Talk:Germans

Error

Mozart was Austrian not German ! German ???? My god --93.147.196.203 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Famous Germans collage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Famous Germans collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Albert einstein's opinion

"If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." so, Albert Einstein was a Jew, while the Nazi regime decline his German citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.171.142 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Since his theory of relativity was correct he obviously was a German and the Nazis were wrong. 84.167.26.62 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Name

The German term Deutsche originates from the Old High German word diutisc (from diot "people"), referring to the Germanic "language of the people. In Old High German, the term was thus not an ethnonym, but an adjective identifying the language of the common people, translating Latin vulgaris.

Hmm. This needs references. There is really no contradiction between being an ethnic endonym and being a common word. Such endonyms frequently have this kind of etymology. The calque suggestion strikes me as problematic too. Who made this suggestion? The linguistic use of vulgaris is a product of a culturally specific dichotomy, namely, high register versus low register use in the world of the Wahla; it is hard to see how this would have made sense in the Germanic world. Also the word is used in England as a word for the English language (8th century I think). This suggests the word was coined before the Anglo-Saxon migrations. It is perfectly plausible that the word spread from Frankish of course, though in a Frankish sense anything calquing vulgaris would be more likely referring to the walhisc language of Gaul than the aristocratic/military Germanic language. Also, the Oaths of Strasbourg contrast the term teudisca with romana when the latter clearly refers to vulgar Latin, suggesting very strongly that in the "Old High German" period the word diutisc was used ethnically. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The main article is theodiscus. This is indeed a case of an ethnic endonym developing from a common word (adjective). There is a significant difference between France and Germany here: In France, the subject population was Roman (i.e. "Welsh") and the ruling population was Germanic ("theodiscus"). In Germany, there was no Latin-speaking subject population, and Latin was the language of the educated classes (clergy) from the beginning.

I base my claim of the original (8th century) meaning of diutisc on this,

"The use of theodisce/deutsch was first attested in 786 in a report to Pope Hadrian I. Texts from a synod held in Corbridge, England were read tam latine quam theodisce "both in Latin and in the vernacular".

I do think that the summary I presented can still be improved. What I have done so far is, I have fixed the completely garbled "Etymology" section. The points I wanted to express are

• etymologically, diutisc is an adjective, translating to "[in the language] of the people"
• use as a noun, as in "a German", "ein Deutscher", appears from about 1200.

Yes this is the result of a gradual process, and who knows to what extent the teudisca of the 8th or 9th century had "ethnic" overtones, but the transition to an ethnic endonym is only complete once you have a name (a noun) referring to people, not just their language. This was the case around 1200. I don't know if it can be shown for earlier times, and would be interested in pointers if it can.

And no, this is not just the regular case of the development of an ethnonym. Most other nations of western Europes take their endonyms from tribal or geographical names, and the term for the languages are adjectives derived from those: French: Franks, English: Angli, Scots: Scoti, Irish: Eire, Austrian: March of Austria, Swiss: Schwyz. Spanish: Hispania , Italian: Italy. Swedes: Sviar. Danish: Dani, Serbs: Serboi. The Germans (Deutsche) are really quite the exception in this list, comparable perhaps only with the Shqiptar, and perhaps with the Slovaks/Slovenes and the Hellenes. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely an improvement, certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise. :) I think just needs a little tweak. The Corbridge passage in question is definitely referring to a specific language, not common speech in general, and offers no reason to believe it is connected with Latin vulgaris [note that the passage is in Latin and that is not the word used]. The best translation would be something like "Germanic" or "English" (c/f the Oaths of Strasbourg from the same era where the word teudisca distinguishes Germanic from common Romance [Romana], and is best translated "German" or "Frankish"). When it comes to borrowings medieval Latin is usually just a high-register version of Romance rather than an independent language, and its use probably means that the Walha had already borrowed the Germanic term to designate the Germanic language (c/f the Italian word for Germans).

And there really is no contradiction between denoting "Germanic" and denoting "tribal". The groups you are using are mostly European and derived from political or geographical entities. Around the world, such ambiguity is the norm, the product of using kinship metaphors to make language differences comprehensible in the few cases it's necessary. "Yanomamo" for instance is an endonym meaning both "human being" and "Yanomamo". The Welsh word for Welsh means something like "fellow citizens". The word ancestral to Deutsch probably meant something like "home people" (one's tribe being home); c/f Zhutwasi, the !Kung endonym, which is very similar in derivation and meaning. Teudisca is like these, signifying linguistic distinctiveness visible to outsiders, and small number of insiders with intensive outside contact.

I'll make an edit to the page and you can tell me what you think.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Regards,

Gisele Bündchen is indeed of German origin, but she was born in Brazil and Her nationality is Brazil, and Her parents were born in Brazil, so it's no more place her in category: Germans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.82.171 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Famous people pictures

2 women out of 25?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well if you ever read history women historically did not have so much notability , not even in the present78.129.196.69 (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

too few german-ukrainians

0 out of 25 german-ukrainians ?!?! is this some kind of joke ?!?! germans who live in ukraine should be included Jackssonklock (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There don´t live many famous Germans in Ukraine.77.13.134.190 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hitler

Can we have Adolf Hitler as one of the famous Germans?? He was bad yes, but still he had huge impact in the worlds history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

German Argentines

According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Argentine and the sources listed in there (http://www.hospitalaleman.com.ar/hospital/hist_anios_2_ha.htm | http://www.cacw.com.ar/sitio/notas_detalle.php?id=NTk= )there are about 3 million German-Argentines. Why are here only listed fewer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.166.134 (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that this may be an edgy point to bring up, but Einstein was an ethnically Jewish German citizen but not an ethnic German.

I've brought up this point since the Wikipedia article on Einstein says that his ethnicity was Jewish. This article states it is about Germans as a Germanic ethnic group, not German citizens. I know that this comment may be viewed with suspicion, I am not some anti-Semitic neo-Nazi trying to deny that Einstein was a member of German society, what I am saying is that although he was a German citizen he is not an ethnic German that is the topic of this article. With these important points of clarification this brings me to the point that his image should not be included in a group of ethnic Germans, such a photo can be put on the article about German citizens to represent Einstein as an important historical German citizen.--R-41 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is pretty horrible that you would even argue this. While you may not think of yourself as "some anti-semitic neo_nazi" you are in effect doing their job by perpetuating an understanding of ethnicity and belonging to an ethnic group that belongs to that period. Today nobody except for nationalist politicians understands ethncity to be exclusive and based on heritage. Ethnicity is based on identity and it is possible to hold multiple "hyphenated" identities. Jewish Germans are every bit as german as any other kind of German, like Turkish-Germans, African-Germans or Polish-Germans. You really need to rethink your thinking about ethnicity and nation - it is that kind of thinking that drew the genocides of the 20th century.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This article says that it is about Germans as a "Germanic ethnic group", not Germans as citizens. I am a left-wing social democrat, I am not a neo-Nazi, I despise racism. I myself am a Canadian of English-Irish-Italian background who has an Ojibwe Native American girlfriend. I am extremely sympathetic to Jews who suffered during the Holocaust - I met a Holocaust survivor from Poland and heard personal accounts of the beatings, killings, slave labour, and other horrors of the concentration camps, I find it highly insulting that you accuse me of having "genocidal thinking" involving ethnicity, thus associating me with racism - considering that I am a white person in a romantic relationship with a non-white person associated with a group that was and is persecuted by white-dominated society, that is an extreme personal attack against me without warrant and I will consider reporting you for that if you continue'. I said that Einstein can and should be included in an article about Germans as citizens. "Today nobody except for nationalist politicians understands ethncity to be exclusive and based on heritage" - no that's nationality that is beyond merely ethnicity - ethnicity is largely based on heritage - for instance Grey Owl may have adopted the Ojibwe national culture but he is not an ethnic Ojibwe, he was English. The point is that the article itself says "Germanic ethnic group" - Einstein is not ethnically German, he was a German as a citizen - on an ethnic dimension he was a German Jew - an ethnically Jewish person with German citizenship, on a citizenship dimension he was a Jewish German - a German citizen with Jewish ethnic heritage.--R-41 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't care who you are or what you believe or who you are dating, and I am nor making any personal attacks. I am not saying that you are not a nice person or that you are a racist, I am saying that your view of ethnicity is flawed and outdated. And it clearly is. You don't get to decide who is or isn't ethnically German or ethnically canadian or any other ethnicity. The fact that you believe that ethnicity is exclusive and about heritage only leads you to draw a conclusion that was also drawn by a certain German regime some sixty years ago and which the world has tried to get rid of ever since. That is sad and tragic. There is no distinction between ethnic Germans and German citizens that can be used to exclude people in the way that you argue. You are not getting this through I am sorry to say. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus: Regardless of what one may think of the whole concept of ethnicity, I don't think it is helpful to dismiss as "pretty horrible" an opinion that can also be found in several mainstream sources. Examples: "Einstein began to identify more strongly with his ethnicity."[1]; "...that Einstein's ethnicity might have also played a part in his many rejections. Einstein was Jewish."[2]; "Other factors that influenced his life were his family background and values and his ethnicity"[3]; "(quoting Einstein): "We are not Jews because we say so, but because the world says so." [4]; "This is extremely important for Einstein's emerging ethnic self-concept as a Jew"[5]; "His parents, Hermann and Pauline Einstein, were ethnic Jews."[6]. I doubt whether all of these sources, which don't seem to refer to a 'hyphenated' ethnicity, were written by "nationalist politicians". Iblardi (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

None of your sources say that it is impossible to be an ethnic jew and an ethnic german at the same time. And the quote you provide basically says that Einstein was forced to BECOME a jew because the Nazis were arguing for the same concept of ethnicity that R41 is arguing for. The fact that he began to "identify more strongly with his ethnicity" presupposes that he was not identifying as such previously. If any of you knew a bit about German history you would know that in the 18th century when the German ethnic identity was being formed Jews participated fully in German ethnic culture and often identified strongly as Ethnic Germans. It was only with the rise of Anti-Semitism and Pan-Germanism that this was made difficult. Still many famous Germans of Jewish heritage identified only as Germans and not as Jews - e.g. Franz Boas. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is currently about Germans as a "Germanic ethnic group". Maunus, you claim that I cannot ascribe who is a member of German ethnicity or not, that is true and neither can you ascribe who is - it is geneology that ascribes it - is Einstein geneologically related to the German ethnicity that originated as Germanic tribes in Northern and North-Eastern Europe? No. Is Einstein a member of German nationality based on cultural identity and citizenship to Germany? Yes. If users disagree that this article titled "Germans" should be referring to the Germanic ethnic group and instead wish that the article refer to Germans as the cultural nationality then a vote should be held on that issue: if the article were referring to Germans as the cultural nationality of Germany - then Einstein and Karl Marx can be included in the infobox as Germans. But as the article currently stands, it is about the Germanic ethnic group. I will again bring up the precedent of Grey Owl, a person of mostly English ethnic heritage who assimilated into Ojibwe culture - he is not ethnically related to the Ojibwe ethnicity but is culturally connected as a member of the Ojibwe society. In the case of Einstein and Marx, they were not related to the Germanic ethnicity of Germans but were culturally connected as assimilated members of German society, thus Germans as in citizens of Germany and as a cultural nationality. Currently articles on groups such as Germans, Ojibwe, etc. that I mentioned are focused on ethnicity - that is the current precedent, if this article remains about the ethnic group then an article titled Germans (nationality) could be created to be about Germans as citizens of Germany that could include an infobox picture depicting German citizens of any ethnic heritage - including Einstein and Marx.--R-41 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Genealogy does not decide ethnicity. That is exactly what I am trying to tell you is an antiquated understanding of what ethnicity is, that leads itself to racism and ethnic essentialism. Ethnicity is not about genealogy at all but about identity. There is not a single person in Germany today who can trace his ancestry to any Germanic tribe. There is also not a single person in Germany who does not have ancestry from all over Europe (and most likely further abroad). You are also wrong on your ideas abouit nationality and ethnicity being distinct - There was no german ethnicity before the creation of Germany as a nation. The two were developed as part of the same process in the 18th and 19th century. For the better part of that process many Jews were considered fully German and participated with full rights in the creation of the German ethnic identity (just as they did in Denmark) - then Anti-Semitism grew and in combination with an essentialist racialist understanding of ethnicity they were sought to be excluded from being full status as Germans. Just like you are trying to do now. I am sorry but there really is no way of describing the problem with what you are suggesting in a way that does not recall the past. I am sure that you think you are right, and I also fully believe that you are not in fact racist or a nazi sympathizer. You just happen to shre a common misconception about the nature of ethnicity that has been very effectively disspelled by social science since 1950. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

According to your definition ethnicity and nationality are the same thing. General characteristics of different peoples can be categorized - some historically have been false and accurate ones have been used abusively by racists and xenophobes - but judgements of those characteristics do not affect the facts of empirical examinations and theories of them, provided that they can be proven. Ethnicity is exactly about heritage and geneology, not necessarily race and despite of the abuses by racialists and xenophobes of the concept of genealogy it still used. For instance, I cannot will myself to be an ethnic member of the Zulu tribe of southern Africa, I can adopt their culture and hope to be assimilated as a part of their national culture but it is my heritage that determines ethnic association. I am not saying that the concept of ethnicity is flawless, the article itself says that the concept of the German ethnicity links to heritage to Germanic peoples, that does not mean that they have to be purely Germanic but that they have some heritage. Perhaps I've made a mistake in not being clear in showing what I view ethnicity as meaning: what I mean by "ethnicity" is an identity based on genealogy and origin that may also include complementary cultural and other distinctions to form a cohesive category of group identity: here are sources that describe geneology as involving these, see here: [7], [8] and [9]. You say that ethnicity is completely outside these categories of definition, what is your evidence of their exclusion?--R-41 (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NO, ethnicity and nation is not the same thing. They just happen to align very closely in a nation state. That is in fact the defintion of a nation state as opposed to multiethnic states. I am also not saying that genealogy or heritage does not play a role, it often does, but not in a way so that it is possible to say that x is or isn't member of an ethnic group because of his forebears. It is also correct that it is not just self identification but mutual identification to be a Zulu you need to identify yourself as a zulu and other zulu's need to identify you as a zulu. That is of course why many German Jews did not feel German after WWII, but chose to affiliate with other nations. This however does not exclude the possibility that Einstein identified as both such as many other German-American-Jews. Ethnicity is a very complex topic that anthropologists and social scientists have studied for the past 60 years - you are replacing all that with your own commonsense view of ethnicity as a natural grouping of people with similar ancestry. That sucks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I provided several sources by modern-day scholars that hold this view - I did not create this view.--R-41 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem, R-41, is that you misrepresnted three sources. Olzak says that genealogy is only one of four possible criteria for ethnic identification — which supports Maunus's point. Wade first defines ethnicity as "tracing relatedness through common history and culture" which does not support your view, and then says that ethnicity frequently invokes notions of genealogy and origins (the operative word being frequently which does not mean always) (and another operative word being "invokes;" he is not describing what an ethnic group really is, but rather a particular ideology of ethnicity. Did you actually read Wade's book? Do you really understand his argument? Because it looks like you are cherry-picking. Anyone who reads the book will see that Wade's argument is that discourses of nature and culture draw on one another in complex ways, and his discussion of discourses of ethnicity that invoke genealogy is part of a larger deconstruction of the opposition between race and ethnicity, in which his real argument is that (just as ethnic discourses are not always just about culture), racial discourses are not always about biology. He is relativizing both concepts. Do you not understand this argument, or did you just not read the book? Finally, Rata is arguing that in a capitalist globalized world Samoans turn to genealogies as a way to construct historicized understandings of their own culture. She is making a very specific argument about Samoan culture in the 20th century and she is not making any global claims about ethnicity. None of the links you provide are about Germans or Jews, but all of them make it explicitly clear that the meaning, form, and definition of ethnicity varies over time and space and that any particular group of people's understanding of ethnicity must be understood in its cultural and historical context. Which, again, supports Maunus's point. Slrubenstein | Talk

He should be included into both sections. As defined by webster, ethnicity can refer to religion, culture, race along with others. Therefore the fact that he was born in germany makes him german. just because he was also jewish does not dispualify him as being german. P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If the Websters Dictionary definition is deemed to be accurate then that could be so. I have provided several scholarly sources that stress the role of genealogy in ethnicity.--R-41 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In a response to an earlier statement by Maunus "...then Anti-Semitism grew and in combination with an essentialist racialist understanding of ethnicity they were sought to be excluded from being full status as Germans. Just like you are trying to do now. " I am not denying that Einstein was a member of German nationality, he was assimilated into German culture and language. This article is about Germans as an ethnicity and the ethnic dimension based on geneaology that I provided sources for a few comments above this one, does not qualify for Einstein, thus he is a member of German nationality but not German ethnicity - that does not make him any less of a member of the German nation - if you interpret it as such that is your perception of the ethnic-genealogical/national-cultural dimension that I have described. Einstein can be included in an article about Germans as a nationality. As for Marx who is also included in the infobox - I am not aware of his full geneological background so I will leave him out of the picture until it is confirmed whether he did or did not have German ethnic ancestry.--R-41 (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean that you are aware of Einstein's full genealogical background? Of course you aren't. By the way can Jews be ethnically American? Can they be ethnically French? Your line of thinking is so full of holes that its amazing. The best solution for any article is to simply not have a gallery of type specimens for ethnic groups. The only thing it leads to is unproductive bickering like this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not fully aware of Einstein's background but Jews who associate with the religious faith of Judaism practice endogamy (marrying within an ethnic group and not outside it), Jewish ethnic lineage is typically very strong because of endogamy. There is no such thing as ethnic American unless you are referring to Native American ethnicities. My argument is not full of holes, Jews can be by nationality American - Jewish American, French - Jewish French, etc: nationality involves national culture, language, and citizenship rather than genealogy. My argument says that people can adopt or change nationalities - Einstein became American, but ethnicity derives from genealogy - as I mentioned earlier Grey Owl was a person of English descent who adopted Ojibwe nationality as in their culture but is not an ethnic Ojibwe because he did not have Ojibwe ancestry. I have provided several sources to back up my claim that ethnicity is an identity based on genealogy, Maunus you need to provide sources to back up your claim. This is not unproductive bickering - that is your opinion, this is resolving misconceptions about ethnicity being confused with nationality.--R-41 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You make strong claims backed with few sources. There is a large literature about the existence of a separate American ethnicity. You make arguments based in stereotypes about typical Jewish behavior rather than in knowledge about facts. And yes it is pointless bickering for me to discuss this with someone who is unwilling to try to understand the concept of ethnicity. But willing to base arguments about who should be considered part of an ethnic group based on his own stereotypes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are accusing me of bad faith and incompetence. I am not basing my arguments on "stereotypes" - it is a common practice for Jewish people to practice endogamic marriages, that's a fact - you are judging it as a stereotype.

Would you say that Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews are the same ethnically? What is the source for "In the case of Einstein and Marx, they were not related to the Germanic ethnicity of Germans but were culturally connected as assimilated members of German society, thus Germans as in citizens of Germany and as a cultural nationality"? Ethnicity is not cut and dried, and a single person can belong to multiple ethnic groups, and issues other than genealogy plan an important role, such as self-identification. If Einstein rejected the notion that he was ethnically German, that would be an import point. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are Northern and Southern Germans, there are different tribes and factions of Arabs - Sephardics and Ashkenazis would be regarded as sub-groups within the Jewish ethnicity. I am not saying that ethnicity is a monolithic identity - it has components. Einstein changed his cultural identity repeatedly - he was German, became Swiss, and lastly became American.--184.145.70.222 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with user:Maunus, who was commenting on the claim, not on the person saying it. This is the essential point: there is no single definition of ethnicity. Personally, I define an ethnic group as a nation that doesn't have its own state - thus, "ethnic Germans" can reply to Germans who are not citizens of Germany. Franz Boas, while living in the US, considered himself a German in this way (just as he was a proud German while living in Germany) and, by the way, was considered this way by some of the American anthropologists who hated him (one called him a "hun"). By the way, Boas's parents were of Jewish background, and one reason he left Germany was because of a rise in anti-semitism after Bismarck and the rise of conservative nationalism.

Now, my definition of ethnicity is not shared by every social scientist, but plenty of social scientists do hold this view (or, rather, I happen to take the view held by certain social scientists who have written on ethnicity). There are many other definitions of "ethnic group" and "ethnicity besides the one I favor, which would still apply to Germany's Jews. User:R-41 says that the belief that ethnicity is genealogical is "my theory" which is practically a confession of violating NOR. That many social scientists say that it is not genealogical, or that genealogy may be a deictic of ethnicity, but that there are other deictics (and by the way that there are many Amerindian groups that do not define their identity in terms of beliefs about blood relationships) is not my theory, it is something I have learned from published studies.

Even social scientists care about what the people they study think. And Boas was not alone. A great many German Jews — which before the Holocaust was also a great many Jews — spoke German exclusively, ate German foods, listened to German music, read German literature, and believed Judaism to be a religion but not a national or ethnic identity. These people at least considered Jews to be ethnically German. And from what I have read, liberal (by which I mean, not conservative in the Bismark/Junker sense) Germans believed their Jewish friends and neighbors to be ethnic Germans, just as Catholic Germans accepted Catholics as equally German and Catholics (eventually) accepted Protestant Germans as Germans too.

This does not mean that there are no Germans who reject Jewish claims to German ethnicity. The anti-Semitic nationalists — not Nazis — who prompted Boas to pursue a career in the US seem to be an example. I think Maunus's original poiont was that when looking at the views of Germans, regardless of religion, as well as the views of Jews, regardless of nationality (or, comparing Zionist Jews to non-Zionist Jews ... and it may surpise some people but before the Holocaust large numbers of Jews were opposed to Zionism on various grounds, one of them being the fact that they were proud of their French, German, etc. nationality/ethnicity) and discovering that some Jews consider Jewishness a nationality and some do not, and some Germans consider Jews German and some do not, these are political differences, these differences exemplify the ways in which the cultural is political (to steal and refashion a feminist slogan). By this I mean they reflect passionate beliefs about the relationship between one's personal identity and one's identification with some at the exclusion of others, rather than debates among social theorists. Before the rise of nationalism following the Enlightenment, most people did not identify themselves primarily as Europeans or as Germans; historical sources especially from the Middle Ages show that "Christendom" was the primary collective identity (even if some Christians called other Christians barbarians). This identity certainly excludes Jews. But one of the great achievements of the Enlightenment was the creation of new European identities that demanded that Jews leave the ghetto, but that did not demand that they abandon their religion, to belong to the nation.

This issue can be resolved quite easily by applying NPOV. There are among social scientists different aproaches to ethnicity and we might expect social scientists writing about Germany and German Jews to take different views and if so we better represent all the major views. Germans and Jews are also divided in their beliefs about this and we should include all significant views. I am pretty sure that any good sociological study will note that there are Germans as well as Jews who do not consider Jews to be ethnically German, but from everything I read these Germans and Jews hold this view because of their political commitments. NOT because Jews "cannot" be ethnic Germans. I think this was Maunus's main point. If I am wrong about Maunus, then consider it my point.

It is a historical fact that Nazis did not consider Einstein a Jew, which is why Maunus's reference to Nazis was appropriate - he was being specific. But I would definitely not limit ourselves to the Nazi view without also seeing what published research reports about how Einstein himself identified ethnically. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair, and more eloquent, reformulation my viewpoint. I have supplied sources supporting it below. My point is that there can be formulated no strict rule by which it can be decided who is or who isn't ethnically German. Whether or not to include a person as a German has to be based on a case by case evaluation of that persons identity. Heritage alone can may sometimes make someone a member of an ethnic group (a sufficient), but not having the heritage can never ecxlude anyone from an ethnic group (necessary). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On the complications of Ethnicity:

• Nationalism and Ethnicity, Craig Calhoun, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 19, (1993), pp. 211-239
• Thomas Hylland Eriksen (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, London: Pluto Press
• Smith, Anthony D. (1987). The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Blackwell

On the ways in which Jewish ethnicity were differentiated at the turn of the 20th century:

• Marketing identities: the invention of Jewish ethnicity in Ost und West By David A. Brenner
• Yehuda Cohen. 2010. The Germans: absent nationality and the Holocaust. Sussex Academic Press, 2010

On the complex ways in which Jewish and German ethnic identities interact in Germany today read:

• Jeffrey M. Peck. 2006. Being Jewish in the new Germany
• Lynn Rapaport. 1997. Jews in Germany after the Holocaust: memory, identity and Jewish-German relations. Cambridge cultural social studies. Cambridge University Press, 1997
• Y. Michal Bodemann. 1996. Jews, Germans, memory: reconstructions of Jewish life in Germany. University of Michigan Press, 1996

On the ways in which being ethnically German is complicated:

• Afro-German Cultural Identity and the Politics of Positionality: Contests and Contexts in the Formation of a German Ethnic Identity, Tina M. Campt, New German Critique, No. 58 (Winter, 1993), pp. 109-126
• Dünnhaupt, Gerhard, "The Bewildering German Boundaries", in: Festschrift for P. M. Mitchell (Heidelberg: Winter 1989)
• Györgyi Bindorffer. 1997. Double identity: Being German and Hungarian at the same time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Volume 23, Issue 3

And then we can talk. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling this list, Magnus. It is good to see Wikipedians doing actual scholarly research to edit an article. Anthropologist John Borneman has done extensive ethnographic research in Germany - I remember him writing about some of the contradictions that played out of Germany's own "right to return" back in the 1990s. I don't have any citations but his first two or three books definitely deal with meanings of German ethnonational identities. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright I will retract my argument. I don't have time to examine all the sources, but it is clear that the issue is complicated and many users are frustrated with what I brought up - I did not mean to agitate some anti-Semitic revisionism on German identity, I thought that ethnicity was primarily about geneaology - if it is not primarily about that, then the premise of my argument was mistaken.--R-41 (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to apologize for being agitated and confrontational, I really do not think that you have any remotely nazi tendencies at all, but I was frustrated with the way that these misunderstandings of how ethnicity relates to ancestry are still so common even among people who are socially and culturally aware. I could have handled the disagreement better. I am sorry for that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to thank editors for their long explanations and lists of a paper titles showing that their is debate on the nature of ethnicity. But sadly I feel i may be irrelevant to the point under discussion. Whether Einstein thought of himself as a German is pretty much nailed by this source:

"This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing 1997, 494–505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of “mimicry” (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his “tribal companions” (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 644–5), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the building of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: “My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations” (in Fölsing 1997, 488). According to Fölsing, Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: “As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity]” (in Fölsing 1997, 488). " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Table Lamp 47 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if this is a mainstream source it pretty much nails the issue in favor of removing Einstein.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find nothing to suggest that Fölsing's book is not a reliable mainstream source. I think that settles the issue. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I replaced Einstein in the collage with David Hilbert if anyone wants to edit it in.[10] Table Lamp 47 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

O my goodness, what a discussion. Firstly, Einstein did never regard himself a German. He disliked the Germans (even long before the rise of the Nazi regime) and would be quite offended if he knew that you call him "German". Secondly, a German national identity did not evolve in the 18th. Its development startet in the 11th century and ended in the 16th century. Thirdly, the concept of ethnicity has always been about heritage -- at least in Germany. This wasn't a Nazi or anti-Semitic invention of the 19th/20th century but existed since the first person called himself German. Today, a lot of people may find this racist but that doesn't change the historic facts. Einstein didn't think of himself as an ethnic German, nor would any other person during his lifetime would have thought of him as such. -- Orthographicus (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland etc.

In the archive I found a discussion about the Germanness of Switzerland and other German-speaking territories, and I must say: all German-speaking territories regarded themselves as German until the 20th century. Liechtenstein sang of his Germanness in its national anthem until 1963. You'll find the text here on Wikipedia. I found a speech Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Vetter from Bern gave in Nuremberg in 1902 when the Germanisches Nationalmuseum celebrated its 50th anniversary. In his speech, Vetter says that Switzerland remained German in ethnic and cultural terms although it had been separated from the political Germany since 1648. I can present you the speech if you're interested. Luxembourg was member of the German Confederation until 1866 and sent representatives to the National Assembly in Francfort in 1848/49. Even the Netherlands did not deny their common heritage with Germany which is why they spoke about Nederduytschers (Lower Germans) and Overlenders, a distinction also made in the English language until the 18th century. No one denies that all those nations have an own identity nowadays and do not regard themselves as German anymore. But 100 years ago, things were different, and we can't just ignore that in an article about the German people. This information must at least be mentioned properly. -- Orthographicus (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

UK

I've added a key point of clarification to the figures quoted for Geographical distribution for the UK. The figure of 266,000 quoted includes anyone born in Germany. The peculiarity always noted with this figure is that it includes children born to British Military personnel serving in UK Military bases in Germany (a large number of personnel during the Cold War). It does not mean that there are actually 266,000 people self-identifying as 'German' in the UK. A more detailed breakdown is not available. Indisciplined (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the citation provided http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm does not actually contain this figure, or any figure for Germans in the UK. It therefore doesn't actually function as a citation. I'm adding a source which does actually contain that figure - an extrapolation the BBC ran from UK Office of National Statistics Data http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/countries/html/germany.stm This also includes a note in the text on the UK Military personnel issue. Indisciplined (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Early Modern Period altering

"In 1866, because Austria and Prussia could not decide on what was the right solution on how a unified Germany was to happen caused several problems inside the German Confederation between the two top German states. The main reasons behind this war was because the Austrian Empire was not willing to give up any of the German lands it owned and was hoping to unify and lead Germany as "Greater Germany" and therefore did not want to take second place to Prussia. On the other hand Prussia was wanting to unify Germany as "Little Germany" and exclude Austria from it. This consequently seen the Prussians successfully defeat the Austrians and thus Austria now was no longer part of the German Confederation and no longer took part in German politics and the "Little Germany" was prevailed.[14]"

I did this myself anyways and I think this should be changed to this as it comes across as more understanding and better to read -

"In 1866, the long ending feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There was a few reasons what was behind this war. As German nationalism grew inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand were wanting to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria. In the final battle of the German war (Battle of Königgrätz) the Prussians successfully defeated the Austrians and succeeded in creating the North German Confederation.[14]"

What's the problem with that Dr.K.?--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you see my message on your talk and the example I gave you? Please do not keep adding the same edit on the page. It really contains very bad grammar and does not even make sense in some segments. Example: In 1866, the long ending feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There was a few reasons what was behind this war.... What does the long ending feud .. mean? Can you not see that the sentence There was a few reasons what was behind this war.. is so grammatically bad that it borders on being meaningless? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How does it not make sense and no what is the problem with it, you rephrase it then? This part of the article does need sorting out.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's start from the first problem. What exactly is a "long ending feud"? A feud either ends or it does not. Is there a "short ending feud"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The feud had been going on a long time and it had now came to an end?--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok. We can call it the "long-lasting" feud then. In the second sentence: There was a few reasons what was behind this war..., "few reasons" is in plural form but the verb: "was" is singular, so there is a mismatch of tenses. We should say "There were a few reasons" or "There were multiple reasons" and skip "what was" which is grammatically incorrect to rephrase to: "There were multiple causes for this war...". Does that make sense to you? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay what about "The feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end"

It needs changing this bit of the EMP to be better read and understood.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to your point above but you replied again so we had an (edit conflict). Are you ok with my reply above? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay yes it does make more sense so which would be better "There were a few reasons" or 2There were multiple reasons"?

What else in the edited version doesn't make sense?--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The rest looks ok, although I would rephrase the Prussians on the other hand were wanting to unify Germany as Little Germany... by changing "were wanting" to just "wanted". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So is it alright to change it to "In 1866, The feud between Austria and Prussia finally came to an end. There were a few reasons behind this war. As German nationalism grew inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand wanted to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria. In the final battle of the German war (Battle of Königgrätz) the Prussians successfully defeated the Austrians and succeeded in creating the North German Confederation."--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This looks great to me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed, looks great.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why has Catgut reverted it?--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In their edit summary they mentioned "POV insertions". It would be best to ask them what they mean by that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well Catgut can clearly see we've debated this for the last couple of days and both of us were happy and he/she did not even comment here yet reverted it, I've reverted it back.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Per WP:BRD you were bold and reverted. Now it is up to the other editor to explain their intent. Sorry for not helping more but I am not an expert on German history. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if Catgut wants to discuss why it should be reverted back then he is more than open to via here otherwise I see no reason in changing it when me and you have discussed the changes and both gave it a go ahead.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They have to discuss and explain before reverting again. Taking part in the discussion is a necessary component of the WP:BRD cycle. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Twentieth century altering a little bit

"The dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire after World War I led to a strong desire of the population of the new Republic of German Austria to be integrated into Germany or Switzerland.[16] This was, however, prevented by the Treaty of Versailles."

Do you not think the Germany should be linked to Germany - my reason being is because "Germany" has changed quite a bit and it will make people understand that only then the Weimar Republic was created after the end of WWI and the falling of the German Empire and many Austrians were thriving for the Greater Germany idea.

"The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, attempted to unite all people they claimed Germans"

Would it not be - all the people they claimed were Germans?

The Czechoslovakia should also be changed just to Sudetenland as that is not all of Czechoslovakia.

Would this be acceptable to change?--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits on Early Modern period

Since I have been asked to comment on my recent reverts I will do so. There are two issues here — one, the edits by Vincentnufcr1 have made a section that is already not in very good shape, markedly worse. For example, this user composed the sentence "As German nationalism grew strongly inside of the German Confederation and neither of them could decide on how Germany was going to be unified into a nation-state, the Austrians were favouring the Greater Germany unification but were not willing to give up any of the German-speaking land inside of the Austrian Empire and take second place to Prussia, the Prussians on the other hand wanted to unify Germany as Little Germany primarily by the Kingdom of Prussia whilst excluding Austria." The length and convoluted wording of this sentence not only challenges comprehension, but is also ungrammatical (the subjects in this sentence are obscure, and it finishes with a run-on sentence). In addition, there is some very awkward wording elsewhere, for instance, "successfully defeated", "succeeded in creating", and the reference at the end of the section in question remained unchanged despite extensive changes to this section. This leaves one to wonder whether any of the new content is properly sourced. The lone source at the end actually turns out to be an obscure website rather than a scholarly article or book. In short, this is very poor content.

Which brings me to my second point, which is my contention that the user Vincentnufcr1 is a new account of a blocked user who had made a number of tendentious and similarly poorly worded edits to entries dealing with German and Austrian history and persons, including this entry (for example, as 14Adrian). Cleaning up the edits of this individual took an inordinate amount of effort, and while perusing the edit history of this entry, I noticed that some of these low-quality edits may still be present in the section in question, which is why I endeavoured to repair some of it. I will refrain for now from making any suggestions as to how this section can be restored with properly worded and sourced content, until the editing conflicts due to the recent insertions by Vincentnufcr1 are independently resolved. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

German Argentines

600 000 German Argentines is an estimation, the embassy gives an estimation of 1 000 000 germans argentines[11], plus 2 000 000 volga germans [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012

can someone REMOVE "Germanic ethnic group" from the main introduction lede , rationale : how are the germans any diffrent from any other germanic speaking peoples , for example the swedes , norweigians and dutch austrians , those articles does not mention "Germanic ethnic group" in the lead so goes the same for germans so am asking some established editor a request to removing "Germanic ethnic group" from the germans , i mean wikipedia should not contradict itself , as said why arent the people above count as germanic if the germans do

95.199.19.4 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not following your argument. This article deals with "Germans as an ethnic group" not as the residents of Germany or as german speaking people. Celestra (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

if you wonder why i use diffrent ip that because its how my network system works , i cannot change it so yes now you all know

so does the following articles (also about ethnic group and NOT "as the residents of the given country or as german speaking people"

1.swedes 2.Norwegians 3.danes 4.austrians 5.english people 6.dutch people 7.scots

repeat all theese articles is solely about ethnic groups not About the citizens of the given countries (see citezenship in XX , articles) neither pure demographic articles (which already exist ofcourse) the germans are not even some kind of a "Germanic core area" as the germanic peoples originated in northern germany and scandinavia , so are you following my logic now ? no other ethnic groups article use "Germanic ethnic group" so why should the germans ethnic group article be any diffrent so please remove it now 95.199.28.115 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The text appears valid. The fact that other articles use other text is not a reason to change this article. If there is something incorrect about the text, please simply state what is wrong and provide a reliable source which supports the change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ok , i want somebody else to answer the request because just because celestra does not represent the entire wikipedia and the wikipedia consensus , the thing which is wrong that it contradicts other article see WP:Contradiction and anyway celestra is not using common sense 95.199.24.27 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. There is no contradiction here. You are not disputing that the Germans are a germanic ethnic group, you seem to want to have this removed because other ethnic groups which might be called germanic are not. That is not a valid reason for making the change. Do you have any other reason? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

MOST AUSTRIANS ARE ETHNICALLY GERMAN Saying that Austrians are a "related ethnic group" is ridiculous. The author shouldn´t use politics in wikipedia. Austrians are ethnically German obviously.--95.120.205.218 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course they are ethnic Germans. Austrians are NOT an own Ethnic-group. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.

Since the 6th Century Austria has been inhabited mainly by the Bavarii which were a Germanic tribe whose name emerged late in Teutonic tribal times. The full name originally was the Germanic "baio-warioz". The Bavarians themselves came under the overlordship of the Carolingian Franks and subsequently became a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire. It was overrun by the Hungarians in 909, and after their defeat by Emperor Otto the Great (Holy Roman Emperor) in the Battle of Lechfeld (955), new marches were established in what is today Austria. For the next 851 years Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Germans – the biggest Ethnic group of the Germanic peoples, with its heartland in Central and Eastern Europe, speaking German (Standard German, Austrian or Swiss varieties of German or other High or Low German dialects), are the largest ethnic group of Germany, as well as Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, a majority of the population of the now Italian Alpine province of South Tyrol and an autochthonous minority in Belgium (Eupen-Malmedy), France (Alsace), Hungary (e.g. Danube Swabians), Poland (e.g. Silesians) and Romania (e.g. Transylvanian Saxons). Also found in the American continent (especially in the United States, where they are the largest ethnic group, and in some Latin American countries)) and in other parts of Europe (e.g. Czech Republic, Slovakia, the former Yugoslavia, i.e. some of the former eastern territories of Germany as well as the territories of historic Austria-Hungary), Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan) and elsewhere (e.g. Australia).

Genetics: The predominant Y-chromosome haplogroup among Germans (incl. Austrians) is I1 and R1a followed by R1b; the predominant mitochondrial haplogroup is H, followed by U and T.

Is anyone here really trying to claim that Austrians are not ethnic Germans?--IIIraute (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Hitler a representative Austrian?

There's an ongoing discussion about thet question on Talk:Austrians. You might want to join in.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 28 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Famous Germans collage 3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

"Albrect Durer" should "Albrecht Dürer".