![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Mozart was Austrian not German ! German ???? My god -- 93.147.196.203 ( talk) 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Famous Germans collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC) |
"If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." so, Albert Einstein was a Jew, while the Nazi regime decline his German citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.171.142 ( talk) 11:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. This needs references. There is really no contradiction between being an ethnic endonym and being a common word. Such endonyms frequently have this kind of etymology. The calque suggestion strikes me as problematic too. Who made this suggestion? The linguistic use of vulgaris is a product of a culturally specific dichotomy, namely, high register versus low register use in the world of the Wahla; it is hard to see how this would have made sense in the Germanic world. Also the word is used in England as a word for the English language (8th century I think). This suggests the word was coined before the Anglo-Saxon migrations. It is perfectly plausible that the word spread from Frankish of course, though in a Frankish sense anything calquing vulgaris would be more likely referring to the walhisc language of Gaul than the aristocratic/military Germanic language. Also, the Oaths of Strasbourg contrast the term teudisca with romana when the latter clearly refers to vulgar Latin, suggesting very strongly that in the "Old High German" period the word diutisc was used ethnically. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The main article is theodiscus. This is indeed a case of an ethnic endonym developing from a common word (adjective). There is a significant difference between France and Germany here: In France, the subject population was Roman (i.e. "Welsh") and the ruling population was Germanic ("theodiscus"). In Germany, there was no Latin-speaking subject population, and Latin was the language of the educated classes (clergy) from the beginning.
I base my claim of the original (8th century) meaning of diutisc on this,
I do think that the summary I presented can still be improved. What I have done so far is, I have fixed the completely garbled "Etymology" section. The points I wanted to express are
Yes this is the result of a gradual process, and who knows to what extent the teudisca of the 8th or 9th century had "ethnic" overtones, but the transition to an ethnic endonym is only complete once you have a name (a noun) referring to people, not just their language. This was the case around 1200. I don't know if it can be shown for earlier times, and would be interested in pointers if it can.
And no, this is not just the regular case of the development of an ethnonym. Most other nations of western Europes take their endonyms from tribal or geographical names, and the term for the languages are adjectives derived from those: French: Franks, English: Angli, Scots: Scoti, Irish: Eire, Austrian: March of Austria, Swiss: Schwyz. Spanish: Hispania , Italian: Italy. Swedes: Sviar. Danish: Dani, Serbs: Serboi. The Germans (Deutsche) are really quite the exception in this list, comparable perhaps only with the Shqiptar, and perhaps with the Slovaks/ Slovenes and the Hellenes. -- dab (𒁳) 10:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll make an edit to the page and you can tell me what you think. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Regards,
Gisele Bündchen is indeed of German origin, but she was born in Brazil and Her nationality is Brazil, and Her parents were born in Brazil, so it's no more place her in category: Germans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.82.171 ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
2 women out of 25? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
0 out of 25 german-ukrainians ?!?! is this some kind of joke ?!?! germans who live in ukraine should be included Jackssonklock ( talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There don´t live many famous Germans in Ukraine. 77.13.134.190 ( talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can we have Adolf Hitler as one of the famous Germans?? He was bad yes, but still he had huge impact in the worlds history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 ( talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) he was Austrian. Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC). >>Uh, let's face it...Hitler's the MOST famous German to have ever lived. But you're not allowed to give him any credit for anything and you must spit on the ground after mentioning his name. This is what we've been conditioned to do. It's a joke. Intellectual dishonesty runs rampant in the West. Fame is no longer assigned by how many people know of you, it's now assigned, or denied, by those prone to sentimentality and emotional outbursts. Hitler has become the new Satan. Meet the new Satan, same as the old Satan, except now with utopian ideology, a stupid haircut and a funny little mustache! 67.1.63.198 ( talk) 15:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Argentine and the sources listed in there ( http://www.hospitalaleman.com.ar/hospital/hist_anios_2_ha.htm | http://www.cacw.com.ar/sitio/notas_detalle.php?id=NTk= )there are about 3 million German-Argentines. Why are here only listed fewer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.166.134 ( talk) 02:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've brought up this point since the Wikipedia article on Einstein says that his ethnicity was Jewish. This article states it is about Germans as a Germanic ethnic group, not German citizens. I know that this comment may be viewed with suspicion, I am not some anti-Semitic neo-Nazi trying to deny that Einstein was a member of German society, what I am saying is that although he was a German citizen he is not an ethnic German that is the topic of this article. With these important points of clarification this brings me to the point that his image should not be included in a group of ethnic Germans, such a photo can be put on the article about German citizens to represent Einstein as an important historical German citizen.-- R-41 ( talk) 04:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem, R-41, is that you misrepresnted three sources. Olzak says that genealogy is only one of four possible criteria for ethnic identification — which supports Maunus's point. Wade first defines ethnicity as "tracing relatedness through common history and culture" which does not support your view, and then says that ethnicity frequently invokes notions of genealogy and origins (the operative word being frequently which does not mean always) (and another operative word being "invokes;" he is not describing what an ethnic group really is, but rather a particular ideology of ethnicity. Did you actually read Wade's book? Do you really understand his argument? Because it looks like you are cherry-picking. Anyone who reads the book will see that Wade's argument is that discourses of nature and culture draw on one another in complex ways, and his discussion of discourses of ethnicity that invoke genealogy is part of a larger deconstruction of the opposition between race and ethnicity, in which his real argument is that (just as ethnic discourses are not always just about culture), racial discourses are not always about biology. He is relativizing both concepts. Do you not understand this argument, or did you just not read the book? Finally, Rata is arguing that in a capitalist globalized world Samoans turn to genealogies as a way to construct historicized understandings of their own culture. She is making a very specific argument about Samoan culture in the 20th century and she is not making any global claims about ethnicity. None of the links you provide are about Germans or Jews, but all of them make it explicitly clear that the meaning, form, and definition of ethnicity varies over time and space and that any particular group of people's understanding of ethnicity must be understood in its cultural and historical context. Which, again, supports Maunus's point. Slrubenstein | Talk
On the complications of Ethnicity:
On the ways in which Jewish ethnicity were differentiated at the turn of the 20th century:
On the complex ways in which Jewish and German ethnic identities interact in Germany today read:
On the ways in which being ethnically German is complicated:
And then we can talk. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank editors for their long explanations and lists of a paper titles showing that their is debate on the nature of ethnicity. But sadly I feel i may be irrelevant to the point under discussion. Whether Einstein thought of himself as a German is pretty much nailed by this source:
"This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing 1997, 494–505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of “mimicry” (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his “tribal companions” (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 644–5), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the building of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: “My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations” (in Fölsing 1997, 488). According to Fölsing, Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: “As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity]” (in Fölsing 1997, 488). " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Table Lamp 47 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
O my goodness, what a discussion. Firstly, Einstein did never regard himself a German. He disliked the Germans (even long before the rise of the Nazi regime) and would be quite offended if he knew that you call him "German". Secondly, a German national identity did not evolve in the 18th. Its development startet in the 11th century and ended in the 16th century. Thirdly, the concept of ethnicity has always been about heritage -- at least in Germany. This wasn't a Nazi or anti-Semitic invention of the 19th/20th century but existed since the first person called himself German. Today, a lot of people may find this racist but that doesn't change the historic facts. Einstein didn't think of himself as an ethnic German, nor would any other person during his lifetime would have thought of him as such. -- Orthographicus ( talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This argument is stupid. Ethnicity is clearly defined in the dictionary. Einstein was an ethnic Jew. How can Einstein be an ethnic German if he was in fact an ethnic Jew? What I hear is the hypersensitive ramblings of what I suspect to be either a German or some leftist. Listen, if you are a German you don't have to feel bad about the holocaust anymore. Now, step aside and let grown folks talk. Ethnicity is solely based on genealogy, end of discussion. Ask any anthropologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.43.217 ( talk) 22:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
>>"I hate racism!" "Nu uh, I hate racism more!" You do realize that if this were Nazi Germany you'd most likely be it's staunchest supporters, right? You're some of the most easily conditioned fools on the planet. Talk about a bunch of parrots. But at least one of the parrots still has at least a toe on the ground of reality. No amount of indoctrination can make the original definition of Ethnicity "flawed and outdated." The Germanic people are a distinct Ethnicity as are certain groups of Jews like Sephardic and Ashkenazi. If it became politically correct to call a rock a pillow, face it, you'd do it. Because Paulie wants a cracker. BAWWWK! And I'm not a Neo-Nazi, either. I am a racist, sorry, because I see where the world's headed with you morons in charge. You guys puff your chest out and thump it by saying "I'm so hardcore a fanatic I even change the definitions of words to fit into my political world view! Beat that typical, white guilt suffering Canadian with an indian girlfriend!" Hell, one day Green may be Pink. And what do you guys call this? Progress? It'd be funny if it weren't so terrifying. 67.1.63.198 ( talk) 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
What a laughable joke this discussion is.
I can't believe that time after time facts are brushed aside for personal preference.
Jewish is an ethnicity
Germanic is an ethnicity
you can be both, IE part Jewish, part Germanic.
but Einstein was not.
he was Jewish, Semitic, and eventually American.
Far leftists without even a basic understanding of anthropology have taken over wikipedia
-- 99.231.215.49 ( talk) 01:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not Nazi propaganda. German ethnicity is distinct and separate from that of Jewish Ethnicity. Otherwise, you deny the existence of either the Jewish or German ethnicity. Which is racist. If you are an ethnic jew, you can not be an ethnic german. Otherwise one of the two does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.83.170 ( talk) 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What a hissy fit by a bigot - yes you are a bigot despite your denial above - you are the same user who posted here earlier after the discussion had ended and been resolved by pouring out bigoted statements about me having a Native American partner - I mentioned that because I was being accused of being a racist for bringing up this matter. But okay, let's take you at your word for a moment - you say that you aren't proposing this out Einstein assimilated to become American - fine REMOVE Einstein on the grounds that he became American - NOT because he was Jewish, Marx was German - DON'T remove him. And yes German Jews have identified as Germans, Eduard Lasker was a GERMAN NATIONALIST AND HE WAS JEWISH. Source: The Making of a German Nationalist: Eduard Lasker's Early Years, 1829-1847.-- R-41 ( talk) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
In the archive I found a discussion about the Germanness of Switzerland and other German-speaking territories, and I must say: all German-speaking territories regarded themselves as German until the 20th century. Liechtenstein sang of his Germanness in its national anthem until 1963. You'll find the text here on Wikipedia. I found a speech Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Vetter from Bern gave in Nuremberg in 1902 when the Germanisches Nationalmuseum celebrated its 50th anniversary. In his speech, Vetter says that Switzerland remained German in ethnic and cultural terms although it had been separated from the political Germany since 1648. I can present you the speech if you're interested. Luxembourg was member of the German Confederation until 1866 and sent representatives to the National Assembly in Francfort in 1848/49. Even the Netherlands did not deny their common heritage with Germany which is why they spoke about Nederduytschers (Lower Germans) and Overlenders, a distinction also made in the English language until the 18th century. No one denies that all those nations have an own identity nowadays and do not regard themselves as German anymore. But 100 years ago, things were different, and we can't just ignore that in an article about the German people. This information must at least be mentioned properly. -- Orthographicus ( talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Except giant chunks of what you just said is wrong. Dutch comes from Frankish, while German comes from High German. Frankish was spoken in the middle of Germany in ancient times, while High German was spoken in Austria, Bavaria and Switzerland. Mountain areas. Why do you Germans not understand that your ancestors were not involved in the Great Germanic Migration? You were a bunch of goat herders who got lucky that everyone else left Germany, leaving you free to take over. 96.241.155.90 ( talk) 10:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added a key point of clarification to the figures quoted for Geographical distribution for the UK. The figure of 266,000 quoted includes anyone born in Germany. The peculiarity always noted with this figure is that it includes children born to British Military personnel serving in UK Military bases in Germany (a large number of personnel during the Cold War). It does not mean that there are actually 266,000 people self-identifying as 'German' in the UK. A more detailed breakdown is not available. Indisciplined ( talk) 11:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"In 1866, because Austria and Prussia could not decide on what was the right solution on how a unified Germany was to happen caused several problems inside the German Confederation between the two top German states. The main reasons behind this war was because the Austrian Empire was not willing to give up any of the German lands it owned and was hoping to unify and lead Germany as "Greater Germany" and therefore did not want to take second place to Prussia. On the other hand Prussia was wanting to unify Germany as "Little Germany" and exclude Austria from it. This consequently seen the Prussians successfully defeat the Austrians and thus Austria now was no longer part of the German Confederation and no longer took part in German politics and the "Little Germany" was prevailed.[14]"
I did this myself anyways and I think this should be changed to this as it comes across as more understanding and better to read -
"In 1866, the long ending feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There was a few reasons what was behind this war. As German nationalism grew inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand were wanting to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria. In the final battle of the German war (Battle of Königgrätz) the Prussians successfully defeated the Austrians and succeeded in creating the North German Confederation.[14]"
What's the problem with that Dr.K.?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How does it not make sense and no what is the problem with it, you rephrase it then? This part of the article does need sorting out.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 04:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The feud had been going on a long time and it had now came to an end?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 05:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay what about "The feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end"
It needs changing this bit of the EMP to be better read and understood.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay yes it does make more sense so which would be better "There were a few reasons" or 2There were multiple reasons"?
What else in the edited version doesn't make sense?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So is it alright to change it to "In 1866, The feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There were a few reasons behind this war. As German nationalism grew inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand wanted to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria. In the final battle of the German war (Battle of Königgrätz) the Prussians successfully defeated the Austrians and succeeded in creating the North German Confederation."-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed, looks great.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why has Catgut reverted it?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well Catgut can clearly see we've debated this for the last couple of days and both of us were happy and he/she did not even comment here yet reverted it, I've reverted it back.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if Catgut wants to discuss why it should be reverted back then he is more than open to via here otherwise I see no reason in changing it when me and you have discussed the changes and both gave it a go ahead.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"The dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire after World War I led to a strong desire of the population of the new Republic of German Austria to be integrated into Germany or Switzerland.[16] This was, however, prevented by the Treaty of Versailles."
Do you not think the Germany should be linked to Germany - my reason being is because "Germany" has changed quite a bit and it will make people understand that only then the Weimar Republic was created after the end of WWI and the falling of the German Empire and many Austrians were thriving for the Greater Germany idea.
"The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, attempted to unite all people they claimed Germans"
Would it not be - all the people they claimed were Germans?
The Czechoslovakia should also be changed just to Sudetenland as that is not all of Czechoslovakia.
Would this be acceptable to change?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Iron Curtain unofficially fell in 1989 -- not 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScaryTruth ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Since I have been asked to comment on my recent reverts I will do so. There are two issues here — one, the edits by Vincentnufcr1 have made a section that is already not in very good shape, markedly worse. For example, this user composed the sentence "As German nationalism grew strongly inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand wanted to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria." The length and convoluted wording of this sentence not only challenges comprehension, but is also ungrammatical (the subjects in this sentence are obscure, and it finishes with a run-on sentence). In addition, there is some very awkward wording elsewhere, for instance, "successfully defeated", "succeeded in creating", and the reference at the end of the section in question remained unchanged despite extensive changes to this section. This leaves one to wonder whether any of the new content is properly sourced. The lone source at the end actually turns out to be an obscure website rather than a scholarly article or book. In short, this is very poor content.
Which brings me to my second point, which is my contention that the user Vincentnufcr1 is a new account of a blocked user who had made a number of tendentious and similarly poorly worded edits to entries dealing with German and Austrian history and persons, including this entry (for example, as 14Adrian). Cleaning up the edits of this individual took an inordinate amount of effort, and while perusing the edit history of this entry, I noticed that some of these low-quality edits may still be present in the section in question, which is why I endeavoured to repair some of it. I will refrain for now from making any suggestions as to how this section can be restored with properly worded and sourced content, until the editing conflicts due to the recent insertions by Vincentnufcr1 are independently resolved. Thanks. Malljaja ( talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
600 000 German Argentines is an estimation, the embassy gives an estimation of 1 000 000 germans argentines [11], plus 2 000 000 volga germans [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can someone REMOVE "Germanic ethnic group" from the main introduction lede , rationale : how are the germans any diffrent from any other germanic speaking peoples , for example the swedes , norweigians and dutch austrians , those articles does not mention "Germanic ethnic group" in the lead so goes the same for germans so am asking some established editor a request to removing "Germanic ethnic group" from the germans , i mean wikipedia should not contradict itself , as said why arent the people above count as germanic if the germans do
95.199.19.4 (
talk)
19:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: I'm not following your argument. This article deals with "Germans as an ethnic group" not as the residents of Germany or as german speaking people.
Celestra (
talk)
21:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
1. swedes 2. Norwegians 3. danes 4. austrians 5. english people 6. dutch people 7. scots
repeat all theese articles is solely about ethnic groups not About the citizens of the given countries (see citezenship in XX , articles) neither pure demographic articles (which already exist ofcourse) the germans are not even some kind of a "Germanic core area" as the germanic peoples originated in northern germany and scandinavia , so are you following my logic now ? no other ethnic groups article use "Germanic ethnic group" so why should the germans ethnic group article be any diffrent so please remove it now 95.199.28.115 ( talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: The text appears valid. The fact that other articles use other text is not a reason to change this article. If there is something incorrect about the text, please simply state what is wrong and provide a
reliable source which supports the change. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
MOST AUSTRIANS ARE ETHNICALLY GERMAN Saying that Austrians are a "related ethnic group" is ridiculous. The author shouldn´t use politics in wikipedia. Austrians are ethnically German obviously.-- 95.120.205.218 ( talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion about thet question on Talk:Austrians. You might want to join in.-- Glorfindel Goldscheitel ( talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 28 March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
"Albrect Durer" should "Albrecht Dürer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.64.113 ( talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The given source does not represent the genetic make up of the present day german population, but tries to reconstruct a situation around 1500 which ist, as the source itself mentions "guesswork". As far as I am concerned the section should be deleted, as it does not represent any information about germans as they are. Alternatively (that is if recent data can be presented) the sections genetics and ethnicity should be restructured as "3. anthropology", "3.1 Ethnicity" (or cultural anthropology) and "3.2 genetics". The "genetics" section should be modified to represent the fact, that notions of germanness does not correspond to the german genetic make up. A discussion of the racial (and racist) untertones of many (past and present) concepts of germanness could be includet in the ethnicity section. Furthermore the racialy stereotyped pictures of recent germans (all (!) of them feature blond persons in the center. Actually only less then half of germans are!) should be reviewed. Wikipedia should not become a place of racial stereotyping, nor a playground for racists, to impose their scewed views on a (compared to germany) less sensitized audience/wikipedia community. Regards 193.175.103.57 ( talk) 12:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Nicolaus Copernicus was Polish , not German! Top811 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC).
I'm from Poland. In Polish schools teach that Kopernik (Copernicus) was a Polish.I was in Toruń (the home of Nicholas), it was fun. I live in Gniezno. Sorry for the blah, I was sure that he was of Poland. Greetings from Polish :) Top811 ( talk)
The actual problem here is that there was a previous image on Commons but it was deleted by [ Fastily] (sigh!) because it "had no source" [14]. Then another version of the image was restored, but the problem here is that this new version was uploaded by a user who is indef banned on Wikipedia for sock puppeting, copyright violations and nationalist edit warring [15]. I have changed that.
As an aside, in terms of pure aesthetics, the present image is way to cluttered and has way too many people in it. We actually had a similar issue over at Poles, where some editors just think it wonderful to try and cram in as many individuals into that collage as possible [16] (apparently "more people in infobox collage = national greatness!").
But once you get past a certain number, the picture looks like shit. And you can see that in the present image - most of those individual pics are cropped in weird ways, Marx doesn't have a forehead, Hahn doesn't have a chin, etc. and the whole thing looks like a huge mess. It would probably be a good idea to just a get a simplified, "less is more" kind of thing going on (though I gotta say, where the hell is David Hilbert???) VolunteerMarek 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, there's other hijinks in the present collage, like putting Catherine the Great in it. I mean, yeah, sure, she was German, sort of - but is she really a good illustration of "Germans"? There are also images in the collage which are not captioned, and which are not particularly relevant. I'm guessing Mr. Banned User Alphasinus was just being his usual wacky self or is subtly trolling here. VolunteerMarek 01:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
There was no consensus on the changes User:Volunteer Marek did to the File:Germans collage.jpg - now the file description does not match the people displayed anymore! [20] -- IIIraute ( talk) 12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense having gisele bundchen in this article she´s brazilian and just like north americans (usa) has a large population of german descendents so does brazil now she considers herself brazilian and not german. She´s just a famous brazilian model that by accident has german ancestry. Someone remove her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.71.18 ( talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please provide some academic references on why Ashkenazi Jews are to be regarded as ethnic Germans (other than linguistic ones), as well as references to your latest changes on "Related ethnic groups".-- IIIraute ( talk) 16:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The consensus here is clearly in favor of including assimilated German Jews as part of the German ethnicity. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
An issue has been raised on whether assimilated German Jewish people can be considered part of the German ethnicity. There are different arguments for and against.
The argument in favour of including German Jewish people as part of the German ethnicity is the claim that ethnicity is not exclusively based on geneaology as has commonly been assumed, but can be based on geneaology and/or culture and language. This argument claims that German Jewish people have become deeply assimilated and interconnected with Germans, in addition there have been a substantial number of German Jewish people who have intermarried with German non-Jewish people, or who adopted Christianity and German identity. In addition this argument notes that previous discussions on German ethnicity on this article have supported the inclusion of German Jewish people such as Karl Marx in the infobox.
The argument opposed to the inclusion of German Jewish people claims that while Jewish and German culture has intermixed, that on a numerical scale, most Ashkenazi Jews did not intermarry with German non-Jewish people and that Ashkenazi marriage and religious custom amongst other Jewish religious cultural issues remained homogeneous and autonomous from German culture; as such on a numerical level, Ashkenazi Jews have not influenced the development of the German ethnicity on a large scale, noting that the number of Jews in Germany is an extremely small minority of the total population of Germany. In addition this argument notes that the article on Ashkenazi Jews, does not mention that they are related to Germans.
Notes (please read before posting):
Please post your comments below.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: The discussion will end on 1 August 2012. If there is a consensus for inclusion or exclusion, that will be done. If there is no majority in favour of either side, but a substantial number of people who have declared themselves "unsure", then other options here will have to be undertaken, such as WP:EXPERT.-- R-41 ( talk) 04:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
|}
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has been overrun with airhead leftists trying to alter history and science to suit the sensibilities of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.83.170 ( talk) 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a German reader of this article. After stumbling upon the plural "peoples" several times in an excellently written text like this, I'm unsure as a non-native English speaker. Shouldn't it be "people" instead? Or does the word "people+s" exist? Sounds like a bad German accent in an English context to me. Hope you can resolve the issue for me as I didn't want to monkey with an article by correcting expressions I'm not sure wether they exist or not. Thank you -- 78.42.243.203 ( talk) 00:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Where's Hitler? Almost every non-German know him... (better than Otto Hahn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.225.223 ( talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hitler was German ethnic, i can get you his own quotes on his ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.205.176 ( talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
he was not Germanic....
I understand he was a German national, but there are Turkish/Arab/African German nationals as well..
this article is supposed to be about the Germanic ethnic group in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.215.49 ( talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
????
Marx? Einstein?
is there a reason for this obvious inconsistency?
-- Savakk ( talk) 14:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. As a Jew, I am offended that we are being included in this article as Germans. Our greatest enemies and murderers are a completely different ethnicity than us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.65.46.71 ( talk) 07:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
first of all, no, it's not "Nazi propaganda" it's a basic understanding of linguistic and ethnic history.
you may be a German Jew, but that is with regards to nationality and perhaps culture, your ethnic origins lie in Western Asia, whereas the Germanic Germans are indigenous to Europe.
that is a serious distinction.
besides that clear and glaring fact, Einstein and Marx did not consider themselves German.
and the fact that you choose to accuse someone with a dissenting opinion of "being a Muslim" as if that is an insult shows you have no place moderating this page or any other.
-- Savakk ( talk) 18:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"The Old Prussians were an ethnic group related to the Latvian and Lithuanian Baltic peoples who mutually spoke languages of Finno-Ugric origins." Honestly, Latvian and Lithuanian are not languages of Finno-Ugric origin. They are Indo-European languages of the Baltic group (by extension, Balto-Slavic group). This is an epitome of ignorance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanny2012 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
why are south tyroleans counted as german while the austrians are not? either the population of austria is counted as german or the population of south tyrol must be removed. at the moment the article doesn't make really sense and lack coerence: in the lauguage section are numbered 250,000 native speakers in italy while in ancestry the number is doubled.
lastly in related ethnic groups the romansh are counted but that's a little arbitrary; the romansh since the middle ages have been subjected to assimilation\germanization that reduced their number to more or less irrelevance in switzerland, and while many swiss-germans are probably descendents of assimilated people the romansh are not germanic.
alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.100.128 ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of some rant by a soapboxing anti-Semitic bigot who had the manipulative nerve to deny bigotry while still promoting it by basically saying in a summarized form: "I'm not a bigot, but I'm repulsed by Jewish people being in the infobox, there is a vast left-wing conspiracy on Wikipedia to make Jews German, Einstein became American, Jews cannot ever be Germans, remove them all, blah, blah, blah". Though I will admit that one issue was raised by that bigoted user that is worth discussing. Einstein did become American and identified as American from that point on. Now of course American identity is not ethnic, but if Einstein did not identify as German after becoming American, that may be a ground for removing Einstein, as he did not identify as being of German identity. There are obviously going to be anti-Semitic users going to arrive here and if we do remove Einstein because he later identified as American, I don't want this to become a concession to the anti-Semitic bigot users who come here from time to time. Therefore I recommend replacing Einstein with German nationalist Eduard Lasker who was a self-identified German, was Jewish, and proponent of German identity, he did not renounce German identity for another identity like Einstein appears to have done. Source for Lasker affiliating with German identity: The Making of a German Nationalist: Eduard Lasker's Early Years, 1829-1847.-- R-41 ( talk) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As someone mentioned to me before, and I now regularly note: ethnicity is not exclusively based on geneaology, and there is no such thing as a "pure" ethnic group derived from one lineage alone, ethnicities evolve - they assimilate and absorb other ethnicities, Germans have predominantly Germanic roots but also have significant historical Latin heritage from Roman rule, and Slavic heritage from expanding eastward into Slavic populated lands - as said in the article, the former German state of Prussia itself adopted the name of the Balto-Slavic Old Prussians who spoke their own Balto-Slavic language prior to being assimilated into Germans, and famous northern German military strategist Karl von Clausewitz had Slavic heritage. Therefore claims of ethnic "purity" of Germans as exclusively Germanic people is Nordicist pseudoscience.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
should interesting information like this not be in the article?
http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This page couldn't be anymore bias & Anglocentric. I like how under ethnicity there is absolutely no mention of Angles or Saxons (they DID NOT all leave Germany). No mention of Vikings either despite Germany sharing a border with a Scandinavian country. Despite Germany having more Haplogroup I1 than England does. Despite the North of Germany looking more Germanic on average than ALL of England. Yet on England's page, whats the first thing they mention? Vikings. When the reality is the majority of Brits are Celts, and don't look Germanic at all.
The page goes even further to try an insinuate that Germans are more mixed than they are. Even going as far as to name Jews....Seriously? Both France & England have had higher populations of Jews than Germany. Infact France has more immigrants in their country than the whole of Europe (half their football team is black), and if you go to Paris, there is nothing but people from the 3rd world. No mention of this on France's page? yet they mention "Gauls" as if the french are anything similar to Gauls today.
Jews should not have even been listed anywhere on a topic about German ethnicity, they have remained a small number, and they generally have entirely different Haplogroups, and genetic markers than ethnic Germans and Europeans for the matter. They have nothing to do with modern German genetic make up. If you want to link Jews to someone in Europe, try Sicilians, thats who they cluster with, not Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:FDE4:FA3E:2BE4:137F ( talk) 15:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly do you take so much offense to the idea that most Jews are of German ancestry and that likewise there are likely Germans who had ancestors in the Jewish faith? I find it strange you seem to mention things like purity, "Germanicness" (protip- finland is blonder and more blue eyed than any "Germanic" country except Sweden)and Jews. 96.231.17.247 ( talk) 15:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I also find very weird the comments by the former user. Just for the record, since he mentions it, according to the Genetic Map above, England does have a higher Haplogroup I ratio than Germany. Besides, Germany, from a Haplogroup or "genetic lines" point of view, is quite diverse, as the Haplogroup map above shows. The Myth of Germanic "purity" is, as we know, linked to National Socialist propaganda, and modern genetic science kicks it in the ass. Actually, if we want to speak about "purity" from the point of view of genetic lines or "genetic families", we have to look at Eskimos, Amerindians or some African groups as examples, but certainly not at Europeans, let alone at Germans. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 find it very problematic to continue the discussion with several of the editors involved, for the fact that they were "recruitet" through canvassing! →→ [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] -- 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)
Those are some weird choices in the infobox. Eduard Lasker, Emma Ihrer, Christine Teusch, Walter Ulbricht, Christa Wolf and Nena? Not to say those aren't somehow important but there would be much more notable people to pick for this. Kant, Siemens, Gutenberg, Planck, Röntgen, Mozart, Adenauer, Marx just to name a few that would fit a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.64 ( talk) 15:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
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 [27]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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Ethnic Germans article clearly states: "This article is about the ethnic German diaspora." and therfore correlates perfectly with its German WP equivalent "Deutschstämmige" → [48]. 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" → [49]. -- IIIraute ( talk) 20:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Mozart was Austrian not German ! German ???? My god -- 93.147.196.203 ( talk) 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Famous Germans collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC) |
"If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." so, Albert Einstein was a Jew, while the Nazi regime decline his German citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.171.142 ( talk) 11:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. This needs references. There is really no contradiction between being an ethnic endonym and being a common word. Such endonyms frequently have this kind of etymology. The calque suggestion strikes me as problematic too. Who made this suggestion? The linguistic use of vulgaris is a product of a culturally specific dichotomy, namely, high register versus low register use in the world of the Wahla; it is hard to see how this would have made sense in the Germanic world. Also the word is used in England as a word for the English language (8th century I think). This suggests the word was coined before the Anglo-Saxon migrations. It is perfectly plausible that the word spread from Frankish of course, though in a Frankish sense anything calquing vulgaris would be more likely referring to the walhisc language of Gaul than the aristocratic/military Germanic language. Also, the Oaths of Strasbourg contrast the term teudisca with romana when the latter clearly refers to vulgar Latin, suggesting very strongly that in the "Old High German" period the word diutisc was used ethnically. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The main article is theodiscus. This is indeed a case of an ethnic endonym developing from a common word (adjective). There is a significant difference between France and Germany here: In France, the subject population was Roman (i.e. "Welsh") and the ruling population was Germanic ("theodiscus"). In Germany, there was no Latin-speaking subject population, and Latin was the language of the educated classes (clergy) from the beginning.
I base my claim of the original (8th century) meaning of diutisc on this,
I do think that the summary I presented can still be improved. What I have done so far is, I have fixed the completely garbled "Etymology" section. The points I wanted to express are
Yes this is the result of a gradual process, and who knows to what extent the teudisca of the 8th or 9th century had "ethnic" overtones, but the transition to an ethnic endonym is only complete once you have a name (a noun) referring to people, not just their language. This was the case around 1200. I don't know if it can be shown for earlier times, and would be interested in pointers if it can.
And no, this is not just the regular case of the development of an ethnonym. Most other nations of western Europes take their endonyms from tribal or geographical names, and the term for the languages are adjectives derived from those: French: Franks, English: Angli, Scots: Scoti, Irish: Eire, Austrian: March of Austria, Swiss: Schwyz. Spanish: Hispania , Italian: Italy. Swedes: Sviar. Danish: Dani, Serbs: Serboi. The Germans (Deutsche) are really quite the exception in this list, comparable perhaps only with the Shqiptar, and perhaps with the Slovaks/ Slovenes and the Hellenes. -- dab (𒁳) 10:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll make an edit to the page and you can tell me what you think. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Regards,
Gisele Bündchen is indeed of German origin, but she was born in Brazil and Her nationality is Brazil, and Her parents were born in Brazil, so it's no more place her in category: Germans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.82.171 ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
2 women out of 25? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
0 out of 25 german-ukrainians ?!?! is this some kind of joke ?!?! germans who live in ukraine should be included Jackssonklock ( talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There don´t live many famous Germans in Ukraine. 77.13.134.190 ( talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can we have Adolf Hitler as one of the famous Germans?? He was bad yes, but still he had huge impact in the worlds history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 ( talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) he was Austrian. Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC). >>Uh, let's face it...Hitler's the MOST famous German to have ever lived. But you're not allowed to give him any credit for anything and you must spit on the ground after mentioning his name. This is what we've been conditioned to do. It's a joke. Intellectual dishonesty runs rampant in the West. Fame is no longer assigned by how many people know of you, it's now assigned, or denied, by those prone to sentimentality and emotional outbursts. Hitler has become the new Satan. Meet the new Satan, same as the old Satan, except now with utopian ideology, a stupid haircut and a funny little mustache! 67.1.63.198 ( talk) 15:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Argentine and the sources listed in there ( http://www.hospitalaleman.com.ar/hospital/hist_anios_2_ha.htm | http://www.cacw.com.ar/sitio/notas_detalle.php?id=NTk= )there are about 3 million German-Argentines. Why are here only listed fewer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.166.134 ( talk) 02:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've brought up this point since the Wikipedia article on Einstein says that his ethnicity was Jewish. This article states it is about Germans as a Germanic ethnic group, not German citizens. I know that this comment may be viewed with suspicion, I am not some anti-Semitic neo-Nazi trying to deny that Einstein was a member of German society, what I am saying is that although he was a German citizen he is not an ethnic German that is the topic of this article. With these important points of clarification this brings me to the point that his image should not be included in a group of ethnic Germans, such a photo can be put on the article about German citizens to represent Einstein as an important historical German citizen.-- R-41 ( talk) 04:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem, R-41, is that you misrepresnted three sources. Olzak says that genealogy is only one of four possible criteria for ethnic identification — which supports Maunus's point. Wade first defines ethnicity as "tracing relatedness through common history and culture" which does not support your view, and then says that ethnicity frequently invokes notions of genealogy and origins (the operative word being frequently which does not mean always) (and another operative word being "invokes;" he is not describing what an ethnic group really is, but rather a particular ideology of ethnicity. Did you actually read Wade's book? Do you really understand his argument? Because it looks like you are cherry-picking. Anyone who reads the book will see that Wade's argument is that discourses of nature and culture draw on one another in complex ways, and his discussion of discourses of ethnicity that invoke genealogy is part of a larger deconstruction of the opposition between race and ethnicity, in which his real argument is that (just as ethnic discourses are not always just about culture), racial discourses are not always about biology. He is relativizing both concepts. Do you not understand this argument, or did you just not read the book? Finally, Rata is arguing that in a capitalist globalized world Samoans turn to genealogies as a way to construct historicized understandings of their own culture. She is making a very specific argument about Samoan culture in the 20th century and she is not making any global claims about ethnicity. None of the links you provide are about Germans or Jews, but all of them make it explicitly clear that the meaning, form, and definition of ethnicity varies over time and space and that any particular group of people's understanding of ethnicity must be understood in its cultural and historical context. Which, again, supports Maunus's point. Slrubenstein | Talk
On the complications of Ethnicity:
On the ways in which Jewish ethnicity were differentiated at the turn of the 20th century:
On the complex ways in which Jewish and German ethnic identities interact in Germany today read:
On the ways in which being ethnically German is complicated:
And then we can talk. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank editors for their long explanations and lists of a paper titles showing that their is debate on the nature of ethnicity. But sadly I feel i may be irrelevant to the point under discussion. Whether Einstein thought of himself as a German is pretty much nailed by this source:
"This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing 1997, 494–505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of “mimicry” (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his “tribal companions” (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 644–5), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the building of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: “My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations” (in Fölsing 1997, 488). According to Fölsing, Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: “As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity]” (in Fölsing 1997, 488). " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Table Lamp 47 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
O my goodness, what a discussion. Firstly, Einstein did never regard himself a German. He disliked the Germans (even long before the rise of the Nazi regime) and would be quite offended if he knew that you call him "German". Secondly, a German national identity did not evolve in the 18th. Its development startet in the 11th century and ended in the 16th century. Thirdly, the concept of ethnicity has always been about heritage -- at least in Germany. This wasn't a Nazi or anti-Semitic invention of the 19th/20th century but existed since the first person called himself German. Today, a lot of people may find this racist but that doesn't change the historic facts. Einstein didn't think of himself as an ethnic German, nor would any other person during his lifetime would have thought of him as such. -- Orthographicus ( talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This argument is stupid. Ethnicity is clearly defined in the dictionary. Einstein was an ethnic Jew. How can Einstein be an ethnic German if he was in fact an ethnic Jew? What I hear is the hypersensitive ramblings of what I suspect to be either a German or some leftist. Listen, if you are a German you don't have to feel bad about the holocaust anymore. Now, step aside and let grown folks talk. Ethnicity is solely based on genealogy, end of discussion. Ask any anthropologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.43.217 ( talk) 22:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOAP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
>>"I hate racism!" "Nu uh, I hate racism more!" You do realize that if this were Nazi Germany you'd most likely be it's staunchest supporters, right? You're some of the most easily conditioned fools on the planet. Talk about a bunch of parrots. But at least one of the parrots still has at least a toe on the ground of reality. No amount of indoctrination can make the original definition of Ethnicity "flawed and outdated." The Germanic people are a distinct Ethnicity as are certain groups of Jews like Sephardic and Ashkenazi. If it became politically correct to call a rock a pillow, face it, you'd do it. Because Paulie wants a cracker. BAWWWK! And I'm not a Neo-Nazi, either. I am a racist, sorry, because I see where the world's headed with you morons in charge. You guys puff your chest out and thump it by saying "I'm so hardcore a fanatic I even change the definitions of words to fit into my political world view! Beat that typical, white guilt suffering Canadian with an indian girlfriend!" Hell, one day Green may be Pink. And what do you guys call this? Progress? It'd be funny if it weren't so terrifying. 67.1.63.198 ( talk) 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
What a laughable joke this discussion is.
I can't believe that time after time facts are brushed aside for personal preference.
Jewish is an ethnicity
Germanic is an ethnicity
you can be both, IE part Jewish, part Germanic.
but Einstein was not.
he was Jewish, Semitic, and eventually American.
Far leftists without even a basic understanding of anthropology have taken over wikipedia
-- 99.231.215.49 ( talk) 01:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not Nazi propaganda. German ethnicity is distinct and separate from that of Jewish Ethnicity. Otherwise, you deny the existence of either the Jewish or German ethnicity. Which is racist. If you are an ethnic jew, you can not be an ethnic german. Otherwise one of the two does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.83.170 ( talk) 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What a hissy fit by a bigot - yes you are a bigot despite your denial above - you are the same user who posted here earlier after the discussion had ended and been resolved by pouring out bigoted statements about me having a Native American partner - I mentioned that because I was being accused of being a racist for bringing up this matter. But okay, let's take you at your word for a moment - you say that you aren't proposing this out Einstein assimilated to become American - fine REMOVE Einstein on the grounds that he became American - NOT because he was Jewish, Marx was German - DON'T remove him. And yes German Jews have identified as Germans, Eduard Lasker was a GERMAN NATIONALIST AND HE WAS JEWISH. Source: The Making of a German Nationalist: Eduard Lasker's Early Years, 1829-1847.-- R-41 ( talk) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
In the archive I found a discussion about the Germanness of Switzerland and other German-speaking territories, and I must say: all German-speaking territories regarded themselves as German until the 20th century. Liechtenstein sang of his Germanness in its national anthem until 1963. You'll find the text here on Wikipedia. I found a speech Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Vetter from Bern gave in Nuremberg in 1902 when the Germanisches Nationalmuseum celebrated its 50th anniversary. In his speech, Vetter says that Switzerland remained German in ethnic and cultural terms although it had been separated from the political Germany since 1648. I can present you the speech if you're interested. Luxembourg was member of the German Confederation until 1866 and sent representatives to the National Assembly in Francfort in 1848/49. Even the Netherlands did not deny their common heritage with Germany which is why they spoke about Nederduytschers (Lower Germans) and Overlenders, a distinction also made in the English language until the 18th century. No one denies that all those nations have an own identity nowadays and do not regard themselves as German anymore. But 100 years ago, things were different, and we can't just ignore that in an article about the German people. This information must at least be mentioned properly. -- Orthographicus ( talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Except giant chunks of what you just said is wrong. Dutch comes from Frankish, while German comes from High German. Frankish was spoken in the middle of Germany in ancient times, while High German was spoken in Austria, Bavaria and Switzerland. Mountain areas. Why do you Germans not understand that your ancestors were not involved in the Great Germanic Migration? You were a bunch of goat herders who got lucky that everyone else left Germany, leaving you free to take over. 96.241.155.90 ( talk) 10:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added a key point of clarification to the figures quoted for Geographical distribution for the UK. The figure of 266,000 quoted includes anyone born in Germany. The peculiarity always noted with this figure is that it includes children born to British Military personnel serving in UK Military bases in Germany (a large number of personnel during the Cold War). It does not mean that there are actually 266,000 people self-identifying as 'German' in the UK. A more detailed breakdown is not available. Indisciplined ( talk) 11:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"In 1866, because Austria and Prussia could not decide on what was the right solution on how a unified Germany was to happen caused several problems inside the German Confederation between the two top German states. The main reasons behind this war was because the Austrian Empire was not willing to give up any of the German lands it owned and was hoping to unify and lead Germany as "Greater Germany" and therefore did not want to take second place to Prussia. On the other hand Prussia was wanting to unify Germany as "Little Germany" and exclude Austria from it. This consequently seen the Prussians successfully defeat the Austrians and thus Austria now was no longer part of the German Confederation and no longer took part in German politics and the "Little Germany" was prevailed.[14]"
I did this myself anyways and I think this should be changed to this as it comes across as more understanding and better to read -
"In 1866, the long ending feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There was a few reasons what was behind this war. As German nationalism grew inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand were wanting to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria. In the final battle of the German war (Battle of Königgrätz) the Prussians successfully defeated the Austrians and succeeded in creating the North German Confederation.[14]"
What's the problem with that Dr.K.?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How does it not make sense and no what is the problem with it, you rephrase it then? This part of the article does need sorting out.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 04:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The feud had been going on a long time and it had now came to an end?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 05:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay what about "The feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end"
It needs changing this bit of the EMP to be better read and understood.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay yes it does make more sense so which would be better "There were a few reasons" or 2There were multiple reasons"?
What else in the edited version doesn't make sense?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So is it alright to change it to "In 1866, The feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There were a few reasons behind this war. As German nationalism grew inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand wanted to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria. In the final battle of the German war (Battle of Königgrätz) the Prussians successfully defeated the Austrians and succeeded in creating the North German Confederation."-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed, looks great.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why has Catgut reverted it?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well Catgut can clearly see we've debated this for the last couple of days and both of us were happy and he/she did not even comment here yet reverted it, I've reverted it back.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if Catgut wants to discuss why it should be reverted back then he is more than open to via here otherwise I see no reason in changing it when me and you have discussed the changes and both gave it a go ahead.-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"The dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire after World War I led to a strong desire of the population of the new Republic of German Austria to be integrated into Germany or Switzerland.[16] This was, however, prevented by the Treaty of Versailles."
Do you not think the Germany should be linked to Germany - my reason being is because "Germany" has changed quite a bit and it will make people understand that only then the Weimar Republic was created after the end of WWI and the falling of the German Empire and many Austrians were thriving for the Greater Germany idea.
"The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, attempted to unite all people they claimed Germans"
Would it not be - all the people they claimed were Germans?
The Czechoslovakia should also be changed just to Sudetenland as that is not all of Czechoslovakia.
Would this be acceptable to change?-- Vincentnufcr1 ( talk) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Iron Curtain unofficially fell in 1989 -- not 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScaryTruth ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Since I have been asked to comment on my recent reverts I will do so. There are two issues here — one, the edits by Vincentnufcr1 have made a section that is already not in very good shape, markedly worse. For example, this user composed the sentence "As German nationalism grew strongly inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand wanted to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria." The length and convoluted wording of this sentence not only challenges comprehension, but is also ungrammatical (the subjects in this sentence are obscure, and it finishes with a run-on sentence). In addition, there is some very awkward wording elsewhere, for instance, "successfully defeated", "succeeded in creating", and the reference at the end of the section in question remained unchanged despite extensive changes to this section. This leaves one to wonder whether any of the new content is properly sourced. The lone source at the end actually turns out to be an obscure website rather than a scholarly article or book. In short, this is very poor content.
Which brings me to my second point, which is my contention that the user Vincentnufcr1 is a new account of a blocked user who had made a number of tendentious and similarly poorly worded edits to entries dealing with German and Austrian history and persons, including this entry (for example, as 14Adrian). Cleaning up the edits of this individual took an inordinate amount of effort, and while perusing the edit history of this entry, I noticed that some of these low-quality edits may still be present in the section in question, which is why I endeavoured to repair some of it. I will refrain for now from making any suggestions as to how this section can be restored with properly worded and sourced content, until the editing conflicts due to the recent insertions by Vincentnufcr1 are independently resolved. Thanks. Malljaja ( talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
600 000 German Argentines is an estimation, the embassy gives an estimation of 1 000 000 germans argentines [11], plus 2 000 000 volga germans [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can someone REMOVE "Germanic ethnic group" from the main introduction lede , rationale : how are the germans any diffrent from any other germanic speaking peoples , for example the swedes , norweigians and dutch austrians , those articles does not mention "Germanic ethnic group" in the lead so goes the same for germans so am asking some established editor a request to removing "Germanic ethnic group" from the germans , i mean wikipedia should not contradict itself , as said why arent the people above count as germanic if the germans do
95.199.19.4 (
talk)
19:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: I'm not following your argument. This article deals with "Germans as an ethnic group" not as the residents of Germany or as german speaking people.
Celestra (
talk)
21:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
1. swedes 2. Norwegians 3. danes 4. austrians 5. english people 6. dutch people 7. scots
repeat all theese articles is solely about ethnic groups not About the citizens of the given countries (see citezenship in XX , articles) neither pure demographic articles (which already exist ofcourse) the germans are not even some kind of a "Germanic core area" as the germanic peoples originated in northern germany and scandinavia , so are you following my logic now ? no other ethnic groups article use "Germanic ethnic group" so why should the germans ethnic group article be any diffrent so please remove it now 95.199.28.115 ( talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: The text appears valid. The fact that other articles use other text is not a reason to change this article. If there is something incorrect about the text, please simply state what is wrong and provide a
reliable source which supports the change. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
MOST AUSTRIANS ARE ETHNICALLY GERMAN Saying that Austrians are a "related ethnic group" is ridiculous. The author shouldn´t use politics in wikipedia. Austrians are ethnically German obviously.-- 95.120.205.218 ( talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion about thet question on Talk:Austrians. You might want to join in.-- Glorfindel Goldscheitel ( talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 28 March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
"Albrect Durer" should "Albrecht Dürer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.64.113 ( talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The given source does not represent the genetic make up of the present day german population, but tries to reconstruct a situation around 1500 which ist, as the source itself mentions "guesswork". As far as I am concerned the section should be deleted, as it does not represent any information about germans as they are. Alternatively (that is if recent data can be presented) the sections genetics and ethnicity should be restructured as "3. anthropology", "3.1 Ethnicity" (or cultural anthropology) and "3.2 genetics". The "genetics" section should be modified to represent the fact, that notions of germanness does not correspond to the german genetic make up. A discussion of the racial (and racist) untertones of many (past and present) concepts of germanness could be includet in the ethnicity section. Furthermore the racialy stereotyped pictures of recent germans (all (!) of them feature blond persons in the center. Actually only less then half of germans are!) should be reviewed. Wikipedia should not become a place of racial stereotyping, nor a playground for racists, to impose their scewed views on a (compared to germany) less sensitized audience/wikipedia community. Regards 193.175.103.57 ( talk) 12:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Nicolaus Copernicus was Polish , not German! Top811 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC).
I'm from Poland. In Polish schools teach that Kopernik (Copernicus) was a Polish.I was in Toruń (the home of Nicholas), it was fun. I live in Gniezno. Sorry for the blah, I was sure that he was of Poland. Greetings from Polish :) Top811 ( talk)
The actual problem here is that there was a previous image on Commons but it was deleted by [ Fastily] (sigh!) because it "had no source" [14]. Then another version of the image was restored, but the problem here is that this new version was uploaded by a user who is indef banned on Wikipedia for sock puppeting, copyright violations and nationalist edit warring [15]. I have changed that.
As an aside, in terms of pure aesthetics, the present image is way to cluttered and has way too many people in it. We actually had a similar issue over at Poles, where some editors just think it wonderful to try and cram in as many individuals into that collage as possible [16] (apparently "more people in infobox collage = national greatness!").
But once you get past a certain number, the picture looks like shit. And you can see that in the present image - most of those individual pics are cropped in weird ways, Marx doesn't have a forehead, Hahn doesn't have a chin, etc. and the whole thing looks like a huge mess. It would probably be a good idea to just a get a simplified, "less is more" kind of thing going on (though I gotta say, where the hell is David Hilbert???) VolunteerMarek 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, there's other hijinks in the present collage, like putting Catherine the Great in it. I mean, yeah, sure, she was German, sort of - but is she really a good illustration of "Germans"? There are also images in the collage which are not captioned, and which are not particularly relevant. I'm guessing Mr. Banned User Alphasinus was just being his usual wacky self or is subtly trolling here. VolunteerMarek 01:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
There was no consensus on the changes User:Volunteer Marek did to the File:Germans collage.jpg - now the file description does not match the people displayed anymore! [20] -- IIIraute ( talk) 12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense having gisele bundchen in this article she´s brazilian and just like north americans (usa) has a large population of german descendents so does brazil now she considers herself brazilian and not german. She´s just a famous brazilian model that by accident has german ancestry. Someone remove her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.71.18 ( talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please provide some academic references on why Ashkenazi Jews are to be regarded as ethnic Germans (other than linguistic ones), as well as references to your latest changes on "Related ethnic groups".-- IIIraute ( talk) 16:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The consensus here is clearly in favor of including assimilated German Jews as part of the German ethnicity. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
An issue has been raised on whether assimilated German Jewish people can be considered part of the German ethnicity. There are different arguments for and against.
The argument in favour of including German Jewish people as part of the German ethnicity is the claim that ethnicity is not exclusively based on geneaology as has commonly been assumed, but can be based on geneaology and/or culture and language. This argument claims that German Jewish people have become deeply assimilated and interconnected with Germans, in addition there have been a substantial number of German Jewish people who have intermarried with German non-Jewish people, or who adopted Christianity and German identity. In addition this argument notes that previous discussions on German ethnicity on this article have supported the inclusion of German Jewish people such as Karl Marx in the infobox.
The argument opposed to the inclusion of German Jewish people claims that while Jewish and German culture has intermixed, that on a numerical scale, most Ashkenazi Jews did not intermarry with German non-Jewish people and that Ashkenazi marriage and religious custom amongst other Jewish religious cultural issues remained homogeneous and autonomous from German culture; as such on a numerical level, Ashkenazi Jews have not influenced the development of the German ethnicity on a large scale, noting that the number of Jews in Germany is an extremely small minority of the total population of Germany. In addition this argument notes that the article on Ashkenazi Jews, does not mention that they are related to Germans.
Notes (please read before posting):
Please post your comments below.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: The discussion will end on 1 August 2012. If there is a consensus for inclusion or exclusion, that will be done. If there is no majority in favour of either side, but a substantial number of people who have declared themselves "unsure", then other options here will have to be undertaken, such as WP:EXPERT.-- R-41 ( talk) 04:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
|}
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has been overrun with airhead leftists trying to alter history and science to suit the sensibilities of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.83.170 ( talk) 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a German reader of this article. After stumbling upon the plural "peoples" several times in an excellently written text like this, I'm unsure as a non-native English speaker. Shouldn't it be "people" instead? Or does the word "people+s" exist? Sounds like a bad German accent in an English context to me. Hope you can resolve the issue for me as I didn't want to monkey with an article by correcting expressions I'm not sure wether they exist or not. Thank you -- 78.42.243.203 ( talk) 00:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Where's Hitler? Almost every non-German know him... (better than Otto Hahn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.225.223 ( talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hitler was German ethnic, i can get you his own quotes on his ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.205.176 ( talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
he was not Germanic....
I understand he was a German national, but there are Turkish/Arab/African German nationals as well..
this article is supposed to be about the Germanic ethnic group in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.215.49 ( talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
????
Marx? Einstein?
is there a reason for this obvious inconsistency?
-- Savakk ( talk) 14:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. As a Jew, I am offended that we are being included in this article as Germans. Our greatest enemies and murderers are a completely different ethnicity than us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.65.46.71 ( talk) 07:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
first of all, no, it's not "Nazi propaganda" it's a basic understanding of linguistic and ethnic history.
you may be a German Jew, but that is with regards to nationality and perhaps culture, your ethnic origins lie in Western Asia, whereas the Germanic Germans are indigenous to Europe.
that is a serious distinction.
besides that clear and glaring fact, Einstein and Marx did not consider themselves German.
and the fact that you choose to accuse someone with a dissenting opinion of "being a Muslim" as if that is an insult shows you have no place moderating this page or any other.
-- Savakk ( talk) 18:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"The Old Prussians were an ethnic group related to the Latvian and Lithuanian Baltic peoples who mutually spoke languages of Finno-Ugric origins." Honestly, Latvian and Lithuanian are not languages of Finno-Ugric origin. They are Indo-European languages of the Baltic group (by extension, Balto-Slavic group). This is an epitome of ignorance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanny2012 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
why are south tyroleans counted as german while the austrians are not? either the population of austria is counted as german or the population of south tyrol must be removed. at the moment the article doesn't make really sense and lack coerence: in the lauguage section are numbered 250,000 native speakers in italy while in ancestry the number is doubled.
lastly in related ethnic groups the romansh are counted but that's a little arbitrary; the romansh since the middle ages have been subjected to assimilation\germanization that reduced their number to more or less irrelevance in switzerland, and while many swiss-germans are probably descendents of assimilated people the romansh are not germanic.
alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.100.128 ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of some rant by a soapboxing anti-Semitic bigot who had the manipulative nerve to deny bigotry while still promoting it by basically saying in a summarized form: "I'm not a bigot, but I'm repulsed by Jewish people being in the infobox, there is a vast left-wing conspiracy on Wikipedia to make Jews German, Einstein became American, Jews cannot ever be Germans, remove them all, blah, blah, blah". Though I will admit that one issue was raised by that bigoted user that is worth discussing. Einstein did become American and identified as American from that point on. Now of course American identity is not ethnic, but if Einstein did not identify as German after becoming American, that may be a ground for removing Einstein, as he did not identify as being of German identity. There are obviously going to be anti-Semitic users going to arrive here and if we do remove Einstein because he later identified as American, I don't want this to become a concession to the anti-Semitic bigot users who come here from time to time. Therefore I recommend replacing Einstein with German nationalist Eduard Lasker who was a self-identified German, was Jewish, and proponent of German identity, he did not renounce German identity for another identity like Einstein appears to have done. Source for Lasker affiliating with German identity: The Making of a German Nationalist: Eduard Lasker's Early Years, 1829-1847.-- R-41 ( talk) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As someone mentioned to me before, and I now regularly note: ethnicity is not exclusively based on geneaology, and there is no such thing as a "pure" ethnic group derived from one lineage alone, ethnicities evolve - they assimilate and absorb other ethnicities, Germans have predominantly Germanic roots but also have significant historical Latin heritage from Roman rule, and Slavic heritage from expanding eastward into Slavic populated lands - as said in the article, the former German state of Prussia itself adopted the name of the Balto-Slavic Old Prussians who spoke their own Balto-Slavic language prior to being assimilated into Germans, and famous northern German military strategist Karl von Clausewitz had Slavic heritage. Therefore claims of ethnic "purity" of Germans as exclusively Germanic people is Nordicist pseudoscience.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
should interesting information like this not be in the article?
http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This page couldn't be anymore bias & Anglocentric. I like how under ethnicity there is absolutely no mention of Angles or Saxons (they DID NOT all leave Germany). No mention of Vikings either despite Germany sharing a border with a Scandinavian country. Despite Germany having more Haplogroup I1 than England does. Despite the North of Germany looking more Germanic on average than ALL of England. Yet on England's page, whats the first thing they mention? Vikings. When the reality is the majority of Brits are Celts, and don't look Germanic at all.
The page goes even further to try an insinuate that Germans are more mixed than they are. Even going as far as to name Jews....Seriously? Both France & England have had higher populations of Jews than Germany. Infact France has more immigrants in their country than the whole of Europe (half their football team is black), and if you go to Paris, there is nothing but people from the 3rd world. No mention of this on France's page? yet they mention "Gauls" as if the french are anything similar to Gauls today.
Jews should not have even been listed anywhere on a topic about German ethnicity, they have remained a small number, and they generally have entirely different Haplogroups, and genetic markers than ethnic Germans and Europeans for the matter. They have nothing to do with modern German genetic make up. If you want to link Jews to someone in Europe, try Sicilians, thats who they cluster with, not Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:FDE4:FA3E:2BE4:137F ( talk) 15:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly do you take so much offense to the idea that most Jews are of German ancestry and that likewise there are likely Germans who had ancestors in the Jewish faith? I find it strange you seem to mention things like purity, "Germanicness" (protip- finland is blonder and more blue eyed than any "Germanic" country except Sweden)and Jews. 96.231.17.247 ( talk) 15:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I also find very weird the comments by the former user. Just for the record, since he mentions it, according to the Genetic Map above, England does have a higher Haplogroup I ratio than Germany. Besides, Germany, from a Haplogroup or "genetic lines" point of view, is quite diverse, as the Haplogroup map above shows. The Myth of Germanic "purity" is, as we know, linked to National Socialist propaganda, and modern genetic science kicks it in the ass. Actually, if we want to speak about "purity" from the point of view of genetic lines or "genetic families", we have to look at Eskimos, Amerindians or some African groups as examples, but certainly not at Europeans, let alone at Germans. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 find it very problematic to continue the discussion with several of the editors involved, for the fact that they were "recruitet" through canvassing! →→ [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] -- 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)
Those are some weird choices in the infobox. Eduard Lasker, Emma Ihrer, Christine Teusch, Walter Ulbricht, Christa Wolf and Nena? Not to say those aren't somehow important but there would be much more notable people to pick for this. Kant, Siemens, Gutenberg, Planck, Röntgen, Mozart, Adenauer, Marx just to name a few that would fit a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.64 ( talk) 15:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
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 [27]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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Ethnic Germans article clearly states: "This article is about the ethnic German diaspora." and therfore correlates perfectly with its German WP equivalent "Deutschstämmige" → [48]. 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" → [49]. -- IIIraute ( talk) 20:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)