Jump to content

Talk:Germans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Ruhrjung/Germans)

New World Map Image, New Zealand

[edit]

Hi, i think we need a new world map image since there are actually more than 10,000 people of German descent in New Zealand- the real figure according to the New Zealand government is some 200,000.

Why is this article so poorly made?

[edit]

Comparing to other ethnicity pages, there is too little infographics in the leading section, too much emphasis on the holocaust, not talking about the communities around the world and no significant personalities.-Alexceltare2 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexceltare2, I agree with you. Additionally, unlike other similar articles like Russians, Ukrainians, English people, French people, Finnish people, Greeks, Polish people, etc., this article defines Germans as people living in Germany instead of the more common definition of the ethnic group comprising descendents of people who spoke German. This lead of this article, similar to other articles, should be rewritten as such, or in an even better way:

The Germans are an ethnic group and a nation native to Germany, Austria, Alsace and parts of Switzerland, Belgium...

or maybe something like this:

The Germans are a West Germanic ethnic group native to Germany, Austria, Alsace and parts of Switzerland, Belgium, and comprise a large portion of the population of United States, Brazil and Canada...

PadFoot2008 07:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the real world German speakers in Austria, and so on simply don't call themselves Germans, and to call them German can be offensive. Who are we on WP to decide that they "should" be called Germans? As usual on WP if you can find good sources which say otherwise then that can be discussed. IMHO though, there is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia, and on the internet generally, of dreamers making up imaginary worlds where languages, nationalities and so on are all lined-up, and people are fitted into neat boxes. The real world is complicated, and there is no reason to make all articles about these topics fit the same patterns. A lot of WP articles about ethnicity are problematic in various ways.
Coming back to this specific article, there is a separate article about the "German diaspora" for discussions about people who might be considered German in a sense but are not German citizens. In the case of the term "Germans", it's modern usage is clearly centred now around citizenship and this article should be allowed to focus on that. On that basis I believe the first infobox should be removed. I don't think the discussion of the Holocaust is very big. I don't personally see a big problem with adding material about notable Germans although we should avoid too much trivia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: Do you have any sources supporting your suggestion ? Rsk6400 (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should simply restore the version from a decade ago that actually comes with a source and is inclusive of all the world wide view. Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with the modern country of Germany and historically Germanic Central Europe. This connection may be ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural.[1] Moxy🍁 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0.

Thanks Moxy. My two cents. The first part seems similar to what we have now but the second part is a can of worms? Germanic central Europe could include Attila and his allies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link that is not seen here in the lead explains much more about the concept and actually links scholarly publications over grade school dictionary terms.... Germanic peoples. Moxy🍁 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the first part, but "historically" would include all the time from the Gothic cathedrals to the French Revolution (or even WWII), and the term "Germanic peoples" makes no sense in those times. BTW: "people who are identified with ... Germany" raises the question whether we need this article or should merge with Germany - but I don't want to open another "can of worms". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in a sense the modern type of link between citizenship and nation state means this article is already closely bound to the topic of the Germany article. I see no problem with that. It seems a group of challenges arise from the fact that we don't normally insist that there were no Germans before modern Germany, and so we've been trying to leave some space for that. The history of every modern people presents different challenges in this respect. It seems the old version Moxy mentions had a similar approach but the solution for the historical aspect of equating Germanic and German (even limited to history) goes much further than I think most scholars or normal dictionaries would, although such expansive use of the term German was once popular. Don't mention the war, as Basil Fawlty says, but stretching these supposed Germans all over central Europe also seems to go very far from normal usage. Unless we pretend language was what defined everything, which it doesn't, then this could include the predecessors of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians etc. In previous discussion we found good justifications and sourcing for saying that "Germans" begin with the Ottonian kingdom. In a rough way the concept of a German has always been connected to particular states although obviously this was far less neat in the past. The Austrians are a good test case. Any definition we use should handle them. I think calling them Germans becomes increasingly awkward and infrequent in normal usage after the Middle Ages. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not after the Middle Ages, but after 1866 (Dissolution of the German Confederation), especially after 1945 (Austrians wanting to and having to distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Rsk6400 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we agree that the article is very poorly done compared to other ethnic groups. I want to add at least what was here for ever; the world wide numbers. can we agree on that. BauhausFan89 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This article is based on reliable sources. My personal opinion is that many articles on peoples or nations are more based on nationalist feelings than on RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article has moved a bit towards a more encyclopaedic style. Many ethnic topics in Wikipedia are disastrous, and mix-up many related topics as if they were the same (language, ethnicity, nationality, culture etc). Keep in mind that there are other articles about German diasporas and so on. We should not re-mix all German-related topics into emulsions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we shouldnt, but this article is still about Germans. and Germans live in other countries. and are sometimes a major part of the population. the diaspora numbers at the start are wiki standard for a reason.
it shows how an ethnic group is spread over the world. that was here for years and should be added again. BauhausFan89 (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree. The Germans are a nation, a Volk, with an ancient and rich history. Reducing it to "inhabitants of Germany" cannot be serious, nor can moralizing for half of the lead talking about the Holocaust. JDiala (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A denial of German identity

[edit]

I'm going to reiterate what I said towards the end of a previous but now apparently stagnant discussion above.

The Germans are a nation, a Volk, with an ancient and rich history. Reducing them to "inhabitants of Germany" cannot be serious, nor can moralizing for half of the lead talking about the Holocaust. This is a disappointing article. Also the links to Merriam-Webster dictionary as sources for the lead sentence is weak. JDiala (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy🍁 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: you are not giving any concrete proposals or sources, except perhaps that you would like the Holocaust the be given less space? Whatever we do with this article we have to keep in mind that attempts to make it say that Luxembourgers and Austrians are German, or that in contrast that many citizens of Germany are not Germans, are going to be controversial and need care and good sources. These are issues we've tried to handle using reliable published sources. Concerning the Holocaust, all moralizing aside this is an important part of German history which has had an impact upon "German identity". This might seem heavy but I don't think it should be removed? I personally think that the article might eventually be improved by adding more "cultural" sections about things like sport, cuisine, etc. and this might change the overall feeling of the article. Someone just needs to find time to work on such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"reliable published sources" And since when is the Merriam-Webster dictionary a reliable source on European history? Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster is used only to establish the meaning of the word itself, not for any history stuff. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is a citation in the lead, which is normally not needed, but there was quite a discussion in the past, also about what this article and other related articles should be about (and not about). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Why if this infobox removed last 22 June, all ethnic group infoboxes are needed for ethnicity articles, unlike Americans, French people, Spaniards, etc. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not necessary, and they are often problematic - as in this case. See past discussions above. On the other hand, no one is stopping editors from proposing a better one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are necessary to have an infoboxes for ethnic groups about the populations of Germans. If you want for a new consensus, just request for a comment. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: See this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality about the use of infoboxes. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links but there is no consensus there. Discussion and consensus building has been ongoing since then on this talk page (also see the archives). But again, no-one is saying there can never be an infobox on this article, or that it can't be expanded. The biggest practical issue we had to discuss was how to define and distinguish the topics of this article and related articles. The removed infobox was confusing different topics and not adding any value. Remember also that we do have other articles such as German diaspora, which is what the infobox was mainly about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: I see, I would like to remove infoboxes for British people. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to discuss that there. Keep in mind that the situation on this article is not necessarily the same, but if you look through the archives here you might some relevant points.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar that to Chinese people without an infobox. See this recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Infoboxes. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germans&oldid=1239798109"