Talk:Germans

Edit Request Introduction and Collage

{{edit semi-protected}}

Even though it is explained later on, I believe the first sentence "...are the citizens of Germany." should be expanded to "...are the citizens of Germany, regardless of ancestry." Like the French people article does, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people.

I will add this now. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also since this article isn't about ethnic Germans, I believe the collage should include people of Turkish, African or Middle-Eastern ancestry who are German citizens. I believe this is important since the population of Germany that isn't ethnic German is quite large. I can provide pictures of people with this ancestry that can be recognized by any German citizen. I've been reading this discussion page and I still don't know if Wikipedia has a policy for people who are supposed to be in the collage. Can someone point me to such policy if there is any?

--Grondolf (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have not seen any policy thus far. I suggest that you put up the new collage using pictures of people who are oftentimes included in such overviews (scientists, film stars, high ranking lawyers, etc.) and not people who work in a sector that some may find offensive (fx prostitution). Both Marx and Merkel are amongst the Germans displayed so I guess political people are ok for Germans. I would just suggest not to be too controversial in the choice of who you want to include. Maybe it would be a good idea to add another line of pictures so that you don't actually delete any person. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion to the actual image of Germans

I think this is a completly wrong choice - especially the second row. You can find the argument "We want less men that is why" above - but who is "we". Wikipedia is not or should not be a political statement for equality or for Emancipation of women - it is a encyclopedia! It is sad and hopefully it will chance very fast in the future, but if you would choose the 100 most important Germans in history by objectiv importance-criterias then you would maybe find 3 of 4 women - not if you only choose 8. Of course I am not a women-hater or something, but I think it is ridiculous (and not only for me, but most likely for also many German womens) to replace Goethe with Schiffer or Ida Noddack. Merkel is a good choice - yes - even if she by objectiv search for importance is not (yet) as important as Adenauer and maybe even Kohl - but she is a actual face and is very important. Schiffer was a very famous model - thats true - but at least in Germany her presence is already very limited (and she is still alive). Ida Noddack is a very fameless women- she may have made important contributions to Chemestry, but nearly nobody knows her - maybe the is a figurehead of the Emanzipation movement?. I didn't knew her (maybe I had once heard of her, but could not remember)- well it is unimportant what I know - but you can immediately see, that there are only 4 language-versions of her in the wikipedia - a big sign, that my personal feeling is true. - Watch "Our Best - there you can find also many undeserved musicans ...even ridiculous people like Kübelbök - but the first 10 there are a much better choice. And I don't know - why some people always exclude German Jews from the Germans-article - you can also find "controversial" figueres in the photos of other people - for example Copernicus - but thats a different point. - But back to the women - in my opionion there are better womens to choose: Clara Schumann or even Leni Riefenstahl - the last one is far better known - even if controversial - but why exclude controversial figures - at least she was a strong women, who made something important and was not only nice looking like Schiffer (who for example has no talent for acting). Or maybe Sophie Scholl - even if in my opionion she is often undeserved pointet out over her brother and other people of the resistance, who have the same contributions. - But again 2 women out of 8 is definitly enough. But you could also enlarge the photo. The Poles and Portuges-articels have over 15 persons on the photos - and I don't think, that the number of important Germans is so much smaller :-). If you don't care about my argumentation - you should at least consider to replace the Ida Noddack-photo with someone else - that she is seen on the picture is strange. Knarf-bz (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ida Noddack was the first to mention the idea of nuclear fission. Do you realize how important that is? She is one of the most important German scientists, male or female. I didnt put her there just cause shes a woman.

However, we can maybe include more pics, iclude Michael Schumacher and Gauss maybe? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So why ida Noddack is not even mentioned in the article of nuclear fission? Otto Hahn is and Fritz Strassmann is and Lise Meitner is - and that are the persons which are far more famous in this field - not only in Germany - the first two are Germans by the way. As far as I know there was not a single scientist important for this idea. Lise Meitner for example is much better known then Ida Noddack. And again - important or not - maybe it is more important then I realize but maybe you think it is more important then it realy is - Ida Noddack is definitly not well known. I bet over 90% of the Germans would not know who she is and wikipedia shows - she is also not well known abroad. And no - I don't think that Noddakc is one of the most important German scientists - she is important - but Germany had maybe 200 scientists of equal importance or even more. - But well - of course I can live with Noddack and Schiffer on the Germans-page - but nevertheless I think both do not deserve it if compared to people like Goethe, Kant or Marx. (well Noddack may deserve it - but she is far less known - Schiffer doesn't deserve it in my opinion) --- But apart from that, adding more and more pictures of famous Germans is maybe not the best idea. I like the picture in the Dutch people article much more then for example in the Poles article. Knarf-bz (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the heads up, I added Noddack into nuclear fission article. I didnt add Hahn or Strassmann into this article cause eventho they are also very important, we already have Planck, a male physicist. There are lots of famous German physicists, Merkel is one herself. Lise Meitner is also very important and I have no idea why she isnt in Austrians where they have Marie Antoinette instead, whose most famous contribution to history was Let them eat cake. Maybe we can add Goethe, Kant, Marx, Gauss or few others, I dunno. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it is not so easy - how to deal best with this topic :-). But maybe it is not realy important and the world will be not worse if the picture stays like it is. For me personally it is a little strange to have Schiffer, Noddack or even Merkel there, when Goethe and Einstein are missing. The argumentation Einstein and Marx can not be in the Germans article, because they have German Jewish background is something I can't and won't follow. If you are that strict you had to delete Copernikus and Kolbe from the Poles article- But again - who cares :-)Knarf-bz (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking at the dutch and poles, the dutch looks much better. This, look how many famous people we have, seems pretentious. How about this:

File:Kindergartenfrankfurt.jpg

Kindergarten in Hesse

Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I already though about this :-) and think it is nice. But maybe because in this article some make a difference between Germans without immigrant background and German citizenship and even deleted people like Marx, because he was not German enough for them, this picture will maybe not be liked by all - because it shows clearly some kids with immigrant background. But I myself would back this picture - it is likable. Knarf-bz (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

these ethnicity collages are an abomination all across Wikipedia, and the way to address the problem would be pushing their abolition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. There is simply no way to do this encyclopedically, and we should therefore just drop it. The one we have here is actually good by comparison. People will insist to include pictures of Clovis I or Ashurnasirpal II or Hayk or Alfred the Great or (sigh) Pericles and Alexander the Great. There is no way we can reasonably babysit all ethnicity article against this sort of thing. If there are relevant mugshots pertaining to some ethnic group, let them be included in the article body like any other image. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely useless picture. First, there is no prove these kids are all German. Second it is common for any people article to show some known characters. Third this pictures gives no information at all. --217.83.57.197 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely good picture. If you want to see bad pictures see the Icleanders page - to include more and more unimportant people. I prefer the solution of the Dutch people page. And your second comment - it is common - well maybe on many pages -and you can see the discussions sourrounding this picturs, where often also very contoversial persons are include. 195.243.51.34 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Error?

THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE PICTURE! the preview shows nietzsche instead of kant, while that changes when you click it. however the picture on the actual page shows nietzsche and is labeled with kant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Glory (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is because the old image version with Nietzsche is still stored in the cache. Reload the page (in Firefox: Ctrl-R ), and it will be updated to the new one with Kant. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx was a Jew not German, he was german-born but ethnical he was a jew (the same about albert einstein) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.21.170 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. Read below. JNW (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ERROR! There is a mistake in the second row of pictures. Mozart was Austrian NOT GERMAN! He was born in Salzburg a province of Austria!! Could somebody please correct this? Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.155.188 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a feminist activist article, nor are encycolpedias supposed to be prejudgemental or politcally correct. Where is Karl Marx and Hitler? This article is a joke...

I'm an AP World History, and the pop idea that Hitler is with out a doubt top 3 most important people to ever live is really actually true, so why isn't he a notable German? Karl Marx and communism, also incredibly influential and important. It's just a list, but it seems to infer the idea that Wikipedia or this article is a place of pointless political correction with no energy of true intellectualism. Angela Merkel (not notable at all in the scheme of history), and Friedrich Nietzsche I think are all easily replaceable by Hitler and Karl Marx.

And to help the politically sensitive people, just think of the Germans as interesting, ecstatic people, with importance of people ranging from a romantic and spiritual composer like Beethoven to a ugly monster like Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the photographs? If so then I disagree. There are only room for eight, and they don't have to be the eight most notable Germans, just eight representative well-known Germans. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the pictures I mean, but that's where eight representative well-known Germans come from, notables, you wouldn't forget Albert Einstein from a representative collection of pictures of Jewish people or Shakespeare from an English one. I just get tired of this shallow political correctness that is so common in Wikipedia articles. It could be so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was Austrian, so he should be in the Austrian people article I guess. Karl Marx is German at least, so add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.142 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler not only was Austrian, he also was German (he considered himself German for ALL his adult life, and he had German citizenship for part of his life). Nahabedere (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how Austrians are considered ethnically. If Austrians and Swiss are also ethnic Germans then they should be included in the article. If they are considered a different ethnic group from Germans then Hitler should be excluded.--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo at the top was made, with a great deal of effort, by a dedicated Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you wish to create a better image, feel free to do so and suggest it as an alternative. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to these "ethnic group infobox" collages on principle. No, the collage wouldn't be improved if it sported Hitler. It is actually not so bad as far as these collages go, but I nevertheless must ask, what encyclopedic information relevant to the topic "Germans" does the collage convey that justifies its position at the top of the article. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Karl Marx should be on the main picture. He's one of the most important Germans in many ways..xperienc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.186.118 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous people picture

Shouldn't Hitler be on that picture? He's probably the most famous German in the world, and wikipedia is objective, he should be figured on that picture, dispite what the proud Germans in this thread says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't a German, you fool, he came from AUSTRIA!!! --The Young Wolve (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Anne Frank be in their too? She was born in Frankfurt.

btw: Mozart was Austrian too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.137.244 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was ethnically German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit be there too. He was the German who invented a lot of thermometers, even the Fahrenheit scale!

The Fahrenheit scale ist so screwed-up, it is a shame and should not be mentioned.--131.220.99.58 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Images: "Notable" persons vs "everyman" images

I realise that the discussion on who should be in the Germans infobox has gone back and forth over an extended period. What is the community view of whether such an image should be comprised of notable persons (and please, I'm not commenting on WHO those people should be) versus the everyman type of picture (that exists in this revision: [[1]]. I don't want to get into an argument with individuals via my talk page, but my personal view is that of User:217.83.57.197 above. In the meantime, I'll look for WP policy on this. Mark5677 (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I prefer the "everyman" images - which of couse not means that the Kindergarten-picture is the best. It could be also a everyday street scene or even a picture of the football Worldcup 2006. There are many problems with the notable persons-pictures. First, there are all along discussion to which nation belongs a person or about the importance of a person. In the Germany-article there very deletions of Marx and Einstein, because some peopel consider them not German enough (nonsense in my opinion, but well) and some want Hitler included oder Mozart. All difficult questions. On the other hand many pages of other nations include controversial persons, Alexander the Great or Copernikus under Poles - while I not deny that Copernikus was Polish he is definitly also controversily handled like you can find on his Wikipedia page and often seen as an amalgan person of Polish and German. So why delete Marx but let Copernikus - and the discussions go on and on. - The next problem is, that some people seem to think the more peopel they add, the more important there nations seem - because this pictures are mostly added by lets say "patriotic" people. Look the Icelanders page - do they relay need 2 beauty queens, which noone knows. Well and what is "notable" - for me half of this persons are not realy notable. Or look the Norwegians page some days ago, where a user added 5 Norwegians - like Britney spears and other "Norwegian Americans" and than you klick at one of the pages and read, that one stepfather was a Norwegian and no one else. -- An everyday-picture doesn't play in the hands of "chauvinists" - (of course this is not meant for the user, who prefer the Notable persons). What do you think? The creators of the Dutch people-page at least came to a conclusion, which I for my opinion would also prefer for the Germans-page 195.243.51.34 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say. But it's not an issue about which particular group of famous heads is displayed in the infobox - that's a separate issue I'll leave for others, as I know that there are extremely strong views on this. But just because there is dissent about who should be displayed doesn't mean that it becomes too hard and you go on to do something easier and less controversial. And I agree that this kind of page shouldn't display German-Americans or Norwegian Americans or any other variation (for want of a better term). But what is displayed should have some identifiable connection with the subject matter. The image of the school children is so generic it could be anywhere. Mark5677 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion and followed 195.243.51.34's links. The Icelanders page has very bad selection of people.. but they do show many women. I think to show both women and men, children and old people is more important than showing notable people. Of course I prefer the composite "notoripus" german picture before the kindergarten. Why dont post pictures here on the talk and have some kind election with all of them? Dentren | ^Talk 14:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the image of Chilean people I thank such kind of images might be the best beacause only a tiny minority of the population have been heads of state or are famous musicians or models. Having a collage of "notable" people will likely overepresent men, nobilty, heads of state, upper class etc. The image of Dutch people belong rather in a Traditional architectere of the Netherlands article, and we dont see any faces. Also not all people live in idyllic Duch villages. Dentren | ^Talk 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea in my opinion and closer to the Kindergarten-picture then the notables. 195.243.51.34 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an image/images of a group of people that is identifiably German, then that would be a good outcome. How you would do that, I don't know. You may not want to get too stereotypical (Men in lederhosen and women in dirndls) I think that Dentren's idea of posting images and voting is a good one - it could reduce the future number of debates on the matter. I would, however, do an initial change/retain vote at the outset (with a question like 'Should the infobox image be changed from a collage of notable persons to something else?' Mark5677 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your "initial change/retain vote" idea is not the best because there are notable persons collages that might be better than some "normal" german pictures, and vice versa, each picture should be judged independently. Maybe somebody wants even to mix notabes with common people, althought im not a candidate of that, that option should be open in an image election. Dentren | ^Talk 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the change/retain vote would only be the start of the process. If the decision is to change the image, there would have to be a series of later votes so that each step is clear and unambiguous to anyone who chooses to review it in the future. In that way, the issue can hopefully be settled fairly and for good. There would probably have to be a series of voting questions to decide on various matters. There would be subsequent questions like: 2. if the image is to be changed, should it retain the 8 image format? (YES/NO) 3. Should it be a collage of notable vs everyman? etc etc. It will probably be a reasonably long process, but the end benefit would hopefully be something that is built in line with the tenets of WP:CON. To be honest, after having looked at a number of talk page discussions about this kind of thing, the biggest problem is that editors talk to different issues at the same time and discussions are spread out over numerous archived talk pages. Mark5677 (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The process you propose seems to long slow and tedious. I stiull think its better to present images hered independently is better but if you succeded establishing the discussion you propose I will join. Its not nessesary bauraucratize everything, and by putting questions in certain orders it is actually possible to manipulate the outcome. Dentren | ^Talk 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's slow and tedious. My suggestions were more in line with a theoretical way to stop arguments in the long term. I don't like bureaucracy much either, but you just have to look around on WP to see how bureaucracy has taken hold - as WP has scaled, it's become necessary to a certain extent. I don't propose to establish anything myself, since the outcome will probably only reflect the opinions of you, me and a couple of IP users at best. And really, the effort isn't justified. I was more pondering on how to best stop this kind of argument from occurring in the future. Mark5677 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche in the picture collage?

here's what it says on his own article.

The modern unified nation-state called Germany did not yet exist at the time of his birth, but the German Confederation of states did, and Nietzsche was a citizen of one of these, Prussia—for a time. When he accepted his post at Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annulment of his Prussian citizenship.[36] The official response confirming the revocation of his citizenship came in a document dated April 17, 1869[37], and for the rest of his life he remained officially stateless.

Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated: “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent"

I suggest removing Nietzsche from the picture collage for the above reasons. you guys might want to replace it with another more notable German. Hitler, perhaps? 190.110.155.48 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a long possible list of German philosophers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_philosophers I would go for Immanuel Kant. Hitler was Austrian, so epic fail to you. --93.206.38.170 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you completely missed, that the file is on Commons and that en.wp is only one of hundreds of projects... Please correct the image descriptions on the other wikipedias as well if you do such change. As a german I have btw no idea who Ida Noddack-Tacke was. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Nietzsche is a German philospher. Maybe he has also some Slavic heritage but nearly no one in Central Europe is "full Germanic" or "full slavic" - thats also true for Poles - its a question of "ethonogenese". The list of his Grandparents and there names make it very likely that he is an ethnic German - and more important his work is incorporated in the "German" cultural background and unthinkalbe without it. And about his statements: He did also other statments, which could be seen as contrary and the statments you chosed are very selectiv. And next point Nietzsche was also a typical person, who used ironie and liked to provoke or make statements to "show his points". The "I don't want to be German"-point is for example very common under people on the left-wing, which most often use it to point that they don't believe in "ethinic groups" or want to distinguish from nationalists. - Nietsche should stay in the Germans article (not only pure Germans - if there are anyones). Why don't you question Copernicus in the Poles article. He is also not 100% Polish or at least a controversial topic? 195.243.51.34 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately this article on Germans starts with the false premise that ethnic Germans are descendants of "Germanic" Speaking Tribes that eventually amalgamated into one nation in the late 19th century. It would be more accurate to say that most ethnic Germans are descended from various Slavonic Speaking Tribes that originally inhabited the lands between the Rhine and the Oder. Over a period of centuries the German or Deutsch language was introduced into the region by Catholic Priests from Batavia who spoke a language which was the common ancestor of both modern German (Deutsch) and Lowland Dutch. The process was accelerated after Berlin changed its administrative language from Polish to German around 1657. Even as recently as the early part of the 19th century records from that period indicate that Deutsch was used mostly administratively while the majority of inhabitants living in and around such cities as Hanover, Dresden Leipzig, Lubeck, Rostow and others spoke a variation of some Slavonic dialect related to Polish or Czech. It wasn't until Bismarck and von Bulow, despite the fact that both were of Slavonic descent, had laws enacted to discourage the use of their ancestral language in favor of the administrative language. Children were forbidden to use Polish, Czech or Sorbian in school. Today a remnant of the German population, like the Irish, Scots, Bretons and Northern Italians (Slovenian), speaks its ancestral language. Even fewer are aware of fact that major German cities such as Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Lubeck, Rostow and others bear Slavonic names. Modern ethnic Germans represent a mix of descent derived from Slavonic tribes (80%)which constituted the original inhabitants of Germania, Batavians or Dutch (10%) who introduced the German language together with Christianity and the Huns, a Turkic speaking people (10%) who settled in southern Germany after being driven out of their Eastern lands. The "Drang Nach Der Osten" impulse probably derives from the Hunnish affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.180.66 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

600.000 Germans in Mexico ???

Mexico not have 600.000 germans ethnic. the information is false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.2.110 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

wheres your source that says this is false information? this seems like a very realistic number of ethnically german people for mexico some of them could be german american gringos or anyother kind of german minority in mexico. so exsplain how you came to the conclusion that theres not 600,000 ethnic-germans in mexico? 69.208.14.63 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx and Albert Einstein?

Why are Karl Marx and Albert Einstein shown in the infobox? This article is about ethnic Germans. Marx and Einstein were ethnic Jews. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree --95.88.25.147 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is not primarily about ethnic Germans as a distinct tribe, but about German nationals and their descendants. There is a separate article on "ethnic Germans". Furthermore, many German Jews assimilated completely into the larger German nation. For example, Karl Marx was raised Lutheran and was not culturally Jewish. Marx did not consider himself a Jew in any way, and he would be quite surprised being labeled as such. --Vdjj1960 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I wasn't aware that this article was about German nationals and their descendants and that there was a separte article on ethnic Germans because the first line of the article says that the Germans are an ethnic group. If the article isn't about ethnic Germans per se, I think that line should be changed to avoid confusion. --John of Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to have an article about German nationals and their descendants because many German nationals, such as first generation immigrants, are clearly not German and would not consider themselves to be German, thus their descendants would not be German either. The ethnic Germans article is specifically about ethnic Germans outside of Germany. Plus, I highly doubt that Karl Marx "assimilated completely into the larger German nation". His parents may have converted before his birth, but you can't deny that both of them were raised Jewish, so that obviously must have had some impact on his upbringing. His mother wasn't even born in Germany. Marx was a self-hating Jew, so obviously he didn't consider himself a Jew. If I decided that I didn't want to consider myself German anymore, that wouldn't change the fact that I am. --72.82.201.106 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it would, "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other,.." so if you don't, you aren't German anymore. 84.167.62.218 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't choose which ethnic group you belong to. If you're born to German parents, raised in German culture, speak German as your native language, and go about a German way of life, you're German no matter what you call yourself. --72.82.189.193 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism, is no ethnic group but a religion. Marx and Einsteins families lived in Germany (or in the land which is called Germany today) for many generations. The "jewish Diaspora", the spreading of the jews all over europe, was 2000 years before. I think you can count Marx and Einstein as "ethnic germans" 178.105.54.87 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's both an ethnic group and a religion. See Who is a Jew? --John of Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the definition of an ethnic group is different between Europe and America. In the USA, ethnicity is mainly based on genetics. In Europe, it is based on socio-cultral heritage. For example, only few Europeans would consider German-Americans as a seperate ethnic group, since they assimilated into the American mainstream society. As well, most (German)-Jews assimilated into the German society. For example, before the first world war, ethnic minorities like Poles, Danes, Alsatians were represented in the German Reichstag with their own ethnic parties. On the other hand, Jews were members of the mainstream German parties. Secondly, most Germans consider Marx and Einstein as Germans. There was a survey about the hundred most important Germans, both Marx and Einstein were in the top 10. To sum up, I tend to agree to include German-Jews. Especially since it is about Germans, we should follow their definiton about their ethnic group.--178.113.147.134 (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes this article is about Germans, stop bastardising German people and put Jews in the Jew article, repalce Marx with a German Like Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Einstein is a jew

Einstein was a jaw man. He said in the past that if his theary will be true the germans,and the swiss etc. will say that he is one of them. But the Nazi said that he want with the jews rule the world. SO, you cannot include him at the german people, he should be transforded to jews article.77.126.225.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

German Jews are Germans too!!! Don't obey to nazi ideolegy !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.149.150 (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jew is a Jew.Not German.I'm Jewish too.So Einstein is totally Jewish.Forget about nazi or other party's thoughts.He might born in Germany borders but that doesn't make him German. Think about other citizens. A Japan, born in Germany..Is this make him/her German? No. Also Einstein said he was not a GERMAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.245.94 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am from Spain and I can say that both of you are right. There are thousands of people who Jewish by religion (converted to Judaism) but not ethnically Jew, and also there are ethnic Jews and mixed people (ethnic Jew and ethnic German at the same time) Karl Marx was ethnically Jew even if he was a German citizen and a Lutheran (before becoming Atheist) Einstein was a German citizen but ethnically a Jew, even if probably both had ethnic German ancestors too.--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I keep repeating this. Judaism, is no ethnic group but a religion. Marx and Einsteins families lived in Germany (or in the land which is called Germany today) for many generations. The "jewish Diaspora", the spreading of the jews all over europe, was 2000 years before. Do you really think that the Jewish people married just among themselves. At some point, that would be inbreeding. They assimilated of course. Not necessarily in medieval times, but later on, Jews had the same rights (considering marriages and familie rights...) Please don't take that as an offense if you really are a Jew. Most of the Jews, who are living in Israel now, belong to the ethnical group of the Semits,( thats were "anti-semitism" is coming from). The Arabs also belong the the group of the semits. So tell me, do for example all the american Jews belong to this group? Well... 178.105.54.87 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Originally Jews looked the same as other semitic groups like the Arabs. Still after 2.000 years a great part of Jews look very much like teh Palestinians and other Arabs, with similar features (long noses, dark hair etc) but also there are thousands of Jews now who look European, above all among the Askenazi Jews, the result of hundreds of years of interbreeding. That is obvious. I don´t know if any ancestor of Einstein and Marx was ethnically German or they just married among their sect, but the most probable is that they have also ancestors who are ethnically German. That is obvious.--88.9.128.83 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

introduction

The introduction of the article says:

"There are an additional 80 million people of German ancestry (mainly in Austria (official) , Switzerland (official), Liechtenstein (official) , Luxembourg (official), as well as populations in the USA, France, Russia, Romania, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Poland, Australia and Canada) who most likely are not native speakers of German.[41]"

I don´t quite get the meaning of this sentence. Can anybody explain it to me? Is this actually suggesting that most inhabitants of Austria and Switzerland "are not native speakers of German"? If so, it is complete nonsense. Plus, I think that Hitler really should and must be added to the collage, since an Austrian clearly was an ethnic German in the unerstanding of those times. --Mike F2 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Famous Germans

Please note that Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are not of German ethnicity. In fact, they are Ashkenazi Jews! However, the most famous German is missing, namely Adolf Hitler.

-So, they can´t be both, Jews AND Germans? For what reason should a fully assimilated Jew who was born, grown up and ( at least for some years of his life) living in Germany not be considered a German? Nevertheless, I agree that Hitler should be in the collage, for 3 reasons: a) it was completely clear not only to him, but also to his contemporaries that Austrians are (ethnic) Germans as well, and that Bismarck did not include Austria in the German nation state for pragmatic reasons (in fact, it was completely impossible since the Habsburg monarchy was far too powerful), b) he moved to Germany and became a German citizen at a young age, and c) he was the fucking dictator of Germany. But if you really don´t want to include him, there should be at least one Nazi in this collage (Goebbels maybe?). --Mike F2 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Hitler should be in it as he is "the" most famous German ever. However, Marx and Einstein are ethnically Jews! They might have been German citizens, but we are not talking about German citizenship, we are talking about ethnicity! Including Einstein (and Marx) in "Germans" is profoundly wrong!!! --95.89.49.90 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Marx and Einstein were not "fully assimilated" as you want them to be. I suggest you check their biographies. Even if they had been "fully assimilated" you cannot overlook their distinct racial makeup. DNA evidence clearly shows that Ashkenazi Jews are a distinct racial (i.e. ethnic) group! --95.89.49.90 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I think that Konrad Adenauer and/or Helmut Kohl should be taken out. I don´ see why there should be (together with Merkel) 3 chancellors of the BRD in the picture, and especially 3 of the same political party. --Mike F2 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, following your line I suggest to remove Einstein and Marx and put the british Queen in. The house of Windsor used to be Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha until 1917 when being german wasn't very popular. Or, even better, Prince Charles. His father is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, his mother Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. Sounds quite german to me... Oh, and that position is backed by Lady Diana who once said that she married into a german family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.65.137 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The British Queen is ethnically German but Einstein is not. I would rather include the Btitish Queen there then Einstein. --95.88.26.76 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is idiotic. neither the Queen nor Einstein are good examples. If the Queen is German, then Steve Ballmer is Swiss. He is not, and she is not. Einstein was born in Germany, but he was a convinced internationalist, changed his passport numerous times, and would have shuddered at the idea of being considered "ethnic" in any sense. Please stop wasting time over such nonsense, just pick one of the millions of possible examples that aren't ambiguous. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

i have a better idea we could total up full blooded ethnic germans and partial blood ethnic germans and then see how many people go into each difinitions including partial blood germans like karl marz or albert einstean is not fare to the full blooded ones in the college to be included in the artical and still try consider them the exact same ethnic group when in fact they have a diverse heritage and not trully ethnic in the sense that this artical is portraying. im not a anti-semite or anything but i can see what the previus discussions about these guys is getting at. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Justification for Reuploading Removed Collage

I'm reuploading the collage that was removed for erroneous reasons. My justification is as follows:

1) In principle you don't remove a valid collage and replace it with nothing. Wikipedia is about giving readers more and better information. It is tedious arguing whether certain individuals should or should not be included. If you think the article should have a better collage with a different mix of people, then create it.

2) The article is specifically about German nationals and their descendants not ethnic Germans per se; therefore, the comments complaining that Karl Marx and Albert Einstein aren't ethnic Germans are irrelevant. There is a separate article on ethnic Germans to placate the "Jews can't be Germans" crowd. I should say that it would be a surprise to both Einstein and Marx that they aren't considered German by some. --Vdjj1960 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow- someone didn't read the discussion page or didn't care. Some Wikipedia-users hoped to find a picture of the "everyman"-typ. I personally hoped for something like the picture on the Dutch people site. - But this new picture even toped the criticized pictures and made a 25-people-salmagundi - (which over time of course will produce fighting...). Very ugly picture and in the mentality of more, more, more - we have much more important people. Why don't we make a picture with 100 people - or lets say 200? Well I am sure, we could find 500 important Germans. - How sad. Knarf-bz (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Einstein was a Zionist! Including Einstein in that list is an insult to the Jews. Hitler is a German but Einstein is not! --95.88.25.24 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was Austrian! Including Hitler in that list would be an insult to the Austrians. 84.167.66.170 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Austrians are "ethnic Germans", while Einstein and (Marx) are ethnic Jews. Einstein is rightly presented in Ashkenazi Jews, right were he belongs. And he does not belong in this article. --95.88.26.76 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article's only about "German nationals and their descendants", why are there only two Jews in the image? There are many German Jews. Are Marx and Einstein the only ones worth noting? What about Turks? There are quite a few of them in Germany. Are none of them notable? What about other minorities in Germany like blacks and Asians? I think we should make a new image with 1,000 people. It should have an equal number of women, Jews, Turks, blacks, and Asians. That way, everyone will be happy. --72.82.189.193 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the definition of an ethnic group is different between Europe and America. In the USA, ethnicity is mainly based on genetics. In Europe, it is based on socio-cultral heritage. For example, only few Europeans would consider German-Americans as a seperate ethnic group, since they assimilated into the American mainstream society. As well, most (German)-Jews assimilated into the German society. For example, before the first world war, ethnic minorities like Poles, Danes, Alsatians were represented in the German Reichstag with their own ethnic parties. On the other hand, Jews were members of the mainstream German parties. Secondly, most Germans consider Marx and Einstein as Germans. There was a survey about the hundred most important Germans, both Marx and Einstein were in the top 10. To sum up, I tend to agree to include German-Jews. Especially since it is about Germans, we should follow their definiton about their ethnic group. --178.113.147.134 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to German people?

Shouldn't this be listed under German people, in order to be consistent? The pages for other nationalities are listed that way, e.g. English people, Chilean people, French people, Japanese people, Chinese people, etc. Any particular reason this is listed differently? I do see that Russian people redirects to Russians. I don't really have a preference, but shouldn't they all be the same, one way or the other? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A nationality article will be at a location without the use of "people" if possible, but in the examples you give (except Chilean people), the term is ambiguous: English, French, Japanese, Chinese, and so on also refer to the language, and there is not language called "Germans" or "Russians" ... or Ukrainians or Estonians. This is the ideal, in case you wonder about examples such as Chilean people and Lithuanian people, there is no explanation beyond lack of consistency. Hope this helps. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

German customs

A coachman at the Oktoberfest

The citizens of Balve, Nordrhein-Westfalen celebrate a "Schützenfest"

Women wearing traditional German "Dirndl" Dress

I think this article should include something about German customs. I included a picture of an Osterrad, because Easter is a important holiday in Germany (and I have been told by a religious person, that it is even more important than Christmas to many people, because on Christmas Jesus was born and there is nothing speacial about this, but it is believed by German christians that on Easter he was resurrected from the dead and that of course is very special). I would also like to include a short paragraph on famous German fesitivities like the Oktoberfest and may be something about traditional way of dressing, traditional way of dancing etc. in some parts of Germany..-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Right of blood" and "right of soil"

As far as I know it has always been possible for a person, who was not born to German parents to apply for the German citizenship. I do know about several people, who did so successfully. However not having a "right of soil" meant, that it was not possible to become German just by being born on German soil (as it is the case in the US and is also the case in Germany now).-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

German Peruvians

There have been some clumsy attempts to add the German population of Peru to the infobox, resulting in at least one block. However, the German Peruvian article has a sourced population estimate of 160,000, which is lacking from this article. Is this an acceptable source [2]? JNW (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

i cannot understand sth about this topic. how could it be 79.600.000 German in Germany. In Wiki, u guys say 3,5 million Turk nd 1,5 million Kurd live in Germany. And also u say that Germany's population is 81 million. Please i need to learn why u give wrong numbers to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.99.119 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

germanys ethnic german population keeps having the wrong numbers becasue of edit-waring actions by other users. thos users are un-educated and dont understand the differnce between a non-ethnic german living in germany and a ethnic german living in germany. they dont understand that citizen ship in germany does not mean the same person is a ethnic german. i hope this situation gets resolved soon as i enjoy reading these articals and learning about anthropology. im glad you can understand that if a human walks over a border they dont become a new type of human. you understand that the human is the old type it was living in a new land. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is Hitler ?? He is not among Germans nor Austrians ? IS THIS A JOKE ?

Where is the world's most famous man ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.242.192 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was Austrian so go cry to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.58 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends how Austrians are considered ethnically. If they Austrians and Swiss are considered ethnic Germans then they should be included, but if they are considered a different ethnic group Hitler cannot be included as he would be ethnically Austrian (even if it is an ethnic denomination devised by the victorous Powers after WWI)--79.146.211.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

this is as good a section as any to point out that this article+talkpage is just flooded with random anonymous nonsense. I tried to "deep revert" the article, but it's hard to find a "last good version", because most of the time the vandalism isn't caught and then bona fide edits are layered above the vandalised version. I'll just try to find a decent version before the "farming and castle romanticism". Please feel free to restore any valid stuff I inadvertedly remove. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NAMIBIA Why Namibia is not included even if there are more ethnic Germans than in most countries in the list?--79.146.211.125 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler is not just the most famous German but the most famous person ever, Hitler must be in the artitle replace non Germans with Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions about this article.

While reading this article, a number of questions came to mind:

1. This article claims that Germans are a 'Germanic people', what's the source (aside from the origins of their language) for this classification, which is historiographically reserved to Antiquity and Dark Ages?
2. The introductory list at the right of the article furthermore claims that Germans are related to 'other Germanic peoples'. What is meant by that?
3. This article claims that, along with several other countries, most of the supposed 80% million people of German ancestry live in Poland and Romania. These countries aren't listed at all in the introductory list, so what's the source of this claim?
4. Why does this article present a depreciated term, namely 'Volksdeutsche', as the German translation of 'ethnic Germans', even though it is a term solely associated with the völkisch movement, that is to say nazism?
5. Why does this article contradict itself multiple times by at one time saying, or implying, that 'German' equals 'German-speaking' but then goes on to state that virtually all German-speaking population outside of Germany (Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Liechtenstein) 'have developed their own national consciousness and usually do not refer to themselves as Germans in a modern context'?
6. Doesn't the 'in a modern context'-part of that last claim make it seem as if the inhabitants of those countries are somehow 'break-ways'?
7. This article claims that Germans emerged as an ethnicity during the Middle Ages. Not only is this claim unsupported, it also seems quite implausible. The article on the Dutch meticulously describes a process of ethnogenesis only completed in the Late Middle Ages. Now the German area is about 8 to 10 times as large as the Dutch counterpart, spread over far more different habitats, how could it have achieved the same by the same time?
8. The article claims that by 800, the territory that correlates to modern Germany had been 'united'. Why the use of 'united' here?
9. Also, at this time France, the Low Countries, Northern Spain and most of Italy were also found in the same Empire, so what's its worth?
10. This article claims that 'Germans' are 'divided into sub-nationalities'. No source is to be found, so are they?

I ask anyone with knowledge on these subjects, but especially the articles regular editors, to answer these questions as soon as possible. Cheers, G.Burggraaf (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. proto-germanic people evolved about 1700 BC and split from Indo-european and that country is known today as Nordic Bronze age and was located in southern sweden and southern norway and denmark.

2.germanic people are people that speak a germanic language and have a anceint ansestral heritage going back to germany in some way for instance anglo-sphere countries like great britain or the USA are infact germanic off-shoots becasue english language and people are decended from germans in the great migrations by the angels and saxons and to a small exstent the jutes from denmark that populated kent county in the 400's and 500's AD over time varius germanic people would evolve come into being and then become assimlated into something else and then be exstinct as a seperate identity.

3.i am not sure about ethnic german heritage in countries especially polond and romania i cant help with that question.

4. Volks deutsche literly translates to people-german or literally -german folks and not literally as ethnic german however the german folks that left and emigrated out of germany and remained a german identity are difinatly what w9ould be considered ethnic-germans ,and im certain that german people actually do have a word for ethnic. i know this term as nothing to do with a political party.

5.the idea of people not considering they are german when they infact have german roots is always been with civilization im certain the british people were the first to shrug off thinking of them selfs as german then eventualy other countries came to stop thinking of them selfs as german.

6. yes infact many countries are break-aways from the germanic culture the national family tree of the germanic civilization is very complex understanding where each culture or nation fits into the overall tree of the germanic civilization helps one understand the big picture. the world wars could be considered 2 germaninc civil wars if we think of the germanic family tree.

7. your correct the german people this not begin in the middle ages as a ethnicity or other wise they have a long history of small cultures bordering each other and overtime germanization and they start to think of them selfs as german in the middle ages before the middle ages german people thought only of them selfs by which german state they lived in and not as a german and this gave rise to the rift between germany and austria.

8. breifly around the time of the year 800 what is know modern germany was politically united under charlemagne's empire also know as the frankish empire. but even though it was all united politically it was not all germanized there was a hugh contingent of slavic people in what is now east germany they were called the elbe slav tribes.

9.i think its worth is very great the frankish empire is very relevent to german heritage.

10. yes germans are sub-divided into sub-national entities

69.208.14.63 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything that you have stated is a known fact, thats why it dosent need souceing, AGENT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alejojojo6, 31 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

|region4 = Argentina |pop4 = more than 3,000,000 (Including Volga Germans, and other German ancestries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Argentine Alejojojo6 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stickee (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Improve the article

I'm neither a historian, nor an expert concerning ethnic groups, but this article should be split. There are different definitions of "Germans". There already is an article about "Ethnic Germans", based on the various concepts and possible definitions of ethnic groups, a second article about "Germans" (based on citizenship) would be useful. The table showing the populations in different contries still mixes up two different definitions. Another way to improve the article would be: Creating two different sections exclusively using one of the definitions in each section.--Johnny2323 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, this article is about both citizens of Germany and the descendants of German citizens, which would explain the table showing the populations in different contries. --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Germans of Serbia

There are 3,900 germans in Serbia (most of them live in the north province of Vojvodina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.21.39 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Germans are defined by citizenship

Germans are defined by citizenship, see [[3]]. That link shows you that since 1999 there is no other definition for Germans. Johanneswilm (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

True, there is no other definition for a German; but there are other definition for ethnic germans.--77.117.29.251 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your ignorance is laughable, Germans have always had an ethnic interpretation of nationality throughout history, to be German you have to be born a German though your parnets, take your communism elswhere, enemy Agents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I removed all numbers related to people with "ethnic germans" "german ancestors" as they are not Germans according to official definitions. I then removed all those figures that did not have references. I then checked one of the references for Italy, and it talked about 290,774 German language speakers, not Germans. I therefore erased that figure. None of the references provided mentioned the number of 75 or 80 million Germans in Germany. Therefore used the CIA wfb number of a population of roughly 82 million. The Dutch source talked about "origin" without specifying that any further, so I deleted that figure. I then deleted the UK figure, as it is about "country of birth" -- not citizenship -- and additionally the largest quantity of the alleged Germans in the UK were unaccounted for. The Spanish figure had a broken link as reference, so I deleted that. I then deleted the Swiss number, as the figures mismatched. I then deleted the figure for Tajikistan as the website it came from is no credible source. I then removed the Israeli figure as it is an unofficial estimate. One credible figure was left -- that from Austria -- however the reference did not link the right place and since it's likely not that Austria is the country with the 2nd most German citizens, I went ahead removed that figure as well. If someone were to research the correct figures, the Austrian figure should be used again. The entire list of false figures seems to be part of an advanced scheme of distortion that has hit many other pages as well, see Talk:Norwegians. --Johanneswilm (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But there aren't 82 Million Germans in Germany, there are about 58 Millione Ethnic Germans, the rest population has foriegn roots, e.g. Turkish, Arabic, Eastern European, Vietnamese etc. --188.102.171.116 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make them any less German citizens, which is the only operational definition of German we can use for the purpose of this page.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, German citizens is the only definition used by the German state since 1999. Additionally there are currently articles on Volksdeutsche and Emigration from Germany. Ethnic Germans is, according to the original authors of that article, the English translation of Volksdeutsche and I've added the corresponding redirection. It has to be clear however, that this is historical term that last was used by Nazi Germany and that the current German state does not in any way use or accept this classification. I lightly edited that article to reflect this fact, but I have not verified most of the claims on that page. Also, I wonder if that article should be moved to Ethnic Germans in the English edition of Wikipedia, with Volksdeutsche being a redirection to that. Volksdeutsche is currently linked to in this article. --Johanneswilm (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche doesn't equal Ethnic Germans-it is a historic very wide term.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Volksdeutsche does equal Ethnic Germans it's the German translation.

perhaps you should start out by reading the relevant articles before making such sweeping statements. I realize that "ethnic Germans" is a translation of Volksdeutsche. That still doesn't mean the two terms have the same meaning, let alone the same connotations, see false friend. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Germans/citizens of Germany

The term Germans has nothing to do with the citizens of Germany. Despite the problem of racist hate, ethnic Germans simply exist and include the Germans of Switzerland, Austria, USA, South America.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.35.148 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Has been documented extensively, for example here. Please don't revert before finding sources for your claim that also prove that the above official source is false/fake. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be becoming of you to try to explain what the status of minorities that identify as Germans but live outside of Germans then have. And I also think it is relevant and necessary to treat that issue in the article. One thing is the legal status of being German another is German as an identity - I think the article needs to take both into account somehow. By focusing only on nationality you are effectively stripping the Germani minority in e.g. Denmark on any claims to Germanness.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are regulations for all these cases. Not everybody who sees himself as German living outside of Germany is recognized as German by Germany. The Danish Minority in Southern Schleswig in that sense is an exception. The German minority in Denmark may be another one (someone should consult the Copenhagen-Bonn of declaration of 1955. This link seems to say that you may be right.). But people without Danish citizenship in Skåne are not recognized as Danish, and Slovenians who speak German are not recognized as Germans or Austrians, no matter what they may think themselves. Diverting from democratic principles in defining this leaves the space open for everybody's personal political agenda. Danish politician Søren Krarup, for example, has stated that you cannot really be Danish as a danish minority member if you don't want to move the border further south. Luckily, Mr. Krarup has not found a majority in any forum to make this change. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And also informally, I am quite certain that you would find very few people with German citizenship, who would say that German-Americans, Austrians, people with migrant ancestors living in Australia and other such groups are German in any kind way. Of course, I have not seen any statistics on this, but that's my impression. And I think that at least at one end of the definition we actually have to make use of people living in Germany whose Germaness isn't contested. So say there is a group fo people living in Argentina who see themselves as Germans, but neither German law nor overall German population recognizes them as such, then it would be somewhat dubious to include them here. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to "include" in the sense of stating that x group are Germans - but it is another thing to mention the fact that certain groups may identify as Germans if sources say that they do. Also it seems to be a viewpoint similar to that of Mr. Krarup that you are promoting - that it is impossible to be German unless as a citizen of Germany. I think that it is obvious that there are other definitions of "German" as well, that while they may not be official should still be discussed in the article here.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the German minority in Denmark is a unique occurrence and it should be included in this description. also, half a sentence should be added that takes Germaness away from those who do not identify with being German although they have a passport, to cover the case of Danish minority. The same logic may also apply to Sorbians, etc. although I haven't looked at the laws and regulations that regulate who is and who isn't a Sorbian. Membership of German nationality is highly regulated, by law, and is therefore very different than ethnic groups in other parts of the world. You cannot just disregard these regulations. Someone could however write an article called German ethnicity and then have a presentation of all the strange and non-regulated forms different groups of people make up. There Mr. Krarup's ideas as who is allowed to be Danish ("has to believe in Danish expansionism") can be on equal footing with that of all the other ideas. You can then link that from the top of this article. But I don't see any basis for putting various racist ideas about Germans as sort of equally relevant definitions, when there already are clear and non-misunderstandable laws in place that people rely upon. For example, the Bonn-Copenhagen treaty is quoted extensively in every-day discourse at the German-Danish border, and when someone tries to break one of its paragraphs, this is immediately pointed out by other participants of the debate. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my remark regarding Mr. Krarup. He says nothing about who can be German. he seems to basically believe in the definition given in the Bonn-Copenhagen delcaration -- meaning anyone south of the border can define themselves as Danish voluntarily -- but with the addition that you can only say that you are truly Danish, if you also subscribe to the idea of Danish expansionism -- meaning a believe that the border should go at the Ejder or at Hamburg-Altona. I am just mentioning this in order to show that if you choose not to follow the definition as it is given by law, then the number of ways of defining membership is rather limitless. That's why that should be put on another page, where it is clearly marked that it has nothing to do with official definitions. --Johanneswilm (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What I meant regarding Mr. Krarup is that his ideology promotes a view of ethnicity as necessarily being coterminous with national borders. I don't think that he actually promotes Danish expansionism - but he believes that in order to be ethnically Danish one also has to be (or wish to be) nationally Danish - that is similar to your idea that being German can only be realized within the regulations stipulated by the German state. That ignores the fact that historically being ethnically and nationally German has been two distinct things which have only been seen as necessarily implying eachother in recent times. Problems such as that of Alsace/Elsass also brings into focus the problem of seeing ethnicity and nationality as being by necessity homomorphous. I also find it to be rather narrow minded to assume that ideas of German ethnicity cannot exist except in the form of racist or chauvinist ideologies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No seriously, he is for Danish expansionism and is angry with all official representations of the Danish minority south of the border for not agreeing with him. That's why he wants to redefine Danish as only being those people south of the border who agree with his wacko expansionist plans. I cannot find a link for the entire statement right now, but this here shows you what he thinks pretty much. --Johanneswilm (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

do you have any idea how many years it took to get the article halfway stable? I would estimate that your exact topic of debate has been rehashed about ten times on this very page over the past five years. It's alright for you to have that discussion yet again, but you need to understand that (a) Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM, and that (b) to make sweeping changes to a longstanding article, you need to establish consensus before going ahead. So if in doubt, revert this to the revision before somebody decided to "clean up" the article yet again and then start trying to find a consensus from there. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay, this article is about ethnic Germans. But then, if that's the case 80 million Germans in Germany is no way near the real figure for Germans in Germany.

"Germans of no immigrant background: (81%) 66.7 million[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

The figure of 80 million is therefore wrong and misleading. The German government does not keep track of ethnicity, there is no way to count how many Germans of ethnic German background are in Germany. I don't know how the Federal Ministry of the Interior estimated that figure but that definitely is more accurate than equating the number of Germans citizens (80 million) with the number of ethnic Germans. I will now change the figure to 66.42 which I've just realized is what it says in the references of this page "66.42 million is the number of Germans without immigrant background, 75 million is the number of German citizens Germans and foreigners with an immigrant background". Even taking immigrants of ethnic German background into account that figure is more accurate than ignoring all the immigrant workers from Turkey and Arab countries who have moved to Germany over the decades and have obtained citizenship, in addition to the ones who have been born there.

To clarify, this article is according to the position that people have stated about Germans with German ancestry. The introduction is ambiguous as it says "the citizens of Germany" without stating that it's about people with German ancestry. If this article IS about Germans with German ancestry, the figure for Germans in Germany is wrong as acquiring German citizenship doesn't make you have German ancestry. If this article is NOT about Germans with German ancestry but of German nationals, then it should be added back to the introduction that it's about Germans who consider themselves Germans regardless of ancestry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grondolf (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

how many full-blooded ethnic germans live in the USA?

this artical says 50 million live in the usa but that way too much of a guess for me to take in so i think of it as a grain of salt really. my diffination of a ethnically german american is more precice then this my name is Jon Black and all 4 of my grand parents had german heritage but i dont consider my self ethnically german becasue i also have also of british heritage irish and english and the last of them came over from the british isles sometime before the year 1800 so i would not fall into the catagory of a ethnic german infact by the year 1900 my heritage has been appalacian-american ethnic group. so id like for the actual german american figure to be listed on here and not a estimate. if its not known oh well at least i enqured. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

South Africa

80,000 is a stupidly small number. About 35% of white South Africans are PRIMARILY of German ancestry, while another 50% are of partial German ancestry. Out of 5 million white South Africans that can be way over 1.5 million! You are also forgetting the 5 million mixed African-European coloureds in South Africa. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article

This article is way too confusing. It not only lacks a clear definition of its subject but also mixes different meanings of the term "Germans". One major problem is the lack of distinction between nationality and ethnicity. For example, Austrians are ethnically also Germans in the broadest sense, even if they have their own nationality. Another problem is the claim about the number of persons who "consider" themselves to be German, which is somewhat misleading. What counts is their actual ancestry, leading to a distinction between people of partly or fully German heritage, which is actually missing in the article. There is also a further distinction needed between Germans as recognized longstanding minorities in some parts of Europe, early modern and modern "Auswanderers", such as to America, settlement in German colonies, recent expatriates, etc. --Prüm (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Where it says "excludes German-speaking ethnic Belgians", what is it talking about? It could be referring to ethnic Germans with Belgian citizenship in the German speaking area, or people who live in the German speaking area regardless of nationality, or German citizens who live in Belgium, or ethnic Germans who live in Belgium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.92.245 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

MORE THAN 66 MILLION GERMANS IN GERMANY

Ridiculous writing just 66 million. If there are 66 million Germans without immigrant background, a) It doesn´t mean that immigrants are not ethnically German as half of immigrants to Germany have been ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union and the rest of Eastern Europe. The so called "Ausslander". b) In any other country but Germany MOST, the overwhelming majority, of ethnic Germans are MIXED (U.S., Brazil, Argentina...) In the U.S. there are more than 50 million people with German backgroudn...but most of them at the same time have English, French, Italian etc, etc background. So, in the case of Germany also there are millions of people in the same situation, a result of marriage between German citizens and immmigrants. c) So, it would be MORE ACCURATE to say that in GERMANY there are 76 million Germans, the same as German citizens (even if the number of ethnic Germans is higher) So you have to correcdt that number from 66 million to 76 million (probably part of the rest are also partly German ethnically)--88.9.128.83 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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."[4]; "...that Einstein's ethnicity might have also played a part in his many rejections. Einstein was Jewish."[5]; "Other factors that influenced his life were his family background and values and his ethnicity"[6]; "(quoting Einstein): "We are not Jews because we say so, but because the world says so." [7]; "This is extremely important for Einstein's emerging ethnic self-concept as a Jew"[8]; "His parents, Hermann and Pauline Einstein, were ethnic Jews."[9]. 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: [10], [11] and [12]. 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.[13] Table Lamp 47 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)