Talk:Germans

New World Map Image, New Zealand

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.

A denial of German identity

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)

• Vick, Brian (2003). "The Origins of the German Volk: Cultural Purity and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Germany". German Studies Review. 26 (2). [German Studies Association, Johns Hopkins University Press]: 241–256. ISSN 0149-7952. JSTOR 1433324. Retrieved 2024-08-01.

Moxy🍁 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@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)

"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)

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)

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)

This is a bizarre article. 2 images for the Holocaust and 2 images of German people. Claims that "The history of Germans as an ethnic group began with the separation of a distinct Kingdom of Germany from the eastern part of the Frankish Empire under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century," when even the article itself makes the obvious point that "Germans" and "Germanic peoples" existed in the Iron Age. It's like claiming there were no Hawaiians until 1795. Honestly the whole article should be torn down and rewritten. Or maybe just redirect to "Holocaust".

As a comparison, the article on "Turkish people" makes only a single oblique mention of the late Ottoman genocides, which affected non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian genocide and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion. Sheila1988 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the two genocide illustrations, but I can understand the argument for reducing them down to one. For the rest I think this post does not make a lot of sense or make any suggestions that can be turned into practical edits. The WP mission is to summarize what the best publications say. And FWIW by tracing the origins of German identity back to the 10th century, which is based on reliable sources, it goes much further than the Turkish people article, and clearly doesn't match the accusation that It's like claiming there were no Hawaiians until 1795. Concerning the still earlier Germanic peoples, both that term and the term "German" are modern inventions in the English language. While no-one would argue that there is no connection at all between the diverse peoples of the Ottonian kingdom and the diverse peoples who lived in the same general area 500 years earlier (or indeed between any two groups of European peoples) they are not the same, and this is also what reliable sources say. This article does not stop at the 10th century though, but also gives some explanation of predecessor peoples who lived in the same region. The Turkish people article avoids this, and despite the lead it seems to deny Turkish identity to many citizens of Turkey. Several of the most difficult points in both articles are connected to the difference between ethnic identity (which many internet experts simply want to equate to language, 19th-century style) and citizenship, which is 21st century reality. In both articles there are the difficult topics of what to say about minorities living in the modern country, and outside of it. I don't think that's strange, and I don't see any solution that can line up reality and the 19th-century linguistic categories which obsess people on the internet. I don't see any way to avoid splitting the topics of ethnic identity and citizenship into different articles. (See German diaspora, which looks a bit like the Turkish people article.) To put it in practical terms, where this type of discussion always seems to end up is that there are two types of people who some editors want included in this one: people in other countries such as the US who see themselves as having German heritage, and people in Europe who speak German, such as Austrians, etc. who however NOT called Germans in the real world.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Andrew Lancaster: I see, I would like to remove infoboxes for British people. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Names section

Perhaps Roman Empire should be linked there and capitalised (i.e, just the word Empire, of course), that is, if such a modification is deemed acceptable here. Just an opinion... All the best! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking that into consideration! All the best! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Shouldn't it be Roman Empire, with the term empire written with capital letter in the beginning? Just a thought... 85.186.127.155 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Done. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Very well then! Thank you very much! All the best once more! 85.186.127.155 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)