![]() | This page 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. |
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.
How should the ethnicity and nationality dimensions of the term Germans be weighted on Wikipedia?
--
Tserton (
talk)
00:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: The bulk of the discussion on this topic occurred on
WikiProject Ethnic groups, but I'm posting the Rfc on
Talk:Germans as it directly concerns that article. --
Tserton (
talk)
00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
removing everything that deals with the nationality from that articlewould mean to remove e.g. sports (there are several players in the German national teams who are not ethnic Germans), literature ( Heinrich Heine was a Jew, i.e. he is excluded by the condition "common ancestry and history", Navid Kermani is not an ethnic German), remove Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel (they were not elected by the ethnic group) and so on. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Reliable tertiary sources, such as published encyclopedias, are a good proxy for what the majority of reliable, independent, secondary sources say, and and may be helpful in evaluating due weight. We can survey tertiary sources, which are more limited in number, to estimate what secondary sources are saying. Such a survey can give us some hard data which will increase our confidence that we are reading the secondary sources correctly, and in the right proportion, which can help resolve the Rfc question.
Here is a summary of what some tertiary sources say about this issue, discovered during the related discussion at WT:ETHNIC:
Click [show] to view references for tertiary sources
|
---|
References
|
Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
... the more broadly formulated concept of "German ethnicity (membership of people/nationality)" seems more appropriate for many purposes, as does the definition based on a person's declaration of such membership.....-- Moxy 🍁 15:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Below is a survey of the encyclopedic entries on Germans that have been presented so far in the discussion. Given the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as well, these entries are helpful for determining the notability of concepts.
Krakkos ( talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to respond to Krakkos' argument above about the ethnic definition of Germans in the Survey section. Krakkos, you !voted for "One article with the ethnic definition appearing first", and in support of this choice, you pointed out correctly, that of the twelve tertiary sources, only five mention the ethnic aspect, so you chose to examine those five sources exclusively and base your conclusion upon what you found there. But this is an example of the fallacy of incomplete evidence, and does not prove your point, it merely confirms what you already believed, without viewing the full picture.
To illustrate what I mean, consider the following hypothetical thought experiment: some Wikipedia editors are looking at the Origin of life article, and wondering about astrobiogenesis [a]—the theory that life was seeded on Earth by intelligent aliens who spawned the human race. As a way to determine majority and minority views on the topic of origin of life, editors examine two dozen encyclopedias or other tertiary sources, mostly general ones, as well as some specializing in astronomy, exobiology, and ufology. The result is, that only six of them mention astrobiogenesis at all: four ufology encyclopedias or almanacs, one exobiology encyclopedia, and one astronomy encyclopedia in passing. From this, Wikipedia editors from "WikiProject UFOlogy" conclude the following:"The primary topic for an article is the topic which has received the largest amount of notable coverage. Five of the 24 tertiary sources listed in the section below address astrobiogensisis directly and in detail. Those five sources are therefore of great relevance to this question. Four of those sources (excluding the exobiology encyclopedia) address astrobiogenesis as a viable life origin theory. Based on four out of five, the astrobiogenesis topic thus appears to be the primary topic for "origin of life on Earth".
Do you see the fallacy in their thinking? They regard the fact that numerous tertiary sources fail to mention astrobiogenesis, as meaning they play no part in the examination to determine the primary topic per WP:DUE WEIGHT. But this is false: the lack of an "astrobiogenesis" article in 18 general encyclopedias is in fact conclusive, and relegates the the five that do cover it to a minority point of view. By selecting only those five to examine, the Ufology Project editors fell into the fallacy of incomplete evidence, and their conclusion is erroneous.
In my view, picking only the five encyclopedias that say something about ethnic Germans, and ignoring the rest that do not, amounts to the same thing and is not a valid way of evaluating what the primary topic is here. In addition, of the five sources you chose, four of them are ethnology sources, as Rsk6400 already pointed out, and as the Law of the instrument says, "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Mathglot ( talk) 20:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Notes
What about That would mean replacing "ethnic group" with "people" and dropping the unsourced clause "who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history." Whether "Germanic" should be included or not is open to further discussion. "People" (Volk) may be understood as a synonym for "ethnic group", but it may also be understood as the group of German citizens. Although some Germans today think the word might be used to promote nationalist ideas, it is used in official language (e.g. in the oath a member of the German government has to take and in central parts of the German constitution - E.g. Article 20: "(2) All state authority is derived from the people."), where it is understood in the latter sense. --
Rsk6400 (
talk)
08:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a people native to Central Europe.
?
The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a people whose history is linked to the inhabitants of Central Europe in antiquity. While the constitution of Germany defines "the German people" as the group of German citizens, persons of German descent or native speakers of German living outside Germany may also identify as ethnic Germans.-- Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Germans (German: Deutsche) has several interrelated meanings: It can denote natives or inhabitants of Germany, or persons of German descent, or native speakers of the German language.and
Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with Germany. The term may be used as a synonym for the citizens of Germany or ethnic Germans who are native to Central Europe, and who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history.Both were reverted by KIENGIR, sadly without giving any substantiated reasons. I still don't see a possible way of defining two groups for two different articles. Every aspect of social life in Germany today includes Germans who are not "ethnic Germans". E.g. you can't talk about German literature today without mentioning Navid Kermani, born in Germany to Iranian parents. But you cannot talk about it either without mentioning Herta Müller, an ethnic German from Romania who already was an author before she relocated to Germany. Even associations for preserving traditional regional culture in Germany have members whose parents immigrated from Spain, Turkey or Nigeria. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
"Germans (German: Deutsche) are people who identify with Germany by citizenship, culture, ethnicity or heritage. The term once referred primarily to ethnic Germans, an ethnic group that emerged in antiquity from central Europe, but today is also widely used to describe German citizens independent of ethnicity."I think this sort of "teaches the controversy" and can be backed up by the literature. Alternatively, we could go for simplicity and call out the ambiguity right in the first line:
Germans (German: Deutsche) can refer both to citizens of Germany and to ethnic Germans or their descendants. While the constitution of Germany defines "the German people" as the group of German citizens, persons of German descent or native speakers of German living outside Germany may also identify as ethnic Germans.-- Tserton ( talk) 03:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today widely refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.A chronological approach lists the ethnic meaning first without giving it undue weight. Thoughts? -- Tserton ( talk) 04:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today widely refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.") I genuinely think most of us agree more than we disagree on this issue and can find a solution everyone's broadly okay with.-- Tserton ( talk) 12:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
...While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today also refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.) If you'd prefer, we could also remove the "irrespective of ethnicity and descent," since that's already implied. As for sources: I was definitely planning on sourcing the changes we make. Most of the sources currently used in the article are used for highly specific citations, but some of the more general ones do cover the non-ethnic use of the word (although many were removed by Krakkos earlier today in an unrelated edit), and some also address its evolution over time. For example:
The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today also refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent." -- Tserton ( talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Notes
As a German, I reject the very idea of such a thing as "German ethnicity", except maybe as a short-lived historical invention.
There is citizenship, and there are language skills. Both can be acquired by birth / as a first language or later in life, and there isn't too much ambiguity. What's left if you remove these from the concept of German "ethnicity"? People above have noticed that very little that would remain of the article in question when these concepts are excluded, and that's a testament to its accuracy.
If a baby is born to "ethnic Germans" but raised by French-speaking Canadians in Mexico, will that baby still be an "ethnic German"? If you believe so, the concept you have in mind is one of race. And we aren't going to go there for obvious reasons, but also because it would be scientifically wrong: there is likely more genetic difference between north and south Germans than, say, people from the Saar region and French, or some eastern German regions and Poland.
If the baby isn't "ethnic German", then the concept is merely about language skills, citizenship, and maybe cultural familiarity, in which case it's far easier to just state those attributes, since they tend to have universally-agreed definitions.
As the sources above show, there may be something not entirely unlike a historical concept of "Germanic tribes". But look at any map older than 200 years and you'll find (as the plural hints at), it's more of a catch-all for what's left in Europe once French/Polish/Italian are accounted for. At that time, these tribes were united mostly by the need to agree upon a limited, universally-understood set of insults to enable most of the communication deemed necessary.
If one were to insist on defining any German "identity" distinct from citizenship today, it would be one that emerged after 1945, and one of it's core tenets would be the rejection of a concept of ethnicity. Yes, this is about "feeling bad". But that "feeling bad" happens to be a concept that is more "real" than "ethnicity". Consider the Grundgesetz (basic law / constitution). It begins:
Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,
Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe,
the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law
People above referred to the mention of people (Volk) here as an invocation of something akin to ethnicity. But it should be noted that there are three references to "feeling bad" before "people": "conscious of responsibility" / "inspired to promote world peace" / "equal partner in a united Europe".
One long list of individual states (ethnicities?) later, it continues:
This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.
...which is helpful here to disambiguate the reference to "people". Nobody would argue that the German constitution does not apply to naturalised German citizens, or that it applies to Leonardo di Caprio because his Great-Grandma had an Ü in her name. The only valid interpretation is, therefore, at least every person with German citizenship, and, at least partially, everyone subject to German jurisdiction.
-- Matthias Winkelmann ( talk) 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
the German people ... have adopted this Basic Law. This means that the definition of "being a German" given by the Basic Law is in fact how the German people wants to see itself, i.e. as a group including every citizen, regardless of ancestry. The current lede shows disrespect for the self-definition of the Germans as well as disregard for the sources.
The Austrian ethnic identity is comparatively young (it developed primarly as a conflicted successive distancing from Prussian-German culture, with the final blow of WWII), but it exists. Even Austrian right-wing politicians today aren't very eager to merge their country with Germany, let alone being called German. Calling a Deutschschweizer an ethnic German could under circumstances be onsidered an insult, after all, a German living in Switzerland is considered a speparate thing regarding cultural (even if (s)he naturalized) and national identity form being a Swiss-German speaking Swiss living in Switzerland, just as a Swiss Romand is no French. Swiss people think of themselves as a seven hundred year old independent nation. The people of the GDR always consindered themselves being German, this understanding was the foundation for the German reunification. It is a completely different case compared to Switzerland and Austria, the ethnic identity was never really a question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A4:9840:D0AA:9806:5F29:C1CE ( talk) 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I took a short look at some texts I found at JSTOR searching for "Defining Germanness". Among others, I found Lene Rock (2019). "CONSTITUTIVE OUTSIDERS". As German as Kafka: Identity and Singularity in German Literature around 1900 and 2000. Leuven (Belgium): Leuven University Press. pp. 31–66. JSTOR j.ctvss3xg0.5.. That text looks at the debates in Germany during the last century about who can be called a German and who not. Different ideas like "Volksnation" (the nation seen as a people) or "Kulturnation" (the nation seen as bound together by a common culture) have been discussed in Germany. This whole discussion should be included in the section "Identity", but it is strangely absent from there.
In the early 20th century, there was a special focus on whether Jews can be included in the concept of Germanness. I hope that I am mistaken, but I fear that the current lede with its stress on "common German ancestry, culture, and history" corresponds more or less to the "völkisch" (literally "people-ish", i.e. national, ethnic) definition used to exclude Jews which led to the
Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust. Since Jews are normally endogamous, in many cases they don't share a common ancestry with non-Jewish Germans, and to say that the murderers at Auschwitz share a common history with their victims seems to be cynical. If my interpretation of that formula is correct (I hope it isn't), it is anti-semitic and follows the worst traditions of Germany. The fact that the Holocaust is not mentioned in the article (except in the time specification "after the H.") adds to this picture of an antisemitic tendency in the article. Antisemitism and all other forms of racism are inherently incompatible with
WP, see
WP:NONAZIS. --
Rsk6400 (
talk)
19:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I compared some of your edits which seemed strange to me with the source you quoted:
The greatest challenges facing modern German society include globalization and immigration, which has eroded the German social fabric and labor market., sourced to Moser 2011, p.175. Moser says that "globalization and the attendant neoliberal shift in economic policies ... have eroded the social fabric and labor market arrangements established in the postwar period". Meaning, you left out the "neoliberal shift", presented immigration (which Moser mentions only afterwards) as the sole cause of the erosion and made the erosion look a little worse by changing the object from "arrangements" to "labor market". This is a typical far-right argumentation, not based on sources, but on feeling: "The immigrants are stealing our jobs".
a large number of monuments being constructed in order to demonstrate German guilt.The closest to this which can be found in the source (Moser p.174), is
Germans have grappled publicly with war guilt. The combination "German guilt" is found nowhere in the source. The wording is important because after WW II there was a heated discussion about a " German collective guilt". The connection "in order to" which you made is mentioned nowhere in the source, but is a favourite subject of the German far right, see e.g. the reference to Björn Höcke I recently came upon in "The Atlantic". BTW: That article also states that the "Neue Rechte" (German "New Right") focuses on "identity and culture", contrary to what you told me recently about far-right people focusing on a "German race".
There is much more which is dubious in your edits, such as the removal of the Jews from the history of the Middle Ages, your mentioning of the Holocaust as a result of the war (which may be an error, but it is also a connection which Hitler made), your forgetting of Heinrich Heine (a Jew until he was nearly 30 years old) when you first copied the list of German writers from Moser (you corrected it after I complained). You alleged that I am on a "campaign". Could you please comment on why you represented the sources the way I described above ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone - if no one disagrees, I would like to request formal closure of this Rfc, since the topic of discussion for which it was created (i.e. how to construct the article in general and what to do about the lead in particular) has largely concluded and we're going in circles again. The other discussions that have sprung up under the Rfc section (though important) aren't really pertinent to the Rfc itself. I'm open to suggestions though. If the dispute still persists after the Rfc is closed, we should move it to another dispute forum. -- Tserton ( talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This RfC has gotten quite long and convoluted. In an effort to establish clarity, i have created a tally surveying the arguments of participants. Please correct me if the tally contains errors:
Krakkos ( talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Save your breath; nobody taking part in this Rfc has any say in the closing process. Everything in this section will be ignored by the closer, who will apply proper closing principles to the process, and not pay attention to further advocacy, intentional or otherwise, by involved editors in the guise of disinterested tally summaries. Mathglot ( talk) 09:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
Phew, that was a long wait. I still think that the definition of Germanness by "culture, descent and history" is not acceptable and not supported by reliable sources. The second problem with the current lede is that German citizens who don't share the "descent and history" are only reluctantly called Germans in the third sentence, which is contrary to the commonly accepted way in which Germans speak about themselves today.
Since the last RfC was not very successful (except in establishing consensus that we don't want to split the article), I'd propose to take the issue to WP:DRN. Any thoughts ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is clearly intended to include modern Germans in its subject matter, and centre around them? But I notice we have this sentence in the opening, which seems to equate the topic of this article with a very distinct use of the same term by classical historians, which is NOT normally intended to include Germans when used in this way, but rather refers to the concept we cover in
Germanic peoples: The term "German" may also be applied to any [...] member of the Germanic peoples,[19][20][21][22][23]
Almost all the sources are from
WP:TERTIARY sources, which is not ideal. But here is a closer analysis...
I've tried reading the very long RFC and obviously it is very difficult to get exact conclusions out of it, and it is important to focus on smaller bits. I think the term "Germanic[11] ethnic group
" in the opening line should be changed, perhaps to "German-speaking ethnic group
". Here are some reasons:
Long unsourced reasoning about the current use of "Germanic"
|
---|
I'm not sure what your complaints are here. Germanic is a term rooted in language, just like Celtic, Slavic, Italic and others. These terms wouldn't exist if the Proto-Indo-European language hadn't fragmented and corrupted over time in various parts of Europe to develop the proto languages for all these groups. Roman concepts of who is and isn't Germanic (or anything else from the north) were vague at the best of times, to say the least, but Germanic peoples themselves clearly had a concept of some sort of a shared identity with one another, and their terms for foreigners and how (and WHO) they apply them to are clearly language based. Most terms for Germanic speakers from other groups (like Slavs) are also rooted in language too (the Slavic word for Germans vaguely translates as 'those who don't speak' or 'mutes'). Most peoples generally go by their language. Especially in places like Central Europe where you are often surrounded by peoples who speak a totally different language you cannot understand. You might not understand that living in a world where you feel like everyone can speak English, but I'd suggest you travel somewhere where people generally have a poor grasp of English to see just how foreign you feel and how important you will come to view language as a component of identity. The few exceptions to this are areas where there are no language divides and haven't been for a long time, and people tend to devolve into tribalism based on things like geography or ideas of 'distinct blood' or stereotypes and various other factors. I honestly don't know what your problem with the term 'Germanic' is. I've just taken a look through your history on related articles and you have been ceaselessly warring against these language based classifications (overwhelmingly just Germanic ones) for years now. It's just a method of subdividing large groups of peoples under umbrella terms. It's not that big of a deal, is fairly accurate and useful and says more about the people getting 'offended' by the classifications than it does anything else. I'm sorry to break it to you, Andrew, but you're Germanic. Whether you identify as that or not, that is your classification. "People do not describe themselves as Germanic" I find it incredibly hard to believe you've never encountered someone describing themselves as Germanic, being from England. I'm not even from England and I've met countless people describing themselves, and the English people, Germanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 ( talk) 01:44, May 13, 2021 (UTC)
It's polarizing because people get offended by the term 'Germanic' due to its hijacking by far-right peoples and racists at the turn of the 19th century and later the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and modern groups, bizarrely, influenced by them. All Germanic has ever originally meant was 'speakers of Proto-Germanic or languages descended from it'. Proto-Germanic people were mixed to begin with (heavily), they continued to mix with others throughout their existence and absorb and assimilate peoples. The idea of them being a 'biological race' is as ridiculous as... well just about any other 'racial' categorization (such as white or black Americans). Any attempts to attach a 'biological racial' angle to Germanic peoples are entirely another matter and something that is equally problematic with many other ethnolinguistic groups like Slavic, Celtic, Italic and other peoples. It's not Wikipedia's place to censor objective realities and ethnolinguistic classifications because fringe lunatics don't understand what the term means, don't understand anything about the history of the people they feel they have some kind of affiliation with or attachment to... and perhaps most strangely of all (considering how crucial 'blood' and 'genetics' seems to be to their sense of identity and origins) seem to understand absolutely nothing about human archaeogenetics and the picture it's slowly painted over the past 10-20 years. I can start taking offense at you using the term 'blond' tomorrow. I can probably convince a great deal of others to start taking offense at the word 'blond' through pointing out that blondism was hijacked by very similar peoples at certain points in time as the term 'Germanic' was and used to justify the same atrocious acts... in fact I've met many people who are 'repulsed' by blond people today and have made absolutely ridiculous and offensive comments to me, as well as judged me and made amazing assumptions about me simply due to the fact that I have blond hair and blondism was some cherished trait among fringe lunatics who managed to finagle their way into power in 20th century Germany. That doesn't mean blond people don't exist. It doesn't mean people don't identify themselves as blond. It doesn't mean blond isn't a useful (but ultimately rather trivial and superficial) method of categorization humans in a physical sense. Germanic people are an ethnolinguistic group. A living, breathing, existing one today. Whether it's people identify strongly with that or not, they are a thing and many of them DO identify with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 ( talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is bloody ridiculous. Germanic peoples are the ONLY ethnolinguistic group this is an issue with. The SOLE one. Turkic peoples apparently exist, Slavic peoples apparently exist, Celtic peoples apparently exist (even though they don't even speak the languages, bizarrely, explain that one to me... I guess Thracians, Illyrians, Baltic Prussians, Picts and numerous other extinct ethnic groups are still with us today since people descended from them live on, LOL), Semitic peoples apparently exist, Romance peoples apparently exist, Bantu peoples apparently exist, Greek people apparently exist, Armenians apparently exist, Baltic peoples apparently exist, Finnic peoples apparently exist. Pretty much every ethnic identity you'll find is rooted in a language group. Almost every single one begins as a language group. They all make clear mention of the fact it's mostly a language based term (the larger umbrella terms), and that there are divides (sometimes hostile) within the larger ethnolinguistic bloc. That's absolutely fine.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the term Latin? Or Latino/Latina? You've honestly never heard someone from France, Spain, Italy, South America, the US etc. refer to themselves as 'Latins'? What do you think that term means exactly? They definitely don't share ancestral origns, in fact the original Latin tribe didn't even shared ancestral origins being a mix of all different peoples adopting the language and identity of the Latins. The people the Romans went on to assimilate all over Europe shared even LESS of an ancestral origin with them. Exact same thing with the Slavs, massive levels of Slavicization all over the regions Slavs settled historically. I've met PLENTY of people who consider themselves 'Semites' and 'Semitic'. In fact the term used for hatred of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group which originated out of a confederation of Semitic tribes in Canaan, is funnily enough 'anti-Semitism'. A people who, by the way, have a SEMITIC laguage as their 'traditional and holy tongue', and who resurrected that language as the lingua france of the State of Israel. What's the total Semitic genetic inheritance of modern Jews? You probably don't know the answer to that, but it's far lower than you probably would think it is. And as for Swedes, why are you conflating German with Germanic? Swedes don't speak German, they speak Swedish which like German descends from the Proto-Germanic language, making the speakers of both languages... wait for it, GERMANIC. Every Swede I've met has strongly identified as Germanic, or sometimes more specifically North Germanic. Not a single one has disputed this term. Have you ever actually spoken to someone who doesn't speak English as their mothertongue, Andrew? |
Yep, hide it away as always lmao. All you'll do is further incentivize Germanic peoples to strongly identify as such and push for this. As history repeatedly shows us, the harder you try to 'quash' an identity or 'purge' it, the stronger it is held among people.
Once again, I'd like to suggest a new beginning for the lede:
Germans ( German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. [1] When used in the context of ancient history, it can also mean members of Germanic peoples. [1] The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. [2] During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. [3] Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. [4] Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany. [5]
The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century ...
What do you think ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.
Moser_172
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Moser_171
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).References
Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.
Moser_172
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Moser_171
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).That explanation makes sense to me to some extent, although I wonder if we really have a source which says the old concept no longer applies, which is what your text implies? I am finding it hard to keep flicking between pages, so here is a comparison, broken into similar bits, and some comments:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
version of 15 May 2021 | proposal of Rsk6400 | comments of Andrew Lancaster |
---|---|---|
The Germans ( German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe. | Germans ( German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. | I tend to agree that the existing sentence is controversial and eventually going to need change. It accepts no immigrants, even "ethnic German" immigrants. It still seems a bit odd to have no mention of either citizenship or ethnicity in the proposed opening sentence. (Maybe there needs to be two articles, for German ethnicity and German citizenship?) Concerning this new proposal, if a person living in Germany has no citizenship and does not identify as German, are they German? OTOH, we still see talk of ethnic Germans who are not really from there, an important practical example being the large number who were accepted to immigrate on a special basis from the old east block after the fall of the Berlin wall. So I think we can't just say this is an old idea? |
Speaking the German language is the most important characteristic of modern Germans, but they are also characterized by a common German culture, descent and history. The term "German" may also be applied to any citizen, native or inhabitant of Germany, regardless of whether they are of German ethnicity. Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany. | The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. | I again agree that the current version is controversial for using such strong words as "most important". Wikipedia can't take sides, and there are clearly different ideas around, not only among "normal people" but also in publications. I also agree that citizenship deserves a very prime position in any definition. See above. |
Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany. | It seems a good idea to include this. I would suggest adding this already, as I doubt it is controversial. Only one question: how are Germans being defined here? I guess it will be using different definitions, but probably most often self-identification, language and ancestry. Should we mention the definition methods? | |
The German ethnicity developed among early Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. | The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century | It is an improvement. It was not among the Germanic peoples of Central Europe, but (scholars say) specifically among the inhabitants of the Eastern Frankish Kingdom. I think the new version is not perfect. What came first was not an ethnic designation "German", but rather an idea that the eastern Frankish kingdom could be called Germania. (Lotharingians, for example in Cologne, were sometimes also said to be living in Gaul/Gallia. e.g. Alpertus of Metz) Ethnicity was not really an obsession of medieval writers, at least when talking about people in the Frankish kingdoms, but when they did identify sub-groups it was often on the basis of the old stem Duchies: people were sometimes distinguished for being Saxon, Bavarian, etc, not German until later. Language was also sometimes mentioned but it was not clearly linked to ethnicity, for example in the area where I live where Walloon speakers and Dutch (West Germanic) speakers (Tiois in French, T[h]eutonicus in Latin) were distinguished, for example in the chronicle of Sint-Truiden which says that in Teutonic, Walloon is the word for corrupt Roman language. But all these people have been living together for more than a 1000 years before French and German romanticism inspired new ideas. |
It still seems a bit odd to have no mention of either citizenship or ethnicity in the proposed opening sentenceI personally believe that it should be "citizen" instead of "inhabitant" (exactly because of the persons living in Germany without identifying as Germans who you mentioned), but both my Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition, 2010, on Kindle) and Merriam-Webster say "inhabitant". The idea of ethnicity is expressed by the words "German descent", and I think this also covers the "OTOH" example you gave.
Maybe there needs to be two articlesNot to split the article was the only thing we were able to agree on in the RfC, see Talk:Germans/Archive_8#Rfc_for_due_weight_regarding_the_ethnic_vs._nationality_meaning_of_"Germans".
how are Germans being defined here?I think you really spotted the weak point: The source says: "... depending on how German is defined". I now suggest this wording: "Depending on the definition of Germanness, estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany.".
@
Rsk6400: how about doing a narrow / broad distinction in the opening sentence, such as Germans (German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language.
? Second, concerning the last bit, how about The history of Germans as an ethnic group began with the separation of distinct Kingdom of Germany from the eastern part of the Frankish Empire under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century, forming the core of the Holy Roman Empire.
--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Right-wing politics thanks for your edit, but it raises some old questions: First, aren't Austrians only Germans in an extended and slightly controversial way? (Not the same way that a German is a German.) If you call Austrians "German", why not Swiss, Belgian, French, Rumanian, Russian etc German-speakers? See my suggestion to Rsk6400 above.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix the edits by
User:Rsk6400 that introduced two different values for |pop12=
and |region12=
in the infobox.
98.230.196.188 (
talk)
20:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
| region12 = {{Flag|Switzerland}} | pop12 = 307.387{{efn|Citzens of Germany living in Switzerland at the end of 2019 according to official census data.<ref>{{cite web |title=Demographic balance by citizenship |url=https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/pxweb/en/px-x-0103010000_151/px-x-0103010000_151/px-x-0103010000_151.px/|type=Statistics |publisher=Swiss Federal Statistical Office|year=2020 |location=Neuchâtel |website=www.bfs.admin.ch |language=en|access-date=10 June 2021 }}</ref> Haarmann gives a number of {{circa}} 4,200,000.<ref name="Haarmann_Populations"/>}} | region12 = {{Flag|United Kingdom}} | pop12 = {{circa}} 297,000{{efn|2013 [[Office for National Statistics|ONS]] estimate}} |
c. 700,000 🤣 They are only 147,814! (2011) Abraham ( talk) 14:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is it that of all Ethnic groups listed on Wikipedia, the Germans are basically denied their existence? Norwegians----> Ethnic Group. English---->Ethnic Group. Poles---->Ethnic Group. French---->Ethnic Group. And so on and so forth. But when it comes to Germans, who undoubtly are an Ethnic Group with common language and culture and usually origin, it all of a sudden becomes this endless discussion constantly leaning towards denying any German ethnic group at all. Quite ironic, considering the Germans have been around for so long.
Best regards, an ehtnic German.
@ Dan27032: If you want a change to be made and you see that another editor (in this case, me) disagrees, you take it to the talk page, but you don't start an edit war, see WP:BRD. Since the definition of "Germans" is rather broad, there are no well-defined numbers for any country. That's why I don't think, we should have a special marker "ancestry" just for the UK, and we shouldn't have three lines when all the other items have only one. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 05:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@ TU-nor: the flag has been in the article since at least May. In May, Germans were still defined as an ethnic group. After a long discussion (which fills the whole archive 8 of this talk page), the definition of Germans as an ethnic group was dropped. That's why I'd prefer to leave the flag where it is. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German languageis a definition of an ethnic group. What else should it be? If the article was strictly about the citizens of Germany, it would be another matter, but it is not. If 40M US citizens, 3M Brazilian citizens, 1M Australian citizens etc. mentioned in the infobox are German in the sense of the article, the flag is completely inappropriate. I will leave the discussion to the regulars, just noting that in the vaste majority of articles about people connected to a national state or to a regional unit, flags have been deemed undue and been removed or have never been there in the first place. -- T*U ( talk) 19:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language, which imho is equivalent to 'an ethnic group' (which is completely uncontroversial). 2) I think the German flag should definitely be mentioned in the article. However, I find the prominent placement of the flag as the topmost picture in the article to be undue. -- T*U ( talk) 20:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And Cubans, Iraqis, Omani people (etc etc...) don't. The whole thing of "ethnic group" or not is a false flag in this discussion, as it is totally unrelated. The only question is: does the image in the infobox serves its purpose to illustrate with high visual prominence what the article is about? – Austronesier ( talk) 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I fear that the whole infobox is a mess, because it sums up data of different kinds, especially German citizens and people who report German ancestry. I'd suggest: Remove the flag, the map, the "Total population", "Language" (few of the 40 million Americans reporting German ancestry know German), and "Religion" (the current version totally ignores German Muslims) data from the infobox. Then we could base the "Regions" on this data collection and add "ancestry" data where available, e.g. in the US. Any thoughts ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Pumpoviro and Wikiedro: The definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is given in WP:PSTS. According to that definition, Canal Once may be a secondary or a tertiary source, but it is surely no primary one. A typical primary source might be a study by a historian or geneticist estimating the number of Germans in Mexico. Additionally, primary sources should be used with care (because in most cases they have to be interpreted), but their use is not forbidden, especially not in this case, because the simple copying of a number doesn't involve interpretation. For me, the only question is whether Canal Once can be considered a reliable source according to WP:RS. I guess, in this case it may be considered reliable enough, and I'd suggest the number be readded. But I leave that to you. Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
LambdofGod, rather than edit warring to add the 500,000 figure, please engage in discussion here. The source you are citing says that there are 280,000 Germans in Italy, not 500,000. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There are about 211.000 citizens of Germany in Italy according to this source:
and there are around 360.000 ethnic Germans with Italian citizenship living in Italy:
Making for around 570.000 Germans in Italy. I see that the figure for 40 millions of Germans for the United States is based on self declared German Americans with the American citizenship. You either delete such absurd figure or let me post the real number of Germans in Italy.
LambdofGod ( talk) 07:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph we have: "Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity.[13]" This footnote 13 is a reference to a source that we are leaning on very heavily in the opening "Haarmann 2015, p. 313. "After centuries of political fragmentation, a sense of national unity as Germans began to evolve in the eighteenth century, and the German language became a key marker of national identity."
" If I understand correctly the intention here is to allow for some fuzziness in what "German" means, going beyond mere citizenship? However:
I suggest tweaking might be appropriate.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Polemical forum-style discussion without any sources |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Germanic people came into contact with other tribesWhen the Germanic people moved from Scandinavia to modern-day Germany they came into contact with Celtic, Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes. Shouldn’t this be mentioned in the article? I tried to add it but it got removed for apparently not discussing it on here first. FriendlyFerret9854 ( talk) 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There’s no “speculation”. The Indo-European and Indo-Aryan migrations are well documented. Present-day Germany has had tribes that weren’t Germanic tribes settle there for centuries e.g. Celtic tribes and Slavic tribes. All Europeans are descended from tribes outside of Europe because that’s how historic migrations happened, why should that be excluded with regard to Germans as an ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I would say that any explanation of early predecessors of German identity, whenever and however that started, is going to be about both low and high german speakers, but not dutch speakers? But as usual it depends what sources we find. Secondly, if we find there is a lot to say about this, then automatically the practical question arises of whether we should split out a specialized article - especially since we would then be talking about predecessors of germans as we see them today.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
10:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Errors in the statistics of the regions with significant german populationsIn Kazakhstan 900,000 Germans are taken. They were 900,000 in 1990, when the USSR still existed, the same for Russia (800,000 Germans), but these are too old numbers, from 1990, most of them emigrated to Germany in the nineties ... In Brazil they are too few, in Argentina according to many data, including the government, say there are several million, the same is true for Canada and Mexico, in South Africa most of the Boers / Afrikaners have partial German origin. We should also include the Alsatians and Lorraine who although they speak French are of German origin. Many South American countries are missing: Chile, Peru ', Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay (Mennonites), Guatemala, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico ..... and European countries: Netherlands (Frisians), Luxembourg (Luxembourgers are considered Germans), the German minority of Belgium, the German Greeks who return to Greece, the German Turks who return to Turkey, ... Furthermore, you add could also the Swiss and the Austrians, not only because they speak German but also because they are still very similar on a physical level and for the somatic features
|
![]() | This page 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. |
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.
How should the ethnicity and nationality dimensions of the term Germans be weighted on Wikipedia?
--
Tserton (
talk)
00:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: The bulk of the discussion on this topic occurred on
WikiProject Ethnic groups, but I'm posting the Rfc on
Talk:Germans as it directly concerns that article. --
Tserton (
talk)
00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
removing everything that deals with the nationality from that articlewould mean to remove e.g. sports (there are several players in the German national teams who are not ethnic Germans), literature ( Heinrich Heine was a Jew, i.e. he is excluded by the condition "common ancestry and history", Navid Kermani is not an ethnic German), remove Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel (they were not elected by the ethnic group) and so on. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Reliable tertiary sources, such as published encyclopedias, are a good proxy for what the majority of reliable, independent, secondary sources say, and and may be helpful in evaluating due weight. We can survey tertiary sources, which are more limited in number, to estimate what secondary sources are saying. Such a survey can give us some hard data which will increase our confidence that we are reading the secondary sources correctly, and in the right proportion, which can help resolve the Rfc question.
Here is a summary of what some tertiary sources say about this issue, discovered during the related discussion at WT:ETHNIC:
Click [show] to view references for tertiary sources
|
---|
References
|
Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
... the more broadly formulated concept of "German ethnicity (membership of people/nationality)" seems more appropriate for many purposes, as does the definition based on a person's declaration of such membership.....-- Moxy 🍁 15:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Below is a survey of the encyclopedic entries on Germans that have been presented so far in the discussion. Given the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as well, these entries are helpful for determining the notability of concepts.
Krakkos ( talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to respond to Krakkos' argument above about the ethnic definition of Germans in the Survey section. Krakkos, you !voted for "One article with the ethnic definition appearing first", and in support of this choice, you pointed out correctly, that of the twelve tertiary sources, only five mention the ethnic aspect, so you chose to examine those five sources exclusively and base your conclusion upon what you found there. But this is an example of the fallacy of incomplete evidence, and does not prove your point, it merely confirms what you already believed, without viewing the full picture.
To illustrate what I mean, consider the following hypothetical thought experiment: some Wikipedia editors are looking at the Origin of life article, and wondering about astrobiogenesis [a]—the theory that life was seeded on Earth by intelligent aliens who spawned the human race. As a way to determine majority and minority views on the topic of origin of life, editors examine two dozen encyclopedias or other tertiary sources, mostly general ones, as well as some specializing in astronomy, exobiology, and ufology. The result is, that only six of them mention astrobiogenesis at all: four ufology encyclopedias or almanacs, one exobiology encyclopedia, and one astronomy encyclopedia in passing. From this, Wikipedia editors from "WikiProject UFOlogy" conclude the following:"The primary topic for an article is the topic which has received the largest amount of notable coverage. Five of the 24 tertiary sources listed in the section below address astrobiogensisis directly and in detail. Those five sources are therefore of great relevance to this question. Four of those sources (excluding the exobiology encyclopedia) address astrobiogenesis as a viable life origin theory. Based on four out of five, the astrobiogenesis topic thus appears to be the primary topic for "origin of life on Earth".
Do you see the fallacy in their thinking? They regard the fact that numerous tertiary sources fail to mention astrobiogenesis, as meaning they play no part in the examination to determine the primary topic per WP:DUE WEIGHT. But this is false: the lack of an "astrobiogenesis" article in 18 general encyclopedias is in fact conclusive, and relegates the the five that do cover it to a minority point of view. By selecting only those five to examine, the Ufology Project editors fell into the fallacy of incomplete evidence, and their conclusion is erroneous.
In my view, picking only the five encyclopedias that say something about ethnic Germans, and ignoring the rest that do not, amounts to the same thing and is not a valid way of evaluating what the primary topic is here. In addition, of the five sources you chose, four of them are ethnology sources, as Rsk6400 already pointed out, and as the Law of the instrument says, "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Mathglot ( talk) 20:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Notes
What about That would mean replacing "ethnic group" with "people" and dropping the unsourced clause "who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history." Whether "Germanic" should be included or not is open to further discussion. "People" (Volk) may be understood as a synonym for "ethnic group", but it may also be understood as the group of German citizens. Although some Germans today think the word might be used to promote nationalist ideas, it is used in official language (e.g. in the oath a member of the German government has to take and in central parts of the German constitution - E.g. Article 20: "(2) All state authority is derived from the people."), where it is understood in the latter sense. --
Rsk6400 (
talk)
08:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a people native to Central Europe.
?
The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a people whose history is linked to the inhabitants of Central Europe in antiquity. While the constitution of Germany defines "the German people" as the group of German citizens, persons of German descent or native speakers of German living outside Germany may also identify as ethnic Germans.-- Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Germans (German: Deutsche) has several interrelated meanings: It can denote natives or inhabitants of Germany, or persons of German descent, or native speakers of the German language.and
Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with Germany. The term may be used as a synonym for the citizens of Germany or ethnic Germans who are native to Central Europe, and who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history.Both were reverted by KIENGIR, sadly without giving any substantiated reasons. I still don't see a possible way of defining two groups for two different articles. Every aspect of social life in Germany today includes Germans who are not "ethnic Germans". E.g. you can't talk about German literature today without mentioning Navid Kermani, born in Germany to Iranian parents. But you cannot talk about it either without mentioning Herta Müller, an ethnic German from Romania who already was an author before she relocated to Germany. Even associations for preserving traditional regional culture in Germany have members whose parents immigrated from Spain, Turkey or Nigeria. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
"Germans (German: Deutsche) are people who identify with Germany by citizenship, culture, ethnicity or heritage. The term once referred primarily to ethnic Germans, an ethnic group that emerged in antiquity from central Europe, but today is also widely used to describe German citizens independent of ethnicity."I think this sort of "teaches the controversy" and can be backed up by the literature. Alternatively, we could go for simplicity and call out the ambiguity right in the first line:
Germans (German: Deutsche) can refer both to citizens of Germany and to ethnic Germans or their descendants. While the constitution of Germany defines "the German people" as the group of German citizens, persons of German descent or native speakers of German living outside Germany may also identify as ethnic Germans.-- Tserton ( talk) 03:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today widely refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.A chronological approach lists the ethnic meaning first without giving it undue weight. Thoughts? -- Tserton ( talk) 04:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today widely refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.") I genuinely think most of us agree more than we disagree on this issue and can find a solution everyone's broadly okay with.-- Tserton ( talk) 12:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
...While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today also refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.) If you'd prefer, we could also remove the "irrespective of ethnicity and descent," since that's already implied. As for sources: I was definitely planning on sourcing the changes we make. Most of the sources currently used in the article are used for highly specific citations, but some of the more general ones do cover the non-ethnic use of the word (although many were removed by Krakkos earlier today in an unrelated edit), and some also address its evolution over time. For example:
The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today also refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent." -- Tserton ( talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Notes
As a German, I reject the very idea of such a thing as "German ethnicity", except maybe as a short-lived historical invention.
There is citizenship, and there are language skills. Both can be acquired by birth / as a first language or later in life, and there isn't too much ambiguity. What's left if you remove these from the concept of German "ethnicity"? People above have noticed that very little that would remain of the article in question when these concepts are excluded, and that's a testament to its accuracy.
If a baby is born to "ethnic Germans" but raised by French-speaking Canadians in Mexico, will that baby still be an "ethnic German"? If you believe so, the concept you have in mind is one of race. And we aren't going to go there for obvious reasons, but also because it would be scientifically wrong: there is likely more genetic difference between north and south Germans than, say, people from the Saar region and French, or some eastern German regions and Poland.
If the baby isn't "ethnic German", then the concept is merely about language skills, citizenship, and maybe cultural familiarity, in which case it's far easier to just state those attributes, since they tend to have universally-agreed definitions.
As the sources above show, there may be something not entirely unlike a historical concept of "Germanic tribes". But look at any map older than 200 years and you'll find (as the plural hints at), it's more of a catch-all for what's left in Europe once French/Polish/Italian are accounted for. At that time, these tribes were united mostly by the need to agree upon a limited, universally-understood set of insults to enable most of the communication deemed necessary.
If one were to insist on defining any German "identity" distinct from citizenship today, it would be one that emerged after 1945, and one of it's core tenets would be the rejection of a concept of ethnicity. Yes, this is about "feeling bad". But that "feeling bad" happens to be a concept that is more "real" than "ethnicity". Consider the Grundgesetz (basic law / constitution). It begins:
Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,
Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe,
the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law
People above referred to the mention of people (Volk) here as an invocation of something akin to ethnicity. But it should be noted that there are three references to "feeling bad" before "people": "conscious of responsibility" / "inspired to promote world peace" / "equal partner in a united Europe".
One long list of individual states (ethnicities?) later, it continues:
This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.
...which is helpful here to disambiguate the reference to "people". Nobody would argue that the German constitution does not apply to naturalised German citizens, or that it applies to Leonardo di Caprio because his Great-Grandma had an Ü in her name. The only valid interpretation is, therefore, at least every person with German citizenship, and, at least partially, everyone subject to German jurisdiction.
-- Matthias Winkelmann ( talk) 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
the German people ... have adopted this Basic Law. This means that the definition of "being a German" given by the Basic Law is in fact how the German people wants to see itself, i.e. as a group including every citizen, regardless of ancestry. The current lede shows disrespect for the self-definition of the Germans as well as disregard for the sources.
The Austrian ethnic identity is comparatively young (it developed primarly as a conflicted successive distancing from Prussian-German culture, with the final blow of WWII), but it exists. Even Austrian right-wing politicians today aren't very eager to merge their country with Germany, let alone being called German. Calling a Deutschschweizer an ethnic German could under circumstances be onsidered an insult, after all, a German living in Switzerland is considered a speparate thing regarding cultural (even if (s)he naturalized) and national identity form being a Swiss-German speaking Swiss living in Switzerland, just as a Swiss Romand is no French. Swiss people think of themselves as a seven hundred year old independent nation. The people of the GDR always consindered themselves being German, this understanding was the foundation for the German reunification. It is a completely different case compared to Switzerland and Austria, the ethnic identity was never really a question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A4:9840:D0AA:9806:5F29:C1CE ( talk) 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I took a short look at some texts I found at JSTOR searching for "Defining Germanness". Among others, I found Lene Rock (2019). "CONSTITUTIVE OUTSIDERS". As German as Kafka: Identity and Singularity in German Literature around 1900 and 2000. Leuven (Belgium): Leuven University Press. pp. 31–66. JSTOR j.ctvss3xg0.5.. That text looks at the debates in Germany during the last century about who can be called a German and who not. Different ideas like "Volksnation" (the nation seen as a people) or "Kulturnation" (the nation seen as bound together by a common culture) have been discussed in Germany. This whole discussion should be included in the section "Identity", but it is strangely absent from there.
In the early 20th century, there was a special focus on whether Jews can be included in the concept of Germanness. I hope that I am mistaken, but I fear that the current lede with its stress on "common German ancestry, culture, and history" corresponds more or less to the "völkisch" (literally "people-ish", i.e. national, ethnic) definition used to exclude Jews which led to the
Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust. Since Jews are normally endogamous, in many cases they don't share a common ancestry with non-Jewish Germans, and to say that the murderers at Auschwitz share a common history with their victims seems to be cynical. If my interpretation of that formula is correct (I hope it isn't), it is anti-semitic and follows the worst traditions of Germany. The fact that the Holocaust is not mentioned in the article (except in the time specification "after the H.") adds to this picture of an antisemitic tendency in the article. Antisemitism and all other forms of racism are inherently incompatible with
WP, see
WP:NONAZIS. --
Rsk6400 (
talk)
19:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I compared some of your edits which seemed strange to me with the source you quoted:
The greatest challenges facing modern German society include globalization and immigration, which has eroded the German social fabric and labor market., sourced to Moser 2011, p.175. Moser says that "globalization and the attendant neoliberal shift in economic policies ... have eroded the social fabric and labor market arrangements established in the postwar period". Meaning, you left out the "neoliberal shift", presented immigration (which Moser mentions only afterwards) as the sole cause of the erosion and made the erosion look a little worse by changing the object from "arrangements" to "labor market". This is a typical far-right argumentation, not based on sources, but on feeling: "The immigrants are stealing our jobs".
a large number of monuments being constructed in order to demonstrate German guilt.The closest to this which can be found in the source (Moser p.174), is
Germans have grappled publicly with war guilt. The combination "German guilt" is found nowhere in the source. The wording is important because after WW II there was a heated discussion about a " German collective guilt". The connection "in order to" which you made is mentioned nowhere in the source, but is a favourite subject of the German far right, see e.g. the reference to Björn Höcke I recently came upon in "The Atlantic". BTW: That article also states that the "Neue Rechte" (German "New Right") focuses on "identity and culture", contrary to what you told me recently about far-right people focusing on a "German race".
There is much more which is dubious in your edits, such as the removal of the Jews from the history of the Middle Ages, your mentioning of the Holocaust as a result of the war (which may be an error, but it is also a connection which Hitler made), your forgetting of Heinrich Heine (a Jew until he was nearly 30 years old) when you first copied the list of German writers from Moser (you corrected it after I complained). You alleged that I am on a "campaign". Could you please comment on why you represented the sources the way I described above ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone - if no one disagrees, I would like to request formal closure of this Rfc, since the topic of discussion for which it was created (i.e. how to construct the article in general and what to do about the lead in particular) has largely concluded and we're going in circles again. The other discussions that have sprung up under the Rfc section (though important) aren't really pertinent to the Rfc itself. I'm open to suggestions though. If the dispute still persists after the Rfc is closed, we should move it to another dispute forum. -- Tserton ( talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This RfC has gotten quite long and convoluted. In an effort to establish clarity, i have created a tally surveying the arguments of participants. Please correct me if the tally contains errors:
Krakkos ( talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Save your breath; nobody taking part in this Rfc has any say in the closing process. Everything in this section will be ignored by the closer, who will apply proper closing principles to the process, and not pay attention to further advocacy, intentional or otherwise, by involved editors in the guise of disinterested tally summaries. Mathglot ( talk) 09:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
Phew, that was a long wait. I still think that the definition of Germanness by "culture, descent and history" is not acceptable and not supported by reliable sources. The second problem with the current lede is that German citizens who don't share the "descent and history" are only reluctantly called Germans in the third sentence, which is contrary to the commonly accepted way in which Germans speak about themselves today.
Since the last RfC was not very successful (except in establishing consensus that we don't want to split the article), I'd propose to take the issue to WP:DRN. Any thoughts ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is clearly intended to include modern Germans in its subject matter, and centre around them? But I notice we have this sentence in the opening, which seems to equate the topic of this article with a very distinct use of the same term by classical historians, which is NOT normally intended to include Germans when used in this way, but rather refers to the concept we cover in
Germanic peoples: The term "German" may also be applied to any [...] member of the Germanic peoples,[19][20][21][22][23]
Almost all the sources are from
WP:TERTIARY sources, which is not ideal. But here is a closer analysis...
I've tried reading the very long RFC and obviously it is very difficult to get exact conclusions out of it, and it is important to focus on smaller bits. I think the term "Germanic[11] ethnic group
" in the opening line should be changed, perhaps to "German-speaking ethnic group
". Here are some reasons:
Long unsourced reasoning about the current use of "Germanic"
|
---|
I'm not sure what your complaints are here. Germanic is a term rooted in language, just like Celtic, Slavic, Italic and others. These terms wouldn't exist if the Proto-Indo-European language hadn't fragmented and corrupted over time in various parts of Europe to develop the proto languages for all these groups. Roman concepts of who is and isn't Germanic (or anything else from the north) were vague at the best of times, to say the least, but Germanic peoples themselves clearly had a concept of some sort of a shared identity with one another, and their terms for foreigners and how (and WHO) they apply them to are clearly language based. Most terms for Germanic speakers from other groups (like Slavs) are also rooted in language too (the Slavic word for Germans vaguely translates as 'those who don't speak' or 'mutes'). Most peoples generally go by their language. Especially in places like Central Europe where you are often surrounded by peoples who speak a totally different language you cannot understand. You might not understand that living in a world where you feel like everyone can speak English, but I'd suggest you travel somewhere where people generally have a poor grasp of English to see just how foreign you feel and how important you will come to view language as a component of identity. The few exceptions to this are areas where there are no language divides and haven't been for a long time, and people tend to devolve into tribalism based on things like geography or ideas of 'distinct blood' or stereotypes and various other factors. I honestly don't know what your problem with the term 'Germanic' is. I've just taken a look through your history on related articles and you have been ceaselessly warring against these language based classifications (overwhelmingly just Germanic ones) for years now. It's just a method of subdividing large groups of peoples under umbrella terms. It's not that big of a deal, is fairly accurate and useful and says more about the people getting 'offended' by the classifications than it does anything else. I'm sorry to break it to you, Andrew, but you're Germanic. Whether you identify as that or not, that is your classification. "People do not describe themselves as Germanic" I find it incredibly hard to believe you've never encountered someone describing themselves as Germanic, being from England. I'm not even from England and I've met countless people describing themselves, and the English people, Germanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 ( talk) 01:44, May 13, 2021 (UTC)
It's polarizing because people get offended by the term 'Germanic' due to its hijacking by far-right peoples and racists at the turn of the 19th century and later the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and modern groups, bizarrely, influenced by them. All Germanic has ever originally meant was 'speakers of Proto-Germanic or languages descended from it'. Proto-Germanic people were mixed to begin with (heavily), they continued to mix with others throughout their existence and absorb and assimilate peoples. The idea of them being a 'biological race' is as ridiculous as... well just about any other 'racial' categorization (such as white or black Americans). Any attempts to attach a 'biological racial' angle to Germanic peoples are entirely another matter and something that is equally problematic with many other ethnolinguistic groups like Slavic, Celtic, Italic and other peoples. It's not Wikipedia's place to censor objective realities and ethnolinguistic classifications because fringe lunatics don't understand what the term means, don't understand anything about the history of the people they feel they have some kind of affiliation with or attachment to... and perhaps most strangely of all (considering how crucial 'blood' and 'genetics' seems to be to their sense of identity and origins) seem to understand absolutely nothing about human archaeogenetics and the picture it's slowly painted over the past 10-20 years. I can start taking offense at you using the term 'blond' tomorrow. I can probably convince a great deal of others to start taking offense at the word 'blond' through pointing out that blondism was hijacked by very similar peoples at certain points in time as the term 'Germanic' was and used to justify the same atrocious acts... in fact I've met many people who are 'repulsed' by blond people today and have made absolutely ridiculous and offensive comments to me, as well as judged me and made amazing assumptions about me simply due to the fact that I have blond hair and blondism was some cherished trait among fringe lunatics who managed to finagle their way into power in 20th century Germany. That doesn't mean blond people don't exist. It doesn't mean people don't identify themselves as blond. It doesn't mean blond isn't a useful (but ultimately rather trivial and superficial) method of categorization humans in a physical sense. Germanic people are an ethnolinguistic group. A living, breathing, existing one today. Whether it's people identify strongly with that or not, they are a thing and many of them DO identify with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 ( talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is bloody ridiculous. Germanic peoples are the ONLY ethnolinguistic group this is an issue with. The SOLE one. Turkic peoples apparently exist, Slavic peoples apparently exist, Celtic peoples apparently exist (even though they don't even speak the languages, bizarrely, explain that one to me... I guess Thracians, Illyrians, Baltic Prussians, Picts and numerous other extinct ethnic groups are still with us today since people descended from them live on, LOL), Semitic peoples apparently exist, Romance peoples apparently exist, Bantu peoples apparently exist, Greek people apparently exist, Armenians apparently exist, Baltic peoples apparently exist, Finnic peoples apparently exist. Pretty much every ethnic identity you'll find is rooted in a language group. Almost every single one begins as a language group. They all make clear mention of the fact it's mostly a language based term (the larger umbrella terms), and that there are divides (sometimes hostile) within the larger ethnolinguistic bloc. That's absolutely fine.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the term Latin? Or Latino/Latina? You've honestly never heard someone from France, Spain, Italy, South America, the US etc. refer to themselves as 'Latins'? What do you think that term means exactly? They definitely don't share ancestral origns, in fact the original Latin tribe didn't even shared ancestral origins being a mix of all different peoples adopting the language and identity of the Latins. The people the Romans went on to assimilate all over Europe shared even LESS of an ancestral origin with them. Exact same thing with the Slavs, massive levels of Slavicization all over the regions Slavs settled historically. I've met PLENTY of people who consider themselves 'Semites' and 'Semitic'. In fact the term used for hatred of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group which originated out of a confederation of Semitic tribes in Canaan, is funnily enough 'anti-Semitism'. A people who, by the way, have a SEMITIC laguage as their 'traditional and holy tongue', and who resurrected that language as the lingua france of the State of Israel. What's the total Semitic genetic inheritance of modern Jews? You probably don't know the answer to that, but it's far lower than you probably would think it is. And as for Swedes, why are you conflating German with Germanic? Swedes don't speak German, they speak Swedish which like German descends from the Proto-Germanic language, making the speakers of both languages... wait for it, GERMANIC. Every Swede I've met has strongly identified as Germanic, or sometimes more specifically North Germanic. Not a single one has disputed this term. Have you ever actually spoken to someone who doesn't speak English as their mothertongue, Andrew? |
Yep, hide it away as always lmao. All you'll do is further incentivize Germanic peoples to strongly identify as such and push for this. As history repeatedly shows us, the harder you try to 'quash' an identity or 'purge' it, the stronger it is held among people.
Once again, I'd like to suggest a new beginning for the lede:
Germans ( German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. [1] When used in the context of ancient history, it can also mean members of Germanic peoples. [1] The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. [2] During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. [3] Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. [4] Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany. [5]
The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century ...
What do you think ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.
Moser_172
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Moser_171
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).References
Unless otherwise provided by a law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person.
Moser_172
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Moser_171
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).That explanation makes sense to me to some extent, although I wonder if we really have a source which says the old concept no longer applies, which is what your text implies? I am finding it hard to keep flicking between pages, so here is a comparison, broken into similar bits, and some comments:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
version of 15 May 2021 | proposal of Rsk6400 | comments of Andrew Lancaster |
---|---|---|
The Germans ( German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe. | Germans ( German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. | I tend to agree that the existing sentence is controversial and eventually going to need change. It accepts no immigrants, even "ethnic German" immigrants. It still seems a bit odd to have no mention of either citizenship or ethnicity in the proposed opening sentence. (Maybe there needs to be two articles, for German ethnicity and German citizenship?) Concerning this new proposal, if a person living in Germany has no citizenship and does not identify as German, are they German? OTOH, we still see talk of ethnic Germans who are not really from there, an important practical example being the large number who were accepted to immigrate on a special basis from the old east block after the fall of the Berlin wall. So I think we can't just say this is an old idea? |
Speaking the German language is the most important characteristic of modern Germans, but they are also characterized by a common German culture, descent and history. The term "German" may also be applied to any citizen, native or inhabitant of Germany, regardless of whether they are of German ethnicity. Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany. | The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. | I again agree that the current version is controversial for using such strong words as "most important". Wikipedia can't take sides, and there are clearly different ideas around, not only among "normal people" but also in publications. I also agree that citizenship deserves a very prime position in any definition. See above. |
Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany. | It seems a good idea to include this. I would suggest adding this already, as I doubt it is controversial. Only one question: how are Germans being defined here? I guess it will be using different definitions, but probably most often self-identification, language and ancestry. Should we mention the definition methods? | |
The German ethnicity developed among early Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. | The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century | It is an improvement. It was not among the Germanic peoples of Central Europe, but (scholars say) specifically among the inhabitants of the Eastern Frankish Kingdom. I think the new version is not perfect. What came first was not an ethnic designation "German", but rather an idea that the eastern Frankish kingdom could be called Germania. (Lotharingians, for example in Cologne, were sometimes also said to be living in Gaul/Gallia. e.g. Alpertus of Metz) Ethnicity was not really an obsession of medieval writers, at least when talking about people in the Frankish kingdoms, but when they did identify sub-groups it was often on the basis of the old stem Duchies: people were sometimes distinguished for being Saxon, Bavarian, etc, not German until later. Language was also sometimes mentioned but it was not clearly linked to ethnicity, for example in the area where I live where Walloon speakers and Dutch (West Germanic) speakers (Tiois in French, T[h]eutonicus in Latin) were distinguished, for example in the chronicle of Sint-Truiden which says that in Teutonic, Walloon is the word for corrupt Roman language. But all these people have been living together for more than a 1000 years before French and German romanticism inspired new ideas. |
It still seems a bit odd to have no mention of either citizenship or ethnicity in the proposed opening sentenceI personally believe that it should be "citizen" instead of "inhabitant" (exactly because of the persons living in Germany without identifying as Germans who you mentioned), but both my Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition, 2010, on Kindle) and Merriam-Webster say "inhabitant". The idea of ethnicity is expressed by the words "German descent", and I think this also covers the "OTOH" example you gave.
Maybe there needs to be two articlesNot to split the article was the only thing we were able to agree on in the RfC, see Talk:Germans/Archive_8#Rfc_for_due_weight_regarding_the_ethnic_vs._nationality_meaning_of_"Germans".
how are Germans being defined here?I think you really spotted the weak point: The source says: "... depending on how German is defined". I now suggest this wording: "Depending on the definition of Germanness, estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany.".
@
Rsk6400: how about doing a narrow / broad distinction in the opening sentence, such as Germans (German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language.
? Second, concerning the last bit, how about The history of Germans as an ethnic group began with the separation of distinct Kingdom of Germany from the eastern part of the Frankish Empire under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century, forming the core of the Holy Roman Empire.
--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Right-wing politics thanks for your edit, but it raises some old questions: First, aren't Austrians only Germans in an extended and slightly controversial way? (Not the same way that a German is a German.) If you call Austrians "German", why not Swiss, Belgian, French, Rumanian, Russian etc German-speakers? See my suggestion to Rsk6400 above.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Germans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix the edits by
User:Rsk6400 that introduced two different values for |pop12=
and |region12=
in the infobox.
98.230.196.188 (
talk)
20:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
| region12 = {{Flag|Switzerland}} | pop12 = 307.387{{efn|Citzens of Germany living in Switzerland at the end of 2019 according to official census data.<ref>{{cite web |title=Demographic balance by citizenship |url=https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/pxweb/en/px-x-0103010000_151/px-x-0103010000_151/px-x-0103010000_151.px/|type=Statistics |publisher=Swiss Federal Statistical Office|year=2020 |location=Neuchâtel |website=www.bfs.admin.ch |language=en|access-date=10 June 2021 }}</ref> Haarmann gives a number of {{circa}} 4,200,000.<ref name="Haarmann_Populations"/>}} | region12 = {{Flag|United Kingdom}} | pop12 = {{circa}} 297,000{{efn|2013 [[Office for National Statistics|ONS]] estimate}} |
c. 700,000 🤣 They are only 147,814! (2011) Abraham ( talk) 14:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is it that of all Ethnic groups listed on Wikipedia, the Germans are basically denied their existence? Norwegians----> Ethnic Group. English---->Ethnic Group. Poles---->Ethnic Group. French---->Ethnic Group. And so on and so forth. But when it comes to Germans, who undoubtly are an Ethnic Group with common language and culture and usually origin, it all of a sudden becomes this endless discussion constantly leaning towards denying any German ethnic group at all. Quite ironic, considering the Germans have been around for so long.
Best regards, an ehtnic German.
@ Dan27032: If you want a change to be made and you see that another editor (in this case, me) disagrees, you take it to the talk page, but you don't start an edit war, see WP:BRD. Since the definition of "Germans" is rather broad, there are no well-defined numbers for any country. That's why I don't think, we should have a special marker "ancestry" just for the UK, and we shouldn't have three lines when all the other items have only one. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 05:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@ TU-nor: the flag has been in the article since at least May. In May, Germans were still defined as an ethnic group. After a long discussion (which fills the whole archive 8 of this talk page), the definition of Germans as an ethnic group was dropped. That's why I'd prefer to leave the flag where it is. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German languageis a definition of an ethnic group. What else should it be? If the article was strictly about the citizens of Germany, it would be another matter, but it is not. If 40M US citizens, 3M Brazilian citizens, 1M Australian citizens etc. mentioned in the infobox are German in the sense of the article, the flag is completely inappropriate. I will leave the discussion to the regulars, just noting that in the vaste majority of articles about people connected to a national state or to a regional unit, flags have been deemed undue and been removed or have never been there in the first place. -- T*U ( talk) 19:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language, which imho is equivalent to 'an ethnic group' (which is completely uncontroversial). 2) I think the German flag should definitely be mentioned in the article. However, I find the prominent placement of the flag as the topmost picture in the article to be undue. -- T*U ( talk) 20:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And Cubans, Iraqis, Omani people (etc etc...) don't. The whole thing of "ethnic group" or not is a false flag in this discussion, as it is totally unrelated. The only question is: does the image in the infobox serves its purpose to illustrate with high visual prominence what the article is about? – Austronesier ( talk) 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I fear that the whole infobox is a mess, because it sums up data of different kinds, especially German citizens and people who report German ancestry. I'd suggest: Remove the flag, the map, the "Total population", "Language" (few of the 40 million Americans reporting German ancestry know German), and "Religion" (the current version totally ignores German Muslims) data from the infobox. Then we could base the "Regions" on this data collection and add "ancestry" data where available, e.g. in the US. Any thoughts ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Pumpoviro and Wikiedro: The definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is given in WP:PSTS. According to that definition, Canal Once may be a secondary or a tertiary source, but it is surely no primary one. A typical primary source might be a study by a historian or geneticist estimating the number of Germans in Mexico. Additionally, primary sources should be used with care (because in most cases they have to be interpreted), but their use is not forbidden, especially not in this case, because the simple copying of a number doesn't involve interpretation. For me, the only question is whether Canal Once can be considered a reliable source according to WP:RS. I guess, in this case it may be considered reliable enough, and I'd suggest the number be readded. But I leave that to you. Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
LambdofGod, rather than edit warring to add the 500,000 figure, please engage in discussion here. The source you are citing says that there are 280,000 Germans in Italy, not 500,000. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There are about 211.000 citizens of Germany in Italy according to this source:
and there are around 360.000 ethnic Germans with Italian citizenship living in Italy:
Making for around 570.000 Germans in Italy. I see that the figure for 40 millions of Germans for the United States is based on self declared German Americans with the American citizenship. You either delete such absurd figure or let me post the real number of Germans in Italy.
LambdofGod ( talk) 07:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph we have: "Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity.[13]" This footnote 13 is a reference to a source that we are leaning on very heavily in the opening "Haarmann 2015, p. 313. "After centuries of political fragmentation, a sense of national unity as Germans began to evolve in the eighteenth century, and the German language became a key marker of national identity."
" If I understand correctly the intention here is to allow for some fuzziness in what "German" means, going beyond mere citizenship? However:
I suggest tweaking might be appropriate.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Polemical forum-style discussion without any sources |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Germanic people came into contact with other tribesWhen the Germanic people moved from Scandinavia to modern-day Germany they came into contact with Celtic, Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes. Shouldn’t this be mentioned in the article? I tried to add it but it got removed for apparently not discussing it on here first. FriendlyFerret9854 ( talk) 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There’s no “speculation”. The Indo-European and Indo-Aryan migrations are well documented. Present-day Germany has had tribes that weren’t Germanic tribes settle there for centuries e.g. Celtic tribes and Slavic tribes. All Europeans are descended from tribes outside of Europe because that’s how historic migrations happened, why should that be excluded with regard to Germans as an ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I would say that any explanation of early predecessors of German identity, whenever and however that started, is going to be about both low and high german speakers, but not dutch speakers? But as usual it depends what sources we find. Secondly, if we find there is a lot to say about this, then automatically the practical question arises of whether we should split out a specialized article - especially since we would then be talking about predecessors of germans as we see them today.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
10:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Errors in the statistics of the regions with significant german populationsIn Kazakhstan 900,000 Germans are taken. They were 900,000 in 1990, when the USSR still existed, the same for Russia (800,000 Germans), but these are too old numbers, from 1990, most of them emigrated to Germany in the nineties ... In Brazil they are too few, in Argentina according to many data, including the government, say there are several million, the same is true for Canada and Mexico, in South Africa most of the Boers / Afrikaners have partial German origin. We should also include the Alsatians and Lorraine who although they speak French are of German origin. Many South American countries are missing: Chile, Peru ', Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay (Mennonites), Guatemala, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico ..... and European countries: Netherlands (Frisians), Luxembourg (Luxembourgers are considered Germans), the German minority of Belgium, the German Greeks who return to Greece, the German Turks who return to Turkey, ... Furthermore, you add could also the Swiss and the Austrians, not only because they speak German but also because they are still very similar on a physical level and for the somatic features
|