Talk:Germans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups priority open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

---

Archived discussions (oldest first): /Archive 1 ... /Archive 2

---

Contents 1 Austrians pre WWII=Germans? 2 Complaint About NPOV Issue 3 Replacing Hitler with Bismarck 4 Austrians are not allowed image representation? 5 Requested move 5.1 Voting 6 57 Million Germans in America? 7 68 Million ethnic Germans in Germany 8 Generally speaking... 9 Plagiarism 10 English people 11 This article being about an ethnic group (rather than a nationality) 12 Some cleanup 13 population totals 14 Of course Austrians and SchweizerDEUTSCHE... 15 Primary Ancestry Debate 16 CITE 17 References 18 Estimates 19 Austria and Switzerland 20 German Populations 21 Related Ethnic Groups 22 this lame edit war has got to stop

[edit] Austrians pre WWII=Germans?

"Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity. It was only after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II that this began to change. After the world war, the Austrians increasingly saw themselves as a nation distinct from the other German-speaking areas of Europe, and today, polls indicate that no more than ten percent of the German-speaking Austrians see themselves as part of a larger German nation linked by blood or language." Being Austrian myself, I would regard this as an exaggeration; distince Austrian nationalism and a sense of national identity can easily be tracked back to the time of the Napoleonic wars; Austria became an independent empire in the early 19th century, at latest then the sense of German nationality versus distince "Austrian-German" nationality arose and co-existed in the multi-ethnic Habsburg empire.

Austrians are Germans, because I am an Austrian and the most austrians "feel" German.

Are you sure about that? Maybe you shouldn't leave a comment like this without signature. This could be misunderstood as a try to tell other people nationalistic bullshit. I know many Austrians myself, and none of them consider themselves as "Germans". Please overthink what you want to say before you say it. --Pletet 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint About NPOV Issue

I'm a second generation German-American with German citizenship. What exactly gives foreigners on Wikipedia the right to claim that I'm not German? If it were any other nationality/ethnicity you wouldn't dare make these sorts of assertions, but because this is anti-German Wikipedia you can say whatever you like. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right of anyone to repatriate at any time for any reason. Specifically, this Wikipedia author advocated violating our human rights persuant to Article 15 section 2 of the UDHR when he suggested that we shouldn't be allowed keep our German nationality.

Don't be silly, no one here denies you your citizenship. If you hold a German passport, you're German per definitionem. Period. But as a German I have every right to challenge that ancestorial concept of "Germanness": IMO I have nothing in common with American people who happen to have (some) German ancestors. Culturally they live American lives. What's German about them?

You're talking about such a vast segment of people. I would agree that Germans have little in common with someone whose great-grandfather came to America... but you as a German surely must understand enough of your own law to realize that people like that generally don't hold German nationality. Even still, if citizenship were arbitrated on the basis of how "typically American" or "typically German" a certain person was, a lot of people would be stateless.

"if you hold a German passport, you are German per definition" ie by "definition of citizenship" (not to confuse with "definition by ethnicity"!) Americans have many (!) German anchestors and that didnt "just happen". I dont see anything wrong with being aware or "in contact" with your own ethnicity - it is undeniably a part for all of us: Germans, Mediteraneans, Africans, "Red" Indians and "East" Indian, East-Asians or anybody; obviously it shouldnt "make" us but it is a part of us. Germany today is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country: formed by German citizen. They all make up ONE community which is mainly formed by a large stock of ethnic Germans (but also other ethnic communities (and all those part-communities within).

I think they should clear up this confusion by creating one article for ethnic Germans and another for actual citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany.

"citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany" should be covered by demographics of Germany!

No, because not all Germans live in Germany. What about FRG citizens who live overseas? There are a lot of these people. Germany was a source country for immigration well into the 1960s.Cyclopean typewriter 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We are running in circles: Germans are 1) Ethnic Germans who share a common ethnicity and share (or shared) a common "social culture" and 2) citizens of Germany who have no common ethnicity but live together within an environment that once produced things like "social and employment laws", a "welfare state" and the "theory of marxism". A citizen of the FRG can be any of the two: Still this article here is irrelevant and should be split between Ethnic Germans and Demographics of Germany (or "German Society"). April 1st 2006

I tend to agree. The Ethnic Germans article is really a worthy treatment of the subject. The current mess seems hardly worth the bother, and it's also confusing to people who come here. Cyclopean typewriter

I just want to make a point briefly. I'm trying to study identity and the problem is not with Wikipedia or the views of any of you well-meaning people. Human identity is one of those Platonic indefinables: no matter how you go around in circles about it you will never get a consistent definition. We aren't definable, now, are we? That was the Hitler's problem, he wanted to define everyone. Are you definable? Do the concepts in this article capture you and pin you down like a butterfly? I doubt it. These are only expedients. They never will be consistent, they never will be perfect, and they never will capture anyone. It is not really identity, but is only considered to be so. History just can't DO any better. Wikipedia can't abolish all your nightmares or throw light into the dark of existence. Sorry. We need an article here and it won't be a perfect one.Dave 04:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, bring Hitler into it.

[edit] Replacing Hitler with Bismarck

I've replaced the picture of Hitler with that of Bismarck. I did this because it seems more appropriate and fair. If there are any objections please let me know. Jombo 05:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I object actually. After a point can't we look back on history without attaching all sorts of conclusions here? Hitler was a German and probably the most famous in history. Bismarck is without a doubt well known and important, but how many people know him in comparison to Hitler and honestly who made a bigger splash so to speak? Hitler was also responsible for a lot death and destruction as was Genghis Khan (who still is a Mongol), Stalin (Georgian who adopted a more Russian cultural identity), Mao (he's probably the most well known Chinese person in the world), etc. Why is wikipedia supposed to be a feel good for all people so that they can have their prettiest and most shining examples (as they see it) shown as representatives while the controversial figures are swept under the rug? There should be a combination of both more universally 'liked' and admired figures and those who are infamous in history surely. At some point, we need to understand that just because Hitler was German this does not mean that he represents what Germans believe, especially today. I'd like to think that wikipedia could do better than cater to peoples' desire to gloss over the past frankly. Tombseye 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the objections, OK, now for the reply:

Bismarck is a far more appropriate representation for the German peoples not just because he didn't lead one of the most repressive regimes in the history of the world into the most destructive war in the history of the world, but because he as a Prussian, united Germany and most of the German people in the world and raised the status of Germany to that of a great power. Hitler on the other hand, an Austrian, not only saw the demise of German power but destroyed and divided much of what had come before. Fine, Hitler may be more well known than Bismarck to Americans, surely that shouldn't matter. If the benchmark for representing the German people is how well known they are to Americans then please explain to me why Goethe and Kepler and I'm afraid to add, Mozart are on there? Jombo 21:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing, Bismarck's a pivotal figure, BUT Hitler is well known not only to Americans, but to people WORLD-WIDE. Italians, Canadians, Chinese, Brazilians, all know Hitler before they know Bismarck. Secondly, Austrian is not an ethnic group as Germans are. Austrians are still Germans yes? Also, Hitler actually almost conquered the entire planet so that kind of trumps Bismarck's unification of Germany. Also Kepler and Goethe are appropriate because they represent other aspects of German society such as sciences etc. Although I'd keep one and add a woman like Steffi Graff or something so that there is a woman in there too and remove Goethe or something. Mozart is actually very well known in the US and abroad so I don't think that's an issue. Regardless, whether you keep Bismarck or not, most people are still going to think of Hitler at some point as a German. I'd bet that if you did a poll worldwide of famous Germans he'd make it on the list every time. Tombseye 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However, you can be 100% certain that any German reading the article will raise an eyebrow - or two. Hitler and all of the Nazi WWII propaganda are considered taboo in modern-day Germany. In fact, use of any symbols related to it has been outlawed. You can't buy or see any of these things anywhere - except for history books, which are all extremely critical of the period. Most people don't want have to do anything with it.

This is not to say that he is not a notable historical figure. What the editor above was trying to say though is that the division between Germans and Austrians has become much more pronounced in the last 60 years. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Austrian that would think of himself as of a German, same applies to Germans, they'd not think much of describing themselves as Austrian - or Swiss for that matter.

To use a counter example: U.S. constitution excludes naturalized citizens from candidacy in presidential elections. For good reason, as Hitler's example shows; he was a naturalized German citizen. And at the time, both Austria and Germany were relatively young republics. Jbetak 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to have become quite the slippery slope here. Well I know about the German taboo regarding the Nazis as I lived there myself for a time. I just thought that a wide range of prominent Germans would inevitably have to include the most famous/infamous. Since Hitler's too controversial for some I'm not going to argue the point and guard the page to keep his picture up or anything. Usually though, the Swiss and Austrians who are German acknowledge it and view themselves as a sub-group rather than a distinct group like Italians or Frenchmen, but you're correct on that score. Well, at this point I can go either way, but I do believe that Goethe should be replaced with a female figure, either Steffi Graff or Angela Merkel just to have a wider range of German people represented and include someone from the modern era etc. Tombseye 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reason for re-adding the original picture: Hitler was a very famous German. End of story. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, he wasn't German, he was Austrian. Second of all, read what everyone else has been discussing before taking it upon yourself to revert everything. Jombo 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was one under many famous German. But I believe only the more positive figures should be included in it. One could argue alot who should belong in it and who shouldn't. I certainly would include Bismarck. Mozart as one Austrian. I had included Luther instead of one of the other two, but doesn't matter that much. I also believe it should also be persons from different centuries. The greateast person, with the most accomplishments should belong in it. Not the most famous - or rather infamous one. Sure Hitler is way the most infamous one abroad. But that is more the result of lack of historical knowledge and the fascination of evilness.

--Lucius1976 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This article even says:

Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity. It was only after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II that this began to change. After the world war, the Austrians increasingly saw themselves as a nation distinct from the other German-speaking areas of Europe, and today, polls indicate that no more than ten percent of the German-speaking Austrians see themselves as part of a larger German nation linked by blood or language.

--Khoikhoi 03:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And your point is exactly? Today we write year 2005 -- oops 2006 ;-) Jbetak 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I also vote against including Hitler's portrait to represent an entire people. See also my prior posting at the top of this page. :] //Big Adamsky 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears Khoikhoi has been going around unilaterally replacing images with those of tyrants and dictators. See Georgian people as well. Jombo 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create that image. It looks like you created your account just to change the image on this page. I'm not sure why you really want to do it. Hitler is more famous than Bismark. --Khoikhoi 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we branch into personal attacks - please realize that this is not a pissing contest. It's not as simple as finding the four most famous representatives of each ethnicity or nation are. Besides that task in itself could spiral out of control. Look, I empathize with Tombseye's statement at the top of this section, since peoples' desire to gloss over the past is partially responsible for German sensitivity to this issue. I was really shocked to find out that German authorities removed most of WWII relics from Berchtesgaden as soon as they could. They should have been declared historical long time ago. Nevertheless, the issue is more nuanced than this and that's why it's good that we are having this discussion.

And while we are dishing out snide comments: since Stalin was a Soviet politician and the Soviet Union was a successor state to imperial Russia, shouldn't he be displayed here, just to be consistent? ;-) Jbetak 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was an ethnic Georgian. --Khoikhoi 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and Hitler was an ethnic Austrian. I personally think that this is just a technicality and not a determining criteria -- but you are really asking for it. Jbetak 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you just say, "before we branch into personal attacks..."? I don't think Hitler considered himself an "ethnic Austrian" (correct me if I'm wrong). --Khoikhoi 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way -- I still think that the choice of Hitler as a representative of modern (and historical) German nation is a poor choice. There are several reasons for that, the question of ethnicity is just one of them -- as I have indicated above. If the article displayed a larger selection of people, then including his image could be appropriate. Especially since he is also on the List of Germans. Although you should note that he is not acknowledged as an ethnic German there either.

You don't seem to care and I don't have time to put up a vote. "End of story. " as you pointedly said above. It's been a pleasure. Jbetak 07:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not sign up to Wikipedia just to change the picture. If I wanted to do that I'd do it anonymously and I resent the accusation. Second of all, does anyone else realise that we have two Austrians on here and only two Germans? I really do think that we should replace Hitler with Bismarck since Bismarck is traditionally seen as the uniter of the Germans and a German state. Jombo 08:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn you all, I'm not going to read all through this discussion, so here are my two cents. Hitler may have considered himself a German, well, because he believed in the Großdeutsche Lösung (big German solution, Austria + Germany). Historically, however, Germany became Kleindeutschland (Little Germany). I've had struggles over Bismarck's importance in comparison to Hitler in forums before and I concluded that Bismarck had a bigger influence on the German state of today but he is less well-known, for shame. Why is it important that he is well-known? Today Hitler is an insult. He's not famous, he's surely the most infamous person ever. If you compare someone to Hitler, the action is biased against the one compared to Hitler. I didn't recognize it was Goethe on the picture and not the other persons, neither, so a person ignorant of Germans looks at Hitler and he/she has a negative impression of Germans from the start. If he/she looks at the others, he/she doesn't even recognize them, and has neither a positve nor negative notion. Pictures are propaganda, always, and the norm in Wikipedia is giving a positive impression. For example, the article on India, a featured one, neglects to mention the poverty. So be consistent there, not only in articles about countries, but persons as well. And Stalin is not in the series of pictues, neither. And Copernicus is not even let into the list of Germans, neither, nor Mozart, nor Einstein.Engel der Vorstädte 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what was wrong with the image of Adolf Hitler. He may have been one of the world's greatest "villains" but we're not erasing the fact that he was a hugely famous figure (Austrians are included in Germans here). So, if anyone wants to return him they get my support but otherwise I'm ambivalent --- Bismark is good enough. Antidote 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck is a far more appropriate representation for the German peoples I don't think that is appropriate.Bismarck wanted to exterminate Poles: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can." Otto von Bismarck. So you are replacing one villain with another. --Molobo 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Did he actually wipe about the Poles or what's your problem? --AchtungAchtung 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bismarcks ,as well as the statements of Luther made about the jews in late life, was certainly unacceptable. But they were mere words, no action followed. Bismarcks Germany never expanded it's eastward border. After the aquisition of Elsass-Lothringen, which he was hasitant to annex, he did everything he could to prevent another war about territory in europe. Bismarck might have a somewhat controversial figure, but no villain. --Lucius1976 09:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrians are not allowed image representation?

I think some users are having trouble understanding this article is an article not only for Germans from Germany but also Germans from Austria, the Baltic states, old Prussian territories, Switzerland, etc etc. There is no reason not to include Mozart. Antidote 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Three Germans/One Austrian...seems fair to me. Antidote

Austrians are none other than politically distinct Germans. Ksenon 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is nothing more than culture - which there SHOULD be an article on...and it is in the works Austrians. Antidote

This is is a fairly common misunderstanding. I'd recommend that you read the German version of this very Wikipedia article for explanation. Part of the problem are obviously the popular misperceptions created and promoted by relatively recent megalomaniac politics of a certain controversial individual. And obviously, there was the Holy Roman Empire as well.

However, your argument could be applied to all states with predominantly Germanic populations. I'm thinking especially of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. While people in all of these countries speak Germanic languages, mutual understanding is only possible with a great difficulty, if at all. In the case of Switzerland, Germany and Austria this is somewhat simpler, since they have all agreed to support one and the same codification of the German language. This does not mean however, that verbal understanding is equally easy or that the great variation of local dialects has vanished with a stroke of a pen.

These dialects are indicative of the people's origin and their historical development. Interestingly, they typically converge with the dialects spoken in other countries on the fringes of national territories. This however, does not mean that the Swiss, the Danes, the Dutch or the Austrians would consider themselves German. They have developed their own national, cultural and linguistic identities and one would face fair amount of difficulty if one wanted to convince them otherwise. For the lack of better comparison, I'd point you to Russians and Ukrainians. Or perhaps point out some panslavic tendencies popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which might have resulted in other equally popular misperceptions. Jbetak 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a post-modernist, reviosionist (post ww2) view, as Austrians have always viewed themselves as Germans. One could say that the south German culture is "Austrian", or that Hessians differ from Brandenburgers. This is all a result of Germany's complex politics. Ksenon 23:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you can call it that if you like. However, we are writing the article today with our present understanding of what constitutes a German. This is closely related to our present understanding of the importance of a nation state and a common language. The article should obviously include historical evolution of the term and I believe the German version is better at this than the English one. Conversely, I believe that the present understanding of German goes back further than WW II, it is largely based on the work of Otto von Bismarck and the historical developments that preceded it.

One could consider the border between Austria and Germany as arbitrary and a result of a complex political process. However, similar thought could be applied to other borders of Germany, as discussed above. There are strong regional differences within Germany and if we agree that the Bavarian southeast is very similar Austria, we also have to see similar blurring lines between Schleswig and Denmark, Lower Saxony, Holland, Luxembourg and Flanders, Swabia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Alsace.

Although a strong sense of a separate Bavarian identity has survived until today, hardly any south Germans would describe themselves as Österreiche. Similarly, the majority of Austrians would not refer to themselves as Deutsche. Although this use gained strength in the latter part of the 20th century, it is based on earlier historical developments.

To settle this and find a proper place for Mozart, we should probably translate de:Österreicher into English. I seriously doubt they will want Hitler though ;-) Jbetak 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to have an article on Austrians but I think the population box is unnecessary and it will be close to impossible to accurately represent the Austrian population descent numbers in it. Antidote

Someone wrote the following: "Obviously you can call it that if you like. However, we are writing the article today with our present understanding of what constitutes a German." -- This, to me, is meaningless, because our understanding of what constitutes a "German" is exactly what is being called into question.

I think that I will have to contest the claim that Austrians are a completely separate people from the Germans. If we want to reach a truly coherent definition of "German people", be it in the ethnic, linguistic, political, or other sense, then we will have to agree on various principles. To appeal to an ethnic definition, we ought to regard those persons with a certain proportion of given genes as German (genes which ought to be circulating throughout the politically German people in a high enough consistency for this to be a meaningful variable). However, since it would be impossible for us to determine the genetic makeup of an entire nation, it should be safe to assume that a person with a German name, living in Germany, who spoke German, and whose family lived in Germany for some quota of generations, would most probably be an ethnic German. Obviously, linguistically, the Germans and Austrians are compatible (with some discrepancy for the Swiss), so a linguistic determination of "German people" would, under most reasonable circumstances, include Austrians. I think the Austrians' trend to distance themselves from Germany is, as another editor suggested, a post-modernist, revisionist tactic used by the Austrian people to remove the connections between themselves and the Hitler-Germany. Historically, the German people were scattered over Northen Europe in a vast collection of principalities, thus obviously not unified. Given this, it is not surprising that the Austrian Empire (a cohesive political entity) didn't bother to create an identity that included the Northern Germans. It should be noted that to say that Austrians are not Germans seems to raise a universal identity crisis for nationalities and peoples. Before Charlemagne united the Frankish tribes, the tribes considered themselves separate people, but I have never heard of dozens of different populations within France demanding political and identity-related independence. I am still not sure on what basis it is being argued that Austrians are separate from Germans, except that the Austrians want to be seen as separate. I also think that this argument leads to incoherent consequences. For instance, Hitler considered himself a German, but Metternich considered himself an Austrian. For us to have a coherent picture of what a "people" is, they can't both be right. To make a very long point short, I think that we need to adequately define what a "people" is, or else we will get nowhere. 65.185.213.33 04:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)2-22-06

First thing should be that the intro (maybe the very first sentence) should clarify the definition of German as by a differentiation between "citizenship" and "ethnicity" - regardless of language or culture. And have a link to Demographics of Germany. - This is in respect to an open society in Germany and per self-definition of neighboring communities (or people) who have no, little or larger German or Germanic influence (or background) or who do share (or decide not to share) a common sense for more. However both definitions are interlinked through history and herein are a number of defining moments:

1) Germany and the Lands of the Germans lie in the center of Europe with neighbors on all sides (obviously). 2) Germanic tribes (on the territory of Germany) were the only to stop Ancient Romans in the expansion of their Empire. 3) The basis for Charlesmagne and Otto the Great being coronated as Holy Roman Emperors to protect the Pope was not based on the rule of Roman law but the Emperor's supposed faithfullness to God. - Consequently German rulers saw it in their (good) faith on how to fullfill the given duty to the pope. Parallel to the (self-chosen) adoption of Roman law & culture, this aspect became characteristic for most of the Middle Ages and early Modern Times. 4) Countries (like the Netherlands and Switzerland) left the antiquated "Empire of faith". 5) In 1806 Austria inhabitated the Holy Crown and set a change in fate. 6) With the emerge of national movements (elsewhere first, I want to stress), above aspects became aspect of national pride. 7) Avoiding Bismarck's Small German Solution would have calmed national desires of many at that time. 8) After the breakup of the Habsburg Empire, "German-Austrians" voted by large majority to join Germany but this was rejected by the Ententé. 9) After 1945 some Germans went back to regionalism. (One of the reasons why I think defining seperate regional Germans is more than neessary: Bavarians, Hamburgers, Rheinländers and Saxons have a hell lot of differences!) 10) Others came to an understanding of the right application of faith (ethics) and law - still the outcome for life is different than - for example - the UK. 11) Imported English law (from the US and the UK) sets new social adoptions in the Federal Republic.

I would like to see this article a lot more contemporary, cause I guess a) most people reading this article arent European and b) are mostly under age of 30 (or even 20) and have no idea about Central European history and our perception of it. For this reason couldnt the portrait bar include one living person - or at least (!) one 20th century personality? Michael Schumacher or Adolf Hitler? Jil Sander or Marlene Dietrich? One female representative would be appropriate in any case. February 25th, 2006

I agree with Ksenon. German is ethnic and culture, Austrian is political. An Austrian is an Austrian in political context and if an Austrian wants to consider himself over his political status (citizenship), this should be fine with everyone. This, though, cannot rewrite history. And an encyclopedia should also bring some historian views, not only political correct views from today. The english-speaking community of Wikipedia must feel like some Austrians may have founded some kind of, unplaced in the EU, state-nationalism.

The whole Austrian/German matters are very complicated and have a lot to do with history and politics. Before 1866 there was no such thing as a real united german states. There were a lot of small and large german states that were all members of the so called "Deutscher Bund" (German Alliance). Among those states were Bavaria, Prussia, Austria and several others. Austria had a bit of a special role. While most other german states had only a german population (and maybe some minorities), germans were a minority in the Austrian Empire. Germans dominated the Empire, but still most people were slavs or belonged to another ethnic group. Now Austrian citizens felt of themselves of Austrians and Germans, and Austrians and czech or Austrian and Hungarian. It used to be exactly the same in Bavaria - people feel (and still do) they are Bavarian and German. Those regional identities were pretty important in a disunited Germany. The real identity trouble really started after the lost World War I in 1918. Suddenly the german parts of the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire, were all that was left and suddenly there were only germans in Austria. People still felt of themselves as austrian and german and some wanted Austria to become part of the new German Republic and some didn't want to. With the "Anschluss" in 1938 Austria became part of the German Reich. While many Austrians were fierce Nazis, some others realized that being part of this bigger country and being part of a country that was about to start wars in whole Europe was not that good. And soon many people wanted their old, little Austria back. Now that was the part when people started to emphasize their Austrian identity much more than their german one. The political and regional identity was suddenly much more important, than the "ethnic" one. And especially after WWII was lost and Austria re-established, nothing was more handy and easy than to push this Austrian identity and forget about the german one. Suddenly everyone, even those that had voted for unity with Germany, were Austrian patriots and it was "them", the germans, that had been the Nazis and committed the shoa. Austrians and germans, they have some sort of love-hate relationship. While german-bashing is very common in Austria, this has nothing to do with a real alienation with Germany and especially the german people. It has a lot to do with a feeling of inferiority, while claiming superiority, and being the younger and smaller one of two brothers. Now just a few words about me: I was born and raised in Austria, I still live there and study history and political science at university. Hagenk --193.171.131.249 17:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"youngerand smaller"? I think many of your compatriots would disagree. Austria is a successor state of the Holy Roman Empire, on equal footing with Germany, and it has a rather more glamorous imperial past. Austria was Austria from 1804, when "Germany" was still a patchwork of provinces. Austrians as a group are treated at Austrians, not here. Of course they are intimately related to the Germans, especially the Bavarians, but they are not known as "Germans" and hence fall outside the scope of this article. dab (ᛏ) 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I used "younger and smaller" to describe the brother-like relationship between Germany and Austria. Of course you are right, about the history. I do not support the ideology of nationalism, neither german nor austrian nationalism. All I wanted to do was to explain the whole austrian/german thing to people from elsewhere. But I think you are making a little mistake. From a nationalist point of view, Austrians are of course germans. The only reason why your regard so called Bundesdeutsche as the only germans is, because Prussia defeated the southern german states in the german - german war and united them in there empire and Austria remained a state of its own. In a post-nazism society stating Austrians are Germans has a bad connotation of being a supporter of nazism and german nationalism. While I personally despise both of them, I also do not support new national constructs such as an Austrian Nation. Bascially I don't care whether Austrians are mentioned here or in any other article, as I believe identities like that are obsolete and have always been obsolete. de:Benutzer:Hagenk --193.171.131.248 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

well, there are several kinds of "German nationalism", I suppose. The kind you refer to is the Grossdeutschland kind, which considers all continental West Germanic groups "Germans", including Austrians, Swiss (German speaking), Netherlanders, Flemish, everybody. This is nationalism based in the 19th century and the German Empire. Then there is "local" nationalism of the actual nations making up German speakers, viz. Alemannic, Austro-Bavarian, Franconian, Saxon. These are trans-boundary, there is an Alemannic sort of nationalism spanning Switzerland, Swabia and Vorarlberg, for example. Finally, there is "modern" Bundesdeutschland nationalism, as observed in football, which takes as its object of pride the contemporary state of Germany. Grossdeutschland nationalism has been completely discredited since 1945, with only Neonazis adhering to it. Nobody but a fascist bent on provocation would call Netherlanders, Swiss and Austrians "Germans" all and sundry. We can discuss all this, in a "nationalism" section or something, but the fact remains that this article is on "Germans", not on "continental West Germanic speakers". The "ethnicity" of most of Austrians is first Autro-Bavarian (Bavarii), and then generically Germanic, the term "Germans" is not well-defined as referring to an ethnic group (except for its obsolete meaning of "Germanic" in general). dab (ᛏ) 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really going to argue anymore, since this is really a kind of debate I don't want to participate in. But you know perfectly well, that there's a difference between swiss people and people from the Netherlands on the side and Austrians on the other. Switzerland and the Netherlands segregated from the HRR, finally with the peace treaty of Westphalia, but in fact much earlier, whereas Austria remained part of the HRR until it ended in 1806. Even after that Austria led the German Confederation. In 1948 Archduke Johann of Austria even became Reichsverweser. In the Battle of Königgrätz Prussia won the Austrian-Prussian war, the German Confederation ended and Prussia managed to united most german states in a new German Empire, but not Austria and Liechtenstein. That doesn't mean that german-speaking citizens of the Austrian-Hungarian Empires were suddenly no germans anymore - not at all. Only with the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1919, Deutschösterreich (German-Austria) hat to change it's name to Austria. But even the Christian Social Party, the so called Austrofascists, always emphasized that Austria was the "second german state". Only after 1945 for various reasons, no one was german anymore. One reason for that was, that Austrians didn't want to compensate of even show liability for the Shoa/Holocaust and lived to myth of being the first victim of Germany. This was one of the biggest lies in the aftermath of WWII and know and tolerated by the allied occupation forces. And btw. do you think Sudetendeutsche are of german or austrian nationality? Following your arguments, they are austrian of course, yet they are widely regarded as germans. Now I know exactly why you oppose my statements, as I read your userpage and found this statement by Albert Einstein "Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkranheit, sozusagen die Masern der Menschheit". I absolutely agree to this statement! I even think it's ridiculous to construct national identities like it is done in this article. Because a construction will always be subjective and relies on what I consider valid of invalid and important and unimportant. I would prefer to see and article about germans that states "citizens of the federal republic of germany" and an article on austrians that states "citizens of the republic of austria", because everything else just doesn't work. de:Benutzer:Hagenk --138.232.1.229 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

---

Well, if it remains like that it is a constant source of confusion. Some articles about ethnic groups - like the English, is splt between English, as language and nationality and English people - about the ethnos. Same in Italian and Spanish. But in some like Russians, Germans and French it is not named like this. That is the reason for the confusion in this articles. Nobody really now what is really meant there. Ethnos or nationality. I do agree that can be explained within the article but I believe there should be some kind of standard. Like: Germans (people) Germans (nationality) English (people) English (nationality) French (people) French (nationality) --Lucius1976 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose to a change but with constraints: In English language it appears those people being spezified as "* people" lack some ethnic components whereas those people not being spezified as "* people" lack some civil components. (Also: with all the linguistic argumentation I do understand "Italian people" not being "Italians".) Bottomline for the article "Germans", it should differ between "ethnicity" and "citizenship". February 26, 2006

[edit] 57 Million Germans in America?

Are you serious to declare 57 million Americans and 12 Million Brazilians ethnic Germans, because they have in part German ancestors? It is even highly controversial to call Austrians German (and I disagree), but the avarage American's only link to a German heritage is, apart from an often anglicised last name, an annual visit to the local oktoberfest. There should be at least some clear-cut connections to Germanness other than mere ancestry to include someone in a list about German people. I'm sure Eisenhower, Hoover and Rumsfeld would agree. Descendants of Germanised Poles or Huguenots wouldn't consider themselves ethnic Poles or French either, let alone know much about their ancestors' heritage. And the same is true for Americans. And what about Alsatians? Teodorico 12:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, true to some extent. But that flaw is also in the articles about English people, Italians, Spaniards. Of coulse no one is really of pure ancestry but the figures of the americans are due to the data from american census. --Lucius1976 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but either it's true or it isn't. I think a (partial) descent of German immigrants is not sufficient to define someone German, because this could falsely suggest that German Americans genuinely share profound cultural bonds with their ancestors' country of origin (including the command of German) - which is not the case whatsoever. The same is true for Italian Americans, Polish Americans etc. Teodorico 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well. Actually there is no such thing as a pure descent. Many Germans are of slavic descent. Actually 20 percent of all names in Germany are of slavic origin. But apart from that they do not have anything in common with slavic culture, language, religion. I do agree that all those numbers are a littlie hard to guess. But, the best shot is to ask the individuals of which descent they are, or they think they are. --Lucius1976 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's no such thing as a pure descent. The problem is that the (single or multi) German ancestry of *** Americans does not correspond to a significant subculture based on a German ethnicity which is clearly distinguishable from the rest. Ancestry is no synonym for ethnicity. But then, you are absolutely right, all those numbers are hard to guess and my complaint is a bit needless. Teodorico 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that your observation is spot on. There are two issues with the inclusion of foreign census numbers: their definition and their accuracy. I believe Germany does not track people by ancestry in their census, only by citizenship. This means that the number for Germans in Germany is based on citizenship. However the number from the US census is based on selfdeclared ancestry, not citizenship. I'm not sure about the sources for other countries, but I suspect that the numbers are like apples and oranges, since they differ in their definition of a German.

For the US Census, I can categorically say that about 30% of any number quoted from there are people with multiple ancestries. Also note that only about 1.3 million Americans speak German, of which about 1 million speak it well [1] (both 2000 numbers, page 4, Table 1).

Also, the current number quotes the 1990 US Census, not the most recent 2000 US Census. This is mainly because of User:Antidote, who insisted on this number since he claimed that the US population with German and partially German ancestry could not have changed from 57 million in 1990 to 43 million in 2000.

This illustrates the problem of accuracy and intepretation. I could go on, if you wish, I just did't want to bitch about it since most people didn't seem to care. Jbetak 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 68 Million ethnic Germans in Germany

Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist flächenmäßig etwas größer als das Nachbarland Polen, hat aber mit rund 82,5 Mio. Menschen mehr als doppelt so viele Bewohner. Davon sind ethnisch gesehen rund 68 Mio. deutscher Abstammung und rund 15 Mio. ausländischer Abstammung. Etwa 75 Millionen Menschen besitzen die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit, einige zusätzlich die Staatsangehörigkeit ihres Herkunftlandes. Rund 7,5 Millionen Menschen sind Ausländer.

source: [[2]]

I realize the census data doesn't consider ethnicity, only citizenship, so the data leaves something to be desired. We should explain this distinction further down, though, since many people who are very much German have names like Gerschefski, etc. Adam Mathias 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the German version of this very article states that while there are 100 million German native speakers worldwide, only about 80 million consider themselves to be German.

If you asked me, I'd say that the problem are these god-damn infoboxes on English Wikipedia. They are trying to walk the fine line between our modern understanding of a nation and an ethnicity. It's a recipe for failure.

We'd have to deny their German identity to several million people, because they do not have German ancestry and are therefore not ethnic Germans. At the same time, they are Germans according to the constitution of Federal Republic of Germany. In the very same infobox, we then proceed to declare 60 million Americans as Germans, although hardly any of them speak German, most of them are of mixed ancestry and many have never set foot to Germany.

I'd really like to know how these numbers are in any way helpful. I think they are only good for confusion, neverending controversy and edit wars. Jbetak 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree, but I'm just not sure what the solution is. Somehow we need to present all this information. After all, the introduction of the article says that it's more a cultural definition, and does not even mention race (race is kind of a joke anyway for any people). Adam Mathias 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be written with the caveat that there are people who have German ancestry (or partial ancestry) as it would be a shame not to mention them in some capacity. German immigrants are still the largest single group in the US even if they don't speak the language and many of them have intermarried with others. For example, people of English ancestry in the US are also quite often only part English and they're mentioned on the English people page. Tombseye 18:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jbetak is absolutely right, death to these ethno-infoboxes (although I admit the "Germans" are a particularly invovlved case). As long as we have one here, however, I tried to fix it as much as possible. As the article is of course aware, not all German speakers are considered "German", and some non-German-speakers are considered "ethnic Germans". Whatever we list in the infobox, it will be an inaccurate mish-mash. There is just no way, however, that we can list 4.7 million Swiss and 7.3 million Austrians as "Germans": These are German speakers most certainly not considered "Germans" by anyone. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generally speaking...

Are Germans notablely friendly people? For example, are they quite talkative, or more likely to smile or say hi in the street? I ask this because the German visitors here certainly are and I'm curious to know if this is quite normal or I just happened to meet the right ones. 08:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that Germans are a bit weird. They have like something different. I am from Spain and lived three years in Germany. I did not have any problems and actually made good friends, but still there is something strange about them. I think that they may have some kind of inferiority complex, and they do not know how to handle it properly. Anyway, I am not surprised that they have this complex, after causing and losing two wars and after so much bashing that they have been taking since then. On the whole I think that their history is a heavy burden on them, but as I said, I made good friends and have nice and pleasant memories of my stay in Germany.

Some words about germans (like me and i hope you understand me ;-)): If it's your opinion that the germans are a bit weird - i think you be right. Germans are not unfriendly but they are very reserved, particularly with regard to foreign people. For example in the United States smalltalk is omnipresent and it's not problem to talk some words with strangers about the family or the weather. In Germany strangers say only the absolutly neccessary to each other, no smile, no emotion. They think "I dont know him, i cannot rate that is he/her a friend or not." or in other words "Do not feed the unknown dog if you not certain whether it's snappish or not".

Germans hate (in most case) unimportant conversations. "You have two children - ok, nice for you - do i need this information for my live? No.". The Germans think rational - no needless or redundant information. Smalltalk with such informations exists - but most between friends, rarely between foreign people.

It is not easy to win a german as a friend but if you win a german as a friend, you will have one for your live. For Germans the friendchips in other nations appear lukewarm in german dimensions. Good friends are like siblings.

Germans mean that what the say. If you receive an invitation the host expected that you are coming. If a german say to you he will arrive at 2pm, he means 2pm - not five minutes before, not five minutes later. You can set your watch to 2 o'clock when he arrives - ok, it's not valid for all germans, but for the most.

If you have visitors from germany or you are in Germany, talk about cars, soccer (men) or fashion, shoes (women) but not about politics. Germans have her own attitude and defend it very emotional.

I certainly agree with the mate over me here :-) Germans are friendly, but very reserved. They are mostly very submissive.

They won't do anything out of planing, if it is not extremely necessary.

They love to work and hate being late and do not wish to meet people who are late (minutes count!).

Germans love to smile and laugh at home. Fun and laughter is reduced to home, family meetings and of course, the job place.

They are sensitive about their history but proud about their artists. Goethe and Schiller are known to every single German.

Germans are talented. If you ever had a german friend, ask him to write a poem. He/She could! :-)

Germans start the day with coffee and end it with beer. Germans have always the newest cars and technical stuff. They are not satisfied with second best things.

They complain about the weather, about politicians and they have a funny relationship to their work - a kind of love/hate thing. :-)

Oh dear, how to perpetuate stereotypes in the 21st Century.... Do you know this from television or what? I'm always taken aback how little (otherwise educated) people are willing to differentiate when it comes to alleged national characters. However, I cannot confirm your observations about that beer-drinking work-obsessed Teuton Collective. Some are busy as a bee, some are lazy like a bone - which you will find in any society based on division of labour. Teodorico 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a German and unfortunately, I am very, uh... - how did you do that? You described us exactly the way we are! We are weird and non-sense-talking, idiotic creatures. Yup, that's exactly right. Very funny. :-D --Pletet 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum, nor are its talkpages.

Rex 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

From the article:

"The idea that Germany is a divided nation is not new and not peculiar. Foreign powers had long interceeded in German affairs, pitting one German principality against the other. Since the Peace of Westphalia, Germany has been "one nation split in many countries". The Austrian–Prussian split, confirmed when Austria remained outside of the 1871 created Imperial Germany, was only the most prominent example. The initial unification of Germany came as a great shock to these foreign powers, who have been trying to undo Germany as a national entity ever since. Most recently, the division between East Germany and West Germany kept the idea alive. "

From a different source:

"The Balkanization of Europe, up to a certain degree, was desirable and indeed necessary in the light of the traditional policy of Great Britain, just as France desired the Balkanization of Germany.What France has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to prevent Germany from becoming a homogeneous Power... Therefore France wants to maintain a system of small German States whose forces would balance one another and over which there should be no central government. Then, by acquiring possession of the left bank of the Rhine, she would have fulfilled the pre−requisite conditions for the establishment and security of her hegemony in Europe."

Would anyone agree that the upper paragraph is a re-written version of the lower, or that they share practically the same idea? Miskin 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OMFG!!! My sides are splitting. HAHA. 10/10 man, 10/10! - FrancisTyers 21:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Very likely, the whole article shares the same idea as the articles about Germans in other encyclopedias. That's "being about the same subject", not "plagiarism". Zocky | picture popups 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the different source an encyclopedia. :-) bogdan 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Me neither, but I wasn't talking specifically about the above passage. Zocky | picture popups 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The two texts are as different as any two texts dealing with a broadly similar topic could possibly be. Miskin's concern is incomprehensible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See Reductio ad Hitlerum: not everything Hitler thought or did was wrong. Also, I think that these conclusions were drawn before Hitler, who probably read them in some work of history. bogdan 11:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I must admit the second text didn't immediately ring the bell with me. Anyway, the article excerpt is of course strongly tendentious and most probably wrong ("have been trying to undo Germany as a national entity ever since" can hardly be true after 1990; Germany was politically split up long before the Peace of Westphalia; and neither the medieval splitting nor the Prussia-Austria split of the 19th century seems to have been the work of foreign powers, as far as I'm aware. Not that I'm an expert though.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the point, this edit is a mere example. The point is that this entire article is based on a extreme right POV. The whole emphasis on European powers supposedly striving to keep Germans scattered and weak is ridiculous. It's not very far from Hitler's conspiracy theories regarding "the Jew" who hates the "White race" and wants to eliminate it from the face of the earth. England and France, like any other world-power, would try to weaken as many nations as possible, and there's no anti-German motive like this and other articles imply (see Organised persecution of ethnic Germans). The Algerians were officially known to colonial France as the "aboriginals", and black Africans were viewed by the British as exotic animals that were held in cages. The Slavs were called by the nazis "sub-humans" and the examples are generally countless. However, I have yet to meet an ethnic article which focuses so much on an imaginary, xenophobic race war. I find it ludicrous to imply that especially Germans have been victims of racial discriminations, and that therefore their actions of trying to enslave and massacre the entire world could be justified (almost implied by the article). Miskin 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English people

On the English people page it has been agreed that although peoples from what is now parts of north western Germany did migrate to England 1600 years ago, the linkage between modern Germans (except perhaps the Low Germans) and the English is very weak. The marked difference in contemporary culture, language and genetics/blood show that the English are naturally at one with the rest of the British peoples and to a lesser degree Netherlanders/Frisians, Danes and Norwegians but with regards to the German people as a whole, very distinct. I'm removing English people from the related peoples section. I do think though that if someone is very strongly committed to having it there, that it should also include Scottish people as the Teutonic tribes also moved into Scotland. What must be remembered is that German people of the 21st century does not equal 'Germanic' tribes of the dark ages.

The current listing also implies that the English are a Germanic people. This is true in that they speak a Germanic language, but in terms of an ethnic group, the use of such a classification is misleading. Enzedbrit 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article being about an ethnic group (rather than a nationality)

According to the disambiguation, this article is about an ethnic group (Germans in the sense of Ethnic Germans) instead of a nationality. That's terrible, for at least three reasons.

1. There is a perfectly nice Ethnic German article where such things should belong
2. That's certainly not the most common usage of the word German. So this idea seems to violate WP policy
3. The article itself, though it is unclear, also seems to want to talk about citizen of Germany (but the introductory paragraph is such a mess that I am not sure)
4. The article is very difficult to wikilink. I want to write XYZ is a German politician... in some other article. I don't want to imply (or find out) if XYZ is ethnically Turkish or Polish or French or whatever. I just want to write that he is a German citizen. Having to pipe to Demographics of Germany is extremely unelegant and sends the reader to a surprising page instead of what she expected.

Checking Dutch and French and Russian I do understand that there are many other WP articles that follow the example of this very article. Is there some sort of centralised discussion? For—at least at a quick glance—this simply violates policy. (Which is fine if there is some sort of consensus that has been established about using these words consistently in a surprising fashion.) At the very least, I suspect there is a huge amount of cleanup necessary that pipes all links to German to Germany instead of to German people. Arbor 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

this article is about German citizens plus ethnic Germans with no German citizenship. Ethnic Germans is just about 'Volksdeutsche', while Demographics of Germany is about all residents of Germany, including resident aliens. I would be grateful if anonymous editors would stop re-inserting "Swiss and Austrians are ethnic Germans". They are not, they are speakers of German dialects, that's all. Btw., this is Germans, not German. You want to say XYZ is a German politician, not XYZ is a German politician, let alone XYZ is a German politician :p dab (ᛏ) 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some cleanup

The article claimed: Among (West) European peoples, Germans may hold the strongest roots and identity to their ancestors - worldwide. (Also refer to Ethnic Germans). This sounds weird, and no evidence was given anyway. I will delete it. -- ZZ 11:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] population totals

Ulritz, I have been using this talkpage, and you haven't. You seem to be pushing the minimal estimate of "pure Deutschstämmige of some 75 million. That is a possible way of counting, and I agree with citing it as low estimate (although, strangely, in former edits you seemed to be keen on including anyone speaking German dialects, including Swiss and Austrians, which is a strange Grossdeutschland attitude that is not alleviated by the colours you display on your userpage. What gives? Nobody refers to Austrians as "Germans", neither Austrians, nor Germans, nor anybody else). Still, if we give ranges like 5-45 million in the USA column, it is only consequent to sum these numbers for the overall total, yielding a range of 75-130 million, depending on how you count. We agree on the facts of the distribution, it's just that your preferred way of counting is not the only one, just the most restrictive one. Now if you continue pushing your point of view as if it was the only one without discussing, I will just revert you from now on, and also place this article on peer review or rfc. dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

anon, look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you just keep reverting, you'll just be rolled back. If you have a point to make, do it here. See also WP:EQ. You are just wasting everyone's time like this. If anon revert-warring continues, I'll just {{semiprotect}} to enforce proper talk behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of course Austrians and SchweizerDEUTSCHE...

...are Germans. In fact, Austrians for centuries were the protectors of German culture, "the most German of the German". Only reason I reverted the anon contributor was to salvage the refs, though I will add an explanation for the low figure of "German Austrians", post-WWII politics and such. That after vacation. Ulritz 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We count Germans as Germans in USA too. No reason to have reverted. 72.144.114.157 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

72.144.114.157 are you planning on incorporating the Dutch as Germans as well? That would give you another 25,000,000.

Rex 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Austrians and "SchweizerDEUTSCHE" are not Germans. "Schweizerdeutsche" is not a word. There is a reason they are called Deutschschweizer instead. If you include the Swiss, you have no reason not to include the Dutch, and neither group will thank you. I refer you to de:Deutsche, which doesn't have these stupid ethnoboxes, but observes correctly that

Die Staatsangehörigen Österreichs, der Schweiz und anderer deutschsprachiger Länder sind, auch wenn sie die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, im Sinne der Festlegung keine Deutschen mehr, sofern sie nicht auch die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit besitzen oder sich aufgrund ihrer Abstammung gesellschaftlich mit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verbunden fühlen. So gibt es knapp über 100 Millionen Menschen, die die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, wobei sich davon nur noch weniger als 75 Millionen Menschen als Deutsche verstehen.

The Netherlands and Switzerland have been independent from Germany for 500 years. By comparison, the USA have been independent from England for a mere 230 years. Consequently, it is twice as wrong to refer to a Dutch or Swiss person as "German" as it is to refer to a US American as an "Englishman". As for the 50 million "American Germans" (twice as many as USians of English ancestry!), apparently it is customary to include them in the count. But I note that this is essentially a self-declaration: we are simply counting the number of USians who opted to make a tick in the census' "German ancestry" field. We don't know if, say, 10 million of these were just having al laugh. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Small correction, the Netherlands, and in the same way Switzerland were never part of Germany in the first place. Rex 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

not of the Bundesrepublik, of course, but it is fair to use the adjective "German" to refer to the Holy Roman Empire. See for example German pope: Pope Adrian VI is rightly listed there, even though a pope from the same place wouldn't be called "German" now (Adrian VI is a good example, because he falls squat on the transition when it is beginning to make sense to distinguish "Dutch" from "German"). dab (ᛏ) 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Netherlands and Switzeland were never part of Germany ... both countries outdate Germany (as in, "country of the Germans") by far. before its founding in 1871 most of the area we now see as Germany was inhabited by many different tribes, later thousands of little states emerged. The Holy Roman Empire was far from solely German, it would be hard to regard it as a general empire, let alone country, really. As the HRE was more of a pact between all these tiny states.In most of the states German was spoken, but in the East there was the ancestor of Czech, in the south Italian, in the South West French, and in the West there was Dutch.

The Dutch became an ethic group around the same time the Germans did, so they were never "one", at least not for the las 2200 years. Rex 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

in that case, the Germans were never "one", at all, and it would be pointless to even have this article. You appear to defend some kind of Dutch nationalist point of view here, which I suppose is one way of looking at things, but you cannot expect others to endorse your terms and definitions. dab (ᛏ) 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not a nationalist, I just mean to say that the German and Dutch people were never 'one', at least not after roman times. I get the idea, I'm slipping into what could look like a bit of a look alike nazi ideology here but try to stick with me.

Germanic peoples consisted of tribes, when the tribal classification ended (Eg.no longer were people Bavarii, Saxons, or Alemanii but Germans) , separate ethnic groups had emerged. For example, people in the north of what is now Germany had a different language that the ones in the South, different rituals and different (but not too different obviously) culture.

In the course of time these "old tribesmen" mixed, and became a new people, in this case the Germans.In the case of Germany I think this meltingpot started around the beginning of the Frankish Empire (For example, the Franks conquered the Saxons, after the Frankish empire was gone, the Saxons and Franks were gone too). After this, we start using different terms.Charlemagne, for example was a Frank, but someone like Carloman of Bavaria is generally seen as being German, or at least king of the Germans.Do you get what I mean?

"The German people aren't a big branch from which other Germanic people of today originated, like the English or Dutch. No, Germans are just a small twig like everybody else" Rex 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

as I said, it is pointless to argue about this, since the terms are fuzzy. The Dutch were part of the Frankish Empire too. No, the "Germans" aren't the source of anything, but if you take the trouble to distinguish the Dutch, you should take just as much trouble to distinguish the Saxons, the Swabians, the Bavarians, etc.; in the end, you have no "Germans" left at all. "Germans" is a term encompassing several sub-ethnicities. Up to the 15th century, the Dutch (and Swiss) were included in the term, from the 16th century, they weren't, that's all there is to it. dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's where our opinions differ, the Dutch were never Germans.But if you want to believe they were that's fine. I of course wonder ... "maybe the Germans were part of the Dutch before they splitt", which of course is just as plausible as the other way around.Don't you think. Rex 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

they were, in a way, since Dutch was originally the comprehensive term. Anyway, since we seem to agree on the headcount of 75-130 million, which was really the point at debate, I suppose we can drop the topic. I do not think we disagree in substance, it is really just a matter of terminology. Since the anon has already re-inserted his 160 million figure (lol, 4.7 M Swiss, but only 0.75 M Austrians?), I'll be grateful if you keep the article on your watchlist. regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes in a way, but was that "way" German, Dutch or neither? I think the latter. Rex 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

About what a shit your are speaking? Are Austrians and Swiss German or not? The question is by what we understand German?

1) By nationality, then yes Austrians and Swiss people are not Germans, because they are not a part of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2) By language, then both of them are German

Now you say the people who went to America have German ancestry and you put them into this statistic. But nor their culture nor their language is really German.

German doesn't mean only language, but more culture!

The people of South Germany as sample the Alemannen are living on both sides of the border. In Germany and in Switzerland.

Btw. the Swiss call their languge Schwitzerdütsch(Deutsch).

Btw. the Austrians, Swiss and people of Germany see theirself not as one nation, but as ONE people! Ein Volk

yes? your point being? Pan-Germanism went out of fashion a while ago, you know. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Ancestry Debate

You can take a look at all the ethnic group pages, including Spaniards, Russians, Poles, French people (ethnic group), and you'll notice that they all includes numbers of non-primary descent abroad. To comply with the standards, this page should be no different.

In addition to that, it is absolutely farcical to purport that Austrians and Swiss-Germans are not ethnic Germans. We're not playing this POV game. Any futher reports denying Austrians and Swiss their ethnicity will be reverted. 72.144.158.181 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

will they now? What about the discussion above, dear anon, where we give evidence for why they are not considered German. There is simply nobody counting them as Germans: see above. Cite a source at least before you continue this nonsense. Non-singular descent is included in the count. "Non-primary" descent is impossible to establish, there would probably be billions of most ethnicities, depending on how you count, rendering the headcount useless. dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to this article ? Wheres the numbers of Austrians and Swiss Germans ? What abotuthe numbers of Germans in Canada, Brazil and elsewhere with partial german origins ? where did "between 75 and 130 million" come from? 68 million in Germany, 45 million in the US, 7 million in Austria, 4.7 million in Switzerland, 13 million in Brazil, 3 million in Canada, another 10 million or so elsewhere, the number is closer to 150 million. 69.157.126.88 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

68 million in Germany are undisputed; 45 million in the US are undisputed as upper limit. Apparently, we should correct the upper limit for Brazilian Germans to 12 million (rather than 6). "4.7 million in Switzerland" is ostensibly wrong, as is "7 million in Austria". there are about 100,000 Germans in Switzerland. If we really count absolutely everybody with a German great-great-grandfather, the high count may be 150 million, so we can arguably cite a range of 75-150 million, yes. I'm sorry, but there is just no way to count the Swiss and Austrians as Germans, as discussed above. Show us a (post-1945) source that does before we continue this debate. dab (ᛏ) 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sprotecting the article at this point. Anon, WP:CITE is policy. If you cite a recent, reputable source counting Austrians and Swiss as "Germans" I'll be willing to include them in the "high estimate". So far you have only made clear that this is your opinion, without backing it up. dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch, in particular, had never even spoken a form of the German language. This sentence is nonsense. Gerhard51 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

what sentence? Low German is arguably closer to Dutch than to High German, so that the term "German" is linguistically meaningless. It's a matter of definition. The Dutch don't speak German, by definition. Linguistically, there is a Continental West Germanic dialect continuum, and linguistically there would be no reason to distinguish between Dutch and Germans. And indeed, as this article tells you, the distinction is political, arising in the 17th century (why do we have to debate this when it's made perfectly clear in the article already?) dab (ᛏ) 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, the Dutch never spoke German by definition, and neither in a linguistic sense. The West Germanic language dialect continuum, is nearly dead. lets not make any mistakes about that.  Rex  16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I begin to understand your (mis-)behaviour on History of German. You want to argue that Low German may be ignored as dead, and thus there is a linguistic difference between "Germans" and "Dutch". This may be true for the late 20th century, but not historically, and my point concerns the time preceding the 17th century. Look, it is a simple fact that the English language has distinguished "Germans" and "Dutch" since the 17th century, but not before. No amount of fidgeting on your part, short of solid evidence that I am factually mistaken, is going to change that. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Misbehaviour User:Dbachmann? I beg you're pardon as I'm simply questioning the information in that article. Nothing more, and nothing less. The English language, has distinguised between Dutch and German since the early 16th, not the 17th century (note that Dutch could mean both, wereas "almain" only refered to Germans), but does this matter linguistically I ask you? What you are effectively saying is that German and Dutch were the same language untill the 17th century, which is nonsense.May I remind you that the first written record of Dutch precedes that of German. Point remains, the Dutch never spoke German. Dutch belongs to a group (Low Franconian) that has been separate (note though that separate here, does not relate to mutual inteligbility) since the high german consonant shift, and never had a common ancestor with low Saxon (after the High german consonant shift, naturally).  Rex  20:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

what absolute nonsense. You keep implying that there is a single "German language". Before the introduction of Standard German, German was a dialect continuum. "The first written record of Dutch precedes that of German". Really? so hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan is Dutch, and aigil andi aïlrun iltahu gasokun is German? And the former was written what, 40 years before the latter? Of course the bleeding Low Franconians were "separate". Just like the Bavarians, the Suebi/Alamanni, the Saxons, the Angles, etc., etc.: The "Dutch" were not separate from "the Germans", rather, all continental West Germanic tribes were separate from each other. Implying a "Dutch" vs. "German" identity for the 6th century as you keep doing is a joke, and I will not discuss such nonsense any further with you. Grow up and get over your Dutchness. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you watch your tongue there please, you can have whatever opinion of me but I warn you that I will not let myself be insulted, not by you and not by anyone else! But let I make myself very clear: The Dutch were never part of the Germans, because (and this is very very simple) like you said ... for a time there was no distinction made. (Have you noticed that "Germans" or "Dutch" start to appear only after the fall of the carolingian empire?) If there is no distincion then how the hell can you claim that the Dutch were part of the Germans if neither existed at the time?!  Rex  14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

who said the Dutch were "part of the Germans"? I certainly didn't. You are the one claiming "Dutch is attested earlier than German", implying the distinction existed in the 6th century. If you have finally learned that 'neither existed at the time' I am glad, but next time you could just educate yourself without all the ranting.

The term Dutch is older than the signifié termed Dutch today. (I am now not talking to Rex Germanus but collecting information on the term). Shakespeare is just after the semantic transition. He has:

If there be here German, or Dane, Low Dutch, Italian, or French, let him speak to me (All's Well that Ends Well): implying that around 1600, a distinction was made, but Dutch was still ambiguous, with Low Dutch used for disambiguation

With hasty Germans and blunt Hollanders, Your Dane, your German, and your swag-bellied Hollander: similarly, "Hollanders" are considered distinct from "Germans" in 1600.

Lustig, as the Dutchman says. I'll like a maid the better: use of 'Dutch' in the old generic sense

There is no appearance of fancy in him, unless it be a fancy that he hath to strange disguises; as to be a Dutchman to-day, a Frenchman to-morrow; or in the shape of two countries at once, as a German from the waist downward, all slops, and a Spaniard from the hip upward, no doublet. - unclear

we need to check 16th century authors to pin down the semantic transition more precisely. dab (ᛏ) 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, Dutch is attested earlier than German, linguists consider the malmbergse glossen to be Dutch, but we cannot compare the situation then with the situation now, as the west germanic dialect continuum still had its all its glory, and there were no standard forms.

Still I ask you why are we even having this debate? The Dutch were never part of the Germans as neither existed at the time, doesn't that make this entire discussion pointless?  Rex  21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is a bit funny that we are having a row here on talk while unanimously reverting the anon pov-warriors on the article :) For dates later than AD 1500, we have no quarrel. Before 1500, the Dutch:German debate needs to take into account the distinction of signifié vs. signifiant and semantic shift. We can agree that neither "Germans" nor "Dutch" in the modern sense existed prior to AD 1500. The terms still existed, and the debate is about the meaning of the terms back then: both German and Dutch could refer to either Low Franconians ("Low Dutch") or Swabians or Bavarians (among others). dab (ᛏ) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean in the modern sense ? The Dutch as an ethnic group did exist before 1500 and they are still descended from those peoples. Their modern language may be different from the form of Dutch or Low Franconian used then, but they were still Dutch. Also, I agree you can't put the numbers of Austrians and Swiss Germans up without a source, but Austrians and Swiss Germans are obviously still considered ethnic Germans and this isnt just my POV, this is common knowledge. So with that in mind, why can't we just agree to an estimate ? Also, I really do think there is more than 10 million "primary" ancestry ethnic Germans in the world and it needs to be mentioned that this figure you have used is of course, unreferenced. 69.157.126.241 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we solved this problem then :)  Rex  17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CITE

To anybody re-inserting the 4.2 million Swiss, 7.3 million Austrians to the infobox: I have repeatedly asked for a reference for this. WP:CITE is policy. Unless and until you cite such a source, you are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and will be reverted, I really don't know why you even bother. Go to some library instead and see if you can find something to back up your claims. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

for why the 75 Million Germans is wrong:

http://www.deutschland.de/home.php?lang=2 - giving 82,5 million

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/index.html# - giving 82,5 million

http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/inhaltsseiten-home/zahlen-fakten/bevoelkerung.html - giving 82,5 million

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No Str1977, that is in fact totally wrong.

You see those are figures of the total population of Germany, this article is about Germans as an ethnic group. There are more than 15 million people of non-german descent (first and second generation), about 7 million of which are foreign residents. That's why the number isn't 82,5 million or similar.Cheers.

Rex 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, plus the number is sitting right where it should, over at Demographics of Germany. Please read an article before debating about it. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estimates

Let me ask you this, how is it that you can estimate the number of ethnic Germans in Germany with no official references, yet such estimates on ethnic Germans in Austria in Switzerland can not be made ? please, do tell me. 69.157.126.241 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple ... take the demographics of Germany, you take the total population of Germany, then you look at the people of foreign herritage (Turks, Poles, Dutch, Czechs, etc.) you remove them from the total population and what remains are the ethnic germans.

Rex 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. Is that not your own POV ??? C'mon here, you can't unilaterally chooose that Austrian and Swiss-German estimates not be included but say that your own estimates on Germany be included. I'm putting the Austrian and Swiss-German estimates back up. 69.157.126.241 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What are your reasons to include them? Rex 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Native German speakers, of German culture and common ancestry with other ethnic Germans. You could say they are subgroups of ethnic Germans, similar to Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons, etc. I can't tell you about Austrians, but I know from my own family that many Swiss Germans consider themselves German. 69.157.126.241 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of German culture? Please explain why there is a Swiss Culture and an Austrian Culture article on wikipedia. Seriously, every time when I read a post like this making claims on which peoples are also Germans I think of things like the Anschluss or Hitler talking about Sudeten Germans, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Peoples and cultures constantly emerge ... Indo Europeans split into various groups, like the Germanic peoples, who split in various groups as well including Germans ... why is it so hard to understand that? Just because someone speaks the same language which bears the name of a bigger countries doesn't mean they are neccesarily part of that people or want to be.

Rex 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiss culture is a national and very heterogenous culture comprising mainly German, Italian and French elements. The Swiss are by no means one unififed people or ethnic group. Just because Swiss German and Austrian sub-cultures exists, doesnt mean they are not related or part of the wider German culture, just as Bavarian, Swabian, Saxons all have their own local or regional cultures. Here's the thing about Austrians and Swiss Germans, not only do they have the same mother tongue as Germans (unlike other Germanic peoples), but their culture, history and ancestry are all greatly intertwined and part of that of other Germans. In terms of ethnicity, Austrians, Germans, Swiss Germans have a great deal in common (more than with any other people), including shared ancestry. The case between Austrians, Swiss Germans and Germans is very similar to that between Flemish and Dutch (in that they are seen by many as part of one larger group). I dont know about Austrians, but Swiss Germans are distinguished in Switzerland by the fact they're called Swiss Germans rather than some other name. 69.157.126.241 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Flemings and Dutch share the same language as well, but I wouldn't dare say to a flemming that he or she is Dutch. Also, from what I've heard some say the differences between Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are smaller than those between certain German dialects.

Culture, does not rely on ethic background, nor does language.

Rex 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austria and Switzerland

May I ask who are those german spaking people in those countries? 85.107.214.53 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the Swiss and Austrians?

Rex 15:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They are names of regional people, such as "Australian". There are also English Americans but their figure was cited in English people page. KreshnikD 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I do believe those are the inhabitants of Switserland and Austria.

Rex 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you say they are not germans though they speak german? KreshnikD 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I speak English does that make me English? Rex 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

look, Wikipedia is not for arguing, it is for reporting. Swiss (regardless of native idiom) and Austrians are not considered Germans, ethnic or otherwise, by anybody, and haven't been for at least 350 years (if not 500). Now if you claim there are competing views, by all means quote your sources. thank you. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

nice one -- so the CIA factbook lists Swiss German speaking groups as "ethnic Germans", but Austrian German speaking groups as "ethnic Austrians" -- what gives? That's a rather strange solution, since the historical ties of Austria and Germany are rather stronger than those of Switzerland and Germany. If Swiss German speakers are "Germans", I see really no way of saying that Austrian German speakers are not Germans. Thank you, CIA, I am sure the Swiss will be very interested in learning that they are Germans now. dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

dab, the CIA factbook changed the entry for Austrians only relatively recently. Perhaps a similar change is pending for the Swiss? 71.198.59.81 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Populations

The german population figures in certain regions has far too wide of a margin to provide significant statistical information. For example, the united states, according to the side window, has a 40 million person margin of error. 40 million is a very significant piece of the US population. We can get a correct figure from the US census website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.143.73 (talk • contribs) .

the margin is not a margin of error , it is a quick summary of the situation (of varying definitions of the term), explained in greater depth in the article body. If you want to know the background of these numbers, I am afraid you'll have to read the article, not just the infobox. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related Ethnic Groups

Have removed but expect to see it back. The issue of related ethnic groups is contentious as it really makes no sense - on what grounds are groups related or not? Culture; Language; Blood; History; Political assocation? Why link the English to Germans but not Scottish? There is no basis for this, only personal preferences. Enzedbrit 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this lame edit war has got to stop

it's all the fault of the infobox. we'll either remove the infobox altogether, or we'll give a high and a low estimate for each country (one based on language and one on 'ethnicity', if you like), just as long as everything remains sourced. It is not sufficient to provide a source that 94% of Austrians speak German (which is undisputed. 82% of US Americans speak "English" and still are not "English"). You have to provide a source that 94% of Austrians are considered "ethnic Germans" by somebody (by whom?) dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, so the CIA factbook has "ethnic groups: 91% Austrians", and the US department of state has "ethnic groups: 92% Germans"? very funny, I think the Americans are too busy looking for WMDs for other intelligence, how about we cite actual Austrian sources instead? dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your abusive and arrogant style of editing and discussion is not welcomed. With regards to the source, it is still a valid source that you simply can not delete because you have some awkward feelings about it. If you find actual Austrian sources, go ahead, but I doubt your going to find ANY that would ridiculously deny that Austrians also see themeles as ethnically Germans based on shared descent, history, culture and language that is very close and nothing compared to that with any other people. The number is currently referenced, please do not remove again without providing a source somehow arguning against the numbers. Ciao, Epf 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

your stubborn revert orgy isn't very welcome itself. So if Austrians aren't an ethnic group in their own right, I suppose Austrians should just redirect here, then? The CIA factbook, if you would kindly read talk pages, says 91% of Austrians are ethnically, well, Austrian. See also de:Deutsche:

Die Staatsangehörigen Österreichs, der Schweiz und anderer deutschsprachiger Länder sind, auch wenn sie die deutsche Sprache als Muttersprache sprechen, per Definition keine Deutschen mehr

dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Austrians do see themselves as a distinct sub-group or regional group of Germans. The CIA Fact book may say that 91% are simply ethnically "Austrian" but this is in cotrast with the more detailed and sourced information on the US Department of State link which states 98% of those in Austria are ethnically German. I do not speak German but that quote from an article on the German Wikipedia is unreferenced and unsourced and is not a valid source here. Epf 08:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

so is "Many Austrians do see themselves as a distinct sub-group or regional group of Germans". But I am willing to entertain such a comment in the footnote to Austria, or in a separate 'high estimate', see above. dab (ᛏ) 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• What do you think of the current format. Epf 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• according to de:Deutsche, 'empirical studies' show that less than 5% of Austrians (i.e. those of extreme right-wing 'nationalist' bent. to be perfectly plain: Neo-Nazis.) consider themselves "Germans". You may mention the position as extremist fringe, but not as anything like mainstream opinion. I am afraid the study is not cited though. We'll have to hunt for it. It seems obvious that we will not be able to document the intricacies of the question without resorting to German language sources. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While the current wording is a progress over the senseless edit war, I disagree with the notion that the info from the State Department is "more detailed and sourced". Based on this source, we're now assuming that 98% of the population of Austria may be ethnic Germans, which is clearly incorrect. I have also provided a source indicating that 80% of Austrian population did not consider themselves to be Germans over in the Austrians article. Epf would chose to ignore or misinterpret the wording of the source and keep claiming that there's no proof that Austrians do not consider themselves Germans. All the while the only contribution he did was to find State Department source, thanks to which we are now counting the entire muslim population of Austria and various other minorities as ethnic Germans. Good job! Throw in the senseless edit warring and one can only be impressed with this guy -- who on top of everything claims to be an expert in the area of European ethnicities because of his apparently ongoing undegrad? studies in anthropology at a North American University. 71.198.59.81 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

according to a reply I got on de:Diskussion:Deutsche, just about 30%-40% of Austrians voting FPÖ (nationalist conservative) are "deutschnational" (meaning, they consider Austrians as part of a larger German nation/ethnos), which would amount to some 3% of all Austrians. dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. Only 11% of the Austrians vote the FPÖ!!!!!!!!!!!

You are misunderstanding. He just said that 30-40% of the 11% Austrians who voted for the FPÖ are "deutschnational"..., which would make them 3% of all Austrians. 30-40% of 11% ~ 3-4%. Though I don't find that comment conclusive (nothing says how many of the Austrians not voting for the FPÖ...).--Caranorn 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This Pan-Germanism thing pushed by American editors of imaginary German ethnicity is getting ridiculous. Why can't we just restrict the use of "ethnic Germans" to German nationals and German-speaking communities in monolingual countries (meaning Austria, Belgium, Switzerland excluded)? Miskin 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that any sane person will actually believe that 45M of US citizens declare ethnic German, and even if they did, no sane person would take that seriously. Those "estimates" seem to be getting out of hand in most ethnic articles - see the figures in Italians, Portuguese and Spanish people to get the idea. Unless we forbid countries like Brasil, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria to have the right of a separate national identity, those articles will contradict each other. Dbachmann's last edits are reasonable, let's leave it at that. Miskin 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

the "ethno infobox" was a horrible idea in the first place, and its "Regions with significant populations" entry in particular. We should try to get rid of it altogether, nothing good comes from it, its only purpose seems to be serving as a playground for nationalists of every couleur, compiling silly collages of portraits of their respective ethnic luminaries. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How would you/we get ridd of that box? Wouldn't it require a large vote?

Rex 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

we don't have to delete it. it may have its uses for actual "ethnic groups" in the sense of minority "first nations", "aboriginal tribes" etc. It is just an obstacle here. This article isn't sure if it is about ethnic Germans or German nationals. ethnic Germans is about ethnic Germans who are not German nationals (because that's how the term is used, German citizens are not classified as "ethnic Germans" because they are already "Germans", and obviously German authorities will not be keen to reconsider Volksdeutsche as an offical status). This article is first and foremost about the term 'Germans' and its use throughout history. It is, in particular, the article on German nationals, analogous to Austrians and Swiss (people). My suggestion would be to get rid of the infobox, but keep the population data for a list to be created in the article body (no information will be lost, but we'll be rid of the misleading format of the infobox). dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's possible to explain the meaning of the term German, and exactly who are, who might and who aren't part of this group today ... you have my support. Rex 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version is a somewhat suitable compromise, though mixing German nationals (in CH's case) with ethnic Germans (in A's case) serves nothing to standardize these slippery topics. Nevertheless, the overcoming of the tendency to totally negate Swiss and Austrians links is indeed a positive step forward. Ulritz 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

nobody negates links :) being linked to something isn't the same as being a subset. dab (ᛏ) 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. There are two definitions of "German". "Ethnic German" and "German" (citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I believe this article is about Ethnic Germans, so Swiss Germans and Austrians should be included for it to be accurate. Ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship. Austrians can very well be independent and seperate from Germany, still that doesn't make them less "German" linguistically and culturally ...

This discussion is kind of silly actually ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, dear editor from Singapore, but most German-speaking Swiss and Austrians would not consider themselves to be German. Not nationally, not ethnically, not at all. German-speaking and related to Germans: yes, German: no. Simple as that. The only question is if the people outside of these countries can deal with it. 72.235.4.117 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)