Talk:Germans/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Germans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

{{edit semi-protected}}

Even though it is explained later on, I believe the first sentence "...are the citizens of Germany." should be expanded to "...are the citizens of Germany, regardless of ancestry." Like the French people article does, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people.

I will add this now. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also since this article isn't about ethnic Germans, I believe the collage should include people of Turkish, African or Middle-Eastern ancestry who are German citizens. I believe this is important since the population of Germany that isn't ethnic German is quite large. I can provide pictures of people with this ancestry that can be recognized by any German citizen. I've been reading this discussion page and I still don't know if Wikipedia has a policy for people who are supposed to be in the collage. Can someone point me to such policy if there is any?

--Grondolf (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have not seen any policy thus far. I suggest that you put up the new collage using pictures of people who are oftentimes included in such overviews (scientists, film stars, high ranking lawyers, etc.) and not people who work in a sector that some may find offensive (fx prostitution). Both Marx and Merkel are amongst the Germans displayed so I guess political people are ok for Germans. I would just suggest not to be too controversial in the choice of who you want to include. Maybe it would be a good idea to add another line of pictures so that you don't actually delete any person. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a completly wrong choice - especially the second row. You can find the argument "We want less men that is why" above - but who is "we". Wikipedia is not or should not be a political statement for equality or for Emancipation of women - it is a encyclopedia! It is sad and hopefully it will chance very fast in the future, but if you would choose the 100 most important Germans in history by objectiv importance-criterias then you would maybe find 3 of 4 women - not if you only choose 8. Of course I am not a women-hater or something, but I think it is ridiculous (and not only for me, but most likely for also many German womens) to replace Goethe with Schiffer or Ida Noddack. Merkel is a good choice - yes - even if she by objectiv search for importance is not (yet) as important as Adenauer and maybe even Kohl - but she is a actual face and is very important. Schiffer was a very famous model - thats true - but at least in Germany her presence is already very limited (and she is still alive). Ida Noddack is a very fameless women- she may have made important contributions to Chemestry, but nearly nobody knows her - maybe the is a figurehead of the Emanzipation movement?. I didn't knew her (maybe I had once heard of her, but could not remember)- well it is unimportant what I know - but you can immediately see, that there are only 4 language-versions of her in the wikipedia - a big sign, that my personal feeling is true. - Watch "Our Best - there you can find also many undeserved musicans ...even ridiculous people like Kübelbök - but the first 10 there are a much better choice. And I don't know - why some people always exclude German Jews from the Germans-article - you can also find "controversial" figueres in the photos of other people - for example Copernicus - but thats a different point. - But back to the women - in my opionion there are better womens to choose: Clara Schumann or even Leni Riefenstahl - the last one is far better known - even if controversial - but why exclude controversial figures - at least she was a strong women, who made something important and was not only nice looking like Schiffer (who for example has no talent for acting). Or maybe Sophie Scholl - even if in my opionion she is often undeserved pointet out over her brother and other people of the resistance, who have the same contributions. - But again 2 women out of 8 is definitly enough. But you could also enlarge the photo. The Poles and Portuges-articels have over 15 persons on the photos - and I don't think, that the number of important Germans is so much smaller :-). If you don't care about my argumentation - you should at least consider to replace the Ida Noddack-photo with someone else - that she is seen on the picture is strange. Knarf-bz (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ida Noddack was the first to mention the idea of nuclear fission. Do you realize how important that is? She is one of the most important German scientists, male or female. I didnt put her there just cause shes a woman.

However, we can maybe include more pics, iclude Michael Schumacher and Gauss maybe? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So why ida Noddack is not even mentioned in the article of nuclear fission? Otto Hahn is and Fritz Strassmann is and Lise Meitner is - and that are the persons which are far more famous in this field - not only in Germany - the first two are Germans by the way. As far as I know there was not a single scientist important for this idea. Lise Meitner for example is much better known then Ida Noddack. And again - important or not - maybe it is more important then I realize but maybe you think it is more important then it realy is - Ida Noddack is definitly not well known. I bet over 90% of the Germans would not know who she is and wikipedia shows - she is also not well known abroad. And no - I don't think that Noddakc is one of the most important German scientists - she is important - but Germany had maybe 200 scientists of equal importance or even more. - But well - of course I can live with Noddack and Schiffer on the Germans-page - but nevertheless I think both do not deserve it if compared to people like Goethe, Kant or Marx. (well Noddack may deserve it - but she is far less known - Schiffer doesn't deserve it in my opinion) --- But apart from that, adding more and more pictures of famous Germans is maybe not the best idea. I like the picture in the Dutch people article much more then for example in the Poles article. Knarf-bz (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the heads up, I added Noddack into nuclear fission article. I didnt add Hahn or Strassmann into this article cause eventho they are also very important, we already have Planck, a male physicist. There are lots of famous German physicists, Merkel is one herself. Lise Meitner is also very important and I have no idea why she isnt in Austrians where they have Marie Antoinette instead, whose most famous contribution to history was Let them eat cake. Maybe we can add Goethe, Kant, Marx, Gauss or few others, I dunno. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it is not so easy - how to deal best with this topic :-). But maybe it is not realy important and the world will be not worse if the picture stays like it is. For me personally it is a little strange to have Schiffer, Noddack or even Merkel there, when Goethe and Einstein are missing. The argumentation Einstein and Marx can not be in the Germans article, because they have German Jewish background is something I can't and won't follow. If you are that strict you had to delete Copernikus and Kolbe from the Poles article- But again - who cares :-)Knarf-bz (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking at the dutch and poles, the dutch looks much better. This, look how many famous people we have, seems pretentious. How about this:

File:Kindergartenfrankfurt.jpg

Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I already though about this :-) and think it is nice. But maybe because in this article some make a difference between Germans without immigrant background and German citizenship and even deleted people like Marx, because he was not German enough for them, this picture will maybe not be liked by all - because it shows clearly some kids with immigrant background. But I myself would back this picture - it is likable. Knarf-bz (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

these ethnicity collages are an abomination all across Wikipedia, and the way to address the problem would be pushing their abolition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. There is simply no way to do this encyclopedically, and we should therefore just drop it. The one we have here is actually good by comparison. People will insist to include pictures of Clovis I or Ashurnasirpal II or Hayk or Alfred the Great or (sigh) Pericles and Alexander the Great. There is no way we can reasonably babysit all ethnicity article against this sort of thing. If there are relevant mugshots pertaining to some ethnic group, let them be included in the article body like any other image. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely useless picture. First, there is no prove these kids are all German. Second it is common for any people article to show some known characters. Third this pictures gives no information at all. --217.83.57.197 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely good picture. If you want to see bad pictures see the Icleanders page - to include more and more unimportant people. I prefer the solution of the Dutch people page. And your second comment - it is common - well maybe on many pages -and you can see the discussions sourrounding this picturs, where often also very contoversial persons are include. 195.243.51.34 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE PICTURE! the preview shows nietzsche instead of kant, while that changes when you click it. however the picture on the actual page shows nietzsche and is labeled with kant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Glory (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is because the old image version with Nietzsche is still stored in the cache. Reload the page (in Firefox: Ctrl-R ), and it will be updated to the new one with Kant. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx was a Jew not German, he was german-born but ethnical he was a jew (the same about albert einstein) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.21.170 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. Read below. JNW (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ERROR! There is a mistake in the second row of pictures. Mozart was Austrian NOT GERMAN! He was born in Salzburg a province of Austria!! Could somebody please correct this? Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.155.188 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm an AP World History, and the pop idea that Hitler is with out a doubt top 3 most important people to ever live is really actually true, so why isn't he a notable German? Karl Marx and communism, also incredibly influential and important. It's just a list, but it seems to infer the idea that Wikipedia or this article is a place of pointless political correction with no energy of true intellectualism. Angela Merkel (not notable at all in the scheme of history), and Friedrich Nietzsche I think are all easily replaceable by Hitler and Karl Marx.

And to help the politically sensitive people, just think of the Germans as interesting, ecstatic people, with importance of people ranging from a romantic and spiritual composer like Beethoven to a ugly monster like Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the photographs? If so then I disagree. There are only room for eight, and they don't have to be the eight most notable Germans, just eight representative well-known Germans. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the pictures I mean, but that's where eight representative well-known Germans come from, notables, you wouldn't forget Albert Einstein from a representative collection of pictures of Jewish people or Shakespeare from an English one. I just get tired of this shallow political correctness that is so common in Wikipedia articles. It could be so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was Austrian, so he should be in the Austrian people article I guess. Karl Marx is German at least, so add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler not only was Austrian, he also was German (he considered himself German for ALL his adult life, and he had German citizenship for part of his life). Nahabedere (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how Austrians are considered ethnically. If Austrians and Swiss are also ethnic Germans then they should be included in the article. If they are considered a different ethnic group from Germans then Hitler should be excluded.--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo at the top was made, with a great deal of effort, by a dedicated Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you wish to create a better image, feel free to do so and suggest it as an alternative. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to these "ethnic group infobox" collages on principle. No, the collage wouldn't be improved if it sported Hitler. It is actually not so bad as far as these collages go, but I nevertheless must ask, what encyclopedic information relevant to the topic "Germans" does the collage convey that justifies its position at the top of the article. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Karl Marx should be on the main picture. He's one of the most important Germans in many ways..xperienc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.186.118 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hitler be on that picture? He's probably the most famous German in the world, and wikipedia is objective, he should be figured on that picture, dispite what the proud Germans in this thread says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't a German, you fool, he came from AUSTRIA!!! --The Young Wolve (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Anne Frank be in their too? She was born in Frankfurt.

btw: Mozart was Austrian too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.137.244 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was ethnically German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit be there too. He was the German who invented a lot of thermometers, even the Fahrenheit scale!

The Fahrenheit scale ist so screwed-up, it is a shame and should not be mentioned.--131.220.99.58 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I realise that the discussion on who should be in the Germans infobox has gone back and forth over an extended period. What is the community view of whether such an image should be comprised of notable persons (and please, I'm not commenting on WHO those people should be) versus the everyman type of picture (that exists in this revision: [[1]]. I don't want to get into an argument with individuals via my talk page, but my personal view is that of User:217.83.57.197 above. In the meantime, I'll look for WP policy on this. Mark5677 (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I prefer the "everyman" images - which of couse not means that the Kindergarten-picture is the best. It could be also a everyday street scene or even a picture of the football Worldcup 2006. There are many problems with the notable persons-pictures. First, there are all along discussion to which nation belongs a person or about the importance of a person. In the Germany-article there very deletions of Marx and Einstein, because some peopel consider them not German enough (nonsense in my opinion, but well) and some want Hitler included oder Mozart. All difficult questions. On the other hand many pages of other nations include controversial persons, Alexander the Great or Copernikus under Poles - while I not deny that Copernikus was Polish he is definitly also controversily handled like you can find on his Wikipedia page and often seen as an amalgan person of Polish and German. So why delete Marx but let Copernikus - and the discussions go on and on. - The next problem is, that some people seem to think the more peopel they add, the more important there nations seem - because this pictures are mostly added by lets say "patriotic" people. Look the Icelanders page - do they relay need 2 beauty queens, which noone knows. Well and what is "notable" - for me half of this persons are not realy notable. Or look the Norwegians page some days ago, where a user added 5 Norwegians - like Britney spears and other "Norwegian Americans" and than you klick at one of the pages and read, that one stepfather was a Norwegian and no one else. -- An everyday-picture doesn't play in the hands of "chauvinists" - (of course this is not meant for the user, who prefer the Notable persons). What do you think? The creators of the Dutch people-page at least came to a conclusion, which I for my opinion would also prefer for the Germans-page 195.243.51.34 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say. But it's not an issue about which particular group of famous heads is displayed in the infobox - that's a separate issue I'll leave for others, as I know that there are extremely strong views on this. But just because there is dissent about who should be displayed doesn't mean that it becomes too hard and you go on to do something easier and less controversial. And I agree that this kind of page shouldn't display German-Americans or Norwegian Americans or any other variation (for want of a better term). But what is displayed should have some identifiable connection with the subject matter. The image of the school children is so generic it could be anywhere. Mark5677 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion and followed 195.243.51.34's links. The Icelanders page has very bad selection of people.. but they do show many women. I think to show both women and men, children and old people is more important than showing notable people. Of course I prefer the composite "notoripus" german picture before the kindergarten. Why dont post pictures here on the talk and have some kind election with all of them? Dentren | ^Talk 14:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the image of Chilean people I thank such kind of images might be the best beacause only a tiny minority of the population have been heads of state or are famous musicians or models. Having a collage of "notable" people will likely overepresent men, nobilty, heads of state, upper class etc. The image of Dutch people belong rather in a Traditional architectere of the Netherlands article, and we dont see any faces. Also not all people live in idyllic Duch villages. Dentren | ^Talk 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea in my opinion and closer to the Kindergarten-picture then the notables. 195.243.51.34 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an image/images of a group of people that is identifiably German, then that would be a good outcome. How you would do that, I don't know. You may not want to get too stereotypical (Men in lederhosen and women in dirndls) I think that Dentren's idea of posting images and voting is a good one - it could reduce the future number of debates on the matter. I would, however, do an initial change/retain vote at the outset (with a question like 'Should the infobox image be changed from a collage of notable persons to something else?' Mark5677 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your "initial change/retain vote" idea is not the best because there are notable persons collages that might be better than some "normal" german pictures, and vice versa, each picture should be judged independently. Maybe somebody wants even to mix notabes with common people, althought im not a candidate of that, that option should be open in an image election. Dentren | ^Talk 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the change/retain vote would only be the start of the process. If the decision is to change the image, there would have to be a series of later votes so that each step is clear and unambiguous to anyone who chooses to review it in the future. In that way, the issue can hopefully be settled fairly and for good. There would probably have to be a series of voting questions to decide on various matters. There would be subsequent questions like: 2. if the image is to be changed, should it retain the 8 image format? (YES/NO) 3. Should it be a collage of notable vs everyman? etc etc. It will probably be a reasonably long process, but the end benefit would hopefully be something that is built in line with the tenets of WP:CON. To be honest, after having looked at a number of talk page discussions about this kind of thing, the biggest problem is that editors talk to different issues at the same time and discussions are spread out over numerous archived talk pages. Mark5677 (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The process you propose seems to long slow and tedious. I stiull think its better to present images hered independently is better but if you succeded establishing the discussion you propose I will join. Its not nessesary bauraucratize everything, and by putting questions in certain orders it is actually possible to manipulate the outcome. Dentren | ^Talk 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's slow and tedious. My suggestions were more in line with a theoretical way to stop arguments in the long term. I don't like bureaucracy much either, but you just have to look around on WP to see how bureaucracy has taken hold - as WP has scaled, it's become necessary to a certain extent. I don't propose to establish anything myself, since the outcome will probably only reflect the opinions of you, me and a couple of IP users at best. And really, the effort isn't justified. I was more pondering on how to best stop this kind of argument from occurring in the future. Mark5677 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

here's what it says on his own article.

The modern unified nation-state called Germany did not yet exist at the time of his birth, but the German Confederation of states did, and Nietzsche was a citizen of one of these, Prussia—for a time. When he accepted his post at Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annulment of his Prussian citizenship.[36] The official response confirming the revocation of his citizenship came in a document dated April 17, 1869[37], and for the rest of his life he remained officially stateless.

Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated: “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent"

I suggest removing Nietzsche from the picture collage for the above reasons. you guys might want to replace it with another more notable German. Hitler, perhaps? 190.110.155.48 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a long possible list of German philosophers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_philosophers I would go for Immanuel Kant. Hitler was Austrian, so epic fail to you. --93.206.38.170 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you completely missed, that the file is on Commons and that en.wp is only one of hundreds of projects... Please correct the image descriptions on the other wikipedias as well if you do such change. As a german I have btw no idea who Ida Noddack-Tacke was. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Nietzsche is a German philospher. Maybe he has also some Slavic heritage but nearly no one in Central Europe is "full Germanic" or "full slavic" - thats also true for Poles - its a question of "ethonogenese". The list of his Grandparents and there names make it very likely that he is an ethnic German - and more important his work is incorporated in the "German" cultural background and unthinkalbe without it. And about his statements: He did also other statments, which could be seen as contrary and the statments you chosed are very selectiv. And next point Nietzsche was also a typical person, who used ironie and liked to provoke or make statements to "show his points". The "I don't want to be German"-point is for example very common under people on the left-wing, which most often use it to point that they don't believe in "ethinic groups" or want to distinguish from nationalists. - Nietsche should stay in the Germans article (not only pure Germans - if there are anyones). Why don't you question Copernicus in the Poles article. He is also not 100% Polish or at least a controversial topic? 195.243.51.34 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately this article on Germans starts with the false premise that ethnic Germans are descendants of "Germanic" Speaking Tribes that eventually amalgamated into one nation in the late 19th century. It would be more accurate to say that most ethnic Germans are descended from various Slavonic Speaking Tribes that originally inhabited the lands between the Rhine and the Oder. Over a period of centuries the German or Deutsch language was introduced into the region by Catholic Priests from Batavia who spoke a language which was the common ancestor of both modern German (Deutsch) and Lowland Dutch. The process was accelerated after Berlin changed its administrative language from Polish to German around 1657. Even as recently as the early part of the 19th century records from that period indicate that Deutsch was used mostly administratively while the majority of inhabitants living in and around such cities as Hanover, Dresden Leipzig, Lubeck, Rostow and others spoke a variation of some Slavonic dialect related to Polish or Czech. It wasn't until Bismarck and von Bulow, despite the fact that both were of Slavonic descent, had laws enacted to discourage the use of their ancestral language in favor of the administrative language. Children were forbidden to use Polish, Czech or Sorbian in school. Today a remnant of the German population, like the Irish, Scots, Bretons and Northern Italians (Slovenian), speaks its ancestral language. Even fewer are aware of fact that major German cities such as Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Lubeck, Rostow and others bear Slavonic names. Modern ethnic Germans represent a mix of descent derived from Slavonic tribes (80%)which constituted the original inhabitants of Germania, Batavians or Dutch (10%) who introduced the German language together with Christianity and the Huns, a Turkic speaking people (10%) who settled in southern Germany after being driven out of their Eastern lands. The "Drang Nach Der Osten" impulse probably derives from the Hunnish affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.180.66 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mexico not have 600.000 germans ethnic. the information is false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.2.110 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

wheres your source that says this is false information? this seems like a very realistic number of ethnically german people for mexico some of them could be german american gringos or anyother kind of german minority in mexico. so exsplain how you came to the conclusion that theres not 600,000 ethnic-germans in mexico? 69.208.14.63 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are Karl Marx and Albert Einstein shown in the infobox? This article is about ethnic Germans. Marx and Einstein were ethnic Jews. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree --95.88.25.147 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is not primarily about ethnic Germans as a distinct tribe, but about German nationals and their descendants. There is a separate article on "ethnic Germans". Furthermore, many German Jews assimilated completely into the larger German nation. For example, Karl Marx was raised Lutheran and was not culturally Jewish. Marx did not consider himself a Jew in any way, and he would be quite surprised being labeled as such. --Vdjj1960 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I wasn't aware that this article was about German nationals and their descendants and that there was a separte article on ethnic Germans because the first line of the article says that the Germans are an ethnic group. If the article isn't about ethnic Germans per se, I think that line should be changed to avoid confusion. --John of Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to have an article about German nationals and their descendants because many German nationals, such as first generation immigrants, are clearly not German and would not consider themselves to be German, thus their descendants would not be German either. The ethnic Germans article is specifically about ethnic Germans outside of Germany. Plus, I highly doubt that Karl Marx "assimilated completely into the larger German nation". His parents may have converted before his birth, but you can't deny that both of them were raised Jewish, so that obviously must have had some impact on his upbringing. His mother wasn't even born in Germany. Marx was a self-hating Jew, so obviously he didn't consider himself a Jew. If I decided that I didn't want to consider myself German anymore, that wouldn't change the fact that I am. --72.82.201.106 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it would, "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other,.." so if you don't, you aren't German anymore. 84.167.62.218 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't choose which ethnic group you belong to. If you're born to German parents, raised in German culture, speak German as your native language, and go about a German way of life, you're German no matter what you call yourself. --72.82.189.193 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism, is no ethnic group but a religion. Marx and Einsteins families lived in Germany (or in the land which is called Germany today) for many generations. The "jewish Diaspora", the spreading of the jews all over europe, was 2000 years before. I think you can count Marx and Einstein as "ethnic germans" 178.105.54.87 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's both an ethnic group and a religion. See Who is a Jew? --John of Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the definition of an ethnic group is different between Europe and America. In the USA, ethnicity is mainly based on genetics. In Europe, it is based on socio-cultral heritage. For example, only few Europeans would consider German-Americans as a seperate ethnic group, since they assimilated into the American mainstream society. As well, most (German)-Jews assimilated into the German society. For example, before the first world war, ethnic minorities like Poles, Danes, Alsatians were represented in the German Reichstag with their own ethnic parties. On the other hand, Jews were members of the mainstream German parties. Secondly, most Germans consider Marx and Einstein as Germans. There was a survey about the hundred most important Germans, both Marx and Einstein were in the top 10. To sum up, I tend to agree to include German-Jews. Especially since it is about Germans, we should follow their definiton about their ethnic group.--178.113.147.134 (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes this article is about Germans, stop bastardising German people and put Jews in the Jew article, repalce Marx with a German Like Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was a jaw man. He said in the past that if his theary will be true the germans,and the swiss etc. will say that he is one of them. But the Nazi said that he want with the jews rule the world. SO, you cannot include him at the german people, he should be transforded to jews article.77.126.225.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

German Jews are Germans too!!! Don't obey to nazi ideolegy !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.149.150 (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jew is a Jew.Not German.I'm Jewish too.So Einstein is totally Jewish.Forget about nazi or other party's thoughts.He might born in Germany borders but that doesn't make him German. Think about other citizens. A Japan, born in Germany..Is this make him/her German? No. Also Einstein said he was not a GERMAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.245.94 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am from Spain and I can say that both of you are right. There are thousands of people who Jewish by religion (converted to Judaism) but not ethnically Jew, and also there are ethnic Jews and mixed people (ethnic Jew and ethnic German at the same time) Karl Marx was ethnically Jew even if he was a German citizen and a Lutheran (before becoming Atheist) Einstein was a German citizen but ethnically a Jew, even if probably both had ethnic German ancestors too.--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I keep repeating this. Judaism, is no ethnic group but a religion. Marx and Einsteins families lived in Germany (or in the land which is called Germany today) for many generations. The "jewish Diaspora", the spreading of the jews all over europe, was 2000 years before. Do you really think that the Jewish people married just among themselves. At some point, that would be inbreeding. They assimilated of course. Not necessarily in medieval times, but later on, Jews had the same rights (considering marriages and familie rights...) Please don't take that as an offense if you really are a Jew. Most of the Jews, who are living in Israel now, belong to the ethnical group of the Semits,( thats were "anti-semitism" is coming from). The Arabs also belong the the group of the semits. So tell me, do for example all the american Jews belong to this group? Well... 178.105.54.87 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Originally Jews looked the same as other semitic groups like the Arabs. Still after 2.000 years a great part of Jews look very much like teh Palestinians and other Arabs, with similar features (long noses, dark hair etc) but also there are thousands of Jews now who look European, above all among the Askenazi Jews, the result of hundreds of years of interbreeding. That is obvious. I don´t know if any ancestor of Einstein and Marx was ethnically German or they just married among their sect, but the most probable is that they have also ancestors who are ethnically German. That is obvious.--88.9.128.83 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of the article says:

"There are an additional 80 million people of German ancestry (mainly in Austria (official) , Switzerland (official), Liechtenstein (official) , Luxembourg (official), as well as populations in the USA, France, Russia, Romania, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Poland, Australia and Canada) who most likely are not native speakers of German.[41]"

I don´t quite get the meaning of this sentence. Can anybody explain it to me? Is this actually suggesting that most inhabitants of Austria and Switzerland "are not native speakers of German"? If so, it is complete nonsense. Plus, I think that Hitler really should and must be added to the collage, since an Austrian clearly was an ethnic German in the unerstanding of those times. --Mike F2 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are not of German ethnicity. In fact, they are Ashkenazi Jews! However, the most famous German is missing, namely Adolf Hitler.

-So, they can´t be both, Jews AND Germans? For what reason should a fully assimilated Jew who was born, grown up and ( at least for some years of his life) living in Germany not be considered a German? Nevertheless, I agree that Hitler should be in the collage, for 3 reasons: a) it was completely clear not only to him, but also to his contemporaries that Austrians are (ethnic) Germans as well, and that Bismarck did not include Austria in the German nation state for pragmatic reasons (in fact, it was completely impossible since the Habsburg monarchy was far too powerful), b) he moved to Germany and became a German citizen at a young age, and c) he was the fucking dictator of Germany. But if you really don´t want to include him, there should be at least one Nazi in this collage (Goebbels maybe?). --Mike F2 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Hitler should be in it as he is "the" most famous German ever. However, Marx and Einstein are ethnically Jews! They might have been German citizens, but we are not talking about German citizenship, we are talking about ethnicity! Including Einstein (and Marx) in "Germans" is profoundly wrong!!! --95.89.49.90 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Marx and Einstein were not "fully assimilated" as you want them to be. I suggest you check their biographies. Even if they had been "fully assimilated" you cannot overlook their distinct racial makeup. DNA evidence clearly shows that Ashkenazi Jews are a distinct racial (i.e. ethnic) group! --95.89.49.90 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I think that Konrad Adenauer and/or Helmut Kohl should be taken out. I don´ see why there should be (together with Merkel) 3 chancellors of the BRD in the picture, and especially 3 of the same political party. --Mike F2 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, following your line I suggest to remove Einstein and Marx and put the british Queen in. The house of Windsor used to be Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha until 1917 when being german wasn't very popular. Or, even better, Prince Charles. His father is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, his mother Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. Sounds quite german to me... Oh, and that position is backed by Lady Diana who once said that she married into a german family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.65.137 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The British Queen is ethnically German but Einstein is not. I would rather include the Btitish Queen there then Einstein. --95.88.26.76 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is idiotic. neither the Queen nor Einstein are good examples. If the Queen is German, then Steve Ballmer is Swiss. He is not, and she is not. Einstein was born in Germany, but he was a convinced internationalist, changed his passport numerous times, and would have shuddered at the idea of being considered "ethnic" in any sense. Please stop wasting time over such nonsense, just pick one of the millions of possible examples that aren't ambiguous. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

i have a better idea we could total up full blooded ethnic germans and partial blood ethnic germans and then see how many people go into each difinitions including partial blood germans like karl marz or albert einstean is not fare to the full blooded ones in the college to be included in the artical and still try consider them the exact same ethnic group when in fact they have a diverse heritage and not trully ethnic in the sense that this artical is portraying. im not a anti-semite or anything but i can see what the previus discussions about these guys is getting at. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reuploading the collage that was removed for erroneous reasons. My justification is as follows:

1) In principle you don't remove a valid collage and replace it with nothing. Wikipedia is about giving readers more and better information. It is tedious arguing whether certain individuals should or should not be included. If you think the article should have a better collage with a different mix of people, then create it.

2) The article is specifically about German nationals and their descendants not ethnic Germans per se; therefore, the comments complaining that Karl Marx and Albert Einstein aren't ethnic Germans are irrelevant. There is a separate article on ethnic Germans to placate the "Jews can't be Germans" crowd. I should say that it would be a surprise to both Einstein and Marx that they aren't considered German by some. --Vdjj1960 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow- someone didn't read the discussion page or didn't care. Some Wikipedia-users hoped to find a picture of the "everyman"-typ. I personally hoped for something like the picture on the Dutch people site. - But this new picture even toped the criticized pictures and made a 25-people-salmagundi - (which over time of course will produce fighting...). Very ugly picture and in the mentality of more, more, more - we have much more important people. Why don't we make a picture with 100 people - or lets say 200? Well I am sure, we could find 500 important Germans. - How sad. Knarf-bz (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Einstein was a Zionist! Including Einstein in that list is an insult to the Jews. Hitler is a German but Einstein is not! --95.88.25.24 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was Austrian! Including Hitler in that list would be an insult to the Austrians. 84.167.66.170 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Austrians are "ethnic Germans", while Einstein and (Marx) are ethnic Jews. Einstein is rightly presented in Ashkenazi Jews, right were he belongs. And he does not belong in this article. --95.88.26.76 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article's only about "German nationals and their descendants", why are there only two Jews in the image? There are many German Jews. Are Marx and Einstein the only ones worth noting? What about Turks? There are quite a few of them in Germany. Are none of them notable? What about other minorities in Germany like blacks and Asians? I think we should make a new image with 1,000 people. It should have an equal number of women, Jews, Turks, blacks, and Asians. That way, everyone will be happy. --72.82.189.193 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the definition of an ethnic group is different between Europe and America. In the USA, ethnicity is mainly based on genetics. In Europe, it is based on socio-cultral heritage. For example, only few Europeans would consider German-Americans as a seperate ethnic group, since they assimilated into the American mainstream society. As well, most (German)-Jews assimilated into the German society. For example, before the first world war, ethnic minorities like Poles, Danes, Alsatians were represented in the German Reichstag with their own ethnic parties. On the other hand, Jews were members of the mainstream German parties. Secondly, most Germans consider Marx and Einstein as Germans. There was a survey about the hundred most important Germans, both Marx and Einstein were in the top 10. To sum up, I tend to agree to include German-Jews. Especially since it is about Germans, we should follow their definiton about their ethnic group. --178.113.147.134 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be listed under German people, in order to be consistent? The pages for other nationalities are listed that way, e.g. English people, Chilean people, French people, Japanese people, Chinese people, etc. Any particular reason this is listed differently? I do see that Russian people redirects to Russians. I don't really have a preference, but shouldn't they all be the same, one way or the other? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A nationality article will be at a location without the use of "people" if possible, but in the examples you give (except Chilean people), the term is ambiguous: English, French, Japanese, Chinese, and so on also refer to the language, and there is not language called "Germans" or "Russians" ... or Ukrainians or Estonians. This is the ideal, in case you wonder about examples such as Chilean people and Lithuanian people, there is no explanation beyond lack of consistency. Hope this helps. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should include something about German customs. I included a picture of an Osterrad, because Easter is a important holiday in Germany (and I have been told by a religious person, that it is even more important than Christmas to many people, because on Christmas Jesus was born and there is nothing speacial about this, but it is believed by German christians that on Easter he was resurrected from the dead and that of course is very special). I would also like to include a short paragraph on famous German fesitivities like the Oktoberfest and may be something about traditional way of dressing, traditional way of dancing etc. in some parts of Germany..-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know it has always been possible for a person, who was not born to German parents to apply for the German citizenship. I do know about several people, who did so successfully. However not having a "right of soil" meant, that it was not possible to become German just by being born on German soil (as it is the case in the US and is also the case in Germany now).-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been some clumsy attempts to add the German population of Peru to the infobox, resulting in at least one block. However, the German Peruvian article has a sourced population estimate of 160,000, which is lacking from this article. Is this an acceptable source [2]? JNW (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

i cannot understand sth about this topic. how could it be 79.600.000 German in Germany. In Wiki, u guys say 3,5 million Turk nd 1,5 million Kurd live in Germany. And also u say that Germany's population is 81 million. Please i need to learn why u give wrong numbers to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.99.119 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

germanys ethnic german population keeps having the wrong numbers becasue of edit-waring actions by other users. thos users are un-educated and dont understand the differnce between a non-ethnic german living in germany and a ethnic german living in germany. they dont understand that citizen ship in germany does not mean the same person is a ethnic german. i hope this situation gets resolved soon as i enjoy reading these articals and learning about anthropology. im glad you can understand that if a human walks over a border they dont become a new type of human. you understand that the human is the old type it was living in a new land. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the world's most famous man ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.242.192 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was Austrian so go cry to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.58 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends how Austrians are considered ethnically. If they Austrians and Swiss are considered ethnic Germans then they should be included, but if they are considered a different ethnic group Hitler cannot be included as he would be ethnically Austrian (even if it is an ethnic denomination devised by the victorous Powers after WWI)--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

this is as good a section as any to point out that this article+talkpage is just flooded with random anonymous nonsense. I tried to "deep revert" the article, but it's hard to find a "last good version", because most of the time the vandalism isn't caught and then bona fide edits are layered above the vandalised version. I'll just try to find a decent version before the "farming and castle romanticism". Please feel free to restore any valid stuff I inadvertedly remove. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NAMIBIA Why Namibia is not included even if there are more ethnic Germans than in most countries in the list?--79.146.211.125 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler is not just the most famous German but the most famous person ever, Hitler must be in the artitle replace non Germans with Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

While reading this article, a number of questions came to mind:

1. This article claims that Germans are a 'Germanic people', what's the source (aside from the origins of their language) for this classification, which is historiographically reserved to Antiquity and Dark Ages?
2. The introductory list at the right of the article furthermore claims that Germans are related to 'other Germanic peoples'. What is meant by that?
3. This article claims that, along with several other countries, most of the supposed 80% million people of German ancestry live in Poland and Romania. These countries aren't listed at all in the introductory list, so what's the source of this claim?
4. Why does this article present a depreciated term, namely 'Volksdeutsche', as the German translation of 'ethnic Germans', even though it is a term solely associated with the völkisch movement, that is to say nazism?
5. Why does this article contradict itself multiple times by at one time saying, or implying, that 'German' equals 'German-speaking' but then goes on to state that virtually all German-speaking population outside of Germany (Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Liechtenstein) 'have developed their own national consciousness and usually do not refer to themselves as Germans in a modern context'?
6. Doesn't the 'in a modern context'-part of that last claim make it seem as if the inhabitants of those countries are somehow 'break-ways'?
7. This article claims that Germans emerged as an ethnicity during the Middle Ages. Not only is this claim unsupported, it also seems quite implausible. The article on the Dutch meticulously describes a process of ethnogenesis only completed in the Late Middle Ages. Now the German area is about 8 to 10 times as large as the Dutch counterpart, spread over far more different habitats, how could it have achieved the same by the same time?
8. The article claims that by 800, the territory that correlates to modern Germany had been 'united'. Why the use of 'united' here?
9. Also, at this time France, the Low Countries, Northern Spain and most of Italy were also found in the same Empire, so what's its worth?
10. This article claims that 'Germans' are 'divided into sub-nationalities'. No source is to be found, so are they?

I ask anyone with knowledge on these subjects, but especially the articles regular editors, to answer these questions as soon as possible. Cheers, G.Burggraaf (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. proto-germanic people evolved about 1700 BC and split from Indo-european and that country is known today as Nordic Bronze age and was located in southern sweden and southern norway and denmark.

2.germanic people are people that speak a germanic language and have a anceint ansestral heritage going back to germany in some way for instance anglo-sphere countries like great britain or the USA are infact germanic off-shoots becasue english language and people are decended from germans in the great migrations by the angels and saxons and to a small exstent the jutes from denmark that populated kent county in the 400's and 500's AD over time varius germanic people would evolve come into being and then become assimlated into something else and then be exstinct as a seperate identity.

3.i am not sure about ethnic german heritage in countries especially polond and romania i cant help with that question.

4. Volks deutsche literly translates to people-german or literally -german folks and not literally as ethnic german however the german folks that left and emigrated out of germany and remained a german identity are difinatly what w9ould be considered ethnic-germans ,and im certain that german people actually do have a word for ethnic. i know this term as nothing to do with a political party.

5.the idea of people not considering they are german when they infact have german roots is always been with civilization im certain the british people were the first to shrug off thinking of them selfs as german then eventualy other countries came to stop thinking of them selfs as german.

6. yes infact many countries are break-aways from the germanic culture the national family tree of the germanic civilization is very complex understanding where each culture or nation fits into the overall tree of the germanic civilization helps one understand the big picture. the world wars could be considered 2 germaninc civil wars if we think of the germanic family tree.

7. your correct the german people this not begin in the middle ages as a ethnicity or other wise they have a long history of small cultures bordering each other and overtime germanization and they start to think of them selfs as german in the middle ages before the middle ages german people thought only of them selfs by which german state they lived in and not as a german and this gave rise to the rift between germany and austria.

8. breifly around the time of the year 800 what is know modern germany was politically united under charlemagne's empire also know as the frankish empire. but even though it was all united politically it was not all germanized there was a hugh contingent of slavic people in what is now east germany they were called the elbe slav tribes.

9.i think its worth is very great the frankish empire is very relevent to german heritage.

10. yes germans are sub-divided into sub-national entities

69.208.14.63 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything that you have stated is a known fact, thats why it dosent need souceing, AGENT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

|region4 =  Argentina |pop4 = more than 3,000,000 (Including Volga Germans, and other German ancestries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Argentine Alejojojo6 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stickee (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither a historian, nor an expert concerning ethnic groups, but this article should be split. There are different definitions of "Germans". There already is an article about "Ethnic Germans", based on the various concepts and possible definitions of ethnic groups, a second article about "Germans" (based on citizenship) would be useful. The table showing the populations in different contries still mixes up two different definitions. Another way to improve the article would be: Creating two different sections exclusively using one of the definitions in each section.--Johnny2323 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, this article is about both citizens of Germany and the descendants of German citizens, which would explain the table showing the populations in different contries. --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 3,900 germans in Serbia (most of them live in the north province of Vojvodina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.21.39 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Germans are defined by citizenship, see [[3]]. That link shows you that since 1999 there is no other definition for Germans. Johanneswilm (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

True, there is no other definition for a German; but there are other definition for ethnic germans.--77.117.29.251 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your ignorance is laughable, Germans have always had an ethnic interpretation of nationality throughout history, to be German you have to be born a German though your parnets, take your communism elswhere, enemy Agents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed all numbers related to people with "ethnic germans" "german ancestors" as they are not Germans according to official definitions. I then removed all those figures that did not have references. I then checked one of the references for Italy, and it talked about 290,774 German language speakers, not Germans. I therefore erased that figure. None of the references provided mentioned the number of 75 or 80 million Germans in Germany. Therefore used the CIA wfb number of a population of roughly 82 million. The Dutch source talked about "origin" without specifying that any further, so I deleted that figure. I then deleted the UK figure, as it is about "country of birth" -- not citizenship -- and additionally the largest quantity of the alleged Germans in the UK were unaccounted for. The Spanish figure had a broken link as reference, so I deleted that. I then deleted the Swiss number, as the figures mismatched. I then deleted the figure for Tajikistan as the website it came from is no credible source. I then removed the Israeli figure as it is an unofficial estimate. One credible figure was left -- that from Austria -- however the reference did not link the right place and since it's likely not that Austria is the country with the 2nd most German citizens, I went ahead removed that figure as well. If someone were to research the correct figures, the Austrian figure should be used again. The entire list of false figures seems to be part of an advanced scheme of distortion that has hit many other pages as well, see Talk:Norwegians. --Johanneswilm (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But there aren't 82 Million Germans in Germany, there are about 58 Millione Ethnic Germans, the rest population has foriegn roots, e.g. Turkish, Arabic, Eastern European, Vietnamese etc. --188.102.171.116 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make them any less German citizens, which is the only operational definition of German we can use for the purpose of this page.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, German citizens is the only definition used by the German state since 1999. Additionally there are currently articles on Volksdeutsche and Emigration from Germany. Ethnic Germans is, according to the original authors of that article, the English translation of Volksdeutsche and I've added the corresponding redirection. It has to be clear however, that this is historical term that last was used by Nazi Germany and that the current German state does not in any way use or accept this classification. I lightly edited that article to reflect this fact, but I have not verified most of the claims on that page. Also, I wonder if that article should be moved to Ethnic Germans in the English edition of Wikipedia, with Volksdeutsche being a redirection to that. Volksdeutsche is currently linked to in this article. --Johanneswilm (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche doesn't equal Ethnic Germans-it is a historic very wide term.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Volksdeutsche does equal Ethnic Germans it's the German translation.

perhaps you should start out by reading the relevant articles before making such sweeping statements. I realize that "ethnic Germans" is a translation of Volksdeutsche. That still doesn't mean the two terms have the same meaning, let alone the same connotations, see false friend. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup? Major confusion. This article jumps among many different definitions of Germanness. Originally, it was using primarily an ethnic definition, but then someone (quite possibly Johanneswilm, whose Web site I've looked at, and he sure does mishandle important terms; for instance, "US Americans" imposes the logic of German on English, in which it just sounds redundant and awkward, but I digress) decided to half-convert it to a definition based on citizenship. The end result is a disaster of an article. This article needs to stick with one definition of "German"--ethnic or national, not a half-and-half confusing and useless muddle. It would have been simpler and better to stick with the original ethnic definition (which is actually a much older definition of Germanness and, so, has greater historical precedence), rather than a definition based on citizenship in the (really quite young) German state. The other article on "ethnic Germans" adds to the confusion and is itself convoluted and very incomplete. What a mess . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.81.22 (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The term Germans has nothing to do with the citizens of Germany. Despite the problem of racist hate, ethnic Germans simply exist and include the Germans of Switzerland, Austria, USA, South America.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.35.148 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Has been documented extensively, for example here. Please don't revert before finding sources for your claim that also prove that the above official source is false/fake. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be becoming of you to try to explain what the status of minorities that identify as Germans but live outside of Germans then have. And I also think it is relevant and necessary to treat that issue in the article. One thing is the legal status of being German another is German as an identity - I think the article needs to take both into account somehow. By focusing only on nationality you are effectively stripping the Germani minority in e.g. Denmark on any claims to Germanness.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are regulations for all these cases. Not everybody who sees himself as German living outside of Germany is recognized as German by Germany. The Danish Minority in Southern Schleswig in that sense is an exception. The German minority in Denmark may be another one (someone should consult the Copenhagen-Bonn of declaration of 1955. This link seems to say that you may be right.). But people without Danish citizenship in Skåne are not recognized as Danish, and Slovenians who speak German are not recognized as Germans or Austrians, no matter what they may think themselves. Diverting from democratic principles in defining this leaves the space open for everybody's personal political agenda. Danish politician Søren Krarup, for example, has stated that you cannot really be Danish as a danish minority member if you don't want to move the border further south. Luckily, Mr. Krarup has not found a majority in any forum to make this change. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And also informally, I am quite certain that you would find very few people with German citizenship, who would say that German-Americans, Austrians, people with migrant ancestors living in Australia and other such groups are German in any kind way. Of course, I have not seen any statistics on this, but that's my impression. And I think that at least at one end of the definition we actually have to make use of people living in Germany whose Germaness isn't contested. So say there is a group fo people living in Argentina who see themselves as Germans, but neither German law nor overall German population recognizes them as such, then it would be somewhat dubious to include them here. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to "include" in the sense of stating that x group are Germans - but it is another thing to mention the fact that certain groups may identify as Germans if sources say that they do. Also it seems to be a viewpoint similar to that of Mr. Krarup that you are promoting - that it is impossible to be German unless as a citizen of Germany. I think that it is obvious that there are other definitions of "German" as well, that while they may not be official should still be discussed in the article here.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the German minority in Denmark is a unique occurrence and it should be included in this description. also, half a sentence should be added that takes Germaness away from those who do not identify with being German although they have a passport, to cover the case of Danish minority. The same logic may also apply to Sorbians, etc. although I haven't looked at the laws and regulations that regulate who is and who isn't a Sorbian. Membership of German nationality is highly regulated, by law, and is therefore very different than ethnic groups in other parts of the world. You cannot just disregard these regulations. Someone could however write an article called German ethnicity and then have a presentation of all the strange and non-regulated forms different groups of people make up. There Mr. Krarup's ideas as who is allowed to be Danish ("has to believe in Danish expansionism") can be on equal footing with that of all the other ideas. You can then link that from the top of this article. But I don't see any basis for putting various racist ideas about Germans as sort of equally relevant definitions, when there already are clear and non-misunderstandable laws in place that people rely upon. For example, the Bonn-Copenhagen treaty is quoted extensively in every-day discourse at the German-Danish border, and when someone tries to break one of its paragraphs, this is immediately pointed out by other participants of the debate. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my remark regarding Mr. Krarup. He says nothing about who can be German. he seems to basically believe in the definition given in the Bonn-Copenhagen delcaration -- meaning anyone south of the border can define themselves as Danish voluntarily -- but with the addition that you can only say that you are truly Danish, if you also subscribe to the idea of Danish expansionism -- meaning a believe that the border should go at the Ejder or at Hamburg-Altona. I am just mentioning this in order to show that if you choose not to follow the definition as it is given by law, then the number of ways of defining membership is rather limitless. That's why that should be put on another page, where it is clearly marked that it has nothing to do with official definitions. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What I meant regarding Mr. Krarup is that his ideology promotes a view of ethnicity as necessarily being coterminous with national borders. I don't think that he actually promotes Danish expansionism - but he believes that in order to be ethnically Danish one also has to be (or wish to be) nationally Danish - that is similar to your idea that being German can only be realized within the regulations stipulated by the German state. That ignores the fact that historically being ethnically and nationally German has been two distinct things which have only been seen as necessarily implying eachother in recent times. Problems such as that of Alsace/Elsass also brings into focus the problem of seeing ethnicity and nationality as being by necessity homomorphous. I also find it to be rather narrow minded to assume that ideas of German ethnicity cannot exist except in the form of racist or chauvinist ideologies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No seriously, he is for Danish expansionism and is angry with all official representations of the Danish minority south of the border for not agreeing with him. That's why he wants to redefine Danish as only being those people south of the border who agree with his wacko expansionist plans. I cannot find a link for the entire statement right now, but this here shows you what he thinks pretty much. --Johanneswilm (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

do you have any idea how many years it took to get the article halfway stable? I would estimate that your exact topic of debate has been rehashed about ten times on this very page over the past five years. It's alright for you to have that discussion yet again, but you need to understand that (a) Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM, and that (b) to make sweeping changes to a longstanding article, you need to establish consensus before going ahead. So if in doubt, revert this to the revision before somebody decided to "clean up" the article yet again and then start trying to find a consensus from there. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay, this article is about ethnic Germans. But then, if that's the case 80 million Germans in Germany is no way near the real figure for Germans in Germany.

"Germans of no immigrant background: (81%) 66.7 million[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

The figure of 80 million is therefore wrong and misleading. The German government does not keep track of ethnicity, there is no way to count how many Germans of ethnic German background are in Germany. I don't know how the Federal Ministry of the Interior estimated that figure but that definitely is more accurate than equating the number of Germans citizens (80 million) with the number of ethnic Germans. I will now change the figure to 66.42 which I've just realized is what it says in the references of this page "66.42 million is the number of Germans without immigrant background, 75 million is the number of German citizens Germans and foreigners with an immigrant background". Even taking immigrants of ethnic German background into account that figure is more accurate than ignoring all the immigrant workers from Turkey and Arab countries who have moved to Germany over the decades and have obtained citizenship, in addition to the ones who have been born there.

To clarify, this article is according to the position that people have stated about Germans with German ancestry. The introduction is ambiguous as it says "the citizens of Germany" without stating that it's about people with German ancestry. If this article IS about Germans with German ancestry, the figure for Germans in Germany is wrong as acquiring German citizenship doesn't make you have German ancestry. If this article is NOT about Germans with German ancestry but of German nationals, then it should be added back to the introduction that it's about Germans who consider themselves Germans regardless of ancestry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grondolf (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

do you have any idea how many years it took to get the article halfway stable? I would estimate that your exact topic of debate has been rehashed about ten times on this very page over the past five years. It's alright for you to have that discussion yet again, but you need to understand that (a) Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM, and that (b) to make sweeping changes to a longstanding article, you need to establish consensus before going ahead. So if in doubt, revert this to the revision before somebody decided to "clean up" the article yet again and then start trying to find a consensus from there. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)--Thank you person who said this! Johanneswilm, stop doing random violence to stable Wikipedia pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.81.22 (talk)

this artical says 50 million live in the usa but that way too much of a guess for me to take in so i think of it as a grain of salt really. my diffination of a ethnically german american is more precice then this my name is Jon Black and all 4 of my grand parents had german heritage but i dont consider my self ethnically german becasue i also have also of british heritage irish and english and the last of them came over from the british isles sometime before the year 1800 so i would not fall into the catagory of a ethnic german infact by the year 1900 my heritage has been appalacian-american ethnic group. so id like for the actual german american figure to be listed on here and not a estimate. if its not known oh well at least i enqured. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty obnoxious comment. Germans are the largest ancestral group in the United States. I know countless "full-blooded ethnic Germans" (what a dated idea!) who happen to be English-speaking and American by citizenship. Many identify strongly with their German roots and still, in small ways, carry on German culture (even if it's just using and passing down recipes from their German grannies). This article, in general, gives German Americans short shrift, even though we number in the millions and count among our ranks some of the most powerful businessmen, politicians, and entertainers in the world. For instance, in the chart about Germans outside Germany, all other countries have flags next to their names and link to their respective Wikipedia pages, but not German Americans, of course; we don't count. This article just looks narrow-minded. A more flexible, up-to-date sense of Germanness ought to be reflected here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.81.22 (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

80,000 is a stupidly small number. About 35% of white South Africans are PRIMARILY of German ancestry, while another 50% are of partial German ancestry. Out of 5 million white South Africans that can be way over 1.5 million! You are also forgetting the 5 million mixed African-European coloureds in South Africa. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is way too confusing. It not only lacks a clear definition of its subject but also mixes different meanings of the term "Germans". One major problem is the lack of distinction between nationality and ethnicity. For example, Austrians are ethnically also Germans in the broadest sense, even if they have their own nationality. Another problem is the claim about the number of persons who "consider" themselves to be German, which is somewhat misleading. What counts is their actual ancestry, leading to a distinction between people of partly or fully German heritage, which is actually missing in the article. There is also a further distinction needed between Germans as recognized longstanding minorities in some parts of Europe, early modern and modern "Auswanderers", such as to America, settlement in German colonies, recent expatriates, etc. --Prüm (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Where it says "excludes German-speaking ethnic Belgians", what is it talking about? It could be referring to ethnic Germans with Belgian citizenship in the German speaking area, or people who live in the German speaking area regardless of nationality, or German citizens who live in Belgium, or ethnic Germans who live in Belgium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.92.245 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with the comment that this page uses too many definitions of "German." Either it's citizenship or it's ethnicity. Pick one and stick with it. The fact that there's a separate article on "ethnic Germans" doesn't help at all, especially given that the article overlooks massive groups of ehtnic Germans--like the many millions of German Americans, who are a rather powerful group, both in the US and abroad, and shouldn't be brushed off. My suggestion is that there be a single article on "Germans," decisively going with the ethnic definition. Simpler and more sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.81.22 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous writing just 66 million. If there are 66 million Germans without immigrant background, a) It doesn´t mean that immigrants are not ethnically German as half of immigrants to Germany have been ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union and the rest of Eastern Europe. The so called "Ausslander". b) In any other country but Germany MOST, the overwhelming majority, of ethnic Germans are MIXED (U.S., Brazil, Argentina...) In the U.S. there are more than 50 million people with German backgroudn...but most of them at the same time have English, French, Italian etc, etc background. So, in the case of Germany also there are millions of people in the same situation, a result of marriage between German citizens and immmigrants. c) So, it would be MORE ACCURATE to say that in GERMANY there are 76 million Germans, the same as German citizens (even if the number of ethnic Germans is higher) So you have to correcdt that number from 66 million to 76 million (probably part of the rest are also partly German ethnically)--88.9.128.83 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am removing Alphasinus unsourced changes introducing the notion that Germans are a "Germanic ethnic group". This classification is is unsourced and arbitrary, Germanic is a linguistic category not an ethnic one and we could equally well write "indo-European ethnic group", but that also contributes no relevant information. Germans are an ethno-national group that speak a germanic language.FREESAVELIY^talk 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I have told Alphasinus this countless times, but (s)he relentlessly introduces the change again after a a while - (s)he does this with all ethno-national groups that speak Germanic languages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Acutally Maunus i do not share your belief at all, i was merely wanted to point out certain aspects of wikipedia's logic, so i consider greatly that Germans are germanic,english people are germanic and so onFREESAVELIY^talk 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Germanic is not just a linguistic group but also an ethic one, wikipedia seems to contradict itself by stating some of germanic people (like germans)are germanic while others(like norweigians) as just a "nation and ethic group" and by the way if you look at the wikipedian article "Germanic people" there it says germanic is ethno linguistic group just like slavs,turkic peoples and so on(which wikipedia says;russians for example are slavic and kazakh people are turkic)FREESAVELIY^talk 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia does not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source to support your assertion? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've struck Freesaveliy's comments since that account is a sock of a banned user. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Germans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9