Talk:List of terms used for Germans

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Comments:

...

Call for lock

You use this article to bring bad explanations for strong words in a context with the history of terms used for Germans. It is unfair, unprofessional and without any example. Many allegations are simply untrue and witness your immaturity and lack of knowledge. This article should be locked because of all the hate in here. Very disappointing for a western world in unity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.72.130 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of the comments on this page. I think the article is valuable in outlining social history, and most of the responses to it are shallow and emotional. An article of this nature is difficult to properly reference, but that does not mean it is unreliable or unneccessary. Jafdip (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Weißwurstäquator"

Even in Bavaria using the river Main for the "Weißwurstäquator" is not widely accepted. For some Bavarian hardliners the "Weißwurstäquator" is a circular area measuring 100 kilometers in diameter with Munich as it's center. A lot of people (in Bavaria) call the Danube "Weißwurstäquator", being a natural border to "Bratwurst-Land" in the north of it. Generally spoken, the "Weißwurstäquator" moves the more into the north, the more the user of this expression lives. For Franconians, it's the danube, for Hamburgers, it's somewhere south of Hanover.--Sodala 05:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unnecessary?"

This article is not only unnecessary, but it also seems to reveal the anti German bias of its author. What else can be the reason behind creating an article which lists derogatory and hateful terms for people of one specific nationality? Or does it mean similar articles should be created on other nationalities? And what about listing insulting terms referring to women, people with disabilities, or people of black skin color???

The way I see it, articles as such do not contribute anything good (at least not in this form and intention) but they promote quiet to the opposite.

Schwabe69 17:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can underline that. This article is absolute crap and obviously edited by undereducated Americans who want to express their personal hate feelings.

A list of cuss words, used against Americans: - Ameriturds; - human scrap; - lunatics; - United States Moronic Cattle (for abusing the USMC); - United Farts Of Obesity; - United Slobbers Munch Cheeseburgers; - Unbelievable Shitty Assholes; -> got it now? So remove this piece of propaganda, or we set up an extralarge article describing the US ameriturds in the same view... --77.186.143.50 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Huns"

I heard that the origin of that word was a speach to the soldiers leaving for China as a result of the Boxer Rebellion. I think I have heard that the German Kaiser instructed the soldiers to be mercilles(?) )(or maybe effective) like the Huns and that was picked up by the English press. But I could be wrong. Comments? Mieciu K 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, etymonline says the following; "Applied to the German in World War I by their enemies because of stories of atrocities, but the nickname originally was urged on Ger. soldiers bound for China by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1900, which caused a scandal. " Rex 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did he do that deliberatly or was it a "faux pas" while giving a live speech? Mieciu K 23:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberatly. Rex 23:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:Ulritz

This user seems fixed on euphemizing the role of Germany during world war 2 excusing his behaviour as making articles more NPOV. Why? Rex 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, what's going on at Talk:World_War_II#Saying_that_the_war_was_started_by_Germany :-( --jno 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Offensive_terms_per_nationality

This article should be mergew with Offensive terms per nationality, since here "other names" for Germans are already included.217.85.87.5 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the British have an own page as well, I think the Germans deserve one as well. Besides this page isn't supposed to be just defensive ... it's just happens to be that the negative ones are dominating now. Rex 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case of merge, remove the "Russia" section - neither "nemets" nor even war-time "fritz" are offensive. --jno 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the template to suggest a merge with offensive terms per nationality, which I think is wrong. This article was never intended to contain only offensive terms, it just happens that it does (at this moment). This article is supposed to contain neutral and positive ones as well and I am confindent in time people will add them. A merge is unnecesary, this isn't the same article as pejorative terms for Germans. Rex 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you make it unbiased under its current title?~~ - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All similar articles have been merged, e.g. pejorative terms for Germans and pejorative terms for the French. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Alternative words for Americans That was merged too.pschemp | talk 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably make it unbiased, and if you (being a native speaker of German) could add positive terms that would be great. Note that the examples you named were starting with pejorative, not alternative. Rex 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and all but one of the terms currently in the article are pejorative? I'm afraid I don't have time to edit the article, nor do Germans give themselves any names, as far as I'm aware of. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look the way I see it, apart from placing messages on regional notice boards, we'll just have to wait. I am sure that more terms will be added and among them possitve ones too. If there is one thing I've learned on wikipedia is that an article will always be edit and mostly improved nearly every day. You just have to have patience, and I'm convinced you. as a admin, have it. Rex 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, your last statement is disingenuous, and I think you know it. You should be honest enough to admit it. It's like this: Any national, political or ethnic group is prone to being called names by other groups its shares borders/territories/etc with. The bigger the group, and the more territories/borders it covers, the more such names will be in use. As outsiders who want to refer to such a group positively and respectfully will mostly do so by using its proper name or names, any list of such terms will always be dominated by negative or derogatory ones. As will this article, even if it grows. by the way, I'm not convinced that Bavarian terms for Prussians belong here, as Bavarians are Germans. There are many expressions German regional groups call each other, but I doubt they belong into this context. athinaios 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neamţ

I see that User:Criztu claims that neamţ in Romanian is in no way derogatory, and it has hence been removed. I believe that my friends in Romania who are of German ancestry would disagree, and would say that in Romanian, they would prefer to be known as germani. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal Attack Removed by Ulritz)

(_{Personal Attack Removed by Ulritz}) He did this by claiming that:

It was POV
The Dutch occupation was one of the most lenient
If one would compare the German war crimes in Ostland, the ones in the Netherlands wouldn't seem so bad. (A REALLY REALLY GOOD POINT!!!)

Well let me remind you User:Ulritz:

During the winter of 1945, the Germans stole what food remained in the Netherlands and allowed 20.000 personen to die of starvation.
Over 100.000 Jewish Dutchmen, women and children were deported.
When Dutch men hiding from being send to Germany to work in the arms industry, they were shot at the scene.
After the assination of a German officer in the town of Putten, the entire male population was deported.
People found "guilty" of helping jews were shot or deported to concentration camps.
Overall more than 250.000 Dutch people died, on a population of 8,9 million people not even mentioning the country was in complete ruines.

And these are just some examples, so don't you ever make claims that there were no German war crimes again. After I am no longer in danger of breaking the 3RR I will revert your attempts to revision, and unless you can bring 250.000 people back I wouldn't try reverting because I have no trouble whatsoever going to the higher authority.

Rex 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to provide evidence for these accusations on WP:ANI. Can you please reply? Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied. Rex 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly know of the crimes and bow my head in their honour of the victims, but the sentence just didnt fit the scope of the article. Otherwise we could write in any modern article that mentions Germans in a historical context (x ...because of hate of Germans/war crimes), such like the Poles and Russians could do on this page. PS I really dont appreciate your misrepresentation of my intentions. The Dutch in fact lived under a mild occupation for the times, considering the horrors of occupied lands far to the east of where you live. Ulritz 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we bow our head in the honour of the victims ... of the US troops vandalizing Iraq. --77.186.143.50 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite

Please cite your sources properly. Also, just one website isn't enough. I'm putting the NPOV tag back on becasue of the title. Please do not remove it again. The tag just means there is a dispute and people should look at it. The word Alternative, meaning "something different from, and able to serve as a substitute for, something else" is the issue here. It implies that these words can be used to mean the same thing and as insults they cannot. Kraut is not a synonym for German. The title is implicity biased. If this were an article about synonyms, not insulting words, then the title would be ok. Right now it is not Neutral. pschemp | talk 22:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When someone in English says kraut he doesn't mean the inuit, he means a german. It doesn't have to be a synonym, it's an alternative. I also fail to see the POV/Bias in the title.

Rex 22:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you aren't a native speaker of English so maybe you miss it, but in English that's the connotation. Alternative isn't used in reference to insults. It implys something is different but equal. Nice names are not equal to insults. Since this is the English wikipedia, you may want to keep how English speakers understand that in mind. pschemp | talk 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I do not like that tone. If something is wrong with the title which apparently I, as a non-native speaker, miss then wouldn't it normal for the native speaker commenting on the (apparent) errors of the non native to come up with an alternative title for an article which scope is to contain as many terms (NOT ALL OFFENSIVE) used for Germans? Rex 23:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What tone? I was being polite. Assume Good Faith WP:AGF is standard practice here. And no, I am under no obligation to fix it, nor did I ask you to. But the note needs to stay so someone who is interested in this kind of thing can. pschemp | talk 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I though I read a certain tone, a bit like someone giving another person a lecture. I must be mistaken. You don't need to inform me of standard practice btw, I'm not a newby. Rex 23:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were mistaken, and reminders about good faith are standard practice, they have nothing to do with whether you are new or not. I didn't make any implication that you were new, that thought came from your own brain. Again, it would make things a lot smoother if you assumed good faith on my part rather than assuming I think you are new or I am lecturing or whatever. What's the harm in being pleasant? pschemp | talk 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pschemp, of course you are right, alternative is not the same as an insult. "Kraut" is not a synonym for German, is an insult toward a person who is German. Rex,why it is so difficult for you to accept criticism? I don't see lecturing tone here, instead I think pschemp has a valid point.

And would I feel OK if someone was referring to me as "Polack" as an alternative name for "Pole"? Sure I would not. You get the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.96.102 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Szwaby

Doesn't the Polish word Szwaby have anything to do with the fact that the Hohenzollern family was from Swabia?--SylwiaS | talk 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intention to create an article like this?

What was the author`s intention to create an article like this? What is the surplus for the encyclopaedia, what for its readers? It appears to me that the author rather uses the article to demonstrate and foster dump anti-German feelings. However, maybe I am wrong and there exists indeed a well founded reason. (194.9.5.10 08:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

194.9.5.10 what a surprise you ask this question, because I'm pretty sure you already had this conversation with me on my talk page. If I didn't know any better I'd say you were harrasing me.

To everyone else; I created this article, and the discussion of the above matter can be found on my talk page.

Rex 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, you have not yet answered the question anywhere. This is the right place to answer the question as it concerns the article at hand. Hence, please answer the question here.

To everyone else, feel free to check the conversation on Rex` talk page but you won`t find an answer there neither. (194.9.5.12 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

ps: to get an impression of Rex`s way to discuss with people just refer eg to the paragraph ("cite") above the last paragraph ("swaby") (194.9.5.12 13:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Debate people with facts and data 194.9.5.12, you'll find it works much better than trying to discredit them by insults and unbased claims. At least here on wikipedia.

Rex 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"insult", "discredit"? I have the impression that these attributes apply rather to your article. Anyway, I propose that the reader should judge about the quality of our statements; ps: you still have not answered the question (194.9.5.10 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop altering your comments after I have posted a reaction, also, I have already answered your question (or rather replied to your insinuations) on my talk page, I'm sure you've already read it because you made a reply (on my talk) mentioning it.

Rex 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the passages you deleted. Please refrain from deleting parts of my comments, that is NOT your talk page. Everyone could retrack in the edit-history that I had inserted my comment before you replied. FYI and notwithstanding the aforesaid, I could insert the comment alternatively after your last comment anyway. ps: you have still not answered the question (194.9.5.12 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Please do not lie, because indeed everyone can check the edit histories, in fact I'll help them; this (top) is the edit change in which modified a message by you on which I already replied as you tried before on my talk page.

As for the question, I'll put in bold and capital letters so I hopefully will not have to repeat myself anymore, I HAVE REPLIED TO IT ON MY TALK PAGE.

Rex 16:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have NOT answered the question on your talk page. Sorry, Rex, why should we go on playing hide and seek? Either you answer the question I have asked you HERE or you just leave it but stop trying to evade the question. (194.9.5.12 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm fedd up with your childish behaviour, just because my answer (on my talk) wasn't the one you wanted (so not "I'm a big nationalistic pig who worships satan that's why") but a genuine answer doesn't mean I did not answer the question. This is my last post in this discussion btw. I'm getting far to irritated over a matter not even worth mentioning. Cheers.

Rex 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who likes to check that Rex has not answered the question on his talk page please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Your_abuse_report (194.9.5.10 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So that I can add Boxhead to the list? 84.135.220.246 18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure boxhead is an alternative word for German. Though I believe boxhead can refer to anyone speaking a Germanic language in Europe other than English. As I have heard it being used for Swedes, Dutch, Danes and Norwegians as well.Rex 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frisians are Germans (according to User 194.9.5.12)

Not quite, says Rex. Why? Well you see, "Frisians" are an ethnic group of their own, that alone cannot make them a part of the German people. Also, Frisians aren't limited to the "East Frisians" in Germany (why the East suffix if they were the only ones?) as Frisians also live in the Netherlands and Denmark (the largest group - over 1 million- lives in the Netherlands) by User 194.9.5.12s logic these people are Germans as well. Strange, because they don't live in Germany, or a German speaking country for that matter, they are (as said above) a group of their own and do not speak German. Therefore what User 194.9.5.12 claims is a fact is in fact flawed information on his behalf, he better not revert unless he has some incredible evidence to prove his point. Rex 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"incredible" evidence? => no problem, Rex, here are the links (please note that, besides the German Wikipedia, both, the English and the Dutch Wikipedia cleary and undoubtfully confirm my statements): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisians http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friezen http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friesen According to the above mentioned articles, the German Frisians lived and still live in Schleswig Holstein, between the rivers Ems and Weser as well as on Helgoland. By the way, there exist thousands and thousands of popular jokes about Frsians in Germany, maybe you want to add some of the to your article (194.9.5.10 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dutch wikipedia is extremely clear: De Friezen zijn een Germaans volk; Frisians are a Germanic people and English wikipedia too: "The Frisians are an ethnic group". They are not part of the Germans (totally impossible) and as soon the possible breaking of the 3RR lifts I (or someone else in the mean time) will revert your semi-vandalism.

Rex 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that the Frisians are only Germans but there are German Frisians known as Frisians in Germany. In other respects, no more comments, Rex, feel free contact an administrator. We could than take the advantage to discuss your intention to create the aricle (194.9.5.10 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You know exactly what you claim:

"Until the time of the German unification most "Germans" were called after the region they lived in, examples include Frisians, Bavarians, Brandenburgers and Hanoverians."

Where does it make clear this means Frisians living in Germany?!Where?

Rex 15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frisians groups in Germany are natural German citizens and have always been considered Germans. Whether they are an independent ethnic group can be disputed, but currently there are movements to establish more of their heritage, on the other hand such behavior is also known from the Bavarians for example. Furthermore in Germany do live the East and the Northfrisians as major remaining groups. Other groups like the Wurstfrisians near Hamburg ceased to existe as distinctive group. A small population is in Denmark and a large part of the Frisians is in the Netherlands. You write from a Dutch point of view, since WWII there is a strong stress of own Germanic origin and neglect of common roots with other peoples from the HRE, while during the Nazi-occupation of the Netherlands a different point of view was tried to enforce. If Germans argue Frisians are Germans this is a direct attack on the idelogical fundaments of the Netherlands self conception. A large area there is settled with Frisians. So simply state the existance of different points of view. Wandalstouring 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Frisians traditionally established in the North of Germany are legally German citizens. But they are also one of the four national minorities officially recognized, and as such they form a nation distinct from the German nation. Let me put it this way, the Frisians of Germany are German citizens of Frisian nationality. Arguing whether the Frisians of Germany are Germans is imho kind of pointless unless you specify what category you are talking about (Jonas78 03:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Not quite, says Rex. Why? Well you see, "Frisians" are an ethnic group of their own, that alone cannot make them a part of the German people." -- strange that an American is allowed to spread his self-given wisdom about foreign cultures ... and how those arrogant people deny facts given by those who are probably better informed. Americans always fiddle with foreign history. --77.186.143.50 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list of insults

This reads like a list of insults for Germans. But you can add "Piefke" (Austrian) and try some sourcing, alphabetical order and much more official translations with scientific explanations. Wandalstouring 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try: Names for Germany and Deutsch#Names_for_German_in_other_languages Wandalstouring 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names for Germany and names for German in other languages deals with the official terms, this list is supposed to list the alternative non official terms, not necessarily offensive.

Rex 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than use a fitting name for this article. Wandalstouring 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fitting name. Rex 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is not limited to pejorative terms, insults and offenses. Wandalstouring 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It isn't. Rex 10:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, please, get real, learn something: this is a list of insults. How many non-offensive terms are here? What is the proportion of non-insults vs. insults? It would be a very short article consisting only of terms used for Germans, which are OK. And look, how many slurs are there? Some not even marked as offensive. This article as such reads as an expression of anitgermanism.It is singling out one nationality and listing offensive terms, and those really, really highly offensive. "Terms used for Germans", the non-offensive ones, could be used in the article about Germany,as synonyms. Why creating such a separate list of offensive words? Let face it: most of the words are offensive, this is the truth.I think this situation is very interesting, you should know that quite often ethnic biases are not realized by the people who hold them.I think you should analyze that a little bit.

But for any anthropologist doing research on ethnic biases, if he/she is using informal internet sources,(such as blogs, forums, articles which are not reviewed by academic community), this situation here is of course a valuable resource. Not only the article, but also the discussion, and the history of the article itself. I was thinking wikipedia had higher standards than this, but well, not.Antigermanism seems to be a prejudice which is somehow more acceptable. I ask myself also what would happened if similar article would appear on a Polish wikipedia.For ex. in Poland throwing a joke int he movie that the Mercedes is a car made by Nazi, as happened in one of American romantic comedy, would be a real expression of ethnic hate, not to say it wouldn't appear in a movie.And quite often Poles refer use term "Hitlerists" as reference to those of Germans who were strongly influenced by Nazi ideology, as a term which doesn't include all Germans.I am not saying that Poland hasn't its own hsare of ethnic hate and biases, but just wonder, how a similar situation would be handled there. The book Last Acceptable Prejudice comes into mind. Do we have a similar situation, that some prejudices are more acceptable than others? The fact that the article stayed here for so long, and that was voted to keep, speaks volumes for me.Has this article strong wide audience appeal? Seems so.

But than maybe I am biased, as I am Polish.And I have to say, to those of you, who are Germans, I am sorry that article like this appear on wikipedia, and stay for so long.I tried to do something on your behalf, tagged this article for immediate deletion, (on January 5th, 2009).Of course , the speedy deletion didn't happen, as the article didn't qualify as attack page according to wikipedia standards. Wikipedia has rules about attacking living persons, but has no rules, seems to me, and I still hope someone can prove me wrong, about singling one nationality and attacking them. To me this article is attacking Germans.

So, why I am not going through the effort of editing this article and editing offensive terms? As there are so many terms which are very offensive. One was for example "Hurensohn" which was edited, deleted by another wikipedia user. This term, highly offensive, offensive to the German male,as well to his mother, as intended as double insult, meaning the "son of a whore," was posted here as a "nickname for German". Etc. etc. I understand that this article as such is offensive to Germans, and it pains me too, and again, I am very sorry that this happened. But I will not edit it, as I think it serves as a sad example that some things are still acceptable, like the joke about the Mercedes is a car made by Nazis, in a mainstream movie. This article is a reflection of mainstream culture, with all it hidden biases. Which is sad. But I hope with the time, maybe some people will realize that this article is an example of ethnic bias, and reflect upon it. And of course, great resource for anyone writing something more scholary, as this article with all insults seemed not be serious enough to qualify for deletion. I thin, again, this reflects certain mood in the mainstream.It show certain mood in the society, certain tendency. And I think that the others didn't edit this article reflects similar attitudes as mine: leave this article as an ethical warning about biases, which are still there, even among people who wouldn't dare to curse a Jew, or an African American anymore.Or say a Polish joke.

But some things are still OK toward Germans.

So, why I didn't marked this article for deletion, for the discussion? (AfD) This article was marked for deletion before. It was voted by the wikipedia community to keep it.As I am very dissapointed that this article was voted for keep, for now I have lost trust that the outcome for this article in another discussion for deletion will be different.

As for me and my Polish friends, I can only say this article is a shame, showing lack of sensitivity by the author of this article, and lack of proper policies on wikipedia. To the Germans who read it: schoene gruesse, und es tut mir wirklich Leid, das in eine Schande,so was hier zu lesen. And greetigns to all.

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.96.102 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch - Deutsch, explanation of the mix-up by English/American speakers

The name for the people of the Netherlands is Nederlanders or Holland is Holländer. Only in English language is it Dutch. The expression Dutch is derived from Deutsch, the actual name for what in English is called German. Deutsch, earlier Teutsch is derived from Teutonisch (Teutonic). Holland was a part of the empire and when the Dutch became independend, they declared in their Dutch National Anthem, ..we are of German blood. When Germans moved to Pennsylvania, English-American speakers could not pronounce the word Deutsch- as in Deutschland and so the Pennsylvania Germans were incorrectly called Dutch. Labbas 25 August 2006

Dear anonymous,

When you first added this it was funny, but now I get the feeling you actually believe this (which in a way makes it even funnier) let me give you a lesson in propper etymology.

Both Dutch and Deutsch are cognates. Words with shared ancestry. Eventhough it might sound logical that Dutch is a mispronunciation of German Deutsch, it isn't.

Also, the Dutch language has both Duits (meaning German) and Diets (meaning Dutch, but no longer in general use) which are also cognates to English Dutch and German Deutsch.

Deutsch, Dutch, Duits and Diets all come from a West Germanic (not German) root meaning common people, and not from Teutonic, which was a Germanic tribe.

The Dutch anthem, unlike many other anthems is not a song describing the people of a particular country (ie. The Dutch) but a person: William of Orange. The word Duytschen as used in the anthems original early modern Dutch spelling can mean 3 things:

It says William was a German, which would be correct as he was born in an area now in Germany.
William was a man of the common people, which was also true as he was a noble who stood up for the commoners rather than his own personal gain.
He claims to be Dutch, which could also be true. Eventhough he most likely was of German herritage (though you never know with nobles) he was is considered Dutch as well by virtually every historian.

It doesn't matter in this case in any way.

The Pensylvania Dutch are a different matter, who have an own German dialect. Most likely, they indentified themselves as Pensylvania Deutsche (Pensylvania Germans) which was mistaken by Anglophones for Dutch pronounced in bad English.

You also claim that Holländer is the correct term for the Dutch. Well let me tell you that it is not the case in Dutch, where the term for Dutch people is Nederlanders nor German, where (although Holländer is a popular, but officially incorrect variant) Niederländer is used.

Finally, I have a question for you: Why would the English/Dutch use an officially incorrect German term to mean "Dutch people"?

Cheers,

Rex 21:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rex,

I am so glad that you like 'funny'. Thank you for making my day in sharing this with me. You also confirm much of what I have already stated. You do point out that Holland is not only Holland, but apparently a somewhat larger area, the Netherlands. Right, so I added Nederlanders.

Having met people from the Netherlands, they told me they are Holländer (sounded like Hollender), apparently they are incorrect?

Oh, and by the way, if you want to 'give a lesson in propper' again, please spell proper with one 'p', because otherwise it just seems funny.

(You sent 'Cheers', are you British?)

Labbas 26 August 2006

Strange that you say that I confirmed much of what you said. As I see it, I've pretty much denied everything you claimed.

Rex 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rex on this. —Nightstallion (?) 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal Attack Removed by Ulritz)

Once again User:Ulritz has started an edit war to again attempt to remove referenced material on nazi war crimes against the Dutch people. This will not be without consequenses. Rex 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a diff where he removed a reference? I can't find it. I might also say that Ulritz writes better prose than you do.

embodies the Dutch resentment of the Germans/Germany due to war crimes (emphasis mine)

is not very good style. I'm also at a complete loss to understand what this dispute is about, since the two wordings are amazingly close in meaning. I mostly see two people running around calling each other names and causing disruption about really minor things. Please stop. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided references in the previous discussion, in which you also took part (see above) the matter is very clear, mof does not embody hate because of an occupation per se, but because of German crimes against the Dutch people during that occupation. User Ulritz tries to euphemise this, for obvious reasons. Rex 14:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable. User:Ulritz deniesw his own comments and refuses to engage in discussion. Where are you now Samsare?! Rex 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You expect me to wage trench warfare? No thanks. Samsara provided his neutral imput. No way you'll pull me into this fruitless war. Ulritz 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I do not have to remind you who is the incivil edit warring wikipedian here Ulritz, check your own blocklog if you've forgotten it. You are the one making nonsense, unreferenced and biased edits.Which I, because of the way the 3RR-rule works, can't remove. Your edit summaries which are supposed to be explanatory are a laugh. You simply talk your way through 3 reverts so I can't revert anymore (no matter how good my arguments are) and you'll think you've "won" for another 24 hours.

It doesn't matter if I ask for mediations (you refuse to join) nor does it matter if I ask for references (you refuse to provide them) nor does it matter how many comments I make on talk pages (you refuse to respond) or how good my arguments in edit summaries are (you don't even read them). You are against the most basic foundation of wikipedia : cooperation. To me you are no better than a vandal, no you are a vandal.Whose sole goal here is to obstruct my efforts to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It is sickening. Rex 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reference, put it in the article so everyone can see and scrutinise it. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O I will.Rex 14:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference basically repeats what I wrote. Ulritz 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not lie user:Ulritz. You can't even read Dutch. Your behavior is sickening. It will not stand, I'm going to higher authorities right now. You will not vandalise wikipedia with your nationalism anymore. Rex 12:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Every German with a fairly good education is able to read Dutch (and vice versa) as Dutch is that similar to German (Plattdeutsch). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.5.12 (talk • contribs)

template

Well, I guess I have some more work to do on my bot code. It failed quite ungracefully when it got to this entry. All subsequent matches also didn't get corrected on the Wikipedia side, after the Transwiki to Wiktionary. {sigh}.

Would a sysop please replace {{Move to Wiktionary}} with {{TWCleanup}}.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous article!

Who votes that we sack this article? I think it is offensive, Germanophobic, and unencyclopedic. Anyone vote for this articles deletion? If not, then perhaps we should create an article of derogatory terms for the Dutch, French, English, Italians, etc. While we are at it, the Jews, Africans, and Asians too. TheGoodSon

Indeed. Yea I admit I am biased as I am a German. :p The problem however needs to be solved more intelligent: Some of these words are actually used heavily by non-Germans (like the word Nigger, which is as racist as most of the words in the article) and thus need to be explained. The Sun is probably one of the most racist big news papers using exclusively such words in order to describe Germans and Germany. It would be a total surprise for me if there were a Germany related article in The Sun that does not use words like "Fritz", "Blitz(-krieg)", "Krauts", "Huns", "Teutons". I wonder why they don't use "Vandals", too... ;-) So I fear that a simple deletion request would lead to nothing but "keep-don't-delete-important-knowledge-cries". I think a better approach would be a combined article that is related to the Nationalism article and that analyses, sorts and explains names different nationalities give each other. And of course this article here is quite redundant and could be shortened to less than the half with a different sorting as the same words are often used again and again in the German names by country list... So I am bold and add neutraility tag until some people care about it. ;-) Arnomane 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thing exists? Get it OUT! ♥ Fr ed il 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.-- Matthead Discuß 02:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this crap which was created by a now banned user and notorious POV pusher but it failed due to voting and accusations of attempts to "white-wash" history. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start to create similar articles about yankees, niggers, crackers and cheese eating surrender monkeys soon. There should be no problem with that. --217.83.32.12 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Polish, and I also find this article offensive. Very offensive. It is Germanophobic indeed. Terms should be terms, and balanced, but this is a list of insults. Why this article was created in the first place? This is unencyclopedic, indeed. As for accusations of white-washing history: if there is important historical information, than please, move it to appropriate articles, which relate to information in question, don't just use history as a vehicle of justifying usage of terms reflecting ethnic hate. History was and is used in perpetuation of ethnocentric views and actions. Wikipedia shouldn't be place for this, I would expect. But sadly, I found this article. I am very disapointed. White-washing of history, and usage of history to justify insults are two different things, both shouldn't be confused. You should look deeper before you accuse someone of white-washing history, what is the situation in question. White-washing of history shouldn't be an accusation thrown easily, or even worse, used as simplistic excuse.

I am saying this from a perspective of someone who comes from a country which was suffering greatly form not only in WW II, but also during the partitions of Poland, (Germanization and so on) so, I am not biased because I am German. And from my perspective, I repeat: this article is offensive toward Germans.

And why the Germans are singled out for this list of offensive words? And what comes next? Encyclopedia of slurs? I am voting for deletion of this highly offensive and unprofessional article. I am shocked it is up for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.96.102 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are offended. I am German, and I'm not offended. I'm not being called these insults on this page, they are just being explained. See the difference? These terms don't go away just because they're not listed at Wikipedia. WP is about describing concepts of all sorts, and insults and their origins fit that description.--134.130.4.46 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only derogatory word in italian

The word has the distinction to be the only Italian derogatory word for people from another nation. this seems a little weird being succeded by three more derogatory words for Germans. Also i am certain there are a few bad words for slavs and slovenians in Italian (being myself slovenian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.5.62.201 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huhrenshohn?

What has "Huhrensohn" to do with Nicknames for Germans? It's just a (pretty bad) swear word. I deleted the paragraph. --141.113.85.21 (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! This is a bad insult! Nickname? No way should be used as nickname, it is a bad, general insult toward a man, insinuating that the mother of this person was a prostitute. (Literary means "son of whore," cute stuff for a nickname, right?) Good you deleted this, thank you. Please, educate yourself before posting words like this, some people use wikipedia as information site, and they trust the words are given in proper meaning. So, please, be responsible. Some words are not nicknames. I am not German, I am Polish who is fluent in German. Never ever I would use such word toward a person, not to mention as a nickname toward any of my German friends! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.96.102 (talk • contribs)

Actually it should be "Hurensohn" [1] which is the same as "son of a bitch" [2] or "fils de pute" [3]. Of course it's not used for German people generally.----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp corners

In the "Russian" section, the following is stated: This term has its origins in 'square-heads' as a reference to the square-shaped helmets used by the Germans in the first and second World Wars. It is more sensible to say that the term has its origins in the German style of haircut, which is flat on top and short on the sides. This haircut gives the head a square appearance. See photos of Paul Hindenburg. German helmets were not square.Lestrade (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Include "Preuss" in the section "Belgium"

"Preus" written with a German umlaut is the term usually used by the Belgians living in the German speaking area of Belgium.Johnny2323 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Švaba

Why is term "Švaba" here considered as highly offensive? I have a friend who is half-german and everybody calls him like that. It is more like a slang word, it isn't highly offensive at all, only if u put it in an offensive context...--Vule91 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, now i saw the Serbian part...--Vule91 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article...

needs a lot of work. A table would be ideal, that would help cut down on the repetition.--Npovshark (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]