| Revision as of 12:41, 29 June 2007 editRex Germanus (talk | contribs)11,278 edits Getting pissed on DBachman and Matthead← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:10, 1 January 2025 edit undoAndrew Lancaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,284 edits →A denial of German identity | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Ethnic groups|class=Start|importance=high}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Germany|class=B|B-Class-1=no | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| |B-Class-2=no | |||
| {{Annual readership|expanded=yes}} | |||
| |B-Class-3=yes | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |B-Class-4=no | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |B-Class-5=yes | |||
| |counter = 9 | |||
| |importance=High}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| {{archive box|auto=yes}} | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(10d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Germans/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{American English}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Germany|importance=top }} | |||
| }} | |||
| == New World Map Image, New Zealand == | |||
| <!-- Please take material to archive from below this point - thanks --> | |||
| Hi, i think we need a new world map image since there are actually more than 10,000 people of German descent in New Zealand- the real figure according to the New Zealand government is some 200,000. | |||
| ==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. | |||
| == A denial of German identity == | |||
| Austrians are Germans, because I am an Austrian and the most austrians "feel" German. | |||
| I'm going to reiterate what I said towards the end of a previous but now apparently stagnant discussion above. | |||
| 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. --] 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The Germans are a nation, a ''Volk'', with an ancient and rich history. Reducing them to "inhabitants of Germany" cannot be serious, nor can moralizing for half of the lead talking about the Holocaust. This is a disappointing article. Also the links to Merriam-Webster dictionary as sources for the lead sentence is weak. ] (]) 23:33, 1 August 2024 (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.] 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{cite journal | last=Vick | first=Brian | title=The Origins of the German Volk: Cultural Purity and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Germany | journal=German Studies Review | publisher= | volume=26 | issue=2 | year=2003 | issn=01497952 | jstor=1433324 | pages=241–256 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1433324 | access-date=2024-08-01}} | |||
| ==Complaint About NPOV Issue== | |||
| :<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|JDiala}} you are not giving any concrete proposals or sources, except perhaps that you would like the Holocaust the be given less space? Whatever we do with this article we have to keep in mind that attempts to make it say that Luxembourgers and Austrians are German, or that in contrast that many citizens of Germany are not Germans, are going to be controversial and need care and good sources. These are issues we've tried to handle using reliable published sources. Concerning the Holocaust, all moralizing aside this is an important part of German history which has had an impact upon "German identity". This might seem heavy but I don't think it should be removed? I personally think that the article might eventually be improved by adding more "cultural" sections about things like sport, cuisine, etc. and this might change the overall feeling of the article. Someone just needs to find time to work on such things.--] (]) 07:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm a second generation German-American with German citizenship. What exactly gives foreigners on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. | |||
| ::"reliable published sources" And since when is the ] a reliable source on European history? ] (]) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Merriam-Webster is used only to establish the meaning of the word itself, not for any history stuff. ] (]) 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. This is a citation in the lead, which is normally not needed, but there was quite a discussion in the past, also about what this article and other related articles should be about (and not about). --] (]) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a bizarre article. 2 images for the Holocaust and 2 images of German people. Claims that "The history of Germans as an ethnic group began with the separation of a distinct Kingdom of Germany from the eastern part of the Frankish Empire under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century," when even the article itself makes the obvious point that "Germans" and "Germanic peoples" existed in the Iron Age. It's like claiming there were no Hawaiians until 1795. Honestly the whole article should be torn down and rewritten. Or maybe just redirect to "]". | |||
| :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? | |||
| :As a comparison, the article on "Turkish people" makes only a single oblique mention of the late Ottoman genocides, ''which affected non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian genocide and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion.'' ] (]) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::I don't have a strong opinion about the two genocide illustrations, but I can understand the argument for reducing them down to one. For the rest I think this post does not make a lot of sense or make any suggestions that can be turned into practical edits. The WP mission is to summarize what the best publications say. And FWIW by tracing the origins of German identity back to the 10th century, which is based on reliable sources, it goes much further than the ] article, and clearly doesn't match the accusation that {{tq|It's like claiming there were no Hawaiians until 1795.}} Concerning the still earlier ], both that term and the term "German" are modern inventions in the English language. While no-one would argue that there is no connection at all between the diverse peoples of the Ottonian kingdom and the diverse peoples who lived in the same general area 500 years earlier (or indeed between any two groups of European peoples) they are ''not the same'', and this is also what reliable sources say. This article does not stop at the 10th century though, but also gives some explanation of predecessor peoples who lived in the same region. The Turkish people article avoids this, and despite the lead it seems to deny Turkish identity to many citizens of Turkey. Several of the most difficult points in both articles are connected to the difference between ethnic identity (which many internet experts simply want to equate to language, 19th-century style) and citizenship, which is 21st century reality. In both articles there are the difficult topics of what to say about minorities living in the modern country, and outside of it. I don't think that's strange, and I don't see any solution that can line up reality and the 19th-century linguistic categories which obsess people on the internet. I don't see any way to avoid splitting the topics of ethnic identity and citizenship into different articles. (See ], which looks a bit like the Turkish people article.) To put it in practical terms, where this type of discussion always seems to end up is that there are two types of people who some editors want included in this one: people in other countries such as the US who see themselves as having German heritage, and people in Europe who speak German, such as Austrians, etc. who however NOT called Germans in the real world.--] (]) 07:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article does not make "the obvious point that "Germans" existed in the Iron Age". That's a bizarre claim. –] (]) 10:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Austronesier}} I take it that this remark is taking this remark deliberately out of the context which it makes clear, and simply equating the term Germans to Germani: {{tq|In historical discussions the term "Germans" is also occasionally used to refer to the Germanic peoples during the time of the Roman Empire.}}--] (]) 11:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Andrew Lancaster, happy New Year to you ! I don't think that the pic of the Holocaust memorial should be removed. The memorial is not the Holocaust itself. And the memorial is one of the most discussed aspects of German memorial culture, from far-right ] who called a "memorial of our shame" to lots of serious discussions. It occupies a place in the very centre of Berlin, very close to the Reichstag building. Of course, this is a question of editorial judgment, but my judgment, informed by my experiences as a history teacher in Germany, says: "Keep it". ] (]) 08:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::2 pictures of the Holocaust for thousands of years is undue for sure. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 08:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's OK I guess, but for the time being this article is not much focussed upon who the Germans of today are. Ideally it needs more material. In a sense we have worked on historical aspects which set the foundations and limits of an article, but no one has come along to add to it. So while that is the case I can sort of understand why some readers think it looks unbalanced. In general I'm not sure I know of a really good example of a "people" article. Some of them become very demographic and dry, while others are very concerned with ethnicity, expatriots, and/or history. The French one has a lot about citizenship, which is obviously very important to their identity. There is a fair bit of cultural material on the Germany article.--] (]) 10:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Infobox == | |||
| "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). | |||
| Why if this infobox removed last ], all ethnic group infoboxes are needed for ethnicity articles, unlike ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No they are not necessary, and they are often problematic - as in this case. See past discussions above. On the other hand, no one is stopping editors from proposing a better one.--] (]) 06:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, there are necessary to have an infoboxes for ethnic groups about the populations of Germans. If you want for a new consensus, just request for a comment. ] (]) 07:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Andrew Lancaster}} See this at ] about the use of infoboxes. ] (]) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for those links but there is no consensus there. Discussion and consensus building has been ongoing since then on this talk page (also see the archives). But again, no-one is saying there can never be an infobox on this article, or that it can't be expanded. The biggest practical issue we had to discuss was how to define and distinguish the topics of this article and related articles. The removed infobox was confusing different topics and not adding any value. Remember also that we do have other articles such as ], which is what the infobox was mainly about.--] (]) 09:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Andrew Lancaster}} I see, I would like to remove infoboxes for ]. ] (]) 09:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You would need to discuss that there. Keep in mind that the situation on this article is not necessarily the same, but if you look through the archives here you might some relevant points.--] (]) 09:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Similar that to ] without an infobox. See this recent discussion at ]. ] (]) 10:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Names section == | |||
| :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. | |||
| Perhaps Roman Empire should be linked there and capitalised (i.e, just the word Empire, of course), that is, if such a modification is deemed acceptable here. Just an opinion... All the best! ] (]) 09:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: "citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany" should be covered by ]! | |||
| :Done. Thanks!--] (]) 11:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you very much for taking that into consideration! All the best! ] (]) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 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.] 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::P.S. Shouldn't it be Roman Empire, with the term empire written with capital letter in the beginning? Just a thought... ] (]) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sounds right to me. Done. --] (]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (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 ]". A citizen of the FRG can be any of the two: Still '''this article here is irrelevant''' and should be split between ] and ] (or "German Society"). April 1st 2006 | |||
| :::::Very well then! Thank you very much! All the best once more! ] (]) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I tend to agree. The ] 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. ] | |||
| I just want to make a point briefly. I'm trying to study identity and the problem is not with Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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.] 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. ] 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Three Germans/One Austrian...seems fair to me. ] | |||
| :Austrians are none other than politically distinct Germans. ] 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 ]. ] | |||
| ::This is is a fairly common misunderstanding. I'd recommend that you read the German version of this very Misplaced Pages 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 ] as well. | |||
| ::However, your argument could be applied to all states with predominantly ] populations. I'm thinking especially of ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. 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 ], ] and ] this is somewhat simpler, since they have all agreed to support one and the same codification of the ]. 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 ], the ], the ] or the ] would consider themselves ]. 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 ] and ]. Or perhaps point out some ] tendencies popular in the late ] and early ] centuries, which might have resulted in other equally popular misperceptions. ] 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. ] 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 ] 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 ], it is largely based on the work of ] and the historical developments that preceded it. | |||
| ::::One could consider the border between ] and ] 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 ] southeast is very similar ], we also have to see similar blurring lines between ] and ], ], ], ] and ], ], ], ] and ]. | |||
| ::::Although a strong sense of a separate ] 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 ] in the latter part of the ] century, it is based on earlier historical developments. | |||
| ::::To settle this and find a proper place for Mozart, we should probably translate ] into English. I seriously doubt they will want ] though ;-) ] 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. ] | |||
| 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. ] 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 ]. - 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 ] and ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] --] 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 ]. Austria was Austria from 1804, when "Germany" was still a patchwork of provinces. Austrians as a group are treated at ], 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] --] 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 (]), 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). ] <small>]</small> 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. ] --] 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. ] 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We count Germans as Germans in USA too. No reason to have reverted. ] 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] are you planning on incorporating the Dutch as Germans as well? That would give you another 25,000,000. | |||
| :] 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 ], 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. | |||
| ] 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 ]: ] 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"). ] <small>]</small> 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. | |||
| ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 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" | |||
| ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. | |||
| ] 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, ] <small>]</small> 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes in a way, but was that "way" German, Dutch or neither? I think the latter. | |||
| ] 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? ] went out of fashion a while ago, you know. ] <small>]</small> 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. | |||
| ==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 | |||
| ] ] 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. | |||
| :] 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :yes, plus the number is sitting right where it should, over at ]. Please ''read'' an article before debating about it. ] <small>]</small> 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Austria and Switzerland == | |||
| May I ask who are those german spaking people in those countries? ] 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :How about the Swiss and Austrians? | |||
| :] 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 ] page. ] 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I do believe those are the inhabitants of Switserland and Austria. | |||
| :] 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So, you say they are not germans though they speak german? ] 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I speak English does that make me English? | |||
| ] 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| look, Misplaced Pages 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. ] <small>]</small> 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, ], I am sure the Swiss will be very interested in learning that they are Germans now. ] <small>]</small> 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::], the CIA factbook changed the entry for Austrians only relatively recently. Perhaps a similar change is pending for the Swiss? ] 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. ] 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's currently a discussion going on at ] about the related groups. --<strong>]</strong>] 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?) ] <small>]</small> 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? ] <small>]</small> 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, ] 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 ] 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 ]: | |||
| :''Die Staatsangehörigen Österreichs, der Schweiz und anderer deutschsprachiger Länder sind, auch wenn sie die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, per Definition keine Deutschen mehr'' | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 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 Misplaced Pages is unreferenced and unsourced and is not a valid source here. ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *What do you think of the current format. ] 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *according to ], 'empirical studies' show that less than 5% of Austrians (i.e. those of extreme right-wing 'nationalist' bent. to be perfectly plain: ].) 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. ] <small>]</small> 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 ] 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. ] 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| according to a reply I got on ], 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. ] <small>]</small> 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...).--] 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)? ] 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. ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :How would you/we get ridd of that box? Wouldn't it require a large vote? | |||
| :] 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. ] 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 '']'' 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 ] and ]. 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). ] <small>]</small> 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. | |||
| ] 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. ] 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :nobody negates ''links'' :) being ''linked'' to something isn't the same as being a subset. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The question is rather whether they ARE ethnically and culturally Germans than whether they CONSIDER themselves as such... (] 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--] 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. | |||
| -- 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 ], ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 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.--] 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. ] 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.--] 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *This article talks about ethnic Germans...If you want to talk about immigrants, you should see ]...I know there is also an ] 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. ] 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *So maybe we can redirect Germans to ] which would link to German people (as an ethnic group)(most of this current article), ] and ]....] 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. ] 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == I will say something == | |||
| I think the banner Ethnic Germans should have the same article under it. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 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 ]. It would also be interesting to have something about the image of the germans, like the following topics from the article about the ]: | |||
| <br><br> | |||
| The image of the Dutch <br> | |||
| 6.1 Symbols <br> | |||
| 6.2 Self-image <br> | |||
| 6.3 Dutch image worldwide <br> | |||
| 6.4 The Dutch in popular culture <br> | |||
| 6.5 Dutch views on others <br><br> | |||
| 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :Well, as one of the chief editors of the particular section at the ] 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.] 10:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <p> | |||
| But the skilled writers on Misplaced Pages 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? {{Unsigned|66.127.233.162}} | |||
| :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.] 21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <p> | |||
| 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. --] 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?] 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd disagree on him being one of the most influential, notorious yes, influential no.--] 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::ok maybe I'm wrong, hitler isn't a german hero. user:Walter_Humala. --] 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 so perhaps a reference to how Germany loved him right up untill he lost the war? --] 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.] 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. --] 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.] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :: I think Germans just aren't that proud of Hitler, and would rather not see his head as a symbol for their nation ;) ] 11:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| is anyone here at all aware of ]? ] <small>]</small> 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?--] 16:38, 10 January 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. --] 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 | |||
| ---- | |||
| Misplaced Pages 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 ] should be merged or just ditched. It seems to be the work of frustrated american editors who vainly lay claims on German ethnicity. ] 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This article needs a cleanup pronto. ] 02:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| it's a bit more complicated than that. on de-wiki, ] ("Germans") and ] ("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. ] <small>]</small> 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'. ] 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). ] <small>]</small> 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ]? == | |||
| These are probably the two most famous and influential German people. Why not put them on the picture list? --] 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. {{unsigned|Jked}} | |||
| == 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. | |||
| --] 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Diets == | |||
| I<sup>(f)</sup>I R<sup>(ecal)</sup>C<sup>(orectly)</sup> the etymology of Diets/Deutsch is originally just something analog as current terms of "(the) people" (most notably one's own people) {{Unsigned|88.159.72.36}} | |||
| :More or less yes.] 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 ] (and ] for that matter) was somehow German untill the First World War. <font color="red">'''I carefully advise people to make a very clear distinction between the Continental West-Germanic dialect continuum and the German language'''</font> ."''Continental''", "''West-''" and "''-ic''" have a reason you know. Dutch isn't ], it never was, and will never will be a part of German. Thank you very much. ] 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). -- ] 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. ] 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. -- ] 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?] 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. -- ] 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.] 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. -- ] 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...] 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. -- ] 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 aren't a personal invention as wel. But linguistics.] 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : For heaven's sake, Danish would be a ''Continental Germanic dialect'', too. Linguistics, er, for sure. -- ] 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Last time I checked we were speaking about the West Germanic languages, not the North Germanic ones.] 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. -- ] 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed. A, now extinct, language related to, but not incorportating Dutch.] 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.] 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : What this article and Misplaced Pages in general do not need is someone who repeatedly tries to push his very personal Anti-German view on it. -- ] ] ] 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do not remove <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-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.] 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You've been warned before at ] not to misuse the <nowiki>{{rpa}}</nowiki>-tag to remove reactions from other editors. -- ] ] ] 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 ] itself was hotly debated at the time, and English academia was split into "]s" who preferred to include English as one of the "Germanic" or "Teutonic" languages, and "]s" who preferred to classify English as "Scandinavian" (now known as ])<ref>English is today classified as West Germanic, although as within a separate ] subgroup.</ref>. | |||
| :With the rise of the ] as a threat to British interests in ], the "Germanophile" position came out of fashion and British romanticism turned to Scandinavia (see ]). "German" from this period refers to the German Empire, already to the exclusion of ], the ] and ]. 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: 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? ] 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 "]s", 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". ] <small>]</small> 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.] 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::once again, more briefly for your benefit: 45/192=23%. I fixed it. ] is an English word with a history within the English langauge. ] <small>]</small> 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.] 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 are completely out of line and only further establish you as a problem editor. ] <small>]</small> 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No you're not giving an explanation at all. You're just avoiding giving answers. ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 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?] 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? ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 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 (), 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Sure. Whatever.] 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? ] 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :what are you trying to say? this doesn't parse at all. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:10, 1 January 2025
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Germans. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Germans at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New World Map Image, New Zealand
Hi, i think we need a new world map image since there are actually more than 10,000 people of German descent in New Zealand- the real figure according to the New Zealand government is some 200,000.
A denial of German identity
I'm going to reiterate what I said towards the end of a previous but now apparently stagnant discussion above.
The Germans are a nation, a Volk, with an ancient and rich history. Reducing them to "inhabitants of Germany" cannot be serious, nor can moralizing for half of the lead talking about the Holocaust. This is a disappointing article. Also the links to Merriam-Webster dictionary as sources for the lead sentence is weak. JDiala (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vick, Brian (2003). "The Origins of the German Volk: Cultural Purity and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Germany". German Studies Review. 26 (2). : 241–256. ISSN 0149-7952. JSTOR 1433324. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
- Moxy🍁 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @JDiala: you are not giving any concrete proposals or sources, except perhaps that you would like the Holocaust the be given less space? Whatever we do with this article we have to keep in mind that attempts to make it say that Luxembourgers and Austrians are German, or that in contrast that many citizens of Germany are not Germans, are going to be controversial and need care and good sources. These are issues we've tried to handle using reliable published sources. Concerning the Holocaust, all moralizing aside this is an important part of German history which has had an impact upon "German identity". This might seem heavy but I don't think it should be removed? I personally think that the article might eventually be improved by adding more "cultural" sections about things like sport, cuisine, etc. and this might change the overall feeling of the article. Someone just needs to find time to work on such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- "reliable published sources" And since when is the Merriam-Webster dictionary a reliable source on European history? Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster is used only to establish the meaning of the word itself, not for any history stuff. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. This is a citation in the lead, which is normally not needed, but there was quite a discussion in the past, also about what this article and other related articles should be about (and not about). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster is used only to establish the meaning of the word itself, not for any history stuff. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- "reliable published sources" And since when is the Merriam-Webster dictionary a reliable source on European history? Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a bizarre article. 2 images for the Holocaust and 2 images of German people. Claims that "The history of Germans as an ethnic group began with the separation of a distinct Kingdom of Germany from the eastern part of the Frankish Empire under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century," when even the article itself makes the obvious point that "Germans" and "Germanic peoples" existed in the Iron Age. It's like claiming there were no Hawaiians until 1795. Honestly the whole article should be torn down and rewritten. Or maybe just redirect to "Holocaust".
- As a comparison, the article on "Turkish people" makes only a single oblique mention of the late Ottoman genocides, which affected non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian genocide and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion. Sheila1988 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion about the two genocide illustrations, but I can understand the argument for reducing them down to one. For the rest I think this post does not make a lot of sense or make any suggestions that can be turned into practical edits. The WP mission is to summarize what the best publications say. And FWIW by tracing the origins of German identity back to the 10th century, which is based on reliable sources, it goes much further than the Turkish people article, and clearly doesn't match the accusation that
It's like claiming there were no Hawaiians until 1795.
Concerning the still earlier Germanic peoples, both that term and the term "German" are modern inventions in the English language. While no-one would argue that there is no connection at all between the diverse peoples of the Ottonian kingdom and the diverse peoples who lived in the same general area 500 years earlier (or indeed between any two groups of European peoples) they are not the same, and this is also what reliable sources say. This article does not stop at the 10th century though, but also gives some explanation of predecessor peoples who lived in the same region. The Turkish people article avoids this, and despite the lead it seems to deny Turkish identity to many citizens of Turkey. Several of the most difficult points in both articles are connected to the difference between ethnic identity (which many internet experts simply want to equate to language, 19th-century style) and citizenship, which is 21st century reality. In both articles there are the difficult topics of what to say about minorities living in the modern country, and outside of it. I don't think that's strange, and I don't see any solution that can line up reality and the 19th-century linguistic categories which obsess people on the internet. I don't see any way to avoid splitting the topics of ethnic identity and citizenship into different articles. (See German diaspora, which looks a bit like the Turkish people article.) To put it in practical terms, where this type of discussion always seems to end up is that there are two types of people who some editors want included in this one: people in other countries such as the US who see themselves as having German heritage, and people in Europe who speak German, such as Austrians, etc. who however NOT called Germans in the real world.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC) - The article does not make "the obvious point that "Germans" existed in the Iron Age". That's a bizarre claim. –Austronesier (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I take it that this remark is taking this remark deliberately out of the context which it makes clear, and simply equating the term Germans to Germani:
In historical discussions the term "Germans" is also occasionally used to refer to the Germanic peoples during the time of the Roman Empire.
--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC) - Andrew Lancaster, happy New Year to you ! I don't think that the pic of the Holocaust memorial should be removed. The memorial is not the Holocaust itself. And the memorial is one of the most discussed aspects of German memorial culture, from far-right Björn Höcke who called a "memorial of our shame" to lots of serious discussions. It occupies a place in the very centre of Berlin, very close to the Reichstag building. Of course, this is a question of editorial judgment, but my judgment, informed by my experiences as a history teacher in Germany, says: "Keep it". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2 pictures of the Holocaust for thousands of years is undue for sure. Moxy🍁 08:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's OK I guess, but for the time being this article is not much focussed upon who the Germans of today are. Ideally it needs more material. In a sense we have worked on historical aspects which set the foundations and limits of an article, but no one has come along to add to it. So while that is the case I can sort of understand why some readers think it looks unbalanced. In general I'm not sure I know of a really good example of a "people" article. Some of them become very demographic and dry, while others are very concerned with ethnicity, expatriots, and/or history. The French one has a lot about citizenship, which is obviously very important to their identity. There is a fair bit of cultural material on the Germany article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- 2 pictures of the Holocaust for thousands of years is undue for sure. Moxy🍁 08:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I take it that this remark is taking this remark deliberately out of the context which it makes clear, and simply equating the term Germans to Germani:
- I don't have a strong opinion about the two genocide illustrations, but I can understand the argument for reducing them down to one. For the rest I think this post does not make a lot of sense or make any suggestions that can be turned into practical edits. The WP mission is to summarize what the best publications say. And FWIW by tracing the origins of German identity back to the 10th century, which is based on reliable sources, it goes much further than the Turkish people article, and clearly doesn't match the accusation that
Infobox
Why if this infobox removed last 22 June, all ethnic group infoboxes are needed for ethnicity articles, unlike Americans, French people, Spaniards, etc. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No they are not necessary, and they are often problematic - as in this case. See past discussions above. On the other hand, no one is stopping editors from proposing a better one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there are necessary to have an infoboxes for ethnic groups about the populations of Germans. If you want for a new consensus, just request for a comment. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: See this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality about the use of infoboxes. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links but there is no consensus there. Discussion and consensus building has been ongoing since then on this talk page (also see the archives). But again, no-one is saying there can never be an infobox on this article, or that it can't be expanded. The biggest practical issue we had to discuss was how to define and distinguish the topics of this article and related articles. The removed infobox was confusing different topics and not adding any value. Remember also that we do have other articles such as German diaspora, which is what the infobox was mainly about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: I see, I would like to remove infoboxes for British people. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- You would need to discuss that there. Keep in mind that the situation on this article is not necessarily the same, but if you look through the archives here you might some relevant points.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Similar that to Chinese people without an infobox. See this recent discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Infoboxes. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- You would need to discuss that there. Keep in mind that the situation on this article is not necessarily the same, but if you look through the archives here you might some relevant points.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: I see, I would like to remove infoboxes for British people. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links but there is no consensus there. Discussion and consensus building has been ongoing since then on this talk page (also see the archives). But again, no-one is saying there can never be an infobox on this article, or that it can't be expanded. The biggest practical issue we had to discuss was how to define and distinguish the topics of this article and related articles. The removed infobox was confusing different topics and not adding any value. Remember also that we do have other articles such as German diaspora, which is what the infobox was mainly about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- Ponyo 16:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Names section
Perhaps Roman Empire should be linked there and capitalised (i.e, just the word Empire, of course), that is, if such a modification is deemed acceptable here. Just an opinion... All the best! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking that into consideration! All the best! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. Shouldn't it be Roman Empire, with the term empire written with capital letter in the beginning? Just a thought... 85.186.127.155 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds right to me. Done. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Very well then! Thank you very much! All the best once more! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds right to me. Done. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. Shouldn't it be Roman Empire, with the term empire written with capital letter in the beginning? Just a thought... 85.186.127.155 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking that into consideration! All the best! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)