Misplaced Pages

Being Jewish who hold the right for German citizenship (though no intend to claim it) since my ancestors lived in Germany for nearly 1000 years until 1935-I'm offended by the racist argument that Jews are not an ethnic group. According to this argument a German who live outside Germany is ethnically German but a Jew who say lived outside Israel or renounce the Jewish faith is ethnically not Jewish. The fact that many Jewish atheists (like this one) see themselves no less Jewish than the chief Rabbi of Israel is not important-what is important-according to TFD for one is that Friesian who lived in West Friesia is ethnically different from one who live in the east of it while nothing is different between them a side for cultural minor differences if at all. Well, the strange artificial dividing into ethnicities in Europe (outcome of political issues) have nothing to do with this discussion but -being resident of Israel I can say that Druze people in Israel call themselves Israelis and in Syria they are Syrian -their ethnicity remines, however, Druze. A decent scholar would say that what make ethnic group for a one is its own unique history (and undoubtedly the history of Jews who lived in Germany have very little to do with the German history-95% of their time in Germany, if not more, they were hunted and persecuted minority and for long time Jews were not even allowed to freely visit in many German cities) its language (well, German Jews started to speak German as their first language only 100 years-give or take a decade-before the holocaust, and even after their prays remain in Hebrew and Aramaic) religion (nothing in common) genetic origin (nothing in common)and etc. While Marx was assimilated Jew and even self hated (he was disappointed when his daughter -whose mother was German and therefore were not Jewish according to the Jewish law- declared herself Jewish) Einstein did not try to affiliate himself with the German people. The Hebrew university of Jerusalem to which Einstein endowed all of his writings released part of them-there are many many remarks of him on German people and on himself as a Jew. I can say that he didn't see himself as German to any extent, was in favor of heavy punishment against Germany right after WWII and pretty much blame the whole German people for what happened and affiliate himself very strongly with Jewish people. On footnote I will end by saying that Jewish people are undoubtedly ethnic group in every possible way. But in different then any other ethnic group, once one convert to Judaism he/she become part of this ethnic group in many ways and formally. However, the rate of conversions to Judaism is very low and too insignificant to be considered. In fact, I believe the percent people of different origins (e.g., Polish, Russians, Romanians, Gypsies, Turkish) that are assimilated to the German people is much higher though the process is different. It's really nice that you argue that their are no Jewish people only Jewish faith and that you now made Einstein your own property, however-this is false. P.S., The discussion on genetic studies is futile, the consensus in academy-after more than 100 studies published and many more done every year is that Jews are one ethnic group from the genetic point of view with very few exceptions (Ethiopian Jews) and Jews from Germany are genetically Jewish and anyway share pretty much nothing with the German people.--Gilisa (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

...and another recruited POV-pusher → . --IIIraute (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the matter? Nothing else to say? Fronm what I see the user gave you facts, but due to the fact it's obviously prooving you wrong you have no choice just to complain. It's normal to ask someone who has knowledge on the topic to comment on the dialogue, especially when unlike you he gives the facts and not how he would like the facts to be. React to the facts, because that's what the discussion should be about (in theory), and not "he won a Noble prize that's why he's German and Mesut Ozil is not". Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jews are unquestionably an ethnic group. And a religious group. See ethnoreligious group.
• Holocaust makes it such a charged issue: "How dare Germany claim a Jew it drove away (or killed)?" But ethnicity is not just genetic, and to a great extent it depends on what an individual himself/herself chooses. Let's take the discussion away from Germany. Sammy Davis Jr. considered himself African-American (or the equivalent term of the day) and Jewish. What's the problem with that?
• And Holocaust cuts the other way, too. Normally I would consider a Jew actively professing Christianity to be no longer a Jew for most purposes. But if Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger—who was raised Catholic after his parents were martyred in the Holocaust—considered himself a Jew as well as a Catholic, I'm not prepared to challenge his birthright.
• I think Einstein made it clear he was a Jew, not a German. I think Marx substantially expressed the opposite. Why are we challenging their own definitions? StevenJ81 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your observation that "to a great extent it depends on what an individual himself/herself chooses": I know that this is the theory, but the problem is that a person may not really be free to choose his own identity in practice if he lives in a society that is used to assigning ethnicity to its members on an essentialist basis. The only ones that could really "choose" their ethnicity in any way that mattered would have been the ones that could pass for "indigenous", European Germans on account of their external features and who were able to hide their Jewish ancestry from the dominant ethnic group. Iblardi (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there, fellers! Just to get this cleared up: As far as I can see from this increasing tedious and convoluted thread, nobody here has claimed that Jews aren't an ethnic group. It's mostly about whether Einstein was (ethnically) Jewish, German, both, or (OMG! let's spend days tiffing about this one) neither. Apparently the great man considered himself neither a German citizen nor Jewish faith. But I am a Jew, and I am glad that I belong to the Jewish people, even though in no way do I consider them to be the chosen ones. Seems fairly clear-cut. Jews: 1 Germans: 0 (and as StevenJ81 just pointed out: Marx: Jews: 0 (maybe 1 after penalties) Germans: 1) Why some people feel the need to turn this into a platform for anti-German sentiment, ethnic pigeonholing, and fairly blatant racial abuse is anyone's guess, please stop. Also, it may be worth noting that WP:canvassing is not considered good form, especially if it is done with false accusations. Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein as far as we know had only Jews in his family and he identified only as a Jew, never as a German! That's the simple truth. The quote you gave proves that he saw himself as an ethic Jew, that's where the Einstein case should be closed. So why is he still in the image? Why is User:IIIraute still saying yes but his family lived in Germany for 8 generations (so what? They made sure to marry only Jews so their children would stay Jewish, and does an Irish American become a Native American after 8 generations)? You might have not said Jews are not an ethnic group, but others here did. Now about Marx, both his parents were Jews, his grandparents were jews (and apprently rabbis, and were talking about Orthodox Rabbis), and his parents converted to Christianity just so their sone wouldn't have to deal with anti-semitism, but that still doesnt change his ethnicity! That's the thing, if a Turk converts to Christianity and lives in England, do their origins change to Anglo-Saxon? That's exactly the point. I admit I went to far with some expressions, but there were clearly quotes brought here about Einstein's idenitty and about the Jewish ethnicity but still it comes accross a brick wall. It's normal to ask someone who has knowledge on the topic to comment on the dialogue, especially when unlike you he gives the facts and not how he would like the facts to be. They didn't come here to revert or to insult, purely for the facts. The fact is, so far they gave quotes and valuable information. Due to the nature of the page it's edited mostly by Germans, but in such a discussion it's fair if Jews present some quotes from their side. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute I suggest you to comply with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and don't call me POV pusher. Refer to the facts, if you know how. If there is POV here, aside for the violation of WP:OR by the argument that there is no Jewish ethnicity (even if they are, even if they see and seen as ethnic group) -then this is the German nationalistic POV that try to make worlds greatest minds ethnically German (even in the case of Einstein who made numerous remarks about his distance from the German people, his closeness to the Jewish people and Jewish mentality (his own words) and predicted that if the relativity proven right German supremacists will argue he's German but Jew if it's proven wrong). There is nothing German in the ethnicity of Einstein-undoubtedly he was German citizen for a long time, born in Germany, his language was German and he was grown much in German culture but wasn't and didn't see himself as ethnic German-the same is today with many second generation Turks who live in Germany. Comparing Jewish people to artificial ethnic groups in Europe is at least irrelevant and pointless and again OR. Before Hitler raise to power 40% of professors in German universities were Jews-more than 40 times their ratio in the German population, this just emphasize that aside for their self-definition, history and etc -their Jewish ethnicity played unique part in their academic achievements. Misplaced Pages is not real life, you can argue as much as you want that Einstein was ethnically German- a side for being disrespectful for Einstein and motivated by nationalistic need to prove that German people are superior, we all here know this is false. --Gilisa (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

...but you were recruited through canvassing - weren't you? → . --IIIraute (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the joke, he thinks he knows better then Einstein who Einstein was! His best argument is "they were assimilated", but if they were so assimilated why did they marry only Jews? I studied sociology and we learned about different levels of assimilation, and the highest level of assimilation is marriage, because let's say if a Jew married a German he is still Jewish, his children will be half Jewish, but would his great-grandchildren know they have Jewish ancestors...? So this is the highest level of assimilation because one group swallows the other or two groups create a new one, but the fact is, even though culturally assimilated most of the Jews in Germany (including Einstein's family) made sure to marry Jews, and that shows the simple fact that they wanted to keep their ethnic identity Jewish. If they would really ethnically assimilate we wouldn't even have this discussion because Jews wouldn't exist anymore! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jews are ethnic group and they were considered such for centuries, this is how Israeli central bureau of statistics counts them, , this is in the basics of Jewish religion and this is how genetic science relates to them Genetic studies on Jews. To deny this fact to Jewish people is something that has really no place in this encyclopedia.--Tritomex (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

...another recruited opinion through canvassing → . --IIIraute (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein was ethnically Jewish, and declared himself as such. He was in some period of his life also a German citizen but this has nothing to do with his ethnicity. I am for example Serbian citizen but I am not Serbian as my ancestors and my ethnicity is Hungarian.

Look, maybe I'm missing this, but can anyone give me the exact quotes (by Illraute or whoever) to show that anyone claimed that Jews are not an ethnic group? I can't see that anywhere. If it's there and I missed it, boo and hiss. If it's not there, y'all keep your pantyhose on and stop fantasizing about some German supremacy plot to suppress the Jewish ethnic identity. So Einstein was Jewish and not German, Marx was of Jewish ancestry and German. Big deal. It’s their business alone. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what IIIraute says: "In his youth, Einstein did not identify strongly with Jewish culture and religion. And even if he did, it's a matter of religion and not of ethnicity." It's clearly claiming that Jews are a religion and not and ethnicity. And here's another one of his "pearls": "Look, I think it is great that Einstein suddenly discovered "that he was a Jew" in his late thirties, but this article is about Germans as an ethnic group, and not Einstein's religio-moral identity crises." The second one was after he totally ignored the explanation that Jews are an ethnic group and again trying to claim it's a religious matter.

And based on what are you saying that Marx is not of Jewish ethnicity? From what I read, his grandparents and parents were Jewish. I agree it's not a big deal, so Einstein and Marx should be simply taken out of the infobox and replaced by people of German ethnicity.

I'm not claming all Germans are like that, but for me it obviously has something to do with the “New Germany” psychological crisis. What I mean is, some Germans are feeling guilt for the approach Germany used to have which is “Destroy the minority. No minority, no problems”, and they bring a new approach: “Ignore the minority existence and claim they are in fact Germans. No minority, no problems”, when the approach should be much more simple: “Yes, minorities exist, they are not ethnic Germans, but it doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to exist as citizens with equal rights and as minorities with the right to self-express themselves. There are minorities, and it’s not a problem”. The fact is, when you go to the English, Russians, Belarusians, Scots pages they have people only of the ethnicity the article is talking about, non of them have Jews in their images, because they don't feel any guilt or crises on the topic. All those countries had famous Jews from converted families like Marx, but they still understand those guys are still of Jewish ethnicity. From the other hand, out of all pages on the Germans page there is an attempt to turn ethnic Jews into ethnic Germans. How come other pages about ethnicities don't have this issues? That's my point.Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, lets break this down then: Illraute said that in his youth Einstein did not identify strongly with with Jewish culture and religion. Someone may convert to Judaism and identify with Jewish culture and religion. According to you, that does not make him an ethnic Jew (Jews suggests otherwise, but let's assume your POV for the time being). Therefore, as per Illraute's and your OWN arguments, identifying with Jewish culture and religion 'is' a matter of of religion and culture, not of ethnicity. Einstein's ancestry is irrelevant for whether or not he identified with Jewish culture and religion. Illraute's second comment is about how he came to identify himself as Jewish in later life. He (re-)discovered and cultivated his Jewishness, if you will. This cultivation of an common identity by individuals is crucial to maintaining a coherent ethnic group. To quote from the article: Ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups. Illraute has not said that ethnic Jews don't exist.

On to Marx. From what I gather, Marx identified with German culture, fully immersed himself in it, and was considered fully German by Germans. Whether you like it or not, that suffices to make him an ethnic German. 'German-ness' is not defined by genetics (cf. Dutch vs German, which are genetically indistinguishable). Marx rejected his Jewishness, which I find sufficent reason to not consider him an ethnic Jew. You disagree, deny him the right to decide for himself, and include him in your ethnicity. Fine. That's why I said '1 on penalties' further up in this thread. With Einstein it is the other way around. There are reasons to consider him an ethnic German (and please don't start with his genes again, they are irrelevant for this; the German ethnic group is not defined by genetics), but he himself did not consider himself one. I accept that. Ilraute and others take the same stance as you with Marx: They apply their definition of their own ethnic group, deny him the right to decide for himself, and ALSO include him in their ethnicity. I don't see that anyone has claimed that he was not of Jewish ancestry; it's about whether or not he's also German. You're basically fighting about whether a ball is red or round. Why do you find is so hard to accept that not all ethnicities are genetically determined? Can you tell a Dutchman and a German apart by looking at their DNA? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Marx was self-hated Jew who made several high profile antisemitic remarks, his case is not important for me-in any case he wasn't ethnically German (though if it wasn't the principle we are talking about the case of Marx is not that important). It's very well accepted in academy to describe demography of countries by ethnic groups. For instance, if there are 1 million ethnic Germans in Russia then Russian demography will include ~0.75% Germans in the demographic survey-even if they speak Russian, married to ethnically Russian people, eat Russian food and hold only Russian citizenship. From previous debates I had with Germans who fervently argued Einstein was ethnic German they some times came with the argument that "The Nazis so Jews as ethnicity-do you want to go back to these days". Well, this kind of arguments have much audacity in them. Jews are the last people that have to pay for horrific crimes made by German people-German history can't dictate anything for Jews. Moreover -the logic of such tasteless arguments goes like this "We made crime and killed you, now-for your own sake-we have taken your identity (because it pisses us and we don't want to be pissed off, for your own safety), keep ours (meaning: we're ethnic group and people and you don't) and by the way inherited your achievements. So thanks, you can be pissed off if you like-we're cool with that, but don't twist history and facts please. As for this thread-can someone do me a favor and google the remarks Einstein made on Germans and on Jews (search for the Hebrew university source which include them all). The article is on Germans as ethnic group, and Einstein clearly shouldn't be there. What more that the mosaic picture include some high profile anti-semitics (Like Vagner who was not less than Hitlers ideological Godfather)-it's an insane paradox and every honest person would admit they don't belong to the same ethnicity and certainly not in the same mosaic. --Gilisa (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

...his name was "Wagner". --IIIraute (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's all you have to say? Sorry, he didn't mean to hurt your feelings by writing his name in a wrong way. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm absolutely careless about this pre-Nazi name, but thanks for letting me know. BTW, where did you remove all of my posts and by which authority? --Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It was your own canvassing-"Brethren" Guitar hero on the roof → So watch your tongue!, before you accuse other editors of "sabotage"! --IIIraute (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute My comment was meant to Guitar hero on the roof and I still want him to restore my comments. I don't understand what exactly he's trying to do but in any case he have no right to do what he did. The same way I suggest you to mind your language and avoid factorial mark when you address me. It's not only ridiculous but also ineffective and violating WP:CIVIL. --Gilisa (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right! You clearly positioned your comment to answer mine, writing: "I'm absolutely careless about this pre-Nazi name, but thanks for letting me know. BTW, where did you remove all of my posts and by which authority? ... so stop this hogwash, and don't hose yourself! --IIIraute (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute, did I addressed you by your user? I was addressing my "brethren" (can you explain me please why you used this word picking to describe me and Guitar hero on the roof "relation" here?) who appeared to comment to your post, he wrote "thats all you have to say?" and I just agreed with him and wrote that I'm careless about Vagner (sorry, I fail to see how he's great men) and I politely asked him why he removed my comments because checking on the TP history I surprisingly find that most probably he did it. However, I wasn't 100% sure (only after I find the smoking gun/diff that leave him the only option), it seem more logic that one who hold opposite opinion did it so I posted new comment asking the one who did it (without accusing anyone specific) to restore my comments. Now, just keep decent language and AGF -really, behind aggressive with the keyboard don't contribute here.--Gilisa (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't fool yourself. You accused me of removing your posts at 16:05(UTC) → , I did let you know about your "mistake" at 16:20(UTC) → , and you adressed Guitar hero on the roof about one hour later, at 17:19(UTC) → . Canvassing-"brethren"?? You have been canvassed into this discussion - that's not an accusation - it is a fact → .--IIIraute (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing Einstein picture from the infobox

Per the thread above there is no reason to keep Einstein in the infobox mosaic. Ethnicity is defined by the historical line one belongs to. Einstein didn't see himself German by ethnicity or by much else and his ethnicity was not German. The argument Jewish people do not consist ethnicity is not a legitimate nor valid one and of bad form, to say the least. Also, the mosaic includes several high profile antisemitic people, like Wagner- a composer and the godfather of Nazi ideology-there is much absurdity in the idea of having Einstein in the same mosaic with Martin Luther (who called Christians to show "painful mercy" to the Jewish people) and Wagner and arguing they are of the same ethnicity. Lets close this thread fast and remove Einstein from the infobox. As for Marx, while ethnically he wasn't German (actually both his grandparents were Rabbis) -I will not argue for his removal for the purpose of saving all of us time.--Gilisa (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Before Hitler raise to power 40% of professors in German universities were Jews-more than 40 times their ratio in the German population, this just emphasize that aside for their self-definition, history and etc -their Jewish ethnicity played unique part in their academic achievements." - so it was their race/genetics, is it that what you are saying? P.S. do you have a reference on that 40 per cent?? --IIIraute (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your sanity. I suggest replacing him with Max von Laue. He's a physisist, won a Nobel prize, opposed the Nazis, and knew Einstein personally. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Popular figure with a positive image and big contribution. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Hesse or Hildegard von Bingen, would be a better, i.e. more prominent choice.--IIIraute (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Hildegard von Bingen would be the best choice, as there are hardly any medieval people in the current line-up, and only 13% women (of which 50% are models). I am a bit surprised that Angela Merkel is not in there, and one might also consider for instance Käthe Kollwitz, Herta Müller and Magdalena Neuner. It appears to me that male writers are already well represented; if one more should be added, I would have suggested Berthold Brecht, as to cover the DDR period. I wonder more generally, if it is intentionally to exclude the "bad guys", like Nazi leaders, Erich Honnecker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iselilja (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about Einstein, though I do think Marx to should be removed, simply because he wasn't German by ethnicity. Conversion did not making him German, just Christian, and even that he declined as an atheist. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again - your ethnicity equals genetics racial theory! --IIIraute (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are the top expert here on racial theories trying to make an ethnicity dissapear. That's where your logic got twisted in the quest to get redemption for the deeds of your ancestors, saying that someone is not a German because they are not of German ethnicity is not racism and not a racial theory, saying that someone is better then someone else because of their race is racism. Different ethnicities have the right to exist and to express themselves. I understand you are trying to proove how far you are from the Nazis by trying to proove Jews are Germans, but don't you get you are fighting for the same cause as them, deleting the Jewish race? The fact is, Jews exist as an ethnic group and I don't see how saying that fact is racism. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deborah Sadie Hertz, How Jews Became Germans, Yale University, 2007. --IIIraute (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute, my source is the great historical book "The Pity of It All: A Portrait of Jews In Germany 1743 - 1933 " by Amos Elon -and I can't find how this fact is surprising given the large number of Jewish people among German Nobelists. In any case my point was to demonstrate the cultural differences even when they apparently assimilated among Germans still there were occupations more affiliated with Jews, I have no racist meanings. Anyway, some Jews tried to become Germans (thanks to centuries of persecutions and oppression) but it doesn't change their ethnicity. --Gilisa (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

...meaning - ethnicity equals genetics/race? -- Regarding your 40 per cent reference - page?? Maybe the success also had to do with the German scholarly ethic? Z. Rosenkranz, Einstein before Israel: Zionist icon or iconoclast?, Princeton, 2011: "His relationship to his own German identity was also fraught with ambivalence; in the end ... he felt a great deal of allegiance to German culture, and even more to the German scholarly ethic" (p. 255-56). --IIIraute (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero on the roof, the opposite is right: Saying Jews are not ethnic group is racist. It's very much to deny the Jewish people as a nation. Enemies of the Jewish people once argued Jews are inferior race and today they argue that they don't have the right for self-identification. It's also very historical practice, from the historical point of view Jewish people are one of worlds oldest nations.--Gilisa (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute, again- I said nothing about the genetic issue the whole point was to demonstrate difference and perhaps it wasn't the best way to do that so just drop the pen. The page? Again, this remark is not very important and I don't have the book at hand reach right now-if you insist I will tell you in several days. I doubt the success had anything with German ethic given that Jews gained similar level of achievements in Spain-many centuries earlier, and even before, given that they enjoy the same level of achievements in the US and in many other places today. BTW, at least in science-in Israel as well. You could say it's the German ethic if their performances were equal to their percent in the population but given it isn't I refer it to very very long history of putting education in high esteem- starting from the days before exile Jews preferred to marry their daughters to Talmid Chacham certainly if he's Illui than to rich or influential men and vice versa, Talmid Chacham would chose his women by the righteousness of her parents. So, this is really long history of culture which admire knowledge just for the purpose of knowledge and also free thinking (infact, in famous remark Einstein praise his Jewish heritage for this exactly).--Gilisa (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, guys, please don't start this again. Everyone here knows and accepts that Jews are an ethnic group and that Einstein was a part of it. He did not see himself as an ethnic German. Conversion to Christianity and his later loss of faith obviously didn't make Marx German, but he and the German people around him considered himself as such, and that suffices and should be accepted. It does not erase his Jewish ancestry, but unlike Jewish ethnicity German ethnicity does not put a strong emphasis on genetics and ancestry, so there is no contradiction. I am sure that there are some people out there who think that Jewishness is a religion, but this is mostly out of ignorance. Let's just stick with Einstein out, Marx in. Also, let's not make this about whether Einstein was successful in what he did because of Jewish or German attributes. He was shaped by both, so Jews and Germans can both rightly claim a connection with him, regardless of his ethnicity, just as the French and the Poles both do with Marie Curie. As for the alternatives for Einstein, I still think replacing a physicist with a physicist is the way forward. I would also contend that Hildegard of Bingen and Herrmann Hesse are less well known internationally than Max von Laue, but perhaps that is only my impression. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I should avoid mentioning a fact that would lead to discussion about attributes (though my idea was only to mention cultural differences but I could do that by pointing to Einstein childhood which had strong secular and also religious Jewish aspects and is not typical to Germans) -anyway, it appear that I made unnecessary remark. Rainbowwrasse, I agree with most of what you wrote-lets put Einstein out of here. BTW, I don't agree with what you wrote about the way ethnicity is viewed by Germans vs. Jews.

This was not aimed at you, I think your comments were valid. As to the different views, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. I just checked, and this article originally also covered Germans as a nation before references to nation were removed in an unexplained edit. Also, a separate article on Ethnic Germans exists. You'll be happy to know that the illustrative picture that goes with that features neither Einstein nor Marx, but some drunk Argentinians. I reinstated the word 'nation' to the 'Germans' article, which is more appropiate anyway because the article not only deals with ethnicity. I trust that resolves the issue to everyone's satisfaction. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks-in any case it would be appropriate to remove the picture (Einsteins' only) from this article. In case one argue it's now about Germans as nation (meaning citizens or past citizens of Germany that grew and/or are/were immersed into German society) and by that want Einstein picture to stay here then I think we must include Turks and black Germans as well-otherwise it implies that the article mean to something else. Anyhow, given that Einstein renounced his German citizenship and stated many times he have no intention to return to Germany it would be of bad taste even to include him in article about German citizens (in case this is all about and I doubt it), IMO.--Gilisa (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, it still says in the opening origination from central Europe, while the Jews originated in the Middle East. I still think Einstein should be removed from here. Besides, he wasn't a German citizen at the end of his life and wasn't a big fan of Germany either. Einstein should still be removed. The article Ethnic Germans doesnt cover the German ethnicity in general but only the German diaspora so it has nothing to do with the case. I don't agree with keeping Marx but accept it as a concensus (though still don't get the logic of it but whatever). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero on the roof ,There is not much logic in keeping Marx in an article that readers at least think to be about Germans as ethnic group. If Marks was perceived only as individual then it's ok, but it's not the case. The case is that every one in the info box represent the entire German people, meaning the German ethnicity-and if that so, then it means that Marx representing the Germans as ethnicity and then it's not longer Marx, it's German Jews who are now represented as part of ethnicity different of their real one -and then every German Jew is ethnic German. This is bad encyclopedic standard. As for Marks by himself, I don't care much - he didn't identify himself with Jewish people and even flame against them and expressed no feeling through Jewish people, at least not publicly -and I guess that not even privately (though interestingly enough his non-Jewish daughter did see herself as part of the Jewish people) so just to solve the issue fast I agree that his picture stay in the infobox. Footnote, though Marx thought about himself as German and his closer circle friends considered him one-I believe he experienced antisemitism against himself many times. --Gilisa (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think Marx should be removed. It doesn't matter that he assimilated and disavowed his Jewish heritage, he was still an ethnic Jew for all intents and purposes. If I move to China and assimilate into their culture, I'm still an Arab-Jew at the end of the day.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake, will you stop already? The article now clearly says nation as well. Take out Einstein if the guy didn't want to be associated with the country in any way, but this is starting (STARTING?) to get ridiculous. The French people collage is riddled with people from all over the place (Curie, Polish; Napoleon, Italian,... hey, isn't Sarkozy part Jewish? Better kick him out of there asap!) and nobody is getting their knickers in a twist about that. And just an info, 'China' is not an ethnicity. Why are people here constantly trying to claim that the Manchu (Hui, Miao,...) aren't an ethnicity? I better get all my Manchu mates together to rant on about how that's a flipping disgrace...! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I made this point quite early in this discussion: ""This article is about Germans as a nation and an ethnic group." Problem solved. see: Austrians → (Freud), Dutch People → (Spinoza), for example. Einstein and Marx were German nationals →→ see: Albert Einstein, Karl Marx." --IIIraute (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Napoleon and Curie do not belong on there as they are not ethnic French. Sarkozy is half Greek-Jewish and half Hungarian, so he shouldn't be there either. Your point about the Manchu doesn't even make any sense, given that they are a native Chinese people. Jews, on the other hand, did not even originate in Germany, and the two groups have very little in common with each other. To count them as ethnic Germans is ludicrous.

And including "nationality" in the lead unnecessarily widens the scope of the article. The entire page would have to be re-written from scratch if we were to include that.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting... The Miao ... is an ethnic group ... whose members may not necessarily be either linguistically or culturally related. For this reason, many Miao peoples cannot communicate with each other, and have different histories and cultures. Whoa! An ethnic group whose members aren't linguistically or culturally related? Let me just go scrape my brain off the wall! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true. The article was written about Germans as a national and ethnic group. Why would there otherwise be a separate article on "Ethnic Germans". Please note that the article also includes Slavic people, for example. Karl von Clausewitz is a famous German whose surname is of Slavic origin. --IIIraute (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are so funny :-) JUsut 2 days ago you were claming Einstein and Marx are ethnic Germans, no you change the whole mantra :-) ? The article was just changed to "ethnicity and nation", but the fact is, Einstein didn't want to be associated with this nation. Another point is "originating in central Europe", while the Jews didn't originate in central Europe due to the fact they came from the middle east. Weather you define the article by ethnicity or nationality Einstein should be removed. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This article states ethnic group and a nation, not or, it doesnt just say "nation". In other words this article is a history of Germans in Germany, therefore people of non German ethnicity should not be in the collage. Otherwise the article would be called Germany and not Germans. The fact is, in articles like Russians, English people, Belarusians, Tatar people, Assyrians, Han Chinese, Native Americans, etc, they have only people of their own ethnicity, simply because they know the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. It says 'nation or ethnic group'. Anyway 'Lord of the Rings' is also a book and a movie. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein was Jewish both by his ancestry and by his feelings. He was not ethnically German.--Tritomex (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

I find it very problematic to continue the discussion with several of the editors involved, for the fact that they were "recruitet" through canvassing! →→ , , , , -- I also find several of the comments here more than problematic: "IIIraute...maybe it's in your genes to want to wipe the Jewish race, I don't know..."; "...so I am saying that if anything, he should check what his great-grandfather was doing in 1941..."; "Only in Germans a few German guys feel the need to proove that Jews are in fact Germans, which is a result of the guilt feelings."; "I understand your position which is guilt after World War 2 so going from one extreme to the other..."; "It's so funny to see a German blaming Jews of doing what the Nazis did."; "I don't know what your great-grandfather did in 1941 ... so watch out who you are blaming in what."; "...you can argue as much as you want that Einstein was ethnically German- a side for being disrespectful for Einstein and motivated by nationalistic need to prove that German people are superior..."; "You are the top expert here on racial theories trying to make an ethnicity dissapear. That's where your logic got twisted in the quest to get redemption for the deeds of your ancestors..."; "I understand you are trying to proove how far you are from the Nazis by trying to proove Jews are Germans..."; " I guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist." --IIIraute (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What I find problematic is that you have mothing to say so you start playing with other things :-) It's not canvassing for a simple reason. People who I asked to participate are not reverting anything and not edit-warring, they were brought here for a simple reason. Due to the nature of the page it has mostly German editors, while in this specific case it’s important that Jews would take part and give quotes regarding the topic, which involves them. You were brought quotes proving Einstein saw himself as a Jew and didn’t see himself as a German at all. Those stuff proved you wring so now you are dealing with things which have nothing to do with the topic. The joke is, everyone reached a compromise, but you are still not settled because you feel humiliated. Grow up and reply to the facts. The quotes you brought are hilarious, compared to your racist quotes I gave on this page calming Jews are not an ethnicity and calming the Jews here are bringing out “racial theories” simply because they state that Jews are an ethnic group. Most of the quotes you brought were an answer to other rude statements. For example a guy blaming the Jews of doing what the Nazis did... it's true, his great-grandfather was probably wearing a Nazi uniform in 1941 so he should be careful who he blames of what. Add this quote to. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...yes, maybe his great-grandfather did wear a Nazi uniform, though quite unlikely - more likely it was a Wehrmacht uniform, and maybe it was that of a baker, or firefighter - or maybe he belonged to the ca. 100,000 German citizens who were killed for one or another form of resistance... the problem is, you don't know, but you apply some collective "guilt-scheme" on all Germans, by race. Also approx. 7-9 million Germans died during WWII - were they all guilty and therefore deserved to die? What does this have to do with the discussion anyway?? No one ever said that Jews are not an ethnicity, or could you please point out where exactly this was said? Instead it was argued, that ethnicity implies several factors and can not only be decided through genetics/race.

NO compromise has been reached - the only one I can see was to reinstate the notion that this article was about Germans as nation and ethnic group.

The editors were clearly recruited, only to influence the outcome of this discussion therefore making their contribution strongly biased. Some of the comments are very offensive, racist and this undertone of anti-German sentiment is not acceptable, and should not be tolerated.

There only has been no edit warring, because the images cannot be removed without deleting the whole mosaic display - however, the edit warring did already happen at Austrians, trying to remove Freud. --IIIraute (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In everyone's defence, I must say that it is very laudable that there has been no edit warring at all going on, even if Guitar hero on the roof's notification on user's talk pages wasn't particularly neutral and a bit anti-German and (in my view at least) somewhat inappropriately done. Still, this isn't getting any closer to a resolution. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought we reached a compromise that Einstein is gone and Marx stays (though I still think both should be taken out). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It´s canvassing to contact people on "your side" to come to the talk page and influence the outcome of a discussion, even if they don´t start an edit war. The important point here is contacting "people on your side". If one wants to invite more people to a discussion it must be done in a neutral manner on a neutral site; like for instance a project site. And some of the sentences quoted by IIIraute are of course totally unacceptable. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but I didn't know they will be on my side. I knew they were editing pages regarding Jews so assumed they were Jewish, but I didn't know what opinion they will have on the topic. The reason I invited those specific people was because I saw that when they did edits they were always well referenced so as far as I was concered I was inviting people with knowledge. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...yes, right, you invite/canvass editors you "assumed they were Jewish ... to join the discussion and help explain ... to a bunch of Germans ... that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish." ...because, you "guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist." But surely you did this with the best of intentions, not following some POV-pushing agenda... You better believe it! --IIIraute (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein and Marx attempt for resolution

Should Einstein and Marx be mentioned in an article on Germans?

Discussion

• Remove both I think Einstein and Marx both should not be in the image due to the arguments brought above. First of all, both Einstein and Marx were of Jewish ethnicity. Second, in Einstein’s case he always stated he is Jewish and he actually stated many times he isn’t to keen on Germans for various specific reasons but he never said he feels German. Third, it’s simple disrespectful to have ethnic Jews in a collage with the likes of Wagner and Martin Luther who were explicitly anti-Semitic. The arguments denying the fact Jews are an ethnicity were proven wrong. Also, I believe it was proven that though culturally assimilated Jews never assimilated to the extend to be called ethnic Germans (otherwise they would not marry Jews and they would disappear and we wouldn’t have this discussion. More simply, Jews would not state Jew in the census questions when asked about ethnicity if they would consider themselves ethnically Germans). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...so, now showing your true colours, they have to go because it is "disrespectful to have ethnic Jews in a collage with the likes of Wagner and Martin Luther". That's what this is all about - you are joking, right? --IIIraute (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero on the roof, please consider that the article now also deals with the German nation. As to your argument that it would be disrespectful to have Jews and Martin Luther in the same collage, Nietzsche didn't like antisemitists (an anti-antisemitist?, does that word exist? It's probably just called 'being normal'), so should we remove him because it is disrespectful to Martin Luther? Or perhaps you would prefer to only have anti-semitists in the collage, since, as you posted in your call to arms, you "guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist", and think that there "may be something in genes". I am seriously beginning to question your motives. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The article refers to Germans as ethnicity, and since your latest edit, as a nationality, but the fact is, when the article talks about the history of Germans it talks about the history of the German ethnicity which Jews have little to do with. Even if we do it as an article about only a nationality, then it would be fair to include a Turk (for the sake of representation). Another thing is, there were quotes brought in this discussion showing that Einstein did not want to be a German citizen and he didn't like Germany as a countrry nor Germans as a people, so I think Einstein should be removed no matter how we look at the article. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And I totally agree with you, a German or Turkish origin would be great, and Einstein should be left out. Yes, the article also touches on German as an ethicity (and we have differing views on what that means), but it also talks about things like cinema, sport, and science that are clearly linked to Germans as nation. The article is not about people of German ancestry only. Anyway, it had the word 'nation' in it until someone removed it. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely support taking out Einstein and putting someone Turkish instead because then it will really show the images are chosen on a national principle, since today Turkish are the second biggest ethnic group in Germany after Germans! It was weird when IIIraute was speaking against putting a Turk in on the top discussion, I don't want to think what needs to happen to them for him to finally admitt they are normal German citizens. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, they were German by nationality, which this article ezplicitly includes. LadyofShalott 14:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• So is the compromise of Einstein out, Marx in, regardless of Einstein's nationality, acceptable to everyone then? If so please just confirm without saying things like 'but Marx should be out too' or 'but Einstein was 8th generation German!' to avoid stirring the pot again. Thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A "compromise...regardless of Einstein's nationality"?? Why this horse-trading? both stay, they were German nationals, what this article explicitly includes. --IIIraute (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'no' from Illraute, then... and I can't sway you with saying that from what he's written it looks like Einstein didn't like Germany much and probably wouldn't want to be in this collage? I guess you're right, what does he know, it's not like he's... oh, hang on, he is! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean we now have to establish a consensus for every person in the collage, whether they would "like" to be included - or maybe even ask the ones that are still alive, or actually make a decision on the fact that they are/were German nationals? Either we do include assimilated German Jews who were/are German nationals, or we don't. We do need a clear line - no musical request programme, no horse-trading! --IIIraute (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but since we already know the views of the individual in question, I frankly can't see the harm in respecting them. We would still have a German Jew (Marx) anyway, so it's not a blanket ban on German Jews or something. We don't need them all on there. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide some WP:RS on the claim that he did not want to be seen as a German-born theoretical physicist, i.e. German national. Because that's what he was for most of his life - the second time by choice! → Albert Einstein. And I am not talking about considering himself an "ethnic" German. --IIIraute (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Iblardi already gave one. Rosenkranz (2011) p.75: I am neither a German citizen nor is there anything in me that can be described as “Jewish faith.” Also he formally renounced his German citizenship immediately upon landing in Antwerp on 28 March 1933. Einstein was German-born the second time by choice? When I'm born the second time, I'll choose to be Qatari! :o) Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the "choice" did refer to "German national". He was a German national for most of his life, the second time by choice. A German-born theoretical physicist he stayed his whole life. And that's why he belongs here. --IIIraute (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I was obviously being flippant about the birth thing. However, he was Swiss for most of his life, not German. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...yes, obviously. He still was a German national for most of his life, i.e. his lifespan! - I didn't know we had a competition going on... sigh! --IIIraute (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't, but it seems to me that he was a Swiss national for over 50 years (until his death), but was a German for less than 40. I think this is an important point here. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@Illraute: A. Calaprice's The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2011, with references) has a citation from a 1929 interview in which Einstein is asked if he considers himself a German or a Jew that seems to speak in favour of your position:

"It is possible to be both. I look upon myself as a person. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." (p. 324).

However, some of his later utterances show that he had not wanted to be a German citizen:

"The overemphasized military mentality in the German state was alien to me even as a boy. When my father moved to Italy, he tooks steps, at my request, to have me released from German citizenship because I wanted to become a Swiss citizen" (1933; p. 164); "In 1919 the Academy urged me to accept German citizenship in addition to my Swiss one. I was stupid enough to give in" (1938; p. 168).

His attitude towards Germany and the Germans appears to have radicalized during the war:

"The Germans as an entire people are responsible for these mass murders and must be punished as a people..." (1944; p. 168); "Since the Germans massacred my Jewish brethren ... I will have nothing further to do with Germans, including a relatively harmless academy" (1946; p. 169); "After the mass murders that the Germans committed ... it should be evident that a self-respecting Jew does not want to be associated with any official German event. My membership in the Orden pour le mérite is therefore out of te question" (1951; p. 170).

Interestingly, p. 174 has a quote from 1926 in which Einstein criticizes the usage of "a great <fill in any nationality>", saying that nationality or the environment in which "great men" were brought up should not be taken into account (presumably as a factor of their greatness). Iblardi (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes! I believe those quotes are more then enough to remove Einstein from the infobox! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ilbardi, for finding these quotes. I must say I'm a little shocked at "The Germans as an entire people are responsible...", but they thoroughly prove the point. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It still does not change the fact that he was a German national for most of his life, and also did consider himself to be German, at least till 1930.--IIIraute (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Illraute, you asked for references to support the claim that Einstein rejected to be identified as a German, and these have been given. Ilbardi found some excellent references, why did you ask for them if now you just reject them out of hand? Anyway, he was a German national only for just over half of his life (having been 'stupid enough to accept' it the second time round), not most of it. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...because he did not reject to be identified as a German for a very long time of his life. He even chose to return to Germany, although maybe later he did regret it, but not at the very time. He did choose to receive the Nobel Price as a German laureate. --IIIraute (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All those stuff don't make him ethnically German, and even though he recieved it as a person from Germany, what else could he do? What you say doesnt make sense with the topic. You need to be desparate and with little self respect to insist on a person to be in the image which doesnt want to be there. Bobby Fischer was ethnically Jewish, but I don't see Jews putting his picture in articles about Jews simply because they have enough self respect not to put someone who wouldn't want to be in it. Einstein didn't like Germany or Germans, he was ethnically Jewish and he got rid of his German citizenship, those are facts. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they were not Germans by ethnicity, they were Jews. Remove both---Tritomex (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But it makes him a German National - the second time clearly voluntarily. "What else could he do?" No one forced Einstein to take German citizenship again in 1914, to become director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics (1914–1932), professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, or president of the German Physical Society. He did choose to become a German national - and that's a fact. For someone who did not want to be associated with Germany, and who did not like Germans, to make all those moves, and let himself be celebrated as a German Nobel Price laureate... now that would be of very low, and extremely opportunistic self-respect. Urgh! --IIIraute (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove both Einstein and Marx. They were not ethnically Jewish, not German. They are two separate ethnic groups and it is foolish to conflate them together, simply because they were born in the same country.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rainbowrasse, you do not have consensus for revising the intro of the article, thus broadening its scope. You are well aware that there are numerous people in here who disagree. Wait until you get consensus, and then make your change. Never mind the fact that it was obviously done just so Einstein and Marx would be allowed to stay, even though they aren't part of the German nation either.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not need consensus to change the lede as I was only recreating the scope of the article as it was when the collage was inserted. At some point (19 April 2011, I think), the reference to 'nation' was removed in an unexplained edit. Anyway, nobody here complained about restoring it to the original version until you came along and changed it, so clearly there was consensus for my restoration. I think that from your point of view your change made the situation worse, as now Marx and Einstein are presented as ethnic Germans (by your criteria), which you oppose. To clarify, in case you missed it in this disussion, I have no interest in Einstein being included and have argued against it, so your accusation that I "obviously" changed it to be able to include him is utterly baseless. Aside from that fact, it really, really is beyond any doubt whatsoever that both Einstein and Marx were German nationals, there really is no way you can possibly argue that away. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The things is the content of the article itself talks about the history of Germans as an ethnicity and it has little to do with the Jewish history, Jews from Germany don't represent what's in the article. I think both should be removed but while I understand the logic in keeping Marx (though don't agree with it, I think he should be removed to), Einstein should definitely be removed. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We are largely in agreement then. Still, I do not think the article refers only to Gemans by descent, but also treats them as a nation (apart from my previous arguments for this: "Legally, Germans are citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany.", "...the total number of Germans worldwide lies between 66 and 160 million, depending on the criteria applied (native speakers, single-ancestry ethnic Germans, partial German ancestry, etc.)". I therefore suggest restoring the original mention of 'nation' to the article. This would also alleviate your uneasiness about Marx (Einstein stays out), as he was and has always considered himself a German national. You know that I do not agree with you on what constitutes an ethnic group, but that problem does not really belong in this thread. If you like we can discuss this on my talk page. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, if we say the article is based on nationality and there is only one non German ethnic group represented in it (Jews in the fact of Marx) it's a bit weird, if we will put someone Turkish instead of Einstein then it would be clear that it's really based on nationaloty and it will be fine, because then really we could say the images are chosen on a national idea. Turkish are the second biggest ethnic group in Germany after Germans and it's a growing one so I think they deserve one representative. I'm glad we agree about Einstein! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove Einstein from the infobox: Wasn't German by ethnicity and didn't see himself one. Was (with emphasize on past tense during his lifetime as well)German by nationality but revoked his citizenship with no intent to ever reclaim it. If this infobox is indeed about nationality then 1. make it clear in the article itself. 2. include high profile Germans of other ethnicities (Turkish, Afro-Germans and etc). Otherwise this infobox is misleading and serve nationalistic feeling and not encyclopedic values. P.S. who removed my previous comments hereand by what authority? --Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

IblardiEinstein was very clear about Jewish ethnicity saying that: "There are no German Jews, there are no Russian Jews, there are no American Jews....There are in fact only Jews." Also, consider that this whole discussion started from ethnicity (and those who support Einstein in the infobox failed of showing any valid argument) it's strange that now we talk about nationality-but nevertheless, Einstein wrote that he's affiliated with the Jewish mentality and in his biographies you will find that many Jewish people played influential role in creating his scientific environment-from childhood to the formulation of the theory of relativity. In many quotes of him he tanked the Jewish tradition-the most known one is "The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence-these are features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my lucky stars that I belong to it." and attributed it his best sides as human being. He also tanked Switzerland-where he gain his academic education and formulate relativity and other works of him - he never tanked Germany or said that the German environment made him great scientist.--Gilisa (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

→→ check this out: , the German environment had absolutely nothing to do with it, or with the German scholarly ethic? → Z. Rosenkranz, Einstein before Israel: Zionist icon or iconoclast?, Princeton, 2011: "His relationship to his own German identity was also fraught with ambivalence; in the end ... he felt a great deal of allegiance to German culture, and even more to the German scholarly ethic" (p. 255-56). No one forced Einstein to take German citizenship again in 1914, to become director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics (1914–1932), professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, or president of the German Physical Society. He did choose to become a German national - and that's a fact. For someone who did not want to be associated with Germany, and who did not like Germans, to make all those moves, and let himself be celebrated as a German Nobel Price laureate... now that would be of very low, and extremely opportunistic self-respect. --IIIraute (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Listen, it's already agreed by mist here. Einstein will be removed. Why? Because he didn't like Germans or Germany. Who do you think you are to tell him what he is? Now since the attempt is to show the images are based on nationality and not ethnicity we need a Turkish person there due to the fact they are the second biggest ethnic minority in Germany. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Remove Einstein and preferably remove Marx. Per discussion and arguments in the thread above. As for accusations for canvassing-this is really not the first time I have participated in very similar discussions on Misplaced Pages so if one publicly notified me on my TP that another round is going it's not really canvasing and it sounds now like the use in this policy come to discredit the arguments against the inclusion of Einstein in the infobox, given that no valid arguments for inclusion exist.--Gilisa (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are enough quotes of Einstein that prove he felt a great deal of allegiance to many other things aside for German culture and lack of quotes that show hiss affiliation with the German culture though no doubt it effects him as it effects any Jew who lived in Germany. What you quote here is commentary of Einsteins feeling by third side, and who ever the third side is -it's not as reliable as Einstein himself, certainly when the third party wasn't even close to Einstein. Nevertheless, the original discussion here was about whether Einstein ethnicity is German and the answer we all agree with is no. Now the discussion is whether Einstein nationality was German and the answer is "yes but". Meaning, again and again-ignore it as much as you want, he revoked his German citizenship and there are numerous quotes of him that show he feel no affiliation with the German people or nationality. Some of his quotes are actually much more extreme than these one can find on this TP. He did reclaim his German citizenship-but it didn't come of any patriotic feeling, he was offered position he couldn't refuse then, that's all. Einstein was citizen and resident of many countries (Italy, Switzerland, Germany and US)-while he kept grateful feelings for Switzerland and US (I don't know about Italy), he had negative feeling through Germany and declared he have no connection with it-no less. In fact, even before that he aired his bitterness about his childhood and youth education in Germany -moving to Italy meant much for him. He did like German culture when it come to music especially (like many people then, but his preferred composer was Mozart whose nationality was Austrian -still the language of Mozart was German you can include it in German culture without the nationality) but he never was German patriot, in fact he despised any sign German patriotism since being child. You try to force such connection on him and this is much of bad form because the infobox show exemplary Germans and of course Einstein didn't see himself such. Again, if indeed you're honest when you say that this article is about the German nation and this is not just tactic argument to win this discussion, include in the infobox exemplary Germans of Turkish and African origin.--Gilisa (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So true! Out o all people, for IIIraute it has to be the one which wanted nothing to do with Germans and Germany! It's very simple, if the article is based on an ethnic principle Einstein and Marx should be removed, if it's based on a national one Marx should be replaced with someone Turkish, because after all, how can an article about German nationality not include the second biggest ethnic group in Germany after Germans in it? Whatever the outcome is, it shouldn't stay what it is now. I think for him it's just a matter of "winning the argument" no matter what. He will response to everything except quotes, and he will pick on anything irrelevant. To be fair, I think if we leave aside his barking we are close to a concensus. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• What a giant hypercane shitstorm! -- Therefore, my proposal: Remove the word "nation", as well as the images of Marx and Einstein and/or any other Jews -- and for all the wonderful arguments given, do not include Jews to this article anymore, EVER! - also remove the part of Jewish assimilation in the "Ethnicity" section, and don't forget to attach twelve leaden seals on that tremendous intellectual shithouse! --IIIraute (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

↑↑↑ I think you misread my previous comment: "What a giant hypercane shitstorm! Proposal: Remove the word "nation", as well as the images of Marx..." as meaning: "What a giant hypercane shitstorm proposal: Remove the word "nation", as well as the images of Marx...".

Please note the exclamation mark, meaning a "break", and the capital letter "P" → . Btw, a "hypercane" is a giant storm and has nothing to do with the term "hypocrite"!!↓↓↓--IIIraute (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You really have mental issues and you need anger management. It has nothing to do with being a hypocrite. If the images are based on an ethnic principle then Einstein and Marx shouldn't be there because they are ethnic Jews. If it's on a national principle Marx could stay there to represent the Jews, while Einstein should be replaced with someone Turkish simple because there should be a representative for the second biggest ethnic group in Germany. Where exactly do you see the problem here? What is your suggestion? Einstein wanted nothing to do with Germany, you were brought many qutoes and you ignored them, so he shouldn't be in the image. Simple as that. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

...and you still do not understand the concept of "Ethnicity"! sigh!! --IIIraute (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Said the guy that said Jews are a religion and not an ethnicity. Ethnicity is 3 components. Self-identification (for example, stating Jew in a census), genes and history. Simple as that! Jews are an ethnic group with different genes and history from Germans, and in the case of Einstein he clearly identified as a Jew. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that - so stop your manipulative lies - or point out the text where I supposedly have said it! --IIIraute (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of German-Turks we can pick 2 of them to the infobox. Also, list of Afro-Germans -at least 1 of them in the infobox. Also, one of these . In any case, Einstein shouldn't be here-he strongly dis-identified himself with Germany. Ignoring that seems to come out of strong wish to include him just to glorify Germans and Germany and no by any relevant motive.--Gilisa (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fatih Akın, Mesut Ozil and Cevat Yerli are very well known! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein and Marx are not in the picture gallery, for being/representing German Jews, or their genetics, but for their achievements. Vice versa, you don't get into the picture gallery for having an immigration background or your colour of the skin. Hence, what a nonsense/racist argument. ...funny, you just can't help yourself. --IIIraute (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Einstein and Marx are not in the picture gallery, for being/representing German Jews or their genetics, but for their achievements." If achievments is what we talk about, why not include Nikola Tesla and Mendeleyev? Forget the fact they have nothing to do with Germans, after all, it's achievments what we look at. No on a serious note. If the images are done on an ethnic basis, Einstein and Marx should be removed because they are not ethnic Germans. If they are done on a national basis, it would be racist not to include a Turk simply because when talking about nationality you have to give representation to all major groups in this nationality. I would find it shocking ro see an image about Americans without any Afro-Americans in it. For the sake of representation there has to be a representative of the second largest ethnic group in Germany. It's funny you call polit-correctness in representing a minority "racism", it reminds me the white-trash in America saying that making sure black people will have positions in the government is racism. Doesnt make sense to me, but to a racist mind it does. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are being racist. They are all German nationals - and they compete in an equal manner for the gallery due to their achievements! and not because of their race, genetics, heritage, or their colour of the skin!!! --IIIraute (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean, just read this: throw in "2 of them" Turks; "at least 1 of them" Afro-Germans... ah, and yes - don't forget to add "also, one of these" Pakistani people -- that's so fucking racist! "I would find it shocking to see an image about Americans without any Afro-Americans in it." Do you really think they are included to the gallery because they are black? and not maybe because of what they achieved??? The two of you, do you ever listen to yourself?

If you in- or exclude individuals only on the basis of their race, or colour of the skin, without taking their personal qualifications or achievements into consideration, then yes - this is pure racism.

What do you think - how many of the players of the German National Team are included because of their origin, race, heritage, or colour of their skin -- or was it maybe their personal achievement/qualification that got them into the team? --IIIraute (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats were you got it wrong. The Image is not a prize for achievments, its support to give representation of an ethnic group or nation. If this selection is based on a nation you can't not give representation to the second biggest ethnic group, the Turks. Simple as that. Just like not giving representation to women would be discrimination. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep Marx and remove Einstein, also restore the page as it originally was, including the word nation. Seriously, this has gone on long enough, with both sides acting immaturely - reading this discussion was was mind-numbing. Also, Guitar hero or whatever your name is, please refrain from throwing wild accusations as they are in no way productive or contribute to a consensus; another thing, to be honest, Guitar Hero, your conduct so far has been enough to make anyone seek anger management so I would advise you to take a day off from the wiki. - Reanimated X (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the record I do think removing Einstein is probably warranted, since I think it is improbable that he would like to be used as an example of "a German" or "a Jew". Marx on the other clearly identified as German and was considered a German in his time. The best solution would be to remove the stupid picture cavalcade altogether, in all articles on ethnic groups and nationalities.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Marx, and Einstein could be removed, as per Maunus' comments.

It would probably not be inaccurate to characterize Einstein as an internationalist intellectual, as indicated in various references in this article . This does pose definitional and scope related issues, as Einstein was born and raised in Germany, attended a Catholic school as German Jew, etc., even though he reacted strongly as an individual against the political events embroiling Germany, Europe and the world, renouncing his German citizenship while he was still only a teenager. Marx was not only German but an obviously important figure in German intellectual history, with notions such as "historical materialism" derived partially in relation to the thought of Hegel, not to mention his influence on the Frankfurt School and critical theory, etc.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of few of my comments without authority from the

Someone remove few of my comments (with very strong arguments for the exclusion of Einstein from the infobox) without having any permission -here is one example for comment by me that was deleted. I understand that you been left without any good answer, but this way of action by itself is sufficient for AN/I case-which I prefer to avoid. Before going to that, I'm calling the one who did it to restore my comments on the TP and avoid further attempts to sabotage the discussion.--Gilisa (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It was your own canvassing-"Brethren" Guitar hero on the roof → So watch your tongue!, before you accuse other editors of "sabotage"! --IIIraute (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind your language and don't tell me to watch my tongue-if you need documented instructions and training please go to WP:CIVIL. Btw, I already understand it was him and even written to him on this TP in this issue here-I accused no one for something he didn't do so just chill.--Gilisa (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You clearly adressed and accused me of "removing all your posts" → . So I am telling you again: Guard your tongue! You have clearly been recruited/canvassed into this discussion → , making remarks like "...you can argue as much as you want...motivated by nationalistic need to prove that German people are superior..." but surely you did this with the best of intentions, not following some POV-pushing agenda... You better believe it! --IIIraute (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What is left if not trying to flame with "Guard you tongue" and etc -listen, chill and just keep this discussion encyclopedic please. I stand behind my remarks, surly I do-and your aggressive attitude only strength my mind. I could suspect you because of your repeated accusations with canvassing-but I didn't do that-I was thinking it was either one of what you call your "brethrened" (interesting word picking btw) or that it was him, I addressed aka GHOR and it's clearly seen in the diff. Though only later it become clear it was truly him. Now, please avoid drama. Thanks. --Gilisa (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't fool yourself. You accused me of removing your posts at 16:05(UTC) → , I did let you know about your "mistake" at 16:20(UTC) → , and you adressed Guitar hero on the roof about one hour later, at 17:19(UTC) → .--IIIraute (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been canvassed into this discussion - that's not an accusation - it is a fact → . --IIIraute (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's what WP guidelines consider as canvassing -canvassing refer more to stealth actions. In fact, as much as I recall it's allowed to notify one about discussion in subject related to his past edits on Misplaced Pages. But even if I was canvassed into this discussion, I'm not canvassing for myself so find better arguments that actually have to do with the discussion.--Gilisa (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Being part of this↓↓↓, yes, it's a fact that you were "recruitet" through canvassing! →→ , , , , . --IIIraute (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I truly careless. I got notified on my TP by user I don't know-that's all. He didn't tell me what opinion to express. I was involved by my own in numerous discussions about Jewish ethnicity and specifically on Einsteins identity much before here on Misplaced Pages. So, again-if you try to disqualify me from this discussion use arguments and not WP policy because it just not sticks. As said before, I'm not canvassing. --Gilisa (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I now see he did tell me what to do. Still, I express here my opinion as can be proven easily and not because he asked me.--Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute, you really have issues to deal with. People here are already coming to a concensus, replacing Einstein with someone Turkish, and you are still in a delay about that issue. The people who came to the page didn't edit war or do anything rather then give quotes and references YOU had nothing to answer to. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues to deal with?? may I quote you: "IIIraute...maybe it's in your genes to want to wipe the Jewish race..."; "You are the top expert here on racial theories trying to make an ethnicity dissapear. That's where your logic got twisted in the quest to get redemption for the deeds of your ancestors..."; "I guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist." ...what an intellectual bog, YUK! --IIIraute (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The first quote was said after you insisted Jews are a religion and not an ethnicity, the second one after you blamed me of having a racial theory, so I don't see how I was wrong. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said that ... contrary to you, I do understand the concept of ethnicity! please point out the relevant bit of text on this! or stop your false accusations!! --IIIraute (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You did. “Look, I think it is great that Einstein suddenly discovered "that he was a Jew" in his late thirties, but this article is about Germans as an ethnic group, and not Einstein's religio-moral identity crises.” Did you say that or no? And there’s that one: “In his youth, Einstein did not identify strongly with Jewish culture and religion.” There were more. You keep on refering to Jews as a religion ignoring the fact it's also an ethnicity. I highly doubt you understand what ethnicity is due to the fact you keep confusing it with nationality. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are paranoid! This only did refer to Einstein, him being a fully assimilated eighth (or more) generation German citizen of converted, non-observant (German)-Jewish background, with a Germanic given name, a German surname, born, raised and educated in Germany, who attended a Catholic elementary school... etc.. Please let me quote user "Rainbowwrasse" on this: "Look, maybe I'm missing this, but can anyone give me the exact quotes (by Illraute or whoever) to show that anyone claimed that Jews are not an ethnic group? I can't see that anywhere. If it's there and I missed it, boo and hiss. If it's not there, y'all keep your pantyhose on and stop fantasizing about some German supremacy plot to suppress the Jewish ethnic identity. So Einstein was Jewish and not German, Marx was of Jewish ancestry and German. Big deal. It’s their business alone....OK, lets break this down then: Illraute said that in his youth Einstein did not identify strongly with with Jewish culture and religion. Someone may convert to Judaism and identify with Jewish culture and religion. According to you, that does not make him an ethnic Jew (Jews suggests otherwise, but let's assume your POV for the time being). Therefore, as per Illraute's and your OWN arguments, identifying with Jewish culture and religion 'is' a matter of of religion and culture, not of ethnicity. Einstein's ancestry is irrelevant for whether or not he identified with Jewish culture and religion. Illraute's second comment is about how he came to identify himself as Jewish in later life. He (re-)discovered and cultivated his Jewishness, if you will. This cultivation of an common identity by individuals is crucial to maintaining a coherent ethnic group. To quote from the article: Ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups. Illraute has not said that ethnic Jews don't exist."--IIIraute (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, I didn't know I deleted it until I saw this discussion. I think I deleted it without noticing when I was trying to delete and rewrite the ending of my own sentene. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You did. “Look, I think it is great that Einstein suddenly discovered "that he was a Jew" in his late thirties, but this article is about Germans as an ethnic group, and not Einstein's religio-moral identity crises.” Did you say that or no? And there’s that one: “In his youth, Einstein did not identify strongly with Jewish culture and religion.” There were more. You keep on refering to Jews as a religion ignoring the fact it's also an ethnicity. I highly doubt you understand what ethnicity is due to the fact you keep confusing it with nationality. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Restored it! I apologise again. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This entire page has become a clusterfuck. I have already expressed my sentiments, so there is no reason for me to be here anymore.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein is out, who do we replace him with? (and discussion on article scope)

We need to make some progress. Me, User:Reanimated X, User:Gilisa, User:Rainbowwrasse, User:Tritomex, User:StevenJ81, User:Iblardi and User:Evildoer187 all gave arguments why Einstein should be out, the guy is defenitely out. Einstein wasn't ethnically German and though he was German citizenship he gave up on it and he stated numerous time he doesnt want anything to do with the German nation or people. You can't ignore those quotes and insist to count a person as German when he wouldn't want it. I don't think there's place for discussion anymore simply due to the fact it was already discussed a lot and it's obviously what the majority supports and why!

There is no similar concensus regarding Marx and though I don't agree with it at least for now Marx has to stay.

Who should be put in instead of Einstein? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Helmut Kohl. His 16-year tenure was the longest of any German chancellor since Otto von Bismarck and oversaw the end of the Cold War and the German reunification. Kohl is regarded as the main architect of the German reunification and the European Union (the latter, with Mitterrand). He has been described as "the greatest European leader of the second half of the 20th century" by former U.S. Presidents George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. --IIIraute (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Schiffer & Klum could be exchanged for Hildegard of Bingen and Angela Merkel. -- Max von Laue, Adolf Hitler, or Hermann Hesse are also good candidates that should be included, in exchange for Brandt, for example - preferably, Hermann Hesse.--IIIraute (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's ok, lets try and keep other suggestions for the next discussion. Just so we could focus on Einstein now and in the next discussion we could talk about other changes. I'll comment anyway though. Schiffer and Klum are good because it's important to give women representatives, though I do think Mergel is a good idea. I definitely think Hitler should not be in the image. It's like putting a famous serial killer or a maniac in an image. If you want you can, don't care, I just think many Germans themselves will find it embarassing. Hermann Hesse is a really good idea, he would look good in the image! His influence on German literature is bigger then it seems. He wasn't just a good poet, he also aided other writers like Mann. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have two people I would like to suggest, I don't know which one is better. One if Fatih Akın, he is a very popular director and could give representation to the Turks in Germany. The second one is Max von Laue who was suggested by User:Rainbowwrasse and I think would be quite a popular suggestion. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Who are the greatest Germans?" What do Germans themselves say ? lets look ....see Unsere Besten.Moxy (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck is a good candidate in my opinion! Michael Schumacher is very famous! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Einstein is in the top 10 of Unsere Besten. Perhaps he should be kept. After all the Germans themselves consider him among the best 10 Germans of all time. How can anyone ignore that? Δρ.Κ.  01:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Replacement for Einstein: As I indicated above I believe Hildegard of Bingen would be an excellent addition to the collage. As I can see there isn´t currently any person representing the medieval age in the current one. And in addition she is a woman and I would like to see a womanadded since they currently only make up 13%. Other suggestions may be Angela Merkel, Herta Müller or Steffi Graf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iselilja (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Angela Merkel would be a good female choice, and I would prefer her over my own suggestion of Max von Laue. I find Hildegard of Bingen a bit obscure, but if others think she is suitable I suppose she's fine too. I agree with Iselilja that it's a bit weird that the women (except Catherine the Great) are mainly known for their looks. Having a bit of variety in female achievement would be nice. I would also be much in favour of someone of Turkish ancestry like Fatih Akın (although I don't know enough about him to be able to judge if he qualifies), but in that case we definitely need to re-instate the 'nation' bit to preempt the same sort of discussion about what constitutes Turkishness in a couple of weeks. I think Hitler would be unnecessary and inappropiate. Incidentally, the person currently labelled as Otto Hahn in the collage appears to be some sort of footballer. That picture should be changed too or at least labelled properly, but I don't know who he is. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The man in the picture is Otto Hahn, and not Klinsmann. Potential candidates should be taken from the list Unsere Besten - and I recommend that they are not just chosen at random, but rather by reason. Merkel and von Bingen are a good choice. Fatih Akın, certainly does not qualify. There are much more famous filmmakers one could choose from, such as Fritz Lang, Josef von Sternberg, Volker Schlöndorff, Werner Herzog, Wim Wenders, or Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Kohl already has a picture in the "1990-present" section, so that's done. I only added Hitler to the choices, because there have been several request in the past to add him - but I agree that we can do without him. --IIIraute (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well recognized! I assume you meant to say "The man in the picture is Jurgen Klinsmann, and not Hahn". Maybe having a footballer in the collage is appropriate as it is very popular with Germans (Well, more popular than Hahn's nuclear fission anyway!). I've change the description to direct to ]. As to the film directors, I'm no film buff, but I've never/hardly even heard of Fritz Lang (who apparently was Austrian), Josef von Sternberg (also Austrian, and Jewish!), Volker Schlondorff, Werner Herzog, Wim Wenders, or Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Maybe they are famous in Germany, but I looked at their articles, but hardly recognized any of their movies. I have at least heard of Fathi Akin before. Roland Emmerich is a well-known director, but I think the point was to include someone of Turkish origin, not a film director. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The man in the picture is NOT Jürgen Klinsmann - the man in the picture IS Otto Hahn. -- They are the "Art House" film kind of directors. To film-connoisseurs they are well known. And yes, Bernd Eichinger or Roland Emmerich are much more famous blockbuster movie makers.--IIIraute (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree! When talking about a nation, the trick is not just achievments but achievments+giving representation to all groups. I think Akin and Merkel are probably the strongest candidates! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• ⇒⇒⇒⇒ newsflash ⇒⇒ Let's not prolong the process ⇒ Remove Marx → the Ethnic Germans article does not include Germans from Germany, but is about the ethnic German diaspora. And the Germans article infobox states → Regions with significant populations → Germany: 66 million, (population of Germany: 82 million). The lead also says that "Of approximately 100 million native speakers of German in the world, about 66–75 million consider themselves Germans", and that will include "Germans" from Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, France, Russia, etc. → again, population of Germany: 82 million. It looks like the article isn't about Germans as a "nation", but as an ethnic Group. If Marx really cannot be considered an ethnic German, he should be removed. ⇐⇐⇐⇐ --IIIraute (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing citizenship, nationality, ethnicity, and nationhood. You can for example be an ethnic Swazi member of the Swazi nation, but be a citizen and national of South Africa or Mozambique. Like Swaziland, Germany is largely a nation state, but it does not follow that the entire German nation lives within Germany, was born in Germany, or holds German citizenship. Most of the Swazi nation lives outside of Swaziland and does not hold a Swazi passport. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I am saying. I think I have not been taken seriously! --IIIraute (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! For example some censuses there is a question about ethnicity. Those who state Jewish, German or Polish while living in Germany are not ethnically German even if they speak only German, know only the German culture and have only German citizenship. Like me, as a British Jew I speak English, listen only to English music, don't feel connection to Jewish culture, I don't consider myself relegiously Jewish, but ethnically I am Jewish and I can't change that, it's a fact. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, just put in someone who has at least some native German descent in them. Einstein and Marx should never have been there in the first place, as they were Germans by residence only.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure were people still get theses antiquated ideas (read books - educate yourselves) - but never the less those here have made a decision (be it wrong or right) to change some images. I would suggest that the quality of the article(s) to be linked should also be a consideration - meaning the article Hildegard of Bingen is not as informative as say Otto von Bismarck. Since the plan is to unlink someone like Karl Marx a GA article with 18000+ views in the last 30 days.Moxy (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is about ethnic Germans i.e. the indigenous population of Germany. Albert Einstein and Karl Marx were ethnic Jews, who are not indigenous to any European country. The only reason people get so bent out of shape over this fact is because the Nazis used it as a pretext for massacring them. However, none of this changes the reality that Jews in Germany and ethnic Germans are not the same people, and to pretend that they are is tantamount to historical revisionism.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See comment below - have read the article and disagree with your assessment.--Moxy (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Evildoer187 is right. The Ethnic Germans article does not include Germans from Germany, but is about the ethnic German diaspora. On the contrary, the Germans article infobox states → Regions with significant populations → Germany: 66 million Since the current population of Germany is 82 million, it can only mean that the "Germans" article is about "indigenous" Germans. The article isn't about Germans as a "nation", but as an ethnic Group.

Expansion of discussion to broader issues of article scope/title

Both these articles are confused in terms of what they are about. The Ethnic Germans article does not solely concern itself with the German diaspora, but if it did, a better title would be that: German diaspora. "Ethnic Germans" is a poor title for an article which supposedly doesn't cover Germans living in Germany. I suggest that, rather than arguing about what these articles are already about (which isn't possible to say - they're a mess), is instead deciding what articles should exist, and under what titles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they are actually not. The Ethnic Germans article only deals with the German diaspora, or can you see a Germany section in it? It makes it very clear by saying: "Deutschstämmige, historically also Volksdeutsche, also collectively referred to as the German diaspora". On the contrary the Germans article, deals with Germans, native to Germany, the history, etc. making it clear by saying: " Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe.". There is a third article that includes all people living in Germany - that would be the "Germany" article. The three articles are fine - they are not messed up - the only messed up thing here, are "we", the editors who triggerd this shitstorm.--IIIraute (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the notion, though I believe we should invite more participators. - Reanimated X (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ethnic Germans article states in its introduction: "Ethnic Germans (German: Deutschstämmige, historically also Volksdeutsche), also collectively referred to as the German diaspora, refers to people who are of German ethnicity." It then goes on to only discuss such people who don't live in Germany. The phrase "people who are of German ethnicity" includes people living within Germany, but the article does not: that's one reason why I stated that these articles are a mess; the titles and introductions and content do not add up. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they are fine: Germans, Ethnic Germans, Germany, Demographics of Germany, Germans Abroad they correlate with each other - please, please do not mess with them. That's not what this discussion was originally about! Can we please try to stop this pyroclastic shitstorm - it's man-made!! --IIIraute (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

They are absolutely not fine; how can it be considered acceptable to have an article titled "Ethnic Xs", where ethnicity is defined by groups with historical residence within land X, yet the article doesn't discuss "ethnic Xs" who actually live within land X? It makes no sense. These articles need to be properly defined and retitled if necessary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the article starts with: "The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe." For Germans as a nation → see Germany, Demographics of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If "The Germans" are a "Germanic ethnic group native to central Europe", then logically "Ethnic Germans" must be "an ethnic Germanic ethnic group native to central Europe", which is of course nonsensical - but that's my point. These articles need properly defining and retitling from first principles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, because "Ethnic Germans" is a term commonly used for the German diaspora → -- please also see → English people, for example.--IIIraute (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) It isn't advisable to use Misplaced Pages articles as examples of course, but even so the English people article is not synonymous with an English diaspora, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The English diaspora is merely a section within the article, which makes more sense than the situation here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

...but that's Princeton, and not the wiki ⇒⇒⇒ ⇐⇐⇐ --IIIraute (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that link uses text from Misplaced Pages - scroll down its page to the bottom and you will see (if it isn't actually apparent from the familiar language), so it is a useless source in this context. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this so f@&%$ difficult. The "Germans" article equals the "English People" article. And then there is an article about the German diaspora, called "Ethnic Germans", as this is a commonly used term → for the German diaspora.--IIIraute (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying to get some clarity. Maybe you are concerned that I am proposing that all the articles will have to be rewritten, but that is not necessarily the case; it is quite possible that the content of the articles just requires some minor tweaking/transferring, and then the introductions and titles are changed. Please do not see me as an adversary, as I do not see you as an adversary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't make a problem where there is none. There is no need to mess with the articles, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion. "Ethnic Germans" is a term used to describe people of the German diaspora, period → . What's there to change - where is the problem? --IIIraute (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the original discussion because until it is decided what the articles are about, it isn't possible to discuss which pictures of people can go in them. Neither of the two links you have just provided support your argument that the term "Ethnic Germans" is synonymous with "German diaspora", instead what they support is the fact that some of the German diaspora are ethnic Germans. The situation is like a Venn diagram where one circle (the German diaspora) intersects with another (people of Germanic ethnicity) - but the two circles are not coterminous. "Ethnic Germans" is a term which covers all people of Germanic ethnicity, regardless of whether they are a part of a diaspora or not; a lot of "ethnic Germans" live in Germany, but the current "Ethnic Germans" article excludes them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite; it is nonsensical to reserve 'ethnic Germans' for the diaspora, and that isn't how the term is commonly used. Also, it is illogical to argue that the ethnic Germans article says that the term only refers to the diaspora, therefore it must be true. If the article onion said that onions are mythical beings from the planet Zog, it would just show that the article is poorly researched, not that it is true. The references given by Illraute either simply demonstrate that ethnic Germans exist in countries other than Germany (but not that the term is used only to describe this diaspora), . or just seem to be a copy of the wikipedia article itself . Rainbowwrasse (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ethnic Germans article clearly states: "This article is about the ethnic German diaspora." and therfore correlates perfectly with its German WP equivalent "Deutschstämmige" → . The Ethnic Germans article starts with: "Ethnic Germans (German: Deutschstämmige, historically also Volksdeutsche) also collectively referred to as the German diaspora".

The Germans article clearly states: "The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe.", and the infobox states → "Regions with significant populations" → Germany: 66 million. So the article cleary only refers to "Germans" as a Germanic ethnic group that is native to Central Europe, as the current population of Germany is 82 million. The Germans article correlates perfectly with its German WP equivalent "Deutsche" → . --IIIraute (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a circular argument (and therefore not valid) to use the existing Misplaced Pages article (either English or German) as a basis of what is right, as Rainbowwrasse illustrates above with the "onion" example. As it currently stands, the Ethnic Germans article should be renamed to "German diaspora", which is still a bit vague but far more reflective of its content than the current title. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with that - or "Ethnic Germans(diaspora)". --IIIraute (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Outcome: Replacing Einstein with Angela Merkel

Few people mentioned Angela Merkel and I think she got the most positive responses. Does everybody agree that the person to replace Einstein should be Angela Merkel? Any objection to her?

Note: It was already agreed in a previous discussion that Einstein should not be infobox due to the fact he himself considered himself a Jew and spoke few times against Germans as a result of World War 2 so please don't try to start the discussion on the topic again. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, please put in Merkel and let us close Pandora's box. --IIIraute (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know who is the person who we should turn to? I don't know how to upload the image in one file. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I don't - but I am sure someone will offer to help. --IIIraute (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked User:Volunteer Marek because I saw that he did some change in the past there so hopefuly he wouldn't mind doing it again. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Change to lead?

After reading the past few discussions above I believe we need to make the lead more clear. What do others think - or any other suggestions - or do most think all is just fine?Moxy (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Current text

• The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe.

No source for current text:

Proposed text(s)

• Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with the modern country of Germany and historically Germanic Central Europe. This connection may be ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural.

Source for above text: Lowell Barrington; Michael J. Bosia; Kathleen Bruhn (6 February 2009). Comparative Politics: Structure and Choice. Cengage Learning. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-618-49319-7.

Comments

The main problem here is that the article was written about ethnic Germans who are indigenous to Germany and had resided there for thousands of years. Under those parameters, Jews like Einstein and Marx are obviously not eligible for inclusion in the template. Simply changing the lead is not going to fix the problem.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have discovered this discussion via the History/Geography RFC page. What strikes me most, on an initial scan of the article, is that it attempts to define "German" using several different criteria, yet attempts (either explicitly or just by association) to connect these to the concept of an ethnic group. Certainly the lead needs changing to reflect the scope of the article as it stands, but what perhaps really needs discussing is what the scope of the article should be. It is of course pointless to discuss which people should be mentioned within the article until it has been decided what kind of "German" the article is talking about. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don`t care about the picture argument - but it does highlight a problem. The concern is the definition in the lead - Because I disagree with Evildoer187 assertion that the article is or should be all about indignity (a source of offense racial calcification) - the article (to me) clearly talks about ethnic Germans, German diaspora as-well as the activities of the average German citizen - as it should. The article is not perfectly balanced in this way - but all Wiki pages are all a work in progress. Ethnic Germans is a section that leads to its own article within this overview article that should be about Germans in general. The current definition does not convey the actual situation - as in historical and the modern term (as reflected in the ref above).Moxy (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s racist to use the term indigenous. Germans are the indigenous people of Germany while Jews immigrated there after being expelled from Israel. Russians are the indigenous people of Russia. Native Americans are the indigenous people of America. The fact that someone is indigenous though doesn’t mean it’s ok to treat minorities or immigrants as class B citizens. Racism is not saying “he is an immigrant”, “he is ethnically Turkish”, racism is when you thing human rights and place in society should be influenced by those factors, that’s when it gets disgusting.

I agree the article talks about ethnic Germans! That’s why I said that Einstein and Marx should not be in the images in the first place. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Were does it say anything of this sort - "blood purity" is not part of modern society. So if your a B class German your not German at all - no matter what the current laws say right - If I were a B class citizen on my passport is say bastard German - is this correct--Moxy (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

Moxy, that's not what he said at all. In fact, NONE of us have made that argument, except for those who wish to keep them on the template. Your argument is a strawman.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What yiu are talking about is nationality. A German by nationality can be German, Jewish, anything, and it doesnt matter what's your ethnicity. But the fact is, Jews, Germans and Turks are different ethnicities. Jews are a separate ethnicity so if you are ethnically Jewish you are not ethnically German unless some of your ancestors were also German. There is a reason in the census a certain percentage of population states "Jewish" in ethnicity. In Einstein's case he actually said he is Jewish and doesnt like Germans as a nation or as a people. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How many times and how many people have to say this article is about Germans and thata there is an article for Ethnic Germans. Like the difference between the Americans and Native American. I take it you are aware there is a difference right.--Moxy (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is Not correct. The Ethnic Germans article does not include Germans from Germany, but is about the ethnic German diaspora. However, the Germans article infobox states → Regions with significant populations → Germany: 66 million Since the current population of Germany is 82 million, it can only mean that the "Germans" article is about "indigenous" Germans. The article isn't about Germans as a "nation", but as an ethnic Group.--IIIraute (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, good eye! That just means both Einstein and Marx shouldn't be in it. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I did agree to that much earlier. I think you though I was being sarcastic? But I was not. --IIIraute (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So what should we do about Marx? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove him.--IIIraute (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So we remove Marx, no problem, who should we put instead of him. Who are we putting instead of Marx? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hildegard of Bingen, or Hesse? --IIIraute (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Einstein should not be in the infobox no matter what the formulatuin is per dicussion on top. The reason is because he stated his dislike to Germany and Germans and wouldn't want to be in this infobox. I have to note specifically about the Jewish case. Jews were always a separate ethnic group, and until the emancipation they were also culturally isolated due to the fact they were living in closed communities. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have so far made no assertion as to what the article should be about, in my comment above I was merely expressing the view that the article as it stands is confused, and you are right that the wording of the lead is partly responsible for that, as it is heavily weighted to an ethnic definition. P.S. I am unsure what you mean by "indignity" in this context. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Germans article clearly states: "The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe.", and the infobox states → "Regions with significant populations" → Germany: 66 million. So the article cleary only refers to "Germans" as a Germanic ethnic group that is native to Central Europe, as the current population of Germany is 82 million. The Germans article correlates perfectly with its German WP equivalent "Deutsche" → . The article is not about "Germans" as a nation, but as a Germanic ethnic group. For Germans as a nation, see Germany. For information on the population of Germany, see Demography of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You got it - That's the problem - an un-sourced antiquated definition that does not match the real world references - that has misguided the article - as has been mentioned a few times by others by this point. After reading the article all can see it even talks about Jewish populations let alone German citizens as a whole. Despite this articles definition of who is a German the real world and Germany its self recognized all Citizens are Germans - not just certain blood lines - Its the law of the land since 2000 - Source number 3 for this point - that has not been countered by any sources thus far - just opinions - David Levinson (1998). Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Group. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-57356-019-1.-- Moxy (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's what the article is about, and not a definition of "Germans". Change it - but don't forget to change every other article: English people, Scottish people, Polish people, Dutch people, Swiss people, Italians, etc......--IIIraute (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

....I mean, that's the main fucking reason we are now deleting Marx and Einstein - do you want this all over again? Because we haven't deleted them yet.....--IIIraute (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this up again, but many of the articles (English, Polish, French, certainly the Swiss...) talk about nations or even citizens as well, and to me that seems appropriate if there is no other modifier to limit the meaning of, say, "French". If we want this article to deal with ethnic Germans only (as seems to be the consensus), it should be renamed "ethnic Germans". An artice just called "Germans" should give a broad definition of the term. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem changing all of those other articles to reflect ethnicity.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be the opposite of what his point is - Pls read over Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point before editing any page that your not familiar with just to prove a point.Moxy (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Otto Klinsmann

Another problem seems to have cropped up with this article; the person that I see in the collage between Willy Brandt and Wernher von Braun on my computer is Jurgen Klinsmann, while Illraute gets Otto Hahn. When I downloaded the file a few days ago in anticipation of exchanging Einstein for someone else, I also got Otto Hahn, but now I get Klinsmann. I have no clue why this would be happening, and am I the only person who gets Klinsmann? Illraute, you recognized Klinsmann when I said it shows "some footballer", so presumably you see him under some circumstances. Can you shed some light on this? Thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The "file" → shows a colour picture of Klinsmann - the Germans article-gallery page, a black and white picture of Otto Hahn. That's what I see. But as I have already stated: This whole page/talk-page has become a madhouse. --IIIraute (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see Klinsmann in both the file and the page. Is it still Hahn when you wipe your browser cache? Who changed that when and why, anyway? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked on my mobile - and there it's Klinsmann. Many apologies. Thanks for the hint with the browser cache. Klinsmann certainly should not be there - and I have no idea when this was changed.--IIIraute (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree! I don't see sportspeople as a group which needs to be represented (it can, I just don't think they are notable enough). Good name though would be Michael Schumacher and Franz Beckenbauer. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just figured out that someone changed the file last night and uploaded it under the same name as the previous one, that's why it didn't show up in the history. I have no objections to having sportpeople on it, but can also do without it. Someone suggested Steffi Graf earlier, might be a good female example. But to be honest, I don't think we need to restructure the whole thing, let's just get rid of Einstein and Marx and that's it, otherwise this will never end. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

...and Heidi Klum. Why have two models?? I think we should take Merkel, Benedict, and Bingen - then we also have one additional women in it. --IIIraute (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Who should we put instead of Marx?

After agreeing on Angela Merkel instead of Einstein, a progress was made and it seems we have a concensus regarding removing Marx. Me, User:IIIraute, User:Tritomex, User:Evildoer187 supported the idea.

The question is, who should be used intead of him? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think Helmut Kohl is a great suggestion, proposed earlier by User:User:IIIraute. First of all, it's a political figure replaced for a political figure. Second, he was the head of Germany at a time of unification and re-formation. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kohl is undoubtably a very important figure for Germany, however I did see that he already has a big colour picture later in the article. I think Hildegard of Bingen, Pope Benedict, or Hermann Hesse would be a good choice. --IIIraute (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot the Pope is German! That's a great suggestion! The other two are great two but I think the Pope would be good because Martin Luther represents the reformation in Germany, and the Pope will represent the Catholic south. Hildegard of Bingen could give representation to women but from what I saw the paintings of her are not to good. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingen could be added in exchange for Heidi Klum. --IIIraute (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alas, poor Marx, I knew him well... The Pope is an excellent suggestion! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Literally forgot about him. By the way, do you happen to know how to edit those images? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I know how to edit it, but I'm not sure about how to attribute the copyright correctly. I would probably just need to reference the original WP files, but I want to make sure before I change anything. I've enquired at the helpdesk regarding a collage for a different article and am awaiting the answer. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace one of the supermodels

Since it appears the photo photo collage is going to be rearranged, I would suggest one more substition which can be done at the same time. As I have mentioned before I don´t really think it´s necessary to include two models - Claudia Schiffer and Heidi Klum - in the collage, so one of them could be replaced by another women, showing a wider range of female accomplishment. I would then suggest to replace Heidi Klum with either Steffi Graf or Magdalena Neuner, both of the latter have good, long articles. Germany has a proud tradition in sports which I think would be fine to see represented in the collage.With regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingen for Heidi Klum, Merkel for Einstein, and Benedict for Marx....and Steffi Graf for Schiffer?--IIIraute (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If it had already been decided to change Klum for Bingen, I had missed that. Sorry. Excellent choices. I won´t insist on more changes then (nor oppose). Glad this has been sorted out in a way that people hopefully are satisfied with. Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I agree with Guitar hero that the medieval painting of Hildegard of Bingen in her article is a bit weird. I know that's how they painted back then, but to be honest that could be anyone... She seems a popular choice though, so why not. Is there a better image somewher? Also, how about Schiffer stays, and Graf for Klinsmann? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title and scope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In order to arrange this suite of articles (concerning certain subjects associated with Germany) so that it is clear what their scope is, I propose renaming and refining as follows:

1) Ethnic Germans is renamed as German diaspora (currently a redirect), as it currently only deals with the diaspora population.

2) This article, currently titled Germans, is either subsumed into a section of the existing Germanic peoples article, or is retitled as Germanic people (Germany), and should be shaped so that it only deals with ethnically Germanic people of central Europe - their history etc.

3) Any other information dealing with other aspects of being part of a German national population should be dealt with within the Demography/Population section of the Germany article, or within the Demographics of Germany article.

I am proposing this to try and achieve clarity regarding the scope of these articles, since at the moment there is confusion and disagreement. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We really need more contributors to achieve anything, Pale, is there anywhere we could ask for more contributions? Reanimated X (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The geography wikiproject springs to mind; geography isn't just about longshore drift and oxbow lakes etc. - there is such a thing as ethnogeography (which I briefly studied 25 years ago). I'll pop a note on their project talk page, although it's not an enormously active WikiProject. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've informed the Geography WikiProject of this proposal/discussion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

some historians wouldn't be bad, huh? --IIIraute (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of the articles of this type deal with both ethnicity and the modern interpretation of nationality and include people simply based on that (including from times when this concept was not established). (See for example the articles on British, French and Spanish people) Why should this article become an exception? Both the demographics article and the Germanic peoples article clearly have a very different intent. And how exactly would you define German ethnicity? Because the criteria given here by people who argue about Marx, Einstein, etc. can become both very fuzzy or very picky depending on whose side you are on. Personally I think that the article should resemble the other articles of this type. Be liberal with who to include (I don't see a problem with someone being both German/Jewish, French/British, etc) and focus on the modern/current use of the term.Kliipaa (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I confess I am suspicious that within one hour of making this proposal, a new user pops up and makes a comment here as the very first edit on their user account. I will proceed doing the Wiki thing of assuming good faith, but please be aware of the existence of the checkuser function. I am glad however that someone is seeking to discuss what the article(s) should be about, rather than arguing about pictures. I do not think it is being too controversial to state that Germany's history has a bearing on why there is such volatility of feeling concerning articles touching on the ethnicity of German people (and the related subject of what it actually means to be German), and it might be the case that Germany can't be treated quite the same as Britain, France etc. My aim above was/is to narrow the scope of the article and hence achieve some clarity about what the article is about, so that editors aren't continually arguing about it. It could however be possible to structure an article that deals with different definitions of what it means to be "German" (not just focussing on an "ethnic" element), but it would need to be clearly laid out, and possibly have a different title, as "Germans" obviously means different things to different people. Identity is a complex issue invoking strong emotions, as demonstrated above. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in the same way how it was made clear that the Jewish people are an own ethic group - maybe we could also respect that Germans are also an own ethnic group.--IIIraute (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of the other nationalities' articles are without debate about how to define their nationalities but they all seem to have a more sensible approach than this one. Every one of those nationalities has a different and complicated history but they mostly manage to be relatively thorough and alike in how they treat this topic, so I thought it would be best to shape this article in a similar way. Couldn't the important issues about German ethnicity just be made into a part of this article? Something like "German ethnicity and identity through history" Most of it is already mentioned somewhere in the article. Kliipaa (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

we have been discussing this for almost two weeks - great to have a contribution from a new account with one edit. --IIIraute (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it will be useful to have contributions from editors who are less close to the subject. Hopefully some geographers will have a look at this, and as IIIraute suggested, I will post a note on the History WikiProject talk page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've informed the History WikiProject. (PS I hadn't read the whole of this page so I didn't realise you'd been discussing this for 2 weeks; some outside comments are sorely needed.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

or WikiProject Germany?? --IIIraute (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've notified them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was interested in the topic, read the discussion and thought I could give my opinion. You could just ignore me if you don't think this contribution has any value/weight Kliipaa (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't ignored you, I conceded your point has validity. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that reply wasn't directed at you, I should probably read up on the talk-page guidelines. Kliipaa (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Germans are people who have German citizenship or who otherwise identify as Germans. There is no legal, historical or scientific basis for excluding any individuals or groups from the scope of this article based on someone's subjective judgments about who is or isn't a "real ethnic German", or on Nurenberg-law style criteria for how many Generations of true German ancestry one has. Suggesting to do so is both ignorant and morally repugnant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

where were all of you during the last two weeks, when it was "made clear" that Jews cannot be ethnic Germans? Also, what "true German ancestry" are you talking about - so it does exist? --IIIraute (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "ethnic Germans" or "true German ancestry" except in the minds of people whose minds are still in the 1930s.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus In a way, that's what my proposal tries to address. One way of interpreting my proposal is that I proposed effectively abolishing this article and splitting it between Germanic peoples (which already exists as a historical article) and either Germany or Demographics of Germany. Putting information about German citizens into an article about Germany seems to me eminently inclusive. I hope you've been able to read at least some of the discussion which preceeded my proposal. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Jews are an own ethnicity? and Germans have none? --IIIraute (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what happens when one forms a democratic nation state instead of a tribal society. Ethnicity is not exclusive one can be both Jewish and German, and Jewishness can be a religion as well as an ethnicity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that, Illraute. People can't be everywhere, and to be honest, I don't believe we've seen enough opinions on here to warrant a consensus the likes Guitar hero believes we have reached. Not to mention that the opinions we have currently received, mainly one-sided too, have worryingly and quite ironically echoed the 1930s ideas of ethnicity. - Reanimated X (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Germanic peoples are peoples who speak a Germanic language. Many, perhaps most, Jews speak a Germanic language - Yiddish and English for example. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For the last two weeks we were told by several Jewish editors that Jews cannot belong to the article: "Germans as an ethnic group". This really is quite confusing. --IIIraute (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So what happens if an "ethnic German" converts to Judaism? What happens if a person has an "ethnically Jewish" mother and an "ethnic" German father? Your naive theory of ethnic identity fails in practice even under the most simple conditions. And reality is a thousand times more complex than that. You can not make the world fit into the tiny square boxes that your worldview seems to be composed of. And it is not wikipedia's job to try to do that either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't really be attacking me, since I was the one who defended "your" perspective for almost two weeks. You've made a comment quite early in the discussion, then you were silent for the rest of the time - and suddely "He thinks he knows it all". What a smart-arse.--IIIraute (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you were smarter last week than you are now. And yes, I left the discussion because it makes me sick to my stomach. And I will do that now again. I have participated in these discussions almost every year for the last couple of years - because they tend to restart periodically when ever some bigoted nationalist sees JEWS in the infobox. So yes, I have been around this block a couple of times. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I taught History for several years at some of the finest universities in the UK and in Germany. There, usually I would decide the curriculum. Misplaced Pages articles are created through majority consensus. I did not have that majority - because individuals like you decided to fall quiet. But thanks for your craftily advice, weenie! No offence meant!! --IIIraute (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, try and discuss this matter calmly, it doesn't help to throw insults around. Maunus, I would be interested in any proposal you may have for how to take the situation forward. My proposal above was an attempt to get a clear idea of what this and the Ethnic Germans article should be about and what they should be called, though I unwittingly appear to have made myself look like a Wiki-neoNazi as a result, which was not my intention at all. Positive suggestions and ideas are what's needed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this on a noticeboard and looked very briefly at the three articles. Germanic people is about tribes that no longer exist, Ethnic Germans is about people who emigrated from Germany to another country; this page is about the people who live in the country called Germany. I can't see a reason to rename. Were a compelling reason given to rename it couldn't be done without an RfC and even then would be very difficult to move a page such as this because presumably it has an extensive history and talk page history. Anyway my 2 cents. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My words. --IIIraute (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What happens if one is a German who converted to Judaism? Simple, we put them in the German box. We would do the same for someone who is half Jewish, half German, or even someone who is part German and mostly Jewish. For the latter two cases we would put them in both the Jewish and German boxes. That's quite different from what the Nazis did i.e. one drop of Jewish blood and you're out.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done with the ethnic cleansing

Wow

There is some very serious trouble breeding in the sections above (such as the attempt to exclude Albert Einstein), and I believe the main reason is the attempt by some editors to define precisely what "German" is supposed to mean. Historically, Germans used to be defined simply as the speakers of dialects in the German dialect continuum. Under the influence of the Reformation, a standard German language developed, and some German speakers saw this as an occasion to branch off by creating their own standard: The Dutch did it successfully, the Austrians didn't succeed and switched to standard German.

The definition got fuzzy during the Nazi era. At one point there was a single country covering most German-speaking areas (Germany and Austria). Those outside (in Switzerland, Luxembourg) made a point of not being German, stopped using standard German as far as practicable and cultivated their dialects. On the other hand, more (in)famously, a 'racial' definition of Germans was pushed that was meant to explicitly exclude German speakers with other ethnic affiliations -- most importantly Jews, Sinti/Roma and Slavic speakers.

After the war that became a problem in Austria. The country consists mostly of German speakers, but in the south there is a Slovene speaking minority and earlier there had been a union with Hungary. The German speakers used to refer to themselves as Germans without second thoughts. (E.g. a village close to Vienna, near the Hungarian border, is called Deutsch-Wagram.) But under the Nazis they had to refer to themselves in this way, and many lost their enthusiasm for this ethnicity. The school subject "German" even temporarily got a 'neutral' name, but that was ridiculed by the population. I think it's fair to say that German-speaking Austrians in general nowadays aren't sure if they are ethnic Germans or not, with some embracing the ethnicity (while insisting that they are of course not German nationals), others rejecting it categorically, and many just feeling uneasy about the entire concept. (A feeling shared by many Germans, by the way.)

A friend of mine is the daughter of post-war immigrants from Israel. I personally consider her to be just as 'German' as any other Germans I know and more so than the typical Austrian. But I have never discussed this with her. Maybe she feels that ethnically she is not German at all but exclusively Jewish. Like many Jews she has a German last name with the kind of unusual spelling that names tend to get after passing through Cyrillic.

There used to be (still are?) special immigration privileges for ethnic Germans from East Europe. These were of course not based on 'racial' concepts, but on the language spoken at home. As the German language (next to the Yiddish language, its closest relative) was very popular among East European Jews, it was Jews who were most likely to satisfy these criteria and be officially recognised by today's German state as ethnic Germans.

So: There is no clear definition of German ethnicity. German-speaking 20th generation sedentary Christian German speakers in the heart of Germany are ethnic Germans under all definitions, but there are plenty of borderline cases such as Germans with another strong ethnic affiliation not based on language (e.g. as Jews, Belgians), German speakers with another strong language-based ethnic affiliation(Sinti and Roma, Danes, Sorbs), German speakers in Austria, German speakers in Switzerland and Luxembourg, German speakers in Denmark, German speakers in the diaspora. Not to mention the more recent immigrants from Turkey, Italy, Greece, Poland, Russia etc. and their children. Speaking of immigrants from Poland: There were huge numbers of these (miners) in the 19th century. Their descendants are often recognisable by their Polish last names, but otherwise couldn't be more assimilated. "Kowalski" and "Podelski" sound like German names to me.

The article must reflect this fuzziness of the definition, or it will be POV. Hans Adler 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what I would have written if my brain had not been shut down by my gut reaction.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I had been longing for someone to discuss this calmly, rather than just defending an established position and shouting louder and louder. What is to be done with the existing Ethnic Germans article? Above I had proposed to change its name to German diaspora, which seems to reflect its content, but the admin closing the thread has killed that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

German diaspora is something else, usually diaspora is about people who have left the place of origin, many ethnic Germans only ended up outside of Germany because borders happened to be drawn in ways that left them outside of the country.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do that, you could open a WP:RM under WP:Title policy on that articles talk page. (After you've looked at these links).Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I would not mind if the article was reframed entirely so as to encompass all German nationals. Limiting it to ethnicity, as this one does, and including those who are arguably not ethnic Germans is problematic and an obvious catalyst for controversy.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For this article, it should do a better job in the first sentence of saying that there are different definitions of "Germans" and this article covers it broadly, under its several definitions (but primarily German speakers, of Europe) Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is a good source: Forsythe, Diana. 1989. German identity and the problem of history. in History and ethnicity. Chapman, Malcolm, Tonkin, Elizabeth, McDonald, Maryon (eds). Routledge. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been following this debate for a while now and agree that Germans should be interpreted in the widest sense of Hans Adler, Maunus and Alanscottwalker. Evildoer187 has some strange ideas about "Jewish nationality" which he expressed for example here. He seems to be confusing a number of issues, including where "Israeli" fits in. There doens't seem to be any reason in an article on Germans to exclude Marx, Einstein or for that matter Felix Mendelssohn. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't go digging through my edit history and using what you find against me in unrelated contexts. That is stalking, and if I have to drag you to WP:AN/I over this, I will not hesitate to do so. Anyway, it is the article that is confusing Jewish ethnicity with German ethnicity, not me. If Marx and Einstein were just Germans who converted to Judaism, or half/part German or Jewish, then I doubt we would be having this discussion. They are not the same thing.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are pushing the same non-neutral point of view on multiple articles, then of course it will be brought up because it is against the editing principles of wikipedia. Your anachronistic wikilawyering would apply equally well to Felix or Fanny Mendelssohn in the first half of the nineteenth century. I am familiar with the other three editors I mentioned from quite different articles; there is no need to personalize the discussion. It is you that have written something quite troubling elsewhere, but equally relevant here. Several users are "monitoring" your edits. That is normal in the circumstances. Please stop using this talk page as a WP:FORUM as yet another place to spout your personal theories about Israel, Europe and the Khazarian hypothesis. Also please stop using words like "antisemite" here as you do below. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s much simple then what you try to make it look. Jews are an ethnicity, Israel has nothing do with it. I didn’t even think about Israel through the whole discussion and I support the points brought by Evildoer187! The article talks about the German ethnicity. Blaming Evildoer187 in pushing an Israeli POV is the same as trying to say you are pushing an anti-Semitic POV that tries to discredit the Jews as an ethnicity in order to discredit their right on Israel (and I am not commenting on the situation in Israel, I think all sides there did wrong things and I personally don’t believe that land is worth fighting for, so don’t even try to blame me of pushing a POV. I’m also not saying you are pushing an anti-Semitic POV, I just think it’s to much blaming Evildoer187 of pushing a certain POV). The fact you are not German by ethnicity doesn’t mean you can’t be German by nationality and it doesn’t mean you deserve less human rights or any different treatment from any other German citizen, regardless of ethnicity, but due to the fact the article talks about Germans as an ethnic group, Einstein and Marx should not be here. Don’t forget the consensus was achieved by agreement from those who didn’t agree with this point at first. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well put, Hans. As for the issue of "Jewish-Germans", I see a lot of accusations of "Nazism" thrown at those who would separate the two. While I myself don't object to Marx or Einstein in the infobox, I don't think that the "splitter" viewpoint can rightly be characterised as such. Indeed, I note that a substantial number of "splitters" are self-identifying Jewish editors. Accusing them of Nazism is an abhorrent personal attack—even more so than if it were directed at a German—and those making such attacks should be deeply ashamed of themselves (I'm looking at you, Maunus). Such attacks also ignore a key part of the legacy of the Holocaust—namely, how Jewish-German self-identification was affected. While yes, a "nationalist" or "Nazi" German may not be inclined to view a Jewish-German as "true German", a Jewish individual might find the very notion of a member of their own ethnic group being associated with the group which exterminated some 6 million of them to be anathema. Let's not resort to displays of emotional fury—however well-founded one may think them to be—when they may actually cause more harm than good. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I ignore that. Some JEws might find it offensive that people they consider Jews could consider themselves to be both Jewish and German, for other Jews it might be entirely natural. And it is not Wikipedias job to try to make something as complex as ethnicity and belonging fit into nice mutually exclusive boxes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Never said that it was Misplaced Pages's job to do so. Merely cautioning that it is in extremely poor taste to accuse Jews of trying to reenact "phase one of the Holocaust". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't make accusations against Jews. I make statements about the effects of proposed edits. I don't care one whit about the ethnic or religious background of editors who make proposals with racist implications. One thing I do know is that no single ethnic group has ever cornered the market on bigotry. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any accusations by Maunus of nazism. TFD (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See e.g., the collapsed section directly above this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific than that if you are making accusations you would have to support them. Phase one of the holocaust consisted in instituting a policy that separated "Jews" from "Germans" as distinct mutually exclusive categories - which was exactly the same that the proposal would do. Pointing out this indisputable fact is not accusing anyone of nazism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not directly, but he and several others did accuse of bigotry and made several "Hitler would be proud" type comments. I am pretty sure that's not acceptable.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Lothar. It's also worth mentioning that many of today's most rabid antisemites have actually taken the reverse position i.e. denying Jewish nation/peoplehood, claiming that Jews are just "Poles, Germans etc who converted". In addition, these notions have been thoroughly debunked by genetics, historical scholarship, culture, etc.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, "consideration of Jews as "simply Europeans who converted to Judaism" has been the official party line of antisemitism (well nowadays they call it "anti-Zionism") for decades now." No one had brought up that argument, and probably are not even aware of it. You have it wrong anyway. The theory is that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars and Western Europeans are the true descendants of the ancient Israelites. Otherwise I saw no "Hitler would be proud" statements. TFD (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

While the Khazar theory does enjoy support amongst antisemites, it is mostly relegated to the hardcore Stormfront/white nationalist crowd. More generally, modern antisemitic theories characterize Israel as a new South Africa, populated by "European" colonists imposing "apartheid" over the "indigenous" people of Palestine. It is very easy to confuse the two as they both revolve around the same motif i.e. that modern Jews are not really descended from the ancient Israelites.

It also seems like you were looking for verbatim "Hitler would be proud" comments. Over the duration of the mess that ensued in here, there have been plenty of remarks about the similarities between our arguments and those of the Nazis. Wouldn't you agree that this basically amounts to the same thing?Evildoer187 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of the fact that many genetic researches have proven the Khazar theory wrong? Go to the Ashkenazi Jews article and read the section about genes. It was proven that Ashkenazi Jews have genes coming to the middle east similar to the genes of the Mizrahi Jews and local Arabic population in Israel, which shows a common origin that using simple historical connection shows they all came from Israel. No doubt that Ashkenazi Jews have some non Jewish genes that came from converted Europeans and rapes during the crusades and pogroms , but the fact is, due to the fact that until the emancipation the Jews were living in closed communities this issue concerns a small amount of their genes. In fact, the reason Ashkenazi Jews have so many genetic diseases are a result of marrying only each other in closed communities. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, after two weeks of discussion, dialogue and consensus we have new guys jumping in who missed the whole discussion and therefore don't have the knowledge shared here by editors who were showing each other things for two weeks. Quick summery:

• The article doesn’t talk about Germans as a nationality but as an ethnicity. There was a major discussion if the article talks about nationality or ethnicity and it was concluded that from the content of the article we learn it talks about ethnicity.
• Jews are a separate ethnicity with a different history, genes, identity, that's why in German censuses they were stating "Jewish" and not "German" under ethnicity. In Einstein’s specific case, he actually stated that he doesn’t like Germany or Germans and he considers himself only a Jew! Note: Being not German by ethnicity doesn’t mean you can’t be a German by nationality or that you have less rights in Germany as a German citizen. Those are different things! Ethnic Germans=The Germanic tribes (with a few Slavic ones) which united into one ethnic group under the Holy Roman Empire and created a new identity which assimilated their old identities into a new identity. Jews were not part of that process and they are a separate ethnicity.
• Those who brought up the point that Jews are a separate ethnic group and not Germans were not “Nazis” or “racists” like you try to hint but actualy Jews . Me, Evildoer 187 and few more are Jewish. The problem with the Nazis was never they fact they told the Jews “you are not ethnically Germans”, the Jews knew it even without their “assistance”, the problem with the Nazis was that they believed that you can’t be a German citizen if you are not ethnically German and their problem was that they believed that your value as a human with human rights goes down if you are not ethnically German, that was the problem!
• After a long discussion it was decided that Marx and Einstein should not be in the article due to the fact they are not ethnic Germans, while the article is about ethnic Germans. It was decided to replace them with Angela Merkel and the Pope.

I know it’s a long discussion but please re-read it! A consensus was reached and I understand the arguments you brought up but if you read the discussion you will see they were brought up before you and discussed. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the article were about Germans as an ethnicity it would have to be based on sources about Germans as an ethnicity, which it is not. It would also have to use the definitions in those sources. There are no strict criteria for defining membership of an ethnic group, German or any other. So that also wouldn't work. I am not sure about Einstein, but Marx was an ethnic German and considered himself to be one. Finally, membership of ethnic groups is not mutually exclusive it is poissible for one person to be a Jew, a German, and an American at the same time, or at different times depending on context. Your concept of ethnicity is bogus unscientific babble and it has been disproven for the past 50 years.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In Conclusion: Is there Consensus to remove Einstein and Marx?

Wow, after two weeks of discussion, dialogue and consensus we have new guys jumping in who missed the whole discussion and therefore don't have the knowledge shared here by editors who were showing each other things for two weeks. Quick summery:

• The article doesn’t talk about Germans as a nationality but as an ethnicity. There was a major discussion if the article talks about nationality or ethnicity and it was concluded that from the content of the article we learn it talks about ethnicity.
• Jews are a separate ethnicity with a different history, genes, identity, that's why in German censuses they were stating "Jewish" and not "German" under ethnicity. In Einstein’s specific case, he actually stated that he doesn’t like Germany or Germans and he considers himself only a Jew! Note: Being not German by ethnicity doesn’t mean you can’t be a German by nationality or that you have less rights in Germany as a German citizen. Those are different things! Ethnic Germans=The Germanic tribes (with a few Slavic ones) which united into one ethnic group under the Holy Roman Empire and created a new identity which assimilated their old identities into a new identity. Jews were not part of that process and they are a separate ethnicity.
• Those who brought up the point that Jews are a separate ethnic group and not Germans were not “Nazis” or “racists” like some of the new guys here try to hint but actualy Jews . Me, Evildoer 187 and few more are Jewish. The problem with the Nazis was never they fact they told the Jews “you are not ethnically Germans”, the Jews knew it even without their “assistance”, the problem with the Nazis was that they believed that you can’t be a German citizen if you are not ethnically German and their problem was that they believed that your value as a human with human rights goes down if you are not ethnically German, that was the problem!
• After a long discussion it was decided that Marx and Einstein should not be in the article due to the fact they are not ethnic Germans, while the article is about ethnic Germans. It was decided to replace them with Angela Merkel and the Pope.

I know it’s a long discussion but please re-read it! A consensus was reached and the arguments the new guys brought up were already brought up before and discussed.

There will never be a full agreement on such topic, but the vast majority of the people who participated in the discussion agreed about what to do and there in no point for few new guys to come and restart it simple because it will be going in circles. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Being ethnically German and being Jewish (ethnically or by faith) is not contradictory, and has not been since at least Jewish emancipation. People with strong dual ethnic identities are not rare exceptions. Some very diverse examples off the top of my head: Moses Mendelssohn, Rahel Varnhagen, Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Torberg, Michael Wolffsohn. Franz Kafka was ethnically both Jewish and diaspora German. I have trouble finding the source, but many of the Holocaust survivors emigrating to Israel were heartbroken in part because they had been denied an essential part of their ethnic identity.

As to Karl Marx and Albert Einstein: I explained above how German ethnicity is primarily defined by the language spoken at home, and how this has made it easier for typical East European Jews to become accepted as Germans than for other descendants of German speakers, who usually got assimilated and changed their language. Add to this the fact that Marx and Einstein were assimilated to the extent that contemporary society would let them, and that so were their parents, and it becomes clear that German Jews / Jewish Germans are very much representative for the plurality of German ethnicity. (I note that for similar reasons I think it would be appropriate to have an Ethiopian Jew in the mosaic of the Jews article, and I was surprised not to find one there.)

FYI, this is the kind of comment that derail the discussion and can cause other editors to attack you as a racist:

"Nothing can make him an ethnic German because you can't change your genes, that's another fact. In fact, during the holocaust Germany was killing Jews an as ethnic group, a conversion would not help." "If someone doesnt tell the truth it's called telling lies. Claming most of the Jewish genes are non-Jewish is a lie." "No, you can't choose an ethnicity. You can change a nationality, you can choose a cultural identity, but an ethnicity is largely a matter of genes! You can't change genes! You need to read what an ethnicity is."

I don't know if you are really a Jew, a trolling neo-Nazi or just looking for 'fun' at this article. And pointing to a discussion in which you made comments of this nature as evidence that a long-standing consensus has been replaced by a new consensus (after your extended canvassing campaign) that can now no longer be changed – that was a bad move. We are no longer in the 1930s, when racism was an uncontroversial mainstream opinion. This is what the lead of ethnicity says: "Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality. Ethnicity can, but does not have to, include common ancestry, appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions, or other cultural factor. Ethnic identity is constantly reinforced through common characteristics which set the group apart from other groups."

Also, I can't find any evidence of the consensus which caused Illraute to make this edit. Ignoring any inaccuracies in the details, I disagree with it. Hans Adler 11:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You can easily have a dual ethnicities, if you are half German and half Jewish, but the point is the names you have only one ethnicity which is Jewish. Ethnicity is not a matter of choice, it’s history, ancestry, genes, many other. We have no references to the claims the names you gave have any German ethnicity, they definitely were German by nationality but not by ethnicity. The holocaust survivors were not heartbroken for part fo their "ethnicity" being taken but for the fact their nationality and human rights were taken away after they were loyal German citizens and many even fought at WW1.

Language spoken at home has nothing to do with ethnicity! An Italian-American who speaks only English at home, are they English or Native American now? This is a culture thing, but cultural assimilation doesnt change your ethnicity.

You are bringing up a topic already discussed here is details. This defenition is wide beause of groups like Arabs for examply which have a variety of genes and local features due to a big amount of local cultures assimilated. Besides, even though living in Germany Jews lived in isolated communities until the emancipation.

The definition of the German ethnicity are those Germanic tribes who assimilated their old identities into a new German identity during the time of the Holy Roman Empire. Jews are not a part of that proces, otherwise German Jews wouldn't call themselves Jews anymore.

After the comment about me being "neo-Nazi" you showed whatever you write can't be taken seriously even a bit. Me and other Jewish editors were the first who brought up that those people were not ethnically German, does it really make sense you blame us of being racist to Jews? All the things you said were already dealt with. A concensus was reached, re-read the discussion Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You "bringing up" that German Jews / Jewish Germans can't be Germans unless of dual descent is precisely the reason why you are racist. It would be easier to take your concerns about Einstein's self-ascription seriously if you didn't at the same time push precisely the kind of racist ideology that motivated the worst part of Nazi ideology. (Breaking Misplaced Pages norms such as WP:CANVAS also doesn't help. You seem to think of this as a fight rather than a good-faith attempt by everyone to get the article right.) You have not addressed the definition of ethnicity in the article on the topic. I think it speaks for itself.

Jews in Germany actually fought for their dual ethnicity. Once achieved, of course it became more important to preserve their Jewish side and prevent full assimilation. The advent of Zionism then polarised everything even further. But the majority of people still lived somewhere between these poles, keeping themselves away from either extreme. Hans Adler 12:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I now see the problem, you simply don't know what ethnicity is. It has nothing to do with racism. Racism is when you say one ethnicity is better then the other or deserves more rights then the other. What you are talking about is nationality. I speak English, live in England, don't feel connected to any culture except English, does that make my ancestors Anglo-Saxons? No. Ethnicity is not something you choose, that's nationality, identity, whatever. Ethnicity is hitsory, it's genes. −

That's the joke! YOU are the one pushing your POV keeping on bringing Nazism when it's irrelevant, while I try to get the article right. I couldn't care less about Zionism, it has nothing to do with it (by the way, by saying that you show that you are pushing a certain agenda). Those Jews tried to preserve their NATIONALITY, ethnicity is something else. Einstein clearly stated he doesnt see himself as German and just as a Jews. Again, please re-read the discussion before trying to take part in it. All the stuff you are saying were brought up many times. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not using the same definition, but that's because you are ignoring the modern definition that I keep pointing out to you and instead using an obsolete, racist one based on genetics. And no, by mentioning that the advent of Zionism facilitated inner-Jewish polarisation (assimilation, orthodoxy and now also emigration as the poles), I am not pushing an agenda. I have that from a Jewish biography, although I can't remember which one. Hans Adler 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality." – Misplaced Pages article ethnic group

"hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." – Max Weber

"Language spoken at home has nothing to do with ethnicity! An Italian-American who speaks only English at home, are they English or Native American now? This is a culture thing, but cultural assimilation doesnt change your ethnicity." – User:Guitar hero on the roof

Based on the first two sources, which I consider more reliable than the third, an 'Italian-American' who speaks only English at home is of mainstream American, Italian-American or dual ethnicity depending on what he eats, who he associates with, and who he considers eligible for marrying. Hans Adler 13:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get why you start now different section for that. In any case, you talk about the current situation in Germany, at present you can be of any ethnicity and having German citizenship will safe guard all rights as any other German(as was for Jews in Germany for very brief time before WWII)-it have nothing to do with Einstein who passed away almost 58 years ago and flee Germany simply because he was Jewish. What I see here is few editors trying to force on Einstein nationality he have revoked and shaken off and ethnicity he didn't see himself part of, even much before anyone in Germany heard about Hitler. Cut long story short-keeping Einstein here is nothing but promoting nationalism. I have no objection of keeping Marx here, though it's encyclopedic fault caused by wrong motives. His ethnicity wasn't German but indeed he identified himself as such (and sorry, there is such thing as ethnicity and the consensus about it is that it's something you're born to) so at least it's somewhat of less bitter taste to keep him here. Also, he never revoked his German citizenship and certainly had positive feelings for Germany so if the article is about nationality he should be here. But, the discussion here is far from being honest. First we were discussing the ethnicity of Einstein, when it become clear that his ethnicity is Jewish (and sorry, ethnicity is mutually exclusive unless you are of different origins) and he himself supported this notion in many of his remarks, one came with the idea that the article is about nationality -ok, maybe it's-so make it clear and include Germans of different origins in the infobox (I suggested some Turks, Afro-Germans and Pakistani Germans) but then again the article is now about German diaspora(!!!) but while outside Germany Einstein made only very strong remarks against his affiliation with Germany-yet, of all option you fight over him -what else it can be if not an attempt to glorify Germany that verge with nationalism of some users(and apologize that I just don't buy the excuse that including Einstein in the infobox is meant to "fix" the history, I didn't know that's what Misplaced Pages is about). If it's about the German diaspora and anyone who grew up in Germany and had German citizenship (or his ancestors) is part of it then go ahead and make it clear by suggesting those who belong to it from different nations and ethnic origins. There are many Israeli high profile people who are part of what you claim to be the "German diaspora". There are people from the German diaspora who are not of European origin and are not whites, but you fail to include them and this lead me to the conclusion that having Einstein here will create the wrong idea about him and his biography-something he himself probably didn't want them to get.--Gilisa (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I started it because though we reached a concensus some new guys who didn't read a discussion try to re-open it and bringing up things we already dealt with. I agree with what you wrote! That's the joke, because this Adler guy missed the whole discussion he of caurse didn't read the quotes of Einstein about Germany and Germans. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I didn't miss them. I am just interpreting them differently because I consider ethnicity to be neither a matter of genes nor a matter purely of self-identification. But as I say in my response to Gilisa below, there is a danger of projecting. Of course this applies to both sides. Hans Adler 12:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but a lot of what you say can't stand:

• "ethnicity is mutually exclusive unless you are of different origins" That makes no sense. You can be of dual ethnicity because your parents have different ethnic origins. But you can also be of dual ethnicity because you were born into a minority ethnicity and opt into the majority ethnicity. Or because you were born into a family in which both parents had dual ethnicity. Ethnicity is not about genes, it is about which group you primarily interact with.
• "What I see here is few editors trying to force on Einstein nationality he have revoked and shaken off and ethnicity he didn't see himself part of, even much before anyone in Germany heard about Hitler. Cut long story short-keeping Einstein here is nothing but promoting nationalism." – If, as you also say, ethnicity is something you are born into, then there can be no doubt that Einstein was of dual Jewish and German ethnicity. Einstein is ideal for the mosaic because readers instantly recognise him, and recognise him as a Jew. If having him here promotes anything, then it is the modern, non-racist, non-exclusive definition of (German) ethnicity, but certainly not nationalism. That is not to say that Germans aren't proud of Einstein; but thinking of him also makes us ashamed, and so he would be a poor vehicle of promoting nationalism. I would have thought this was obvious.
  Einstein may not be irreplaceable, and in fact Marx alone may be sufficient. Unfortunately we can't think him what he thinks about the matter. There is a danger of projecting attitudes on him based on what were at the time very practical decisions such as becoming stateless in order to avoid military service at at time when World War I was near.
• Ethnicity is a fuzzy sociological concept, and nationality is obviously a very important factor. This article (in principle; currently it's very badly written and these heated discussions are not helping it at all) gets it right by discussing both ethnicity and nationality. After all, the concepts are so close that there is a common term that is used both for German nationality and for German ethnicity.
• "There are people from the German diaspora who are not of European origin and are not whites". (Maybe you should look up diaspora. It refers to small groups of people physically separated from the main group. I am getting the impression that you inferred a different definition from the article German diaspora.) Yes, there are notable ethnic Germans who are recognisably of non-European descent, but there are a lot less of them. I can't immediately think of a good candidate for the mosaic, but it would be good to have one. We certainly need to add at least one notable German with Turkish roots, e.g. Cem Özdemir.

Hans Adler 12:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If the minority fully assimilates into the majority like happened with the Germanic trives in Fermany their minority identity dissapear, which didn't happen to the Jews! −

You keep on going on about this dual ethnicity thing but it's not ethnicity you are talking about. Einstein never was of German ethnicity, he couldn't have been, he was ethnically Jew. It's his nationality he got rid of! He was never "born into German ethnicity!" Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what ethnicity is and you clearly don't know much about Germanic or German history either. Just because you repeat this nonsense with exclamation points it does not make it so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity=Identity and history/genes. Nationality=Identity, citizenship, and rights/duties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Guitar hero on the roof (talk • contribs)

No, that is incorrect. If you strike the "genes" it is closer to being correct.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• • As long as this article has documented sections on German = those who grew up speaking German, than this discussion of ethnicity is beside, or rather along side, the issue. So, whatever is being discussed about "consensus": it appears to not be source or scope based, and thus rather useless. See, WP:NPOV Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I have no problem with German = those who grew up speaking German, in the context of this article, and then we should have Germans of different origins like Turkish (and also of non-European origin like Afro-Germans). The definition of German diaspora is equal to German nationality unless we assume someone who raised outside Germany and by him/herself is not German speaking but have German roots(e.g., Leonardo di Caprio) can be count for this infobox. Also Hans Adler, if it's about diaspora-why there are many Germans who never left Germany in the infobox (e.g., Wagner, Nietzsche) because in this case we have many candidates of different origins (not only Turks)like Afro and Pakistani Germans -at least as notable as Heidi Klum or Claudia Shiffer. P.S., Ethnicity is not fuzzy sociological concept, unless you mess minority concepts with the consensual concept of ethnicity.--Gilisa (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec with Alanscottwalker) All sociological concepts are inherently fuzzy. You either have (German) citizenship or you don't. Only for very few people there is a legal dispute about it. That's how it is with many legal concepts. But (German) ethnicity is much more complicated with lots and lots of different borderline cases. Hans Adler 13:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Moreover, let us assume, for the sake of argument there were a large body of modern academic literature whose thesis is "Albert Einstein was/is not German." That would also seem to be a very useful thing to discuss in this article, as it would presumably be dealing with definitional issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler, The issue is what the consensus about this term is and the consensus is that ethnicity is very much related to the historical group of people one came from. The legal issue is less relevant and depends on time and place. No one even think to argue that if you hold German citizenship then you are German citizen (unless you revoke it and declare you don't want any affiliation with the country of past citizenship). Alanscottwalker, in the Walter Isaacson biography there are some stunning remarks that Einstein made about Germany and Germans. It's more than reasonable not to include in the infobox someone who during his lifetime made remarks that show he didn't feel like he belong there. I had similar discussion on similar topics on the article of Jewish people, there it verged with edit-wars and lasted months -my position was that we should remove from the infobox Jews who converted to other religion and disconnected any affiliation with the Jewish people or made strong remarks that show they didn't want to be identified as Jewish, regardless how important they were during their life time and after. One of the figures I strongly pushed to remove was of Karl Marx. No doubt, Marx -like others I asked to remove was Jewish by ethnicity and many other things but I thought it's bad form to include him and others like him in infobox that by nature include exemplary Jews. Einstein wasn't German by ethnicity,whether ethnicity is fuzzy concept or not, he didn't even see himself as such. Einstein revoked his German citizenship with declared intent not to ever reclaim it or to return to Germany, he made more than one remark that show he don't want to be affiliated with Germany or German people. Yet, some editors insist to keep him here. This is bad taste - but I'm willing to accept it if the infobox will serve the declared purpose of the article: encyclopedic value on Germans by nationality. If indeed that's what the article is about then the infobox should reflect it with the mosaic having pictures of Germans that are non Germans or even non-Europeans by ethnicity. --Gilisa (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to broaden the scope to avoid these kinds of silly discussions and if there is a cavalcade it should show all kinds of Germans not just one or two kinds.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell there's very little on this thread of value in terms of how to rewrite the article - which does need some work. I'm tempted to hat this thread as well because of the remark immediately above - Wikipedians do not decide who belongs or does not belong anywhere. We follow policy. We write according to verifiable material based on WP:Reliable sources. I have added a "not a forum tag." Will revisit later in the day. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow, that is some truly disturbing things that have been going on at this talk page for the last couple of weeks. That a discussion could even be going on for so long based on such an absurd claim as this one is really beyond me. Any "consensus" that guitar hero claims to have made here is obviously invalid, since it is based on no facts and sources (that is sources saying that Einstein and Marx weren't Germans) and as such the discussion is completely farcical and superflous. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree; this discussion seems to be have been dominated much more by nationalist and ethnocentric vigor than investigatory rigor. The sheer number of blatantly racist comments, as well as numerous comments that substitute questioning of the interlocutors' motivations for actual arguments, really bring any "consensus" into serious doubt in my mind. siafu (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, there are ample sources-at least for Einstein (as for Marx I'm not very familiar) that describe Einstein as ethnic Jew, in fact Einstein did and not once (including remarks he made about his Semitic appearance). There are many historical and genetic sources that describe the Jewish people (including Jews from Germany) as totally different than Germans in these terms. BUT, if by ethnicity you refer to something else (otherwise your argument is OR) then include other German people of different origins, colors, etc in the infobox otherwise the infobox is implying, not encyclopedic, not representative and possibly even worse. --Gilisa (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

siafu, you're so right! those who want to include Einstein into a group he didn't affiliate with just to glorify their nationality are fine. They are not nationalists. Those who see the absurdity are racist, nationalists and bla bla bla. I offered numerous times to include Germans of different races and origins in the infobox, how does it turn me nationalist and not those who ignore it and yet want Einstein in the infobox!? Don't bother to answer.--Gilisa (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly should I not bother to answer? Are you suggesting that you will be dismissing anything I say before actually reading it? The real problem with this discussion is that the actual point of contention is being avoided, specifically what is the definition of ethnicity? Some folks seem focused on a genetic definition, others on a purely linguistic or cultural one, and from what one can easily read over at the article on ethnicity, both schools of thought have supporters. Instead of just making blanket proclamations about what ethnicity is, a more productive line might be coming to a consensus on what this article should be about and what the purpose of the images in the infobox actually is, as answering these questions will make decisions about who does and doesn't go belong the infobox rather less controversial. siafu (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gilisa, your accusation just doesn't make sense. Holocaust denying Germans (still a minority, fortunately) aren't going to be proud of Einstein at all. They vilify him and claim to find errors in his work. (Unfortunately this is not a joke.) For any other German, Einstein is as much reason to be ashamed that he needed luck to avoid being brutally killed by the German state as he is reason to be proud. Nationalism in Germany no longer works the same as in other countries, though this is bound to change.

If there are any hidden motives here at all to include Einstein, then it is today's Germans' desire to make up for the past to the very limited extent that this is possible,

• by completely rejecting the racist notions that led into actions from excluding Jews from skat clubs to sending highly decorated Jewish World War I veterans to Auschwitz, in theory and in practice,
• by strong support for the state of Israel, and
• by welcoming as many Jews in Germany as are willing to come, accepting them as Germans without any restrictions (such as: it's only the nationality but we don't treat them as ethnic Germans) and making them heard in public life.

Or in other words: Your accusation isn't even plausible. An accusation that we want to include Einstein because that makes us feel accepted by Jews would be plausible and might be true to some extent. But even that accusation wouldn't be helpful because consciously what's going on is a disagreement on facts. Hans Adler 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler, I speak about the discussion here and you take a larger scope which is not relevant in this thread. I'm not going to discuss what happening in Germany today or what is the social status of ethnicity/nationality in it-not because we share different or similar views but because it's not relevant. It was Einstein who predicted nearly 100 years ago that if his theory proven true everyone will claim right for him and if not that he will be Jewish for the Germans. I don't want to get there but it seem unavoidable, I met Germans with no guilt feelings what so ever who do consider Einstein German-not because necessarily they consider Jewishness as nothing ethnic, they do, but because he's a symbol-don't forget, many consider him the greatest scientist ever lived. In fact, even during WWII there were few Jews who been given the option to stay untouched because of their notability and they even were admired - the point is aside for extreme radicals, everybody want an ornament like Einstein. I know one can be anti-Semitic and still claim Einstein was German. The radicals you mentioned will mostly use the refuted feeble arguments that Einstein stole his ideas from Aryan scientists and from his first wife-who wasn't Jewish. The same way one don't have to be holocaust denier to be an anti Semitic one can say Einstein was German and still be an anti-Semitic. In fact, it's well known and accepted today that the new way of attacking Jews is by saying they don't consist ethnicity. As said, Misplaced Pages should serve the facts and nothing more than that. If one consider ethnicity by genes, religion one born to and etc -then Einstein wasn't German. If one consider it by the place he grown in and by main language then why there are no Germans of other ethnicities in the info-box? Also, please consider that during his life time Einstein didn't want relation to Germany-I can't see how one can excuse ignoring from that. --Gilisa (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"If one consider ethnicity by genes" you say, can you point me to a a study showing which gene Einstein had and which demonstratred his ungermanness?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at the quotes given earlier and read them. He stated he is a Jew and wants nothing to do with Germans. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

At one point are you going to start reading the comments you respond to? I am not arguing to include Einstein, I am arguing against the ridiculous idea that ethnicity has to do with genes, which you among others have espoused. So tell me which gene is it that only Jews have and not members of any other ethnic group? Which gene marks a person as being non-German?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, I think it's unfair to pick out the word "genes" from Gilisa's comment. I can see nothing like the obsession with a genetic definition of ethnicity in it that is exhibited by Guitar hero. It's followed by religion "etc.". We are all not native speakers of English and bound to occasionally use formulations that are slightly off. Hans Adler 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Einstein, and it may well be that my impression of whether he would have considered himself ethnically German in the sense of this article was wrong. (It may well have changed during his lifetime, perhaps even several times.) My impression was formed in part by the fact that even in the US he retained his Swiss citizenship and was surrounded by German speakers. I don't know much about his friends there, but I know that Kurt Gödel (who no doubt self-identified as an ethnically German citizen of Austria-Hungary) was a close friend. Keeping in mind that German ethnicity is mostly about language, the presumption that he was still ethnically German isn't quite as strong as the presumption that a Jew who retains his religion is still ethnically Jewish, but perhaps you can accept that there is sort of a parallel.

As I have said before (now hidden somewhere in another long thread), removing Einstein is fine with me so long as we have a substitute who is equally recognisable as both Jewish and German. Karl Marx seems to fit very well. Apparently it's well documented that he felt German (it was much more natural and easier than in Einstein's time), and apparently his father sought full assimilation. (He became Protestant and changed his first name.)

I am also in favour of putting immigrants into the mosaic, though obviously they are not quite as important as a minority that has been living in Germany for at least 1700 years. I can't find any suitable descendants of Ruhrpolen (someone who is into sports might have more luck), but there are plenty of eligible Germans of Turkish and Greek descent. I think Germans of African descent are currently too insignificant numerically overall, though I have some in my wider family. I refuse to feel responsible for inadequacies in an article which I first saw yesterday in response to an ANI report, but maybe we can do something about it if we start cooperating. Hans Adler 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler-your concept that the Jews of Germany lived there for 1700 years at least is fault. In fact while some of them came to Rome as merchants from ancient Israel and then them or their decedents moved on to what is today Germany about ~2000 years ago -which make them more ancient in Germany than perhaps most Germans (nevertheless during most of their history they didn't see it as their home) the major contribution for the establishment of the Jewish community in Germany came many centuries later. For instance, about 12 years ago I read highly claimed historical paper showing that the community in Mainz was mainly formed by Jews who immigrated to Germany from Iraq about 1000 years ago. After the expulsion of Jews from Spain and Portugal(~500 years ago) they established communities in the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Turkey and N.Africa and contributed to Jewish communities in all of Europe including Germany. According to two scientists that study Jewish intelligence (a field of study I'm against) the origins of Einstein goes to the Jewish communities of eastern Europe.In fact, there are many Jews from Germany who can give you reliable account about the time their family immigrated from say Poland to Germany (like this Israeli politician)and many times it happened no longer than 100 years ago. ·ʍaunus, you are keep being funny (I like this good spirit of yours)-you know I'm against the inclusion of Einstein here unless people of other ethnicity are included as well-because otherwise IMO it's nationalistic and misleading infobox-sorry, I don't feel like I need to apologize in the face of funny accusations. If, like Hans Adler said-there is something with Germans feel bad and then want to include Einstein here then it's not issue for encyclopedic value but even if it's the motive and it's encyclopedic-then in this case including more people of other ethnicity than German is expected (I know you are against expectations but I used to do them) certainly if there is place in the infobox for past Nazis or anti Semitics as it's now. As for your question about specific gene-4 genes difference are enough to declare that two organisms are entirely different species. There is no single gene that you can find in one population and you can't find in the other. There are alleles however that are almost not to be found in one population but are very prevalent in another, or specific mutations that are extremely rare or absent in one population but are to be found in another. Then, when you have this data you apply statistical methods that state the chances of this pattern to be random -usually the chances are much lower than one in a million and it points to common origin, no less. Even when one come to find whether a child is of a given parent he/she use the same methods and don't look for "specific gene". As for your question, Einstein was born Jewish and there is no reason to assume that he was geneticaly similar or more similar to Germans than to Jews, but this is out of topic-so please don't get my words out of context as you did before.--Gilisa (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

How about we remove the picture cavalcade all together from the infobox?

That would not only solve the current discussion, but also prevent discussions from erupting next week when more editors have been canvassed from around the internetz. It would also defy the temptation to see articles on ethnic groups as dog and pony shows where people get to show their best exemplars to the world.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm for it, given that there is no other consensus on the horizon. --Gilisa (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

While this is not a desirable outcome, I have to concede that it would be better than the current situation, and may in fact be necessary to avoid meaningless sniping and shouting matches. siafu (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would make it an undesirable outcome. I.e. what is the argument against removing the images?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. Or, more directly, it's very helpful and illustrative in answering the question "Who are the <insert ethnic group here>?" to be presented with a list of notables, some of whom may be already recognizable for other reasons to the reader. This, of course, is just my opinion, but I've had this experience myself in reading articles about smaller (i.e. less numerous) ethnic groups, and presumably there exist sufficiently naive readers who would be thus informed when reading about Germans. siafu (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the fact that there is disagreement about the individuals shown does not warrant complete removal of the image. Doing this would mean that images at other articles would also have to be removed just because people might have differing opinions on what to show. Come to think of it, this would also be true for the articles dog and pony... Rainbowwrasse (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule that all articles on ethnic groups must be standardized. It is not the fact that there is disagreement, but that there is no possibility of reasonably solving the disagreement or implement criteria for what to include. And the fact that the pictures do not contribute any useful information to readers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize with the dog & pony show concern, but the images--if all are in accord--can serve as a gateway to the articles on the respective personages, assuming that such linkage is possible. The images do impart a direct sense of the period from which the individual hails, in some cases, and are not necessarily a detraction.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus, I'm talking about all articles, not just ethnic groups. Just because we can't decide whose kitten is cuter doesn't mean kitten should have no picture at all. The collage demonstrates a few examples of Germans. That's a valid purpose. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a tempting idea, but there is a valid reason why other articles of this kind have such mosaics. I think if you look at articles for ethnic groups that you know little about, you will see what I mean. For me Khmer people, Chechen people and Afro-Trinidadian and Tobagonian work in this way, for example. Germans are way too diverse for illustration with a single 'typical' image. Hans Adler 16:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better then keeping it with Einstein and Marx so I support it, but to be fair, I do see the benefit of them. When you go to Jews, Russians, Scots, Belarusians, English people, it gives people a good example if who belongs to this ethnic group. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have said above, I have now come around to grudgingly accepting removal of Einstein due to the self-identification issues and the various changes in citizenship. (I believe this article needs to be about German citizenship, nationality and ethnicity simultaneously as these are closely related topics that would otherwise require separate articles with lots of duplication.)

But I can see no excuse for removing Karl Marx, who was born into a thoroughly assimilated, recently Protestant family. The mosaic absolutely should contain one or two German Jews, and Marx seems one of the best choices we could make. Hans Adler 19:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but the fact Marx's family converted doesnt make him ethnically German! If you convert to Islam will you be in Arab? But whatever, if we do need to contain a Jew, why not a Turk? I think Turks also deserve a representative. If it's really based on nationality, a Turk should be in to. If you will put someone Turkish instead of Einstein my objection to Marx will automatically be gone due to the fact it's really based on nationality in that case. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you are calling nationality what I would call citizenship for clarity and ethnicity what I would call 'Volksgruppe'. That actually makes sense: Volksgruppe is a Nazi term that can't really be translated to English, so it is usually rendered as 'ethnic group'.

The definition of 'ethnic group' that I have been using all the time, and that this article should use, is the one from the ethnic group article. Under this definition, the Danes, Sorbs and Sinti/Roma living in Germany are considered in today's Germany to be both ethnic Germans and ethnic Danes, ethnic Sorbs or ethnic Sinti/Roma. For Jews the modern situation is more complex due to the Holocaust, recent immigration and a historical (though decreasing) reluctance of Jews to consider themselves German in post-war Germany. Hans Adler 21:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big specialist on Nazi terminology, you seem to have an obsession on it so I will leave it to you, but I have to say, you are lying. Sorbs, Danes and Sinti/Roma are not qualified as ethnic Germans, I never heard this claim before, they are qualifyed as their own ethnicities in the census. No one ever called them ethnic Germans. In fact, in the admin noticeboard where you wrote a complain on me someone actually clearly said you are trying to push a new definition of ethnicity. The German term you refer to refers only to the German ethnicity and it can't refer to any other ethnicity, and by definition it's the "superior race", those things have nothing to do with ethnicity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your ignorance is astounding. As is your instance that we believe your assertions about who qualifies as an ethnic German based on nopthing but your own opinion. How about you either start presenting sources, or else shut up and stop wasting our time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not obsessed with Nazi terminology, I simply know about it due to my work on articles such as Hans Schwerte. (I am essentially the only author of that one.) Sorbs, Danes and Sinti/Roma are ethnic Germans by the definition in ethnic group if and only if they are essentially indistinguishable from other German nationals, except perhaps by physical appearance, when mixing with them. That's true for most, though admittedly not all. E.g. the expression "the German people" in the Grundgesetz implicitly includes these national minorities, as everything else would be severe discrimination. The term 'Volksgruppe' applied to Slavs and Jews, among others, and was the basis for selection of people (by racist 'scientific' criteria) to be sent to concentration camps, or in some cases for selection of Polish children to be separated from their parents and sent to 'Aryan' orphanages where they were raised as Nazis. Hans Adler 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC) (Edited: Actually, I think the selection of children followed a different 'logic'. I got confused here. Hans Adler 13:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

They didn't just convert, they abandoned their Jewish identity and culture entirely to become Germans as did thousands of Jews. But yes a German of Turkish ancestry would be a good inclusion to the cavalcade.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this initiative. But if not that, we should include an ethnic Turk or two, so people are reminded that this is about nationality and not ethnicity alone. Just so long as people aren't misled to the assumption that German Jews are in fact just indigenous Germans who adopted Judaism, then I'm ok with it.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So how about we have Fatih Akin, Lukas Podolski, and Jessica Wahls, Gerald Asamoah, or Kevin-Prince Boateng? If people still have doubts about Marx, we could add the Jewish German nationalist liberal politician Eduard Lasker instead. Is that something we can all agree on? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. You have my support.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For me not a single one of the people you suggest is recognisable by image. In fact I think I haven't even heard of most of them. I think that's significant because I can recognise about half of those in the current mosaic by image, and all by name. So I would say more notable people would be better. Hans Adler 22:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think you gave yourself a big compliment here. Fatih Akin is one of the biggest German directors today and every person who claims they know cinema know him, Podolski is one of the greatest German football players ever, Boateng is one of the most popular football players today. Your lack of different famous people doesnt mean they don't qualify. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not recognize most of them either (although I had heard of their names, except one), but their achievements are mostly outside of my personal fields of interest. I assume a football fan might recognize the footballers, etc. I'll happily admit that I couldn't hand-on-heart claim that I knew exactly what e.g. Hegel stood for, except that he was a philosopher, but I'm sure he's popular with philosophy fans. Anyway, I think the point here would be to show a wide variety, rather than just the most notable ones. They were just my suggestions, more notable ones are welcome. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Podolski and Akin are the most recognizable. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't recognize any of them either, to be honest, and hadn't heard about any of those till this discussion. Also I fail to see how some of those are notable enough to be included in a collage like this. - Rex (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Article scope

So I would imagine that most here will agree the scope of the article is not well defined/ or a source of contention . One main question has arisen from the photo argument that pertains directly to the articles scope and thus its overall content. That is......

• Should or should not "this" article encompass all Germans that are considered citizens? As in.... all 81.8 million of them covered under the German nationality law or not?

German citizens = 73.62 million (90% of total population)

German citizens of no migrant background: 65.44 million (80% of total population)

German citizens of immigrant background (including people of partial immigrant background) 8.18 million (10%)

i.e- Should this article be all encompassing like Canadians Mexican people and British people that deals with all demographics of its citizens - Or should it be like Japanese people and Russians a semi socio-racial/ethnic group classification system article? Moxy (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I think it should be a broad explanation of all common uses of the term. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• It should be broad, including all common uses of the term as used in reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• As broad as possible. We should include some non-Jewish ethnic minorities in the picture box, in addition to the Jewish ones already present (if we are to leave them up, that is).Evildoer187 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Surely broad, Germans without immigration background? Sounds, again, dodgy. --Gilisa (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• It should be broad, the thing is I think all of us use same words for different things. Me, GIlisa and Evildoear187 claerly use ethnicity in the classic sense of group with common origins and history while others here try to make it be more of a nationality. All I'm saying it, if you want to have a Jew in the collage, you should also have a Turk there because im my opinion otherwise it's simply racism due to the fact Turks are the second largest ethnic group of German nationality after Germans. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Broad per Maunus. Presence in the infobox, if images are to be included, should be based on notability, as in British people, not on fallacious statistical reasoning. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Broad as per Maunus. This is the way I should have addressed the issue of article scope, rather than making a proposal which naively attempted to accommodate views previously expressed (and which was a misrepresentation of my own inclinations, resulting in a situation which caused me considerable personal distress). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Broad per Maunus. Per Mathsci's comment, the image at British people is not based solely on notability but to some extent on representativeness as well (gender, skin colour, etc.), and that should be the case here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

True. It is not "Great Britons", or else Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth I, Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare and Boadicea have been quite unlucky. Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally, all senses of the word "German". That includes national minorities inside Germany and recent immigrants with a German passport, in keeping with German official terminology (which includes Danes, Frisians, Sorbs and Sinti/Roma when speaking of the "German people"). But it also includes Germans in the various other senses (some historical): essentially all speakers of German everywhere. The various notions of Germans should be discussed. It's not going to be easy because in practice there is rarely a need to distinguish as there is a huge overlap, usually the intended definition is clear from context, and the entire topic is close to a taboo in today's Germany. So I doubt there will be a lot of good sources except for obsolete definitions.
  Great to see there is one thing that we can all agree about. It appears that most of the disagreements came from the fact that we disagreed about the article's scope while using the same words to define it. Hans Adler 09:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad, mainly because of the conceptual problems involved with defining and demarcating the ethnic group. I found Moxy's proposed first sentence for the lead attractive (although I can't immediately trace it back to the source he gave, at least not in the same form). Iblardi (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this one better ? As it mentions specifically the change in policy since 2000 towards including all German's (immigrants and naturalized citizens) vs old policy of German blood line (ethnic Germans) ....Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0. .Moxy (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad to accomodate the various sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Limited for collage; broad for the article (do not ignore limited definitions though): It is weird that Einstein is listed here. He is ethnically Jewish. He should (and is) pictured in Jews article. The article itself can include broader definitions, but specify. Eg: include both the number of ethnic Germans (without immigration background) AND number of German citizens, informing the readers that definitions (and hence associated statistics) may vary. Cavann (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we close this thread by the conclusion that we already have agreement about the scope of the article (i.e., broad)?--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to the broad consensus I have taken a first step and restored references to 'nation' to the lede. Further changes to population number etc. may be necessary, but I currently lack the motivation to look for sources. It has been exceedingly interesting to be part of this -> , all the best. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you see Talk:Germans#Change to lead? - The current version that was just implemented still is only about Germanic peoples and not all its citizens. I think what is below is much more inclusive to all Germans - be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they Germanic peoples (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal). All this is what is covered under German nationality law.

"Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with the modern country of Germany and historically Germanic Central Europe. This connection may be ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural.'"22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad in all aspects - per Maunus and Mathsci. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Moxy (whose signing didn't seem to work properly, btw) - the revision just made to the article is not sufficiently broadening. Moxy's suggestion is broader, and better IMHO. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the change, I much prefer Moxy's wording too. I just wasn't sure if Iblardi and Moxy had sorted out the source and were happy with it, they were discussing it earlier. I only wanted to get this started so that things can get back to normal as soon as possible. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(2 e/cs) I still think the wording isn't broad enough following Truthkeeper's recent changes. I'm loathe to make a change myself in case I make another blunder, but surely there are people who are neither citizens nor natives of Germany, but nevertheless consider themselves "German"? Moxy's wording seems to address that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The 'about' part would need to be broadened as well, would This article is about Germans as an ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural group work, or is that too contrived? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right it needs changing; the wording you propose may be too "listy" rather than too contrived, and I'm wondering if referring to them as "a group" isn't ideal (Moxy's wording avoids the word "group"). But in my view your proposal is better than what is there now. What about - just throwing out ideas - "This article is about people identified with modern Germany and its political antecedents" or is "antecedent" an unwise word to use, given its usual usage in family trees etc? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as the photo box isn't framed in a way as to imply Jews in Germany are indigenous Germans (which is nothing short of a slap to the face for many Jews, Einstein included), then I'm fine with leaving Einstein and Marx in the box. We should put in some of the more 'recent' immigrants to Germany, so as to alleviate these concerns (which many of this page share) and curb any further dispute. Thankfully, it seems like everyone else is on the same page. However, if you can't understand why those of us who have a strong sense of Jewish identity might be just a little offended at seeing their people conflated with those who tried to annihilate them, then you are clearly incapable of empathy and blinded by your own privilege. By calling us racist, you are effectively appointing yourselves the judge and jury of how we should feel about ourselves. You don't get to do that.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You really need to read-up this topic Paul R. Mendes-Flohr (1999). German Jews: A Dual Identity. Yale University Press. - Are you under the impression that all Jews in Germany past and present even from the time of Charlemagne are of direct Jews homeland decent? You are aware that people convert religions very often - even in Germany. By your logic we can then all assume that anyone that follows the Quran must be of Arabic diaspora origins?Moxy (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments like this only reinforce my belief that you know nothing about Jewish history or identity. First of all, Judaism and Islam are not even comparable in this context. Early Roman proselytism aside, it is well documented that conversion to Judaism has been extremely limited due to both religious and secular persecution, in addition to internal Jewish laws that prohibited intermarriage and made converting to Judaism a pain in the ass. None of these things are applicable to Islam, which has a long history of forced proselytism through colonialism, extending from the reaches of Southeast Asia to the Iberian Peninsula. And yes, I am of the belief that the vast majority of today's Jews, barring recent converts, have ethnic Hebrew descent. It is a belief that is roundly supported by multiple genetic studies on Jews.

Moxy Just show the real motive behind some who push Einstein in the same info-box with at least some German nationalists and anti-Semitics. Very good taste. I'm descended of what Moxy called German Jews and I read and learn a lot of Jewish diaspora in general and on Jews of Germany in particular. Until the 19 AC Jews were not even allowed to visit German cities without paying special Jewish tax -and their entrance were allowed only through the gates through which beasts were entranced. They had no right to convert anyone. In fact some cases of Germans who wanted to convert back then (say in 1600) are documented in Jewish traditional sources-the community took very large risk by converting anyone so usually if the German insisted what the community did is to send him/her to another community with a recommendation -usually to the community in the Netherlands -because the Netherlands was the most tolerant regarding Jews. But even then such cases were extremely rare and in any case until today Germany keep documentation of Jewish past citizens that depict the last 500 years of them in Germany. The claim that Jews in Germany are actually Germans who converted to Judaism is no less than ridiculous and also not supported by genetic studies. Talking about genetics seems unaviodable when someone argue that Jews are not a people-just a religion -but then you're the one who blamed with racism (!). As for myself I just want to make it clear that for months I had a fight about removing Felix Mendelsshon from the Jewish infobox because he converted to other religion and cut his affiliation with the Jewish community. I thought it's only right to keep there those who at least have no problem with their inclusion there (were they alive). I also nominated for AfD article about Jewish intelligence. So my motives are clean, but I fail to see how fighting to keep Einstein in this infobox -considering his personal history and how insisting on keeping only Germans "without immigration background" in the infobox is not motivated by nationalism.--Gilisa (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rants of this nature make me question the education system outside of Canada.Moxy (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean that you want to imply somethings against Israelis but you don't want to violate WP guidelines. I've nothing against Canada but even excellent education system didn't suit you with reasonable argument or answer, or teach you how to avoid pretentious arrogance. --Gilisa (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you done any research on this topic at all?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that I would fully support including a recently converted German, or someone with partial German descent in this box. On the other hand, taking someone who is of full Jewish heritage (one of whom didn't even identify himself as German) and passing them off as indigenous Germans is analogous to putting Ronald Reagan in a collage of Native Americans. In other words, absolutely ridiculous.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187. could you please stop diverting the discussion with personalised comments, which are not helpful. Please stop using this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Using the phrase "recently converted German" shows a confusion between religion and nationality which was surely an error. The lede of the article is clear enough. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, you do know that Jews are a nation, right? That it's an ethnicity as well as a religion, hence ethnoreligious group? See Jews: "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim Israeli pronunciation ), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia."

It would also appear that I was mistaken in assuming that both of Marx's parents were Jewish. I retract my earlier appeals for excluding him.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop writing this kind of nonsense. Israel is a nation, Judaism is a religion. Please stop confusing these issues and misusing this talk page as a blog. Misplaced Pages is not a source and cherry-picking sentences out of context as you have done is just tendentious editing. Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The passage I cited just now is fully sourced, and obviously supported by the Misplaced Pages community since it is a heavily monitored article. If you disagree with it, you should take your complaints to the talk page here.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What is rather racist and/or patronizing is including people who may not self-identify as ethic German or German at all. Einstein renounced his citizenship:

Including Einstein seems to be nothing more than "claiming" one of the world's greatest scientists to me, rather than being objective and informative. Cavann (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering the dodgy evolution on this talk-page no reasonable men can get to any other conclusion. First they argue that the article is about ethnicity and that Einstein was ethnic German-this included non relevant arguments and extremely rude and offensive political line of claims, to say the least, stating that there is no Jewish ethnicity. When one stated the opposite he was accused for racism without no shame..Then they say that the article is about the German nation -but the German nation includes at present days Muslims and Buddhists, people of all colors and races-they are not willing to seriously discuss in the infobox people that represent the present demography of Germany. Why? Because one picture is better than one thousand words. If one see Black or Indie person in the infobox he will understand that the article is about German citizens. They soon aborted this line as well and get to another one which failed also. Making this article as broad as possible wouldn't help in removing the POV if the infobox doesn't reflect it. What else that Einstein remarks about Germany were clear and cut and IMO it's rude to include him here.--Gilisa (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You should pursue RFC, etc, and mediation for removal of Einstein from the collage after the scope is clarified. It is quite dumb to include someone who refused to be associated with Germany. Cavann (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's collect definitions of what it means to be German

As the heading says. I think we have agreement that this article should be as broad in coverage as its title ("Germans") says. Most of us will have various concepts of what it means to be German, but I suggest that we only add definitions/concepts for which we can provide a reliable source or a Misplaced Pages article.

After the collection, we can organise the material to form a coherent discussion.Hans Adler 14:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Space for cooperative editing

• German citizenship. (No sources, should be obvious.)
• Turks living in Germany for a long time often change so much that, while still feeling Turkish in Germany, they no longer feel, or are accepted as, Turkish in Turkey. They are referred to as 'Almancılar' in Turkish. The term's German translation is 'Deutschländer'. In English one could render this as 'Germanians'. The two groups are so estranged now, that in many cases they no longer tend to intermarry.
• Reichsdeutsche ('Imperial Germans') roughly means citizens of the German Empire. (There would be more to say, but it's complicated.)
• de:Volkszugehörigkeit is a legally defined notion that was introduced by the Nazis but still appears in German immigration law. Literally it means 'adherence to the people'. The Nazis felt a need to exclude people of Jewish origins explicitly. That part of the definition was removed after the war. There is a long history of post-war court decisions on what is required to prove 'deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit'. Some German Jews were denied this status by post-war authorities for various reasons and successfully appealed this to high courts.
• Deutschstämmige. The English title of this article ('ethnic Germans') is slightly misleading and may or may not have to be changed. For the Nazis neither Volkszugehörigkeit nor Deutschstämmigkeit implied the other, though in practice it was the same in the vast majority of cases.
• Autochthonous national minorities in Germany: Danes, Frisians, Sinti/Roma, Sorbs. The Sorbs live only in Germany. The German constitution does not explicitly recognise any minorities, but the individual German states (Länder) where it is relevant (mostly) do.

Space for discussion (possibly even related to the rest of this section)

There are second generation Turks in Germany who consider themselves more Turkish than German and as far as I know the most of Turks in Germany do not deny their Turkish roots. There are Turks who were born and raised in Germany but feel stronger connections to Turkey-like the soccer player whose name I forgot that refused to play in the German national team and instead playing for the Turkish national team if I remember correct. Many Turks send money to their family relatives in Turkey and many Turkish citizens have relatives in Germany. I don't think the condition of including one in this infobox is to rip him of his non German identity. More than that, the source you cite in support of your claims about German Turks being estranged to other Turks is in German language and help only those who read German. Also, from what it looks it's not academic one (though I'm not saying such phenomenon can't or don't occur, I know similar phenomenons even in people of the same ethnicity who live in the same place but are affected differently by it). The title of the article is misleading or the infobox is, I afraid that not slightly but blatantly so and it's a shame. The internal politics in Germany are of zero relevance for this article- because the scope of it doesn't include any attribution to the German citizenship laws. I insist that the infobox will include representation to all major minorities in Germany and this includes Turks, Afro-Germans and etc. As for your question-it's only and unnecessarily repeating the discussion above. We have consensus about broader definition (meaning including all minorities who live in Germany) and that's all.--Gilisa (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is not supposed to represent every single minority and definitely should not, otherwise it would be a page long. It is supposed to show examples of notable people that happen to be German and are easily recognizable. If you happen to find any ethnic Germans of Turkish or African decent that are notable enough to put among the likes of Kant, Beethoven, Catherine the Great and Planck, I would be more than happy to oblige. - Rex (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rex that's where you're very wrong. First, I suggest that this thread will be closed because it's a repeated discussion after consensus was achieved. Second, please don't insist to call Germans of different ethnicity "ethnic German"-it's POV that is pushed as an enlightened one-it isn't. Third, I can certainly find Germans of other ethnicity than German that are far more notable than both super models in this infobox or of a better taste than scientist with Nazi background. Infobox is not about the greatness of people, it's more about sample and Misplaced Pages guide us to find consensus about the infobox. Einstein and Marx are both neither of ethnic German origin but they are pushed in the infobox while the article itself in its ethnic section and in the table of people with German citizenship or of German ancestry by country clearly show that the article deal with Germans by the very narrow definition of the word. It's of extreme importance to have in this infobox at least 3-4, no, at least 4 German people of other ethnicity than German and with immigration background. It will not make the infobox any more longer, it will not affect its quality-but the point is, and don't skip it, that it will then represent what the article is arguably discuss: German people at the broad definition-otherwise the infobox is blatantly misleading.--Gilisa (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that defining the scope as "broad" undermines the operative principle of notability. Several individuals were introduced above with limited recognition. I would think that perhaps Angela Merkel would be reasonable to replace one of the super models as an example of a German woman that has achieved wide recognition on the basis of perform the duties associated with a high profile public office, for example, but would imagine that candidates should be considered on a case-by-case basis.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, notable doesn't mean that one is historical figure. Infobox of many other nations include historical figures, models (they have place too) and people who are very well known locally (meaning know among the people of the nation). This is the standard. Anyway, if there are no German minorities in this infobox other than Einstein and Marx (who are no doubt from the Jewish minority), and whatever the reason is, then the infobox only serve purposely misleading idea.--Gilisa (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not ask a question. It seems settled that we want a broad scope. But an article about just German citizenship doesn't seem to make sense given that there is also demographics of Germany and we also need something to offer to those who just want to learn about "the Germans" without being sure what they mean by that term.

There is no such thing as an official definition of 'German ethnicity' or even 'German nationality'. The problem starts with a choice between German translations for these terms, each of which is at least a bit off, and rapidly gets worse because the Nazis and their forethinkers wrote about these topics excessively and nowadays they are almost taboo. It's a huge, fuzzy area, and sources are hard to find.

I have no idea why you bring up the infobox mosaic in this context. Can we perhaps make this a section where the mosaic is not discussed? It's likely going to stay the only one anyway. Sometimes it's just a good idea to do some constructive work together before trying to settle the contentious things. If you are not interested that's fine.

And sorry if you can't read the sources for a minor point that is primarily of interest to Germans and Turks. This kind of thing happens to most of us at some point, but non-English sources are explicitly OK. What you say about Turks in Germany is mostly correct. The point about the 'Deutschländer' is precisely that sometimes the opposite is true. It was a surprise when the media found out about that, and was very widely discussed. So you can see I didn't just make it up, I have now added a (much less useful) source in English. But that really shouldn't have been necessary. In an emergency there is always Google Translate, which works satisfactorily for German to English. (It's almost useless for Turkish to English.) Hans Adler 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler-I don't care what is the official definition for German ethnicity. Sure there isn't such thing. There is what most people consider as ethnicity and it's related to blood kinship and also to other things that are broader than the person himself. This is what ethnicity mean to most people, let's not pretend it's not like that. Terms like "ethnic look" stem from this common understanding of the term. If you want the article to consider other commentary to ethnicity you must make it clear for readers as well-and in the infobox more than in any other place. If you don't do it-if you say that ethnicity is about growing in specific culture but you have only people of the same race or presented like they are of the same race-then you have serious conflict. I'm tired from all of these endless and pointless discussion-maybe I will ask mediation to bring in the infobox Germans of different religions and colors.--Gilisa (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Read the English link-which is again very far from being academic source. The term Germanized don't mean that they are not viewed as Turks by other Turkish people-this is your own far reaching commentary.--Gilisa (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1. The forgoing long discussions to the extent that it focuses on "what would Einstein do?" or "what would Einstien be offended by?" is pointless and off-topic. The continuation of such speculation on this page should lead to bans.

• 2. The contention that Einstein had a fraught relationship with his native land, and therefore has nothing to teach about Germans is rather unsupported. There is no reason why someone with a fraught relationship with the society he came from would not teach about such people.

• 3. There are reliable sources on the internet that descibe Einstein as German-Jewish, Jewish-German, native born German, and even "the valient Swabian" a poetic term from the poetry of Ludwig Uhland that Einstein called himself. He evidently liked German Weimer, rather alot, it is said.

Interesting points, but I think you meant the Weimar Republic.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• 4. The claims of offense on behalf of the long gone great man, together with his long association with his native land have made these discussions rather inconclusive and circular. So, there is no consensus on the picture issue, and it will not be solved by the reasoning presented so far, at least absent an !vote, perhaps. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, the issue is simple: Einstein wasn't German by his own definition and certainly not but what this article describe as German-at least by the infobox. I would expect that if indeed in this article ethnicity is not about one race there would be German people of other minorities in this infobox. And yes, the inclusion of Einstein in this infobox is rude and tasteless.--Gilisa (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several metrics in the infobox, language and territory among them. He was born in Germany. He was a native German speaker. Some people want to not be from where they were from; that's not unheard of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Concise suggestion: Make the article primarily about ethnic Germans (there might be a modern immigration section or addition to the identity after 1990 part); include both limited and broad stats (for example, in the infobox, do not just write the number of German citizens if you change the article, but also include the number of those w/o imm background; the current Geographic distribution table is excellent as it provides info with respect to both viewpoints). This is an ethnicity article, not the Demographics of Germany.Cavann (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting on the whole picture/infobox issue and how it factors into the rest of the article, I have a comment for consideration. Any Misplaced Pages article should cover its subject matter as fully as practicable, hence I support the general consensus for a broad scope for this particular article. It is not to be expected that people/editors are going to agree about "who is a German?", because it is such a potentially wide subject, with not a little controversy attached to it. However if the article - as has largely been agreed - is to cover the topic broadly, then the differences between individual opinions should not be insurmountable obstacles, because all bases should be covered. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to present information according to how it is covered in reliable sources (I'm sorry to be stating the obvious here), then readers can form their own views. Bringing this back to the picture issue and Einstein, would it not be within the scope of the article to have a section (or sections) outlining the very thing we all have been grappling with - i.e. the inherently controversial nature of the whole topic? There can then be information about people who - for various reasons - rejected the notion of being "a German". Then surely it would be able to include Einstein within the article, without (perhaps) instigating opposition from people who feel strongly that he shouldn't be there? This is only a comment/idea for discussion, and is not a rigidly-held view that I'm trying to impose. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(PS I understand that the article as it stands does refer to complexities within the concept of "Germanness" - this ackowledgement threads through the article, perhaps particularly in the "identity" section - but it doesn't appear to tackle it really explicitly, perhaps because editors have preferred to have an article stating what the subject is, rather than outlining lots of debates and alternative views. Again, just a thought.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there are no qualifiers in the collage. You can't have a body of text next to Einstein saying he rejected being associated with Germany. Hence, every picture should be uncontentious. Furthermore, as I said before, it is rather racist and patronizing to include him here when he, himself, did not self identify with Germans or Germany. Cavann (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First time I weight in on the picture problem. Why because I see above there are no qualifiers in the collage. The world is our criteria. I agree its a point of contention here on Wiki (and I would personally vote for exclusion) - however or a big butt if you will - my opinion or anyone else for that matter here from Wiki its not relevant or even a point for inclusion or exclusion. All we can do is "regurgitate" what is out there in reliable sources. What do his many many mnay many many bios say on this matter. Time to link up some books on the matter - no more guess work and personal opinions. Moxy (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let's picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew."

-Albert Einstein

− Before we can effectively combat anti-Semitism, we must first of all educate ourselves out of it.Only when we have the courage to regard ourselves as a nation, only when we respect ourselves, can we win the respect of others; or rather, the respect of others will then come of itself. (Einstein, About Zionism , MacMillan,1931, p. 33)

−

I Think Einstein himself answered the question where he belongs, clearly and loudly.--Tritomex (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting what hes got to say - but not relevant - What do scholarly publications say about his nationality and ethnic heritage? Anyone can denounce there heritage - this does not change the fact of there heritage or nationality. It seems peoples arguments are based on anti-Semitism of the time period and not on what is factually accurate about were when how. As I have said before - this argument here by us is pointless if Germans themselves and reliable source say things that others simply cant except. Moxy (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tritomex: It isn't an either/or situation in which editors decide one way or the other; it all boils down to the sources. If Reliable Source A states "X", and Reliable Source B states "Y", then the article should cover both "X" and "Y". If Reliable Sources A, B, C, D, E, F and G state "X", and Reliable Source H states "Y", then the article should still cover both "X" and "Y", but should place greater emphasis on "X". In effect the sources write the article; it is merely for editors to assemble and present the statements from them, giving due weight as required. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that anyone can denounce its ethnic heritage, this is exactly what Einstein taught, yes anyone can denounce its nationality and this is what Einstein did. I think it is of primary importance how Einstein declared himself. This is not just a case regarding him but about anyone. Of course his views about himself have to come from scholarly sources, yet this scholarly sources about his views on himself are beyond any doubt crucial in this discussion. I tried to present some of his views where he categorically stated who he is:

− "there are no German Jews, there are no Russian Jews, there are no American Jews..There are in fact only Jews." Albert Einstein −

--Tritomex (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, those are the same arguments Guitar hero made, that "you can't change your heritage or background". Well, Einstein's background and heritage was Jewish, not German.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Einstein's background and heritage was Jewish, not German. - As I have said before no guess work - find sources to back up made claims - thus far all I see is "what I think should be" by many - I do find Tritomex quotes very interesting but not relevant. Many in the world have a denounce affiliation with there place of birth or heritage (things like religion, language customs etc.) but this does not rewrite the past of anyone. As I mentioned above could care less about this little picture problem. What I am trying to (as I did with the article scope and lead) is direct all towards a productive talk = making suggestions supported by sources or policy here on Wiki. Not just ranting about what they think is right or that they may be offended by someone position. Over and over wer have rants with no reference to back them up. I see a whole page on a conversion with two sides just stating what they think. If your for inclusion provide references as to why - if your for exclusion provide references to that affect. Must move forward - thus limiting the personal opinions. Moxy (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Turks are not ethnic Germans and Turks with German passports and citizenship are not either. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I think scholarly reference about how Einstein viewed himself are the most important sources in this question, I do not think we have to prove what Einstein was not. We know from sources that he was Jewish, in some period of his life he was German citizen, latter renounced its citizenship, than became American citizen etc. As a free humans we all have the right to decide where we belong and this right can not be taken away from anyone. Similar, although much more complicated example is Serbian filmmaker Emir Kusturica who was born in Bosnia, had Bosniak ancestry, but as he view himself as Serb, the Misplaced Pages article about him states he is Serbian. This of course does not mean that there are no scholarly references that Einstein was Jewish, but that the burden to prove something lies on those who claim that he was ethically German.

"The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence-these are features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my lucky stars that I belong to it." Albert Einstein.--Tritomex (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethically? If you mean ethnically, than the point you don't address is that the article also discusses other metrics for Germans. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker: Yes ethnically. May I ask you to elaborate on that issue. Just in order not to misunderstand each other.--Tritomex (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The other metrics include native land (land of birth) and native language. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What a discussion. This idiosyncratic definition rather complies to demography of Germany, but this article still goes under the Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. Moreover, "identified" is a pretty vacuous term and passive voice is discouraged in WP for good reasons, particularly in the lead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The cited source Lowell Barrington: Comparative Politics does not support the claim that Germans are "defined as ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural". Please quote first on talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Right of return

Its been some time (not since the mid 1990s) that I have read up on "right of return" policy and cant find any new info on it. Anyone have a book to recommend that is very modern on this topic. As we should mention the Warsaw pact nations peoples that can return to Germany - and if I remember correctly those from China can also claim German citizenship - is this still active since the 2000 nationality laws?Moxy (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also confused about this and was going to research the matter. I think they phased this out at some point, but the criteria they used are going to give us a lot of insight into an almost official definition of some variant of German ethnicity. Hans Adler 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Official German state laws definition to be precise. The German law of return give people who can prove they have German roots citizenship. They can prove it by showing they speak the language from home. From what I understand about this law (which was still valid one in 2002 if I remember right) it doesn't matter if one was from a minority like Gypsies and Jews or ethnic German so the term ethnicity in this case only reflects the Bundestag position or the political situation in Germany during the time this law was modified. As far as I remember German embassies reported many cases of people who pretend to have German roots-like Kazakh who demonstrated mastery in German language that was so exceptional it led the German authorities to conclusion that he learn the language professionally and not from home. I may be wrong, it maybe that Jew who ask citizenship based on this law (there are many Jews from East Europe who can speak reasonable level of German) will be rejected. In any case, don't open new sections-you recycle the discussion and we already have consensus about the scope of this article few threads above.--Gilisa (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats sounds like what I remember. Do you have a source for this info - So we can verify and thus work on the wording of this info based on a/or many sources.Moxy (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I never heard about that language trick, but I heard that it tended to be easier for Jews as assimilation in Eastern Europe tended to be slower for them than for other German speakers. I think at some point the courts had to decide whether Eastern European Jews normally speak German due to a German or a Jewish identity.

The German sources on these matters are likely going to be the most complete and precise. They are also easier to find because it's clear what words to search for (it's not always clear how to translate a technical term), so I will start evaluating them. My first find is the following legal definition from the Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der Vertriebenen und Flüchtlinge ("law about the matters of the displaced persons and refugees", usually abbreviated Bundesvertriebenengesetz or BVFG) :

§ 6. Volkszugehörigkeit

(1) Deutscher Volkszugehöriger im Sinne dieses Gesetzes ist, wer sich in seiner Heimat zum deutschen Volkstum bekannt hat, sofern dieses Bekenntnis durch bestimmte Merkmale wie Abstammung, Sprache, Erziehung, Kultur bestätigt wird.

(2) Wer nach dem 31. Dezember 1923 geboren worden ist, ist deutscher Volkszugehöriger, wenn er von einem deutschen Staatsangehörigen oder deutschen Volkszugehörigen abstammt und sich bis zum Verlassen der Aussiedlungsgebiete durch eine entsprechende Nationalitätenerklärung oder auf vergleichbare Weise nur zum deutschen Volkstum bekannt oder nach dem Recht des Herkunftsstaates zur deutschen Nationalität gehört hat. Das Bekenntnis zum deutschen Volkstum oder die rechtliche Zuordnung zur deutschen Nationalität muss bestätigt werden durch die familiäre Vermittlung der deutschen Sprache. Diese ist nur festgestellt, wenn jemand im Zeitpunkt der verwaltungsbehördlichen Entscheidung über den Aufnahmeantrag, in Fällen des § 27 Abs. 2 im Zeitpunkt der Begründung des ständigen Aufenthalts im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes, auf Grund dieser Vermittlung zumindest ein einfaches Gespräch auf Deutsch führen kann, es sei denn, er kann die familiäre Vermittlung auf Grund einer später eingetretenen Behinderung im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Satz 1 des Neunten Buches Sozialgesetzbuch nicht mehr auf diese Weise nachweisen. Ihre Feststellung entfällt, wenn die familiäre Vermittlung wegen der Verhältnisse in dem jeweiligen Aussiedlungsgebiet nicht möglich oder nicht zumutbar war oder wenn dem Aufnahmebewerber die deutsche Sprache wegen einer in seiner Person vorliegenden Behinderung im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Satz 1 des Neunten Buches Sozialgesetzbuch nicht vermittelt werden konnte. Ein Bekenntnis zum deutschen Volkstum wird unterstellt, wenn es unterblieben ist, weil es mit Gefahr für Leib und Leben oder schwerwiegenden beruflichen oder wirtschaftlichen Nachteilen verbunden war, jedoch auf Grund der Gesamtumstände der Wille unzweifelhaft ist, der deutschen Volksgruppe und keiner anderen anzugehören.

This is from the latest version of the law and still in effect. The first version was from 1953, so this paragraph will have changed over the years. It will be interesting to see if there were any significant changes.

I am not translating this right now, as this is tricky and I have little time. In any case we will also need court decisions to see how the hard cases, which due to the present dispute we are perhaps most interested in, are/were handled in practice. Hans Adler 11:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who speak German, there is some very interesting information here: . It appears that there are special immigration rules for Eastern European Jews that are so much more convenient than those for the German minority in Eastern Europe, that they should normally be more attractive. Apart from some privileges (simpler process, no quota) the main difference is that on immigration as a Jew one does not get German citizenship but a perpetual right to live and work in Germany and make use of social benefits in exactly the same way as those who come as Germans. Elsewhere I found the information that this is in effect since 1991.

According to the German Misplaced Pages , the above paragraph was taken almost literally from the corresponding Nazi law of 1939. It appears that Hans Globke was responsible for this. Only the following sentence was removed: "Personen artfremden Blutes, insbesondere Juden, sind niemals deutsche Volkszugehörige, auch wenn sie sich bisher als solche bezeichnet haben." ("Persons of dissimilar blood, especially Jews, are never deutsche Volkszugehörige, even if they have so far referred to themselves as such.")

If I remember correctly, at some point there was a court decision to the effect that while the paragraph now obviously can apply to Jews, it does not apply to German-speaking Jews who thought of themselves as Jews rather than German, not Jews and Germans, and who were persecuted as Jews rather than as Germans. This was felt unfair towards those who distanced themselves from being German as a reaction to the Nazis (as Einstein seems to have done, for example), and that may be one of the reasons for the 1991 rules on facilitated Jewish immigration. (The other is of course that modern Germany has an interest in having a thriving Jewish population. In that respect the law wasn't as successful as the numbers might lead one to believe, as previously liberal Jewish communities in Germany were overrun with a strange mixture of orthodox Jews and supposed Jews who didn't know the first thing of Jewish religion and traditions. That obviously caused some frictions.) No good sources for this yet, but I will look for them this evening or during the weekend. Hans Adler 12:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Collection of sources that may turn out useful

OK, a few more sources for later detailed evaluation (put here so I don't forget about them):

• Huge collection of decisions related to displaced persons.
• A German Landgericht says explicitly that the idea that a member of the Jewish people can at most be of German nationality but not a member of the German people is wrong. (Context was a criminal case for an antisemitic letter to the government.)
• Interesting decision of a Land's constitutional court in a complicated case involving German, Jewish and Lithuanian identities.
• Same court says explicitly that with German and Jewish ethnicity it's complicated and they are not incompatible. You could be registered as one only in the Soviet Union and still be the other as well.
• "A rabbi can be a German, too". A 1969 newspaper article on the racism that still lingered in the Bundesvertriebenengesetz.

Hans Adler 12:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• According to Radio Prague's German service : In the early 20th century, Czechoslovakia was the only Central European country which recognised Jews as a national minority and gave them collective privileges. In the 1921 census not all Jews declared themselves to be members of this minority. The numbers were 30% for Bohemia, 50% for Slovakia and 90% for the Czech parts of Ukraine. In Bohemia, most Jews spoke Czech and identified themselves primarily as Czech. Most of the German-speaking Jews identified themselves as members of the German minority. Zionists identified as Jewish. All of these, and also atheists with Jewish roots, were represented in Bohemia's elite. In other parts of the country Jews tended to be more orthodox and less assimilated. Hans Adler 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• In October 1933, the League of Nations debated whether the German Jews should get protection as a minority. The various countries' positions are interesting. Germany: The Jews are neither a linguistic nor a national minority, do not feel like one, and don't want to be treated as one. UK: It is true that they are neither a linguistic nor a national minority, but they should still be protected as a minority. France: Jews actually don't agree whether they are a minority or not. The French Jews regard themselves as French, and in former times the German Jews surely referred to themselves as Germans. Nevertheless, due to discrimination by German laws they are a minority and need protection. Hans Adler 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• This scholarly book seems to imply that in the 1930s the Jews in Germany were so assimilated that they did not form a national minority, and that some Zionists embraced a strategy of 'dissimilation' to become one. Hans Adler 14:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• It appears that the largest Jewish organisation in early 20th century Germany was the Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens. It represented persons who thought of themselves as Germans of Jewish faith. Einstein's 1920 strong criticism on the occasion of an invitation by the Centralverein settles the Einstein/mosaic matter for me. Hans Adler 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if he wrote "Aryan(s)", as in your first source, or "goy" (any non-Jew), as in Rosenkranz' version (quoted earlier in this thread). Iblardi (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is lots out there we can read by way of books as seen at books.google/Germans. What we will have to talk about is what are the best ones to use - is something like Yehuda Cohen (1 February 2010). The Germans: Absent Nationality and the Holocaust. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-358-4. comprehensive and balanced? Moxy (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that nowadays, the ethnogenesis of the Germans is generally dated to late 18th century, early 19th century. This implies that any discussion of the Germans before that time is not about German ethnicity but about other cultural or political units, or about creation myths of the German ethnicity.
• Popular accounts date the beginning of some vague form of German identity to some time around 800-1000. (Proper sources???)
• If we ever get around to discussing minorities in detail, it will be interesting that there was a language that was related to Sorbian and the other West Slavic languages in a similar way to the relation of Yiddish to German: Knaanic language. Even as a Slavic language it may be strongly related to Yiddish, via relexification. Hans Adler 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Article structure and content

We now have a overwhelming concusses about what the article should be about. That is "broad" in nature representing Germans as a people defined by there main criteria - (historical and/or cultural) - (ethnic) - (residential and/or legal). This would cover almost anyone who is or do consider themselves German in or outside the modern country. Lets go over the article section by section to see how it can be improved. I believe we need to add a whole section about and that leads to German nationality law.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not very happy about the sections History and Identity. I doubt that we need a long section on the history of "the Germans". That's the job of History of Germany. Not completely sure, though. Hans Adler 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• This in my opinion is pretty good as is - talks about old and new concepts, diaspora and immigrants as well as mentioning world totals.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  Looks more or less OK to me but probably needs a lot of tedious work to get the details exactly right. Language is one of the most important points, but is hidden in the more general point 'culture'. If you can speak standard German without a foreign accent and you don't immediately look 'foreign', you will pass for an ethnic German. It's even better if you can speak a local dialect. In that case a lot of people will even 'forgive' you if you look 'black'. Apart from the language, German culture is just an extract from the continuum of European culture, and is as diverse as the size of Germany (or the German-speaking area) would suggest. Many things that are internationally considered typical aspects of German culture (Neuschwanstein, cuckoo clocks, the River Rhine, Berlin, Oktoberfest) are typical for only a tiny part of Germany, or even no longer typical at all. Hans Adler 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

• Not sure why this is even here - its about how the country was named - not its people. The naming of the country is well covered in the article that is actually about the country. Should be removed and replaced with a section called "Population" like at Canadians#Population.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

History

• We will need to add some history on more groups as represented at History of German settlement in Central and Eastern Europe as well as modern peoples linked from {{Germans}}.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

• A bit long I think.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Language

• In my opinion should be moved to a sub section of culture or identity.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Geographic distribution

• Have no problem here that I see - but we should talk about the name of the parent article call Ethnic Germans - would German diaspora not be more appropriate thus we would have space for a real article covering a socio-racial classification system?Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Culture

• Needs a bit of a trim and a hell of alot of refs.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Identity

• Needs lots of verification and needs to mention the identity crisis among Jews and Turks and other groups.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Closely related articles

Articles should never be considered in isolation, but always in the context of surrounding articles. Some changes to this ecosystem may also be necessary. Let's collect closely related articles here to see how everything fits together and whether we need to reorganise something. Hans Adler 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

German nationality law

This article so far focuses on the modern situation. We should add historical information, although this can mostly consist in pointers to relevant subarticles. (Maybe broaden to "German nationality" or, to be more explicit, "German citizenship"?)

Imperial Germans

(Reichsdeutsche) Covers German nationality 1871-1945. (Is this article necessary, as opposed to a redirect to a section?)

Federal Germans

(Bundesdeutsche) Stub on West German nationality 1945-1989 and German nationality since 1989 (reunification). (Is this stub worth expanding, as opposed to a redirect to a section?)

Ethnic Germans

Contrary to what the name suggests, this is only about ethnic Germans in one sense (Deutschstämmige) who live outside the main continuous German-speaking area, or more generally about Germans outside Germany. (Maybe broaden to discuss German ethnicity in general? Or merge into present article? Or rename for clarity?)

Firstly thank you for bring up these articles that clearly should be summarized here and thusly linked. As I mentioned above and agree with you here - the fact "Ethnic Germans" is misleading and I believe should be called "German diaspora" (currently the redirect) - thus making room for a real article on German ethnicity. If things continue to progess in a positive manner - we could go for GA status after this is over. Moxy (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche

This is about a legal definition of one form of German ethnicity, based primarily on language and culture, though pre-1945 also with an element of 'race'.

National minorities in Germany

There really should be an article on this. See de:Nationale Minderheit#Deutschland. The closest thing seems to be Association of National Minorities in Germany, a stub related to 1924-1939. (Even national minority is only a redirect to minority group and not particularly helpful given that national minority is a notion of international law.)

History of Germany

German language

German language in Europe

German as a minority language

Strongly related to ethnic Germans in that article's current form.

Demographics of Germany

Moxy, who is supporting this consensus and on what grounds? It seems that the cart is put before the horse: not a single source has been identified yet that supports this overly wide definition of German. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Brandeis, Louis (April 25, 1915). "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It". University of Louisville School of Law. Retrieved April 2, 2012. Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member
2. Palmer, Edward Henry (October 14, 2002) . A History of the Jewish Nation: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Gorgias Press. ISBN 978-1-931956-69-7. OCLC 51578088. Retrieved April 2, 2012. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
3. Einstein, Albert (June 21, 1921). "How I Became a Zionist" (PDF). Einstein Papers Project. Princeton University Press. Retrieved April 5, 2012. The Jewish nation is a living fact