West Germanic. On there other hand, there is Middle Low German. -- Zz 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. A, now extinct, language related to, but not incorportating Dutch.Rex 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is a mess

This article is a mess. It's packed with weasel words, bold statements without sources and almost impossible claims (a divided Germany in the form of Germania, are you serious?). This article needs good (preferably English) sources/references and someone who can write a coherent factual text.Rex 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What this article and Wikipedia in general do not need is someone who repeatedly tries to push his very personal Anti-German view on it. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove {{fact}}-taggs. They are placed in the article because the article lacks sources. If you want to remove them, provide valid references for the claim they're positioned. Otherwise it's considered vandalism. Also, refrain from personal attacks.Rex 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned before at User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Personal_attacks not to misuse the {{rpa}}-tag to remove reactions from other editors. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsuprisingly User:Dbachmann has once again made invalid accusations. Including my edits being "unmotivated". Well let me tell you Bachmann that all important edits I made to this article have always gotten an edit summary. Including the one in which I "blank" (seems superlatives are kind of your thing) the page. Please do explain however what this (suggestive) information has to do with the 'term' German(s)?

The linguistic affiliation of the English language itself was hotly debated at the time, and English academia was split into "Germanophiles" who preferred to include English as one of the "Germanic" or "Teutonic" languages, and "Scandophiles" who preferred to classify English as "Scandinavian" (now known as North Germanic).

With the rise of the German Empire as a threat to British interests in Hamburg, the "Germanophile" position came out of fashion and British romanticism turned to Scandinavia (see Viking revival). "German" from this period refers to the German Empire, already to the exclusion of Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Usage of Dutch was narrowed to refer to the Netherlands exclusively during the early 16th century.

If you ask me, this is something for the English language article. Not an article dealing with an ethnic group. But you somehow think otherwise.

Also, you asked: how is "according to the United States Census of 2000" in need of further "citation"? If you'd read my edit-summary you'd have known. The US Census talks about 18% of the Americans having German ancestry (and it does not even speak of which degree), but this article somehow uses that information (which it poses as a reference) to say that 1/4 of the Americans are German Americans. How does that add up Dbachman? Rex 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

um, the paragraph is central to the English term "German", which is what under discussion in this article. You have just removed the whole paragraph in an edit summary ranting about "fact tags". You are well known as an unreasonably choleric editor, Rex, with a string of arbcom admonitions. You would do well to edit very politely, arguing very clearly why you are doing things. Edit-warring has never done you any good. The US paragraph is talking about "white Americans", presumably calculating the 25% figure assuming 45 million out of 192 million (non-Hispanic) whites. I would agree this is a strange calculation, but you'd edit it out as bizarre or pov, not claiming it is "uncited". dab (𒁳) 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, what do the German people have to do with the classification of the English language? Enlighten me. And 18% German heritage doesn't make 1/4. Ever. So though a source is given, upon checking the source I got reasonable doubt as to the information given in this article, hence a tagg. Nothing wrong with that now is it? As for "polite editing" was it polite of that Matthead to revert without an edit summary or for you to compare my edits with blanking or vandalism? I don't think so, so before you accuse others of impolite editing of wikipedia, look at yourself first.Rex 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

once again, more briefly for your benefit: 45/192=23%. I fixed it. German is an English word with a history within the English langauge. dab (𒁳) 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you purpously blinding yourself? I asked what Germans have to do with the classification of the English language.Rex 12:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not give you a personalized explanation of what you would learn if you read text instead of blanking it. Edits like this are completely out of line and only further establish you as a problem editor. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No you're not giving an explanation at all. You're just avoiding giving answers. Rex 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what could be considered unanswered. I have better things to do than holding your hand while you look up German or Deutsch in any English-German dictionary. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me once again spell it out for you then: What do Germans have to do with the classification of the English language?Rex 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

simple. the point is that according to an (obsolete) classification of the English language, the English are Germans, and the "Germanophiles" used the term in this extended sence. I direct your kind attention to the section title, "history of the term". Can I do anything else for you? Any homework or household chores? Read out the newspaper for you? serve breakfast? dab (𒁳) 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can go wash your mouth with soap. If you (for some reason) want the article to say the English are/were considered Germans (though by whome I ask myself) then make that clear and don't speak of "linguistic affiliation". This is (supposed to be) an article on Germans. So why does the "history of the term" suddenly speak of linguistic classifications?! You know you're wrong, and pulling a dead horse. Rex 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

what on earth are you talking about? I wouldn't endorse this position in my weirdest dreams. I am merely reporting on an obsolete discussion of the 19th century, in a sectin clearly labeled as historical. Conflating linguistic and ethnic classification was exercised with great seriousness in the 19th century. Of course we know better today (at least some of us do), but that's still what was debated back in the 19th century, like it or not. It is necessary to trace the history of the term if you want to understand how the confusions surrounding it originate. You, of course, do not want to understand anything, you just want to state over and over that the Dutch are not Germans. Which they are not, indeed, today, as a result of processes that took place in the 16th to 17th centuries. dab (𒁳) 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you? I don't care if it's labelled historical, it makes no sense with this subject. Also don't talk for me, I know you like to pretend you know it all and like to offend people subtly, this is no where near the Dutch/German thing you (want to) see in each and every of my edits. This about a suggestive (unreferenced!) remark that simply has no place here. Rex 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that "subtly offend Rex Germanus" has a very low priority on my daily to-do list, if any all. dab (𒁳) 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever.Rex 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ethnic myth

this is nonsense how can you know how much "german" are living in other countries than the USA since the USA are the only place with ethnic ratio (w/canada it seems). what about the Franks (Francs) descents leaving in france? Paris By Night 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

what are you trying to say? this doesn't parse at all. dab (𒁳) 12:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting pissed on DBachman and Matthead

Please do explain why you continually remove citetaggs while providing no references WHATSOEVER. Rex 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

because your "requests" are flimsy and gratuitous. You and I know this has a history. I am waiting for the day you begin editing constructively, reacting what people take the time to point out to you. until then, this is not a debate I wish to continue. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not make request. I want to see references. You continually removing cite taggs is a shame and it makes you the one who's unconstructive.Rex 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Piece by piece examples

• Out of approximately 100 million native speakers of German in the world, about 75 million consider themselves Germans

Quite a bold claim I reckon. Germany itself has 68 million "ethnic Germans" (well, that's the number you get when you get ridd of all the other ethnic groups in the total German population) where do those other 7 million come from? I don't see the sources, do you?

• There are an additional 70 million people of German ancestry (mainly in the USA, Brazil, Argentina, Kazakhstan and Canada) who are not native speakers of German but who may still consider themselves ethnic Germans, so that the total number of Germans worldwide lies between 75 and 160 million

Do they? Does me considering myself an German increase the number of ethnic Germans? Ever heard of partial herritage? No? And does it make you an ethnic German? While not speaking German? Who defines that? You or sources? You apparantly because I don't see sources.

• A "German" as opposed to generically "Germanic" ethnicity emerges in the course of the Middle Ages, under the influence of the unity of Eastern Francia from the 9th century. The process is gradual and lacks any clear definition.

Ah right ... so what it essentially says is, we make a claim, but in the next sentence we admit that it can't be proven? This is your vision of wikipedia? This is a totally unreferenced claim.

• The beginnings of the divided Germany may be traced back much further; to a Roman occupied Germania in the west and to Free Germania in the east.

So, eventhough the disputed sentence above this one, basically says there was no German identity before the emergence of East Francia ... this sentence claims it did exist? Centuries before... not only unreferenced, but also contradicting. (oh and while were at it, I can conclude you believe that Germania was an independant country? and not merely a region on Roman maps?)

• Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity.. It was only after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II that this began to change.

Again a bold claim. If it's that proven and obvious, where are those sources?

Your entire attitude is a shame. You blindly revert just because you see my name. Even reinserting false spelling, or do they write a ethnic groupin Switzerland? Prove them and then come back. That's how wikipedia works, and that's something you should know by now. Rex 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

INFOBOX Totals

To me, the total number of Germans given in the infobox seems ridiculously low. There are ~75 million in Germany proper, not to mention at least 60 million (23 mil single ancestry, 40 mil partial) in the U.S. Of the 40 mil "partial" in the U.S., 22 mil identify German as their "primary" ancestry. So, just between those two, we have 98 mil of exclusively German ancestry, and up to 138 mil of combined ancestry. That's saying nothing of the MILLIONS more in Canada, Argentina, Mexico, Austria, and elsewhere. The "minimum" of 80 mil is far too low.

Many of the numbers need to be re-calculated to more accurately reflect ethnic makeup in the countries listed. DBQer 22:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Germans in the Info Box

I was just wondering why these four particular Germans were selected to represent the whole ethnicity? They aren't bad choices, but I am wondering why Bismarck instead of Adenauer, and why Kepler instead of Gauss?(Lucas(CA) 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Request for Comment: Population numbers - Continuous reverting by anonymous user

Request for Comment: Population numbers - Continuous reverting by anonymous user|The number of Germans in Germany is repeatably changed by an anonymous user, without justification or giving sources at all. The number given by this user is contradicting the official number of the German statistics office, therefore that source has being deleted multiple times by that user as well. The user didn't debate at all. 10:39, 13 July 2007

The population number of Germans in Germany is repeatedly changed by an anonymous user without giving any justification or citing sources.

Examples:

• [2] - Change by 91.12.103.35, 22 May 2007
• [3] - Change by 91.12.115.80, 10 June 2007
• [4] - Change by 91.12.72.59, 11 July 2007
• [5] - Change by 91.12.126.50, 12 July 2007 - even deleting sources provided by me.

I would ask the anonymous user to justify his/her changes and to give creditable sources.

Thanks, MikeZ 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again:

• [6] - Change by 91.12.117.131, 13 July 2007

I just revered that for the last time (3RR) - would an administrator please take care of this issue? - thanks, MikeZ 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are nowhere close to violating 3RR as your reverts were on different days (3RR is for 24 hour terms). But it would indeed be best for an admin to look into that annon's reversions.--Caranorn 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the archived talk page could shed some light on the confusing numbers (ethnicity, citizenship or/and nationality) and how they came there (1, 2, 3, etc…). It doesn’t explain the reverting without discussing of course. --Van helsing 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would simply treat this issue as vandalism, as this person is disruptively editing by changing sourced numbers, and removing sourced information. A vandal can leave whatever "legitimate" edit summary they want, but if they're editing disruptively, it's still vandalism. Parsecboy 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Could the 91.12.* IP adresses be used as sock puppets by a user who did not succeed earlier? They belong to Deutsche Telekom, and may come from the Nuremberg area, but this could only be the office address, I don't know much about this. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems it's now also personal attacks as one can see in his latest edit summary.--Caranorn 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite, sprotect or wait till he becomes tired. --Van helsing 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above - this can be treated as vandalism. I would say the source used is certainly reliable. Rather annoying, though, apparently dynamic IP changing numbers. Even though 3RR rule does not apply for reverting vandalism, it's better to ask for semi-protection if the IP continues doing this. – Sadalmelik 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested s-protect on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection after recent revert by Anon. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the claim of 60 million ethnic Germans living in the US needs to be reverted. It is imprecise to refer to the grandchildren of German immigrants as ethnic Germans. nielsle 24 July 2007

Just a note on this matter

Just a note. But the allegation towards the anonymous IP(s) on reverting the numbers of ethnic german (wether in Germany or a whole) without citing references, also goes for the "regular/registered" contributors. Not choosing any side here, but just saying your version is just as unreferenced as theirs.Rex 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are refering to Rex, the 75 million is backed by a source, other numbers might be another issue.--Caranorn 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue? I think you should straighten that one out, before you revert or conspire to revert anonymous contributors whose information has the same (unreferenced) value as your own.Rex 10:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Rex, but now you've lost me entirely. I didn't add any data to that list as far as I can recall. The mention of a conspiracy is also a rather odd one.--Caranorn 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do try to read what I wrote rather than what you want to read. I never said you added the data. You called it "another issue" while I say its an issue to be solved before this one. I also didn't mention a "conspiracy" I mention that there a number of registered editors here, who are trying to obstruct/stop (an) anonymous user(s) who's adding adding just as unrefenced information as they are.Rex 11:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Title - definition of German

I really think the title cannot be kept. This article is about "ethnic Germans", the first line states: "This article is about the Germans as an ethnic group (see also Ethnic German)." It then should also be titled that way

I am aware of the fact that the term German is sometimes used in the sense of "ethnic German", but the official definition of the meaning of German is given in article 116 of the German constitution: German is who holds the German citizenship...Art. 116. I know if you read the details, it gets alittle more complicated, but everyone holding the German citizenship is by definition German.

Throughout the article German is used as a synonym for the "German ethnic group", and I assume there is a terminology problem. What I get from other articles is that the term "Ethnic German" has an established usage to designate emigrants of German descent in e.g. the US and that maybe that is the reason it is avoided here. But just using German is not acceptable, look at this sentence:

The term Ethnic Germans may be used in several ways. It may serve to distinguish Germans from those who may have citizenship in the German state but are not Germans. = There are Germans who are not German ????

I think this article needs to use use ethnic German when it means ethnic German, and also be titled that way. There maybe should be a disambiguity page, explaining that this article refers to Germans (ethnic group) and Ethnic_German to descendants of German emigrants (up to now they both cover a mixture of both). Jonas78 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You know you're absolutely right. This article seems to (want to) be about Ethnic Germans but is called Germans. This would be fine, however, there is also an article actually called Ethnic Germans. If one wants to keep both articles, this one should be about Germans as in nationality, otherwise they ought to be merged.Rex 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonas, this is a terminological problem. Ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) is the term for ethnic Germans who are not German citizens (a brief glance at the intro of Ethnic Germans will make this clear). German citizens may or may not be ethnic Germans, but they are not "Ethnic Germans" in this sense.dab (𒁳) 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Its only a problem when you want it to be. German as used in this article doesn't need citizenship. Its an ethnic concept, not a legal one. So basically this article should be about Germans in the national sense, or about Germans as an ethnic group (with Ethnic Germans being merged). Simple. When you want it to be.Rex 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

you cannot present a topic as more simple than it actually is. We are not free to adapt terminology to our liking, we have to report on terminology as it is used. But it is simple. The "Ethnic Germans" article is about the German diaspora, per common usage. As such, it is a sub-article of this one. dab (𒁳) 09:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Austrians

Hi

I'm from Austria myself, and i just wanted to say that this:

"Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German[citation needed] and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity.[citation needed] It was only after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II that this began to change."

is entirely wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.43.98 (talk • contribs)

Yeah this article has been a heaven for unsupported claims for several months now. I'm planning on doing some serious cutting and reorganising this week. Every unsupported claim (as the austrian claim) will be removed.Rex 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This statement indeed needs revision. The fact of the matter is that whether German-speaking Austrians should be considered Germans had been a controversial question from the 19th century. from de:Deutsche:

Als in der Revolution von 1848 die Errichtung eines deutschen Nationalstaats möglich schien, stritt man sich heftig darum, ob Österreich in diesen Staat einbezogen werden könne, da das Kaiserreich Österreich beträchtliche nichtdeutschen Gebiete (v.a. Teile Böhmens und Ungarn) umfasste, die sich nicht in einen deutschen Nationalstaat eingliedern lassen hätten ... Nach dem Zerfall der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie entstand 1918 die Republik Österreich (die kurzfristig als „Deutschösterreich“ bezeichnet wurde). Es gab viel Skepsis, inwieweit dieser „Rest-“ oder „Rumpfstaat“ – beraubt der ungarischen Agrar- und der böhmischen Industriegebiete – alleine lebensfähig sei. Ein Zusammenschluss mit der Deutschen Republik (später Weimarer Republik) wurde aber durch den Vertrag von Saint-Germain unmöglich. Mit dessen Ratifizierung im Jahr 1919 wurde auch der Name "Deutschösterreich" untersagt und in "Republik Österreich" geändert. In der Zeit des austrofaschistischen Ständestaats (1933 bis 1938) ... war es der offizielle Standpunkt der Regierenden, Österreich als „zweiten“ – und wegen des katholischen Fundaments – „besseren deutschen Staat“ anzusehen. Ein eigenes Nationalbewusstsein war nur in Ansätzen vorhanden, man empfand sich als Österreicher, grenzte sich jedoch gegenüber den Deutschen nur unscharf ab.

--dab (𒁳) 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The the above article's discussion about the initial attempts to build a german nation in the 19th century have more to do with the political structure of Austria than the ethnicity of its german speaking people. This [the wikipedia] article is about an ethnic group rather than a political entity. The classification of Ethnicity is not a matter a matter of political and historical factors, but rather of hereditary factors. A German in Belgium, or Switzerland or Austria is a german in terms of ethnicity and this article is explicity intended to be about an ethnic group.(Lucas(CA) 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Ethnicity is not something which is as easy to spot as nationality. If the austrians have a separate consiousness (which I find not hard to believe) then who are you to say that's a lie. One of, if not the major charactaristic of an ethnic group is that its supposed people indentify as one with eachother. If Austrians do not do this, then it ends there.Rex 08:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed. We have to be very clear that ethnicity is a cultural construct. It involves all of language, ancestry, customs, religion etc. You cannot change your ethnicity over night, but ethnicities will shift over the centuries. It is perfectly straightforward to state that there was no German ethnicity in the 15th century, that it emerged in the 16th to 17th century, and that an Austrian ethnic identity began to form as separate from the German one from the 19th century. This is how ethnicity evolves, not as an exception but as a rule. No ethnicity can remain 'the same' in any meaninful sense for more than a millennium or so. Notions of ethnicity as an eternal unchangeable essence are part of confused national mysticism, not of reality. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting – but this is not the point! The question is not ARE Austrians considering themselves as being German, the question is WERE Austrians considering themselves as being German. And the simple answer to the last question is: ( more or less ) Yes!

If you do not realise this fact, you can’t understand and describes certain historical incidents like: The Congress of Vienna and the role of Metternich, some of the personal ambitions of Mozart, the Austro-Prussian War ( 1866 ), the conflicts with Pan-Slavism, the roots of national socialism and the situation of Franz Kavka. How do you want to explain those historical events and put them into a broader context, if you don’t have in mind that Austrians considered themselves ( and were identified ) as Germans? --Sushi Leone 07:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well talking about 'understanding' "facts". Did it cross your mind that at that time the definition of "German" was not the same as today?Rex 09:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and tomorrow is different from yesterday – that`s a truism. But where is the fundamental contradiction to my statement? I was talking about historical developments and putting historical events in relation to each other by recognizing those dynamic processes. As I`ve read your post I immediately asked myself: When exactly was “that time” ( 1814, 1866, 1919, 1932 ? ) and what do you think which significant aspects of the definition of “German” have changed within this period that might have effect the self-image of Austrians? --Sushi Leone 11:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? You claim that Austrians once considered themselves Germans, but is a German from 1550 the same as one from 1790? Is a German from 1900 the same as an austrian born in 1960? With whome would Martin Luther, who is considered a German, indentify today? The Germans or the Austrians? I think Luther felt closer to being a Mansfelder than either of those two. See, being German is more than speaking German, which is something people tend to forget.Rex 13:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right – this is self-explanatory. In the K & K Monarchy the inhabitants of Cisleithania ( the “German” part of Austria-Hungary ) considered themselves as being German and the other ethnics of the empire IDENTIFIED them as Germans – according to the contemporary definition of “German”, which surly differed from the definition in the era of Mozart. But the crucial point is that they had a (Austro-) German Identity!

I will give you a concrete example how a retrospective constructed “Austrian identity” would complicate the understanding of historical developments: The Habsburg Monarchy ( later K& K Monarchy resp. Austria-Hungary ) was a multi-ethnic empire. During the revolutions of 1848 a lot of ethnicitys wanted to escape from the oppression of the ( German speaking ) imperial government and tried to gain national independence, especially the Slavic population in (nowadays) Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, the Bukovina ( Ukraine ) – what was the birth of Pan-Slavism. Later these ethnical tensions culminated into grotesque scenarios where members of the Young Czech Party, Poles, etc.and German nationalists were beating the crap out of each other in the ( Vienna-) parliament of the K & K Monarchy. This mess has been watched by a young man in the audience - his name: Adolf Hitler! Here we’ve got one of the main roots of the conflict between Germans(!) and Slavs in the 20th Century!

So you see: Historical / scientific correctness is much more important than “national sensitivities“ or misunderstood political correctness. Just take a look at the “Ethnic nationalism” section of the article. You don’t find there anything substantial about the development of Pan-Germanism because that would require some knowledge about the history of Austria! Instead this section is full of catchwords and vague insinuations!

BTW: You are right! I’m not happy with the concept of “Germans as an ethnicy” – I think being German means to have a certain ( lose ) socio-cultural bond and/or a specific legal status! But that’s my personal opinion! --Sushi Leone 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Get this mess over with;

Current situation:

Germans:

When concerning the articles on ethnic groups this is a standard title, compare: "Hungarians", "Danes", "Norwegians", etc.. Other used titles are "[X] people" and "[X] (ethnic group)". All these articles deal with ethnic groups (or in some limited cases, national groups). This article has and is about Germans in an ethnic sense.

Ethnic German:

This article too is about Germans in an ethnic sense. However this article claims that "ethnic Germans are Germans who do not live in Germany". It's essentially the 'Germans' article but without reference to modern Germany itself. Recently people have altered the intro to make it seem the article is about a "German diaspora". (but they do not allow it to be renamed to that insisting on it being called "Ethnic German")

In my opinion there are a couple of solutions to solve this mess. (and it truly is a mess alright) :

• Germans (on the Germans as an ethnic group, in Germany) & German diaspora (ethnic Germans, outside Germany)

• Germans/German people (information on the Germans as a nation (ie nationals)) & Germans (ethnic group)/Ethnic Germans (on ethnic Germans, both in and outside Germany)

• Germans (Germans as an ethnic group, a merge with ethnic Germans)

Rex 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current situation is a huge mess. I would favour to have only one article as in your third option. First, because it is kind of difficult to create two distinct meaningful articles simply because ethnic Germans (inside Germany) and German nationals are largely the same group, and two articles inside/outside should be bound to be quite repetitive. Yet, in my opinion, an article on "ethnic" Germans should not be titled Germans, because I think nowadays the most dominant and immediate interpretation of that term refers to German citizens and not e.g. to the descendants of German immigrants to the US or Latin America.

Another important issue should be the definition of the idea of ethnic Germans. This article kind of gives the impression as if there were a clear definition of what consitutes the German ethnic group, but there isn´t. in any case the dimension of descendance is given far too much weight, ethnicity is basically an identity, in which descendance can play a role but does not have to. The English article on ethnic group does a good job pointing that out. The French article adds further dimensions to the concept. If there was a coherent description of the concept (there is no unique definition) there should also be far less discussions about who to count as ethnic German and who not, because that only depends on the subjective definition you use. Jonas78 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There already are articles that deal with Volksdeutsche and Reichsdeutsche, as well as the historical and political events surrounding these classifications. But this article is about the whole of Germans, whether they be from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Brazil, or America, and the common bonds they share.(Lucas(CA) 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Volksdeutsche should be merged with Ethnic Germans. Apart from that, I fail to see Rex has a point. Division of articles should be informed by de:Deutscher (Begriffsklärung). dab (𒁳) 11:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't have an article called Germans (treathing them as an ethnic group) and an article on ethnic Germans. That ridiculous. This is the English wikipedia, not the German variant. They might not see the contradiction people here do.Rex 17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

we'll follow established terminology. Convince me that in English, "German diaspora" is more commonly used for the concept than "Ethnic Germans", and I'll be all for moving the article. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Someone who says the Ethnic Germans article is about the German diaspora? Also, learn to read. I'm not saying Ethnic Germans should be moved to German diaspore (though it's obviously contradictory to the article claims). Diaspora and ethnicity aren't the same things. Ethnicity and ethnicity are. That's the problem. Rex 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to.

learn to read. I'm not saying Ethnic Germans should be moved to German diaspore -- [7]. Spare us the hand-waving and just present the sources in agreement with your approach, ok? --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well guess what, you do need to learn how to read. I moved the article, because it claimed to be (I do believe you added that line) about the German diaspora. So I move, I never said it needed to be moved. I don't know who 'us' in this context is, in this discussion you stand alone. Requesting sources is ridiculous, for what do you need sources? It's two article about practically the same subject. Simple!09:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex, you need to learn how to think soon. "Ethnic Germans" is the common term for "German diaspora", while non-dispersed Germans of Germany are simply known as "Germans". Yes, this isn't strictly logical, but no, that doesn't mean we should coin our own terminology. "Ethnic Germans" - 123,000 google hits; "German diaspora" 754 google hits, enough said. Here is dict.cc: [8] the German translation of English "ethnic German" is (deutscher) Aussiedler. According to leo.org [9], English "ethnic German" translates to Volksdeutscher. Now pray cite one dictionary in support of your opinion that "ethnic German" should include German citizens. This is the situation in English. I don't know about the common terminology in Dutch. Hey, here's an idea, if you know about Dutch terminology, why don't you stop bickering about English terminology, and edit nl:Duitsers instead? Would you agree with the following?

Soms maakt men het onderscheid tussen 'Duitsers' en 'Etnisch Duitsers' waarbij men deze laatste groep definieert als mensen die door zichzelf of door anderen als Duitser beschouwd worden, maar die niet in de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland wonen, en die er ook geen burger van zijn.

apart from the "soms" that dovetails precisely with English usage. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting so incredibly tired of you DBachman. I hope that I don't have to explain to you the validity of both google searches or Dutch wikipedia as references. I never said Ethnic Germans should include German citizens. I said (pay attention now, this is important) that the German ethnos should be placed in one article, either under Germans or ethnic Germans. If it would go under ethnic Germans (are you still able to follow?) then Germans should either redirect or become an article about the German nation, ie German citizens as a whole. Alles klar?Rex 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You generously omit that I presented two independent dictonaries besides nl-wiki and google. So, you are saying, then, Ethnic Germans, German Americans, German minority in Poland, Germans of Hungary, Germans of Yugoslavia, Germans of Romania, Germans in the Czech Republic, Baltic Germans, Germans of Kazakhstan, German-Brazilian, Volga German should all be "placed in one article"? Hey, it's all about the "German ethnos". Way to go. And then we merge Dutch diaspora into Dutch people, and Linux into operating system, and then coffee into beverage? You are so amazing, how do you do it? Wikipedia will finally be available in a single-page version, yay! Oh, wait, there is Wikipedia policy. Too bad you still haven't presented anything remotely looking like a WP:RS. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No. SIGH that's not what I'm saying either... water naar de zee dragen is er niks bij, to me Germans of whatever are extentions of the Ethnic German article. Which is essentially the same as Germans. I'll try kindergarten tactics:
GERMANS = ABOUT ETHNIC GROUPS CALLED GERMANS (worldwide)
ETHNIC GERMANS = ABOUT ETHNIC GROUPS CALLED GERMANS (worldwide)
Rex 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

the power of the Venn diagram

you're almost there now. The fact of the matter is:

• "Germans" -- various people called "Germans", both inside and outside of Germany
• "Ethnic Germans" - various groups of people called "Germans", excluding those in Germany.

from this, via advanced syllogistic reasoning, it follows that ethnic Germans is a sub-article of Germans. ta-da! dab (𒁳) 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

current situation.

Exactly now get this;

• "Germans" -- various people called "Germans", both inside and outside of Germany.

Since we've apparantly gone visual, I hope the following image can make it clear.

Rex 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

U: Germans; A: Federal Germans; A^C: Ethnic Germans.

an excellent illustration of the concept of sub-article, thank you, except the "Germans outside Gemany" should fill the entire "Ethnic Germans" box, because that's the entire scope of the article. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And still he mannages to (purposely?) miss the point. When you make a subarticle make sure the information isn't already in the main article. Otherwise, WHAT'S THE POINT?!Rex 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

hello? Ethnic Germans weighs 46k. Our Germans#Ethnic_Germans section here has 2k. That's a factor of 2300%. Any other idea how you can maintain the illusion that you are actually making sense (if we're really charitable)? Or has Rex gone to sleep and I have been talking to ELIZA all this time? dab (𒁳) 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in having an article on Germans as an ethnic group and ethnic germans?! Where's the sense in that?!Rex 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion from an outsider, changing the title of ethnic German to overseas Germans should do the trick and placate Rex. This would also be in line with, eg, the Chinese people articles (you have Han Chinese and overseas Chinese, and ethnic Chinese redirects to the latter). -- Hongooi 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. But then you had to have German diaspora complicating things, didn't you. -- Hongooi 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

they are by no means all 'overseas', many are in Eastern Europe or Western Asia. I took great pains to explain terminology to Rex. He didn't listen. His entire point is that it is illogical to exclude Germans in Germany from the term "ethnic Germans". I agree it is illogical, but it's still common terminology. We have to explain this, but we cannot change it. That's the end of the debate, really, unless some WP:RS is cited that addresses this question. In that case, we could say "Dr. X (199Y) deprecates the usage of 'ethnic Germans' in this sense as misleading, preferring 'German diaspora' instead." Since so far we have no actual source saying this, just a single rude Wikipedian, we cannot really feature the suggestion. I am afraid it sheds a telling light on Rex' character that while most people would read this and maybe say 'hm, funny.', he has to throw a hysterical fit, clutter talkpages and waste everyone's time - without citing a single source of course. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, "overseas" doesn't literally have to mean "over the sea". After all, overseas Chinese also refers to Chinese in places like Malaysia, Europe and so on, and these are still on the same landmass as China itself. It's just shorthand for "Chinese who aren't in China", and it could just as easily be used for the German articles. -- Hongooi 09:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps German diaspora would be a good primary article for dealing with Germans who aren't in Germany, if the "overseas" is a sticking point. That could take in the content of what's currently in ethnic Germans, which would make for a more elegant arrangement of things. The problem with "ethnic Germans" as a title is that it can mean more than one thing, and only one of those meanings pertains to the actual content of the article. -- Hongooi 09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "German diaspora" is a clearer term. That's why we have the redirect. This is a {{move}} suggestion then. This should be discussed at Talk:Ethnic Germans. Applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names):

Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.

so, if Rex had a constructive suggestion (as opposed to idle trolling), his job would be to show that 'German diaspora' is in common usage. It it can be shown that the term is at least similarly widespread as is 'Ethnic Germans', I will be all for moving the article in the interest of clarity. The point is that to the best of my knowledge, "German diaspora" is not in common usage. I may well be mistaken, but in this case it is up to the party advocating the move to show evidence to the contrary. From google scholar and google books, my impression is that 'Ethnic Germans' is more widespread by a factor of about 20. In the light of this, we would need a source that is respectable indeed to justify the move. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

dab, I still think rex does have a point. I do get that you insist that "ethnic German" in English language only designates ethnic Germans without German passport outside Germany. If that was really true I could see a justification for keeping the articles separated. But, this very article gives alternative interpretations of ethnic Germans.

To make your point you cite online dictionaries translations of "ethnic Germans" as "Volksdeutsche" and "Aussiedler". It is true that these terms refer to "Germans" outside Germany, but they would not include e.g. German-Americans. Please take a look at the definition from Meyers Lexikon of "Volksdeutsche" [10], and read the first few lines of this article on [11]. I would argue that Volksdeutsche is commonly translated to English as ethnic German, but that ethnic German can have a much broader meaning. If you want to convince me otherwise, please tell me how you would translate "ethnisch Deutsch" to English? Jonas78 01:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

you are making the point that Volksdeutsche is not in current use because it is a Nazi term. This is true. The whole confusion stems from the fact that people want to avoid using terms tainted by Nazism, even if that messes up terminology. The current term is Auslandsdeutsche. WWII has had the effect of making official Germany shun away from making any statement regarding a German ethnicity. For the purposes of official Germany, there is only the German passport, and ethnicity is, like religion, a matter of private opinion. In English, "ethnic Germans" is not similarly taited, and US citizens will declare themselves ethnically German without the least thought of Nazism. The question is, who is going to decide who among German citizens is "ethnically German" and who isn't? It's a taboo topic, and official Germany is adamantly agnostic about it. For this reason, "ethnic Germans" by convention excludes Germany. I am not saying this is right or this is wrong, I am simply drawing attention to the fact. The confusion is duly resolved by disambiguation notices, so I really fail to see the problem. "ethnisch deutsch" isn't really a German term. It's occasionally thrown around in Neo-Nazi discussion, and it may occur as a helpless back-translation of ethnic German in order to avoid Volksdeutsche. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Separating total population in infobox by different criteria

"80-160 million" is way too broad a range, and doesn't reflect an imprecise count, but rather the amalgamation of two completely different criteria for what constitutes a member of this ethnic group. I separated the numbers by the two different criteria, using a new parameter in the infobox. Thoughts?--Pharos 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Take out Hitler, Add Beethoven (or Bach)

Can Hitler be removed from the main portraits? The portraits for ethnic group topic should be famous fro good things. In this case Hitler should be removed for Beethoven or even Bach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fidelio72 (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

hitler should be removed 84.187.83.43 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am German, but generally I wouldn`t see a problem of having Hiltler there. It is sad but he probably is the best known German worldwide. But as this article is about Germans as an ethnic group and Austrians treats the Austrian people, maybe a more appropriate place would be over there. If Austrians are not ethnically German, then Hitler isn´t either, he was just a naturalized German citizen, who are treated in demoghraphics of Germany and explicitly not here. I know this sounds a bit crazy, but thats just following the logic of how ethnicity is defined in this article. Jonas78 21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original photo. --Asterion^talk 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler and Stalin are probably the best known Romanian and Georgian, respectively, and I don't see them featured in the Romanians or Georgians infoboxes. Be reasonable. dab (𒁳) 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Jonas78 is kidding, Hitler never defined himself as an Austrian, he even didnt believe in an independent Austria and therefore unified it with Germany in 1938. For the undisputable facts: Already in the first World War Hitler had left Austria and fought in a German (Bavarian) unit. And after his political activism in Germany, in 1925 his Austrian citizenship was officially terminated, so he was "stateless" till the Germans gave him their citizenship (and later elected him as Reichskanzler in 1933, while in Austria he was nothing more than an untalented, jobless and often even homeless painter that was rejected by the Vienna Arts College). -- Rfortner 10:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that Hitler's claim to fame lies in the period after his Vienna Arts College phase. --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Badagnani 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ENGLAND IN A GERMAN ARTICLE?

Don't you think the stuff about England should be removed as it is completely out of place for this article. Anglo-Saxon England had more of a scandinavian link than a central-european German one. Also, with Germany being probably the least homogeneous and most ethnically diverse part of Europe as it is, it would be a mistake to complicate matters by introducing what looks to be unrelated and erroneous material.--FafnirDragon 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh, if you read, you will find that this discusses the term German. Which is a word of the English language. It is impossible to give a responsible definition of German without recognizing that it is part of the English language, and consequently has a history within the English language. dab (𒁳) 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Xenophobic comments aren't usefull to develop this article. -84.155.123.83 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Minorities

I've just removed this text from the Minorities section:

"Despite post war efforts to distance it's modern image from the Nazi era, some parts of Germany still remain hostile places for foreigners, especially of color, from USA or from Israel. Most recent example of hostility towards Indian foreigners (see Mugeln mob attack). Such incidents have attracted worldwide attention, while German government is promising to bring those responsible to justice without any hope so far."

It has been inserted and reverted a few times in the past couple of days.

This seems a very strong claim to make with no references. (I don't think a wikilink to another Wikipedia article counts.) It also seems to generalize from a single, recent incident. I don't see how it is possible to go from one reported incident of violence against one group of foreigners to saying that parts of Germany are hostile places for persons from several completely different ethnic groups. That seems a bit like original research to me. Adding in the reference to the Nazi era is just the icing on the cake. In all, this seems like a rather crude ethnic slur against Germans in general, accusing most or all of them of being xenophobic crypto-Nazis. I think this violates policies on biographies of living persons, if we can stretch that to cover the many living, albeit unnamed, Germans who are being tarred with this brush. - Eron ^Talk 02:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ethnicity and xenophobia are of course inherently connected. The question is, do we want to make it a habit to report on instances of xenophobic hooliganism in ethnicity articles? Not only the Germans have morons among their ranks, you know, but it is of course still true that they are there. Of course the paragraph quoted is irresponsible nonsense. A reasonable summary would mention that nationalism has seen a limited increase in the 2000s, with the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany polling as high as 7% at the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state election of 2006, and a nation-wide support of some 1.5%. See also User:Dbachmann/Parliamentary nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

many Names for Germans

Maybe it`s interesting that Germans are the nation which exist the most names in europe. Sorry for my bad English. In Denmark or Sweden they say "Tysker" in France "Allemands"(the Tribe Allemannen are for example the Schwaben, german-speaking People in Suisse or the german-speaking people in the Alsace), in Italia "Tedesco", in Dutch "Duitser" in Poland "niemieck" in Hungaria "nemet" in Finnish (Suomi) "Saksalainen", in Albanian "gjerman" and many more. And this are only in european languages. Enkidu78 (German) 29. Sept. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.92.64 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 12#List_of_German_Americans. Badagnani 08:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

German Namibians

Why aren't the German Namibians mentioned in this article or in 'Regions with significant populations' listed? It's a very important group, because it's the only one major German minority which could stay in Africa after the German Colonialism. --89.182.151.147 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Assyria-Germany connection

It would be nice if anyone here familiar with this theory, could help out expanding the article: Assyria-Germany connection. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:21 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

ROFL sorry. I am german, but this sounds to me like the theory of the turk descent of the sumerians (sumers?). I never heard about this theory in germany ever. And obviously the germans were since the first stories about them a group of tribes with an indo-european language. I never read that the assyrians spoke a indo-european language. Enkid78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.83.116 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's historical revisionism, no doubt about it. But some nutcases actually believe this theory. And it's spreading. That is why I believe we need an article about it, in order to give a neutral point of view on the subject, where these lies will be refuted due to historical inaccuracy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:56 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Nordic question

Why the german people considered themselves Nordic when the vast part ot the population is a mixture of alpine-dinaric and some slav ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talk • contribs) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the Germans are members of the nordic race, especially in Northern Germany. --91.12.125.126 (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• well, Gunther (German)said that only the 50% of the Germans belong to the Nordic race (concentrated in the North) the rest are Alpine and Dinaric (according with his studied) "The amount of Nordic blood in the German people may be reckoned at 50 to 55 per cent" . Anyway , thanks for the answer .

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/hfk/reoechap6.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not a Nazi (lol)it was just for curiosity .

ethnic Germans

This article is about Germans as an ethnic group and therefore the shared, indigenous German descent is also clearly a factor in German ethnic identification along with culture, language, etc. Please do not remove such from the article. Epf (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tis is one point of view. Othe points of view must be included as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Rubenstein, it is one point of view that is shared by many users, and opposed by many others involved in this article. We should discuss it. I noticed now that the numbers of ethnic Germans in the US who speak German is possibly included in the 80 million number. In any case, I think the importance of the common descent should be included in the definition, especially since it is important in this article and in German ethnic identity (eg. the numbers in the infobox already represent this). Epf (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was Hitler's point of view, and let's make sure it is held by non-Nazis before we rush to add it in. What other sources do you have? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Hitler's point of view was much, much more extreme. There are clearly users on this discussion page (including myself) who acknowledge the descent aspect about ethnic Germans (and the majority of ethnic groups in general) and who are not "Nazis" or "racists". Before we get into researching sources and what not, I think it is important to mention that the entire opening paragraph, is unreferenced. So if you remove the common German descent (Germanic and pre-Germanic elements) aspect to their ethnic identity, you should remove the rest of the definitions or statements there. The Germans as a nation is relatively easy to find references for, but it is more difficult to find sources about individual ethnic groups. Epf (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree we whould look for good sources, especially legal and scholarly ones e.g. by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

well done, you've godwinned the discussion within two replies. The point is that the question of 'ethnicity' is complex, and looks different from a viewpoint within Germany than from without. We have the ethnic Germans article to account for the out-of-Germany viewpoint (people of German ancestry who live outside of Germany). The within-Germany viewpoint is "whoever has a German passport", and the question of ancestry is mostly ignored. The historical reason for this, admittedly, the opposite approach taken by Nazi Germany. This article is about all possible notions of "Germans". Including both the German-Germans viewpoint and the international one. Incidentially, this point has been debated about half a dozen times on this very page in the past. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has been debated and never really resolved. The question of ethnicity is fairly complex, but I don't understand this viewpoint that it "looks different from a viewpoint within Germany than from without". I think that's a ridiculous and ambiguous POV that ignores the opinion of many ethnic Germans within Germany that share the aspect of common descent. Yes there is a separate article about specifically the German diaspora (titled ethnic Germans), but this article about "Germans" was originally meant to include all ethnic Germans, in Germany and in the diaspora. It is only one POV that the "within-Germany" view is "anyone who holds a German passport" and it is very ignorant and unfounded to claim all or even most Germans within Germany share this view. German passport and citizenship is dealth with in Demographics of Germany, while this article is about ethnic identity, including the descent part of it and other related features. You mention the "German-German" viewpoint, but "German-German" would specifically mean indigenous ethnic Germans, of German descent and heritage, in Germany rather than all German citizens. Epf (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is only one POV that the "within-Germany" view is "anyone who holds a German passport"" - I am glad Epf admits there is indeed another POV other than his own, and that his POV is just that one POV among many, and not some "truth." Let me add that in addition to looking at views of German ethnicity today, we need to consider how these views have changed over the past few hundred years. I will leave it to dab to respond to Epf's hysterical claims that dab's points (which seem reasonable to me) is ridiculous, ambiguous, ignorant and unfounded. I have often disagreed with dab, but I have never thought him ridiculous or ignorant. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• True, but I did not say or think the user was ignorant or ridiculous, only the nature of that specific comment I was referring to. Epf (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nordic" Germans?

I don't see any pictures of Nordic blond, blue-eyed Germans. This occurs in very high frequency in Germans and need to be shown in the article.--Damir H. (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Most Germans are blond and blue-eyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.241.126 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mozart, Goethe, Kepler and Bismarck seem to be somewhat blond, but no Claudia Schiffer in here. --217.83.39.81 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer is, of course, German. Other "ethnicity collages" also tout "we have hot girls", but somehow I don't think very urgent, or indeed the point of these infoboxes. dab (𒁳) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)