Talk:Germans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Article scope

So I would imagine that most here will agree the scope of the article is not well defined/ or a source of contention . One main question has arisen from the photo argument that pertains directly to the articles scope and thus its overall content. That is......

• Should or should not "this" article encompass all Germans that are considered citizens? As in.... all 81.8 million of them covered under the German nationality law or not?

German citizens = 73.62 million (90% of total population)

German citizens of no migrant background: 65.44 million (80% of total population)

German citizens of immigrant background (including people of partial immigrant background) 8.18 million (10%)

i.e- Should this article be all encompassing like Canadians Mexican people and British people that deals with all demographics of its citizens - Or should it be like Japanese people and Russians a semi socio-racial/ethnic group classification system article? Moxy (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I think it should be a broad explanation of all common uses of the term. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• It should be broad, including all common uses of the term as used in reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• As broad as possible. We should include some non-Jewish ethnic minorities in the picture box, in addition to the Jewish ones already present (if we are to leave them up, that is).Evildoer187 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Surely broad, Germans without immigration background? Sounds, again, dodgy. --Gilisa (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• It should be broad, the thing is I think all of us use same words for different things. Me, GIlisa and Evildoear187 claerly use ethnicity in the classic sense of group with common origins and history while others here try to make it be more of a nationality. All I'm saying it, if you want to have a Jew in the collage, you should also have a Turk there because im my opinion otherwise it's simply racism due to the fact Turks are the second largest ethnic group of German nationality after Germans. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Broad per Maunus. Presence in the infobox, if images are to be included, should be based on notability, as in British people, not on fallacious statistical reasoning. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Broad as per Maunus. This is the way I should have addressed the issue of article scope, rather than making a proposal which naively attempted to accommodate views previously expressed (and which was a misrepresentation of my own inclinations, resulting in a situation which caused me considerable personal distress). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Broad per Maunus. Per Mathsci's comment, the image at British people is not based solely on notability but to some extent on representativeness as well (gender, skin colour, etc.), and that should be the case here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

True. It is not "Great Britons", or else Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth I, Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare and Boadicea have been quite unlucky. Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally, all senses of the word "German". That includes national minorities inside Germany and recent immigrants with a German passport, in keeping with German official terminology (which includes Danes, Frisians, Sorbs and Sinti/Roma when speaking of the "German people"). But it also includes Germans in the various other senses (some historical): essentially all speakers of German everywhere. The various notions of Germans should be discussed. It's not going to be easy because in practice there is rarely a need to distinguish as there is a huge overlap, usually the intended definition is clear from context, and the entire topic is close to a taboo in today's Germany. So I doubt there will be a lot of good sources except for obsolete definitions.
  Great to see there is one thing that we can all agree about. It appears that most of the disagreements came from the fact that we disagreed about the article's scope while using the same words to define it. Hans Adler 09:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

unproductive repetition
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's the joke, a reasonable concensus was reached few days ago, to replace Einstein with Merkel and Marx with the Pope, I don't see why we are even having this discussion again. We have two simple alternatives: Remove Einstein and Marx, or replace Einstein with a Turk. Both of those ideas are were supported by many users. As someone mentioned in the discussion you tried opening against me in the admin board, you are trying to push a new definition of ethnicity. Sorbs, Danes and Sinti/Roma are NOT ethnic Germans, they never were and never said they are. They are Germans by nationality. They havea differnt origin, a different history and their own cultural uniquines. In fact, when soemnoe says it to them they find it racist because they feel like someone is trying to take their ethnicity away and "absorb" them to an extent they will not exist. Germany never tried to claim those guys are ethnically German (except during Hitler when he tried to clame Sorbs are Germans and tried to delete their identity, something like what you are trying to do now). What I wonder is, if you mentioned them, why did you not mention the Turks? The Turks are palying an improtant role in Germany today and in German culture! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC) The problem is and was your claims that ethnic Jews, or Sorbs, or Danes etc. cannot possibly be ethnic Germans as well. That is racist, and I am never going to take that back. Obviously not all of them consider themselves to be ethnic Germans even if they are German citizens, but a lot do, and you want to exclude them based on genes. Your section heading "Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are not Germans" [1] has serious racist shock value. Try to argue that way in Germany and you will find yourself shunned as an obvious racist and antisemite. To judge from the reactions on ANI, many Americans appear to respond similarly to that heading of yours. The Nazis considered the Sorbs to be a different 'Volksgruppe', but somehow 'related' to the German 'Volksgruppen' (Bavarians, Swabians etc.) That's because of the huge number of Germans with mostly Sorbian ancestors (most of the area of former East Germany was originally settled by Sorbs) and because the Sorbs had helped to vote the Nazis to power. The other Slavs and the Jews were classified in other 'Volksgruppen' without that privileged treatment and were to be exterminated to make space for German settlements. Saying that a particular Jew or a Sorb is also an ethnic German means that the person has not just the formal rights of German citizenship but is treated as an equal in every respect. It implies that a Jew or a Sorb can say something stupid in German in public and won't have to face any public responses that allude to his or her other ethnic background. (Of course such responses do occur, but there is a strong general consensus against them.) And they don't have to pay with full assimilation for that but can still stay among themselves and speak other languages than German. Take this perpetual standing offer of German ethnicity (which they can accept implicitly while rejecting it explicitly, we don't hold it against them) away, and you have the same breeding ground for antisemitism that we had a century ago. Hans Adler 11:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC) First of all, Einstein himself said he is not German. Second, no one can exclude a person from being German because of their ethnicity, but that’s nationality. Ethnicity is not a matter of choice, and there’s nothing racist about that. If a Jew in England decides “I’m English” (which he can, by nationality), will his ancestors become the Anglo-Saxons and Celts which evolved into the English ethnicity? Of from the other hand, will his ancestors stop being the Jewish people with origins in Israel and with Semitic genes similar to those of local Arabs, Assyrians and Druze people? That’s exactly my point! You are trying to create a new definition of ethnicity, when what you actually mean is cultural identity and nationality. “Saying that a particular Jew or a Sorb is also an ethnic German means that the person has not just the formal rights of German citizenship but is treated as an equal in every respect.” What?? He should be and will be treated equal in every respect even if he is not ethnically German. Why shouldn’t he? He’s German by nationality. So let me get this straight, so for you if someone doesn’t see themselves as ethnic German they should not be treated equal? Only those who see themselves as ethnic Germans can be treated equal? Sorry, I think your definitions of who should be treated equal based on what are racist. A Sorb is not an ethnic German, a Jew is not an ethnic German, and they can’t be, but it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve equal and fair respectful treatment simply because like the ethnic German they are German nationals with equal rights and equal human value regardless of their nationality and ethnicity! It also doesnt mean they have less connection to Germany because each eprson has a connection to the place they grew up in! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC) That's racist bullshit. Plenty of ethnic Germans whose families have been German-speaking and had no relation to Sorbs for many generations are genetically indistinguishable from Sorbs. Genetically, Germans are a wild mixture of peoples from all over the place. They have to be, just look at a map of Europe! Even the German(ic) 'tribes' that still live on in the denomination of German dialects were unions of genetically diverse people, and there are many such 'tribes'. When I first came to Westphalia, I was shocked to see that the local population looks as different from the people in my home town in southern Germany as an average Russian or Korean. And the old local population in other areas looks again totally different. Genes have nothing to do with German ethnicity. By your criteria I would probably be French, not German, my ex-wife would probably be a Danish-Slavic mongrel, or whatever, and of course the Ruhrpolen would not be ethnic Germans at all. Yet not even they Nazis denied that they are ethnic Germans – because they didn't care about logical inconsistencies any more than you seem to do With your definition of ethnic Germans, there is no such thing as ethnic Germans in the first place! But there is, and the definition is the one given at ethnic group rather than the totally outdated one that you want to use. Hans Adler 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC) That’s another racist stereotype, that ethnic groups should be visibly different. Of course Sorbs and Germans look the same! Why shouldn’t they? After all, they live in the same country. Besides, in an age of globalization everybody have a similar culture. The point is, you are trying to promote a new definition of ethnicity which is actually not. Ethnicity=History and origin, done. There’s nothing racist about it because racism is assuming that one group is better then another. What you are talking about is a shared identity, like in Germany ethnic Germans, Turks, Sorbs share a similar culture and they have a lot in common, it still doesn’t mean they are the same ethnic group. In English, Russians, Scots, Tatars, Serbians, Croats, Czech people, Belarusians… they use the same definition of ethnicity like I do, why? Because it’s the right one and those articles are about ethnic groups. They didn’t put Jews in those images, because Jews are a separate ethnic group. If they would do similar things about Australian, Americans or Canadians you would have people of many different ethnicities, why? Because those are national identities and not ethnicities (unless you want to use those terms for the native populations whose lands were stolen to create those countries). It’s very simple. If the article is about nationality it should have a Turk, a Jew and maybe a Sorb in it. If it’s about ethnicity, it should not have anyone except ethnic Germans. Ethnic Germans=those tribes which united and created the German ethnicity and share a common identity and history. Jews are not ethnic Germans, Sorbs are not ethnic Germans because they are separate ethnic groups. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Your arguments are so poor that your posts are indistinguishable from trolling. It's not a racist stereotype that different ethnic groups sometimes look different on average. And I didn't even say that Sorbs and Germans look the same, I said that even Germans (from one part of German) and Germans (from another) don't look the same. And that's in addition to Germans and Germans having totally different traditions, following different Christian confessions, and speaking mutually incomprehensible dialects of the same standard language. Sorbs fit perfectly into this multitude (as would the people of almost any other European country) with the sole exception that their dialects aren't dialects of German but of a different language. And of course that they are being actively encouraged to keep their traditions and language alive in parallel to being so fully integrated into German society that normally we don't even know when we are dealing with them. It's the same as with the majority of Jews in Germany. Unless it's kind of obvious from the name (and many have decidedly German first and last names; I am sure in the last centuries there were hundreds of Jews with precisely my combination of names, for example), you learn that a fellow German is Jewish the first time they mention a synagogue or Hanukkah or something (in which case they may well talk about a Hanukkah tree [sic] and Hanukkah presents [sic] for the kids), which may be very soon, or may be after you have known them (obviously not very well) for years. The modern concept of German ethnicity is not based on origin, it is very similar to the concept of American mainstream culture, which replaces 'American ethnicity' because that just doesn't make sense. German ethnicity as you want to define it and as the forethinkers of the Nazis dreamed it up doesn't make any more sense, and for the same reasons. Hans Adler 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Guitar Hero I am saying this now for the last time. Stop it. If you continue down this track I am taking this to ANI. You are misrepresenting what other editors say which is a violation of the talkpage guidelines and you are not providing any sources whatsoever for your repetitive claims which is tendentious and disruptive. This is the last warning I am going to give you before seeking sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC) It was already taken to ANI two days ago Maunus, so that warning won't help much. To be honest, Guitar hero, land, the Earth we walk on, the soil beneath your feet in reality belongs to no one in particular so you cannot claim it was stolen from anyone - Rex (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I realized when I went there. Let it go its course then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC) When the native population in America, Australia, Canada and etc was expeled from their land in a brutal way, yes, it's stealing land, and the fact is, most of those countries are built on stolen land taken from it's native populations. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC) It was already taken to ANI and the conclusion was you can't complain on a person for not thinking like you, you can take it again. You have no case because I didn't say anything controversial or racist, if anyting, you are trying to twist terminology. But the fact you want to take me to ANI for not thinking like you, you know who that reminds of. I guess some things never change, you try and get a new terminology and image, but your still the same. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC) again you misrepresent what i am saying. I dont care what you think. I care about what you do. And what you do is not compatible with the rules established for behavior in wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Really :-) ? Well that's something funny to hear from you. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad, mainly because of the conceptual problems involved with defining and demarcating the ethnic group. I found Moxy's proposed first sentence for the lead attractive (although I can't immediately trace it back to the source he gave, at least not in the same form). Iblardi (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this one better ? As it mentions specifically the change in policy since 2000 towards including all German's (immigrants and naturalized citizens) vs old policy of German blood line (ethnic Germans) ....Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0. .Moxy (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad to accomodate the various sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Limited for collage; broad for the article (do not ignore limited definitions though): It is weird that Einstein is listed here. He is ethnically Jewish. He should (and is) pictured in Jews article. The article itself can include broader definitions, but specify. Eg: include both the number of ethnic Germans (without immigration background) AND number of German citizens, informing the readers that definitions (and hence associated statistics) may vary. Cavann (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we close this thread by the conclusion that we already have agreement about the scope of the article (i.e., broad)?--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to the broad consensus I have taken a first step and restored references to 'nation' to the lede. Further changes to population number etc. may be necessary, but I currently lack the motivation to look for sources. It has been exceedingly interesting to be part of this -> [2], all the best. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you see Talk:Germans#Change to lead? - The current version that was just implemented still is only about Germanic peoples and not all its citizens. I think what is below is much more inclusive to all Germans - be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they Germanic peoples (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal). All this is what is covered under German nationality law.

"Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with the modern country of Germany and historically Germanic Central Europe. This connection may be ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural.'"22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad in all aspects - per Maunus and Mathsci. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Moxy (whose signing didn't seem to work properly, btw) - the revision just made to the article is not sufficiently broadening. Moxy's suggestion is broader, and better IMHO. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the change, I much prefer Moxy's wording too. I just wasn't sure if Iblardi and Moxy had sorted out the source and were happy with it, they were discussing it earlier. I only wanted to get this started so that things can get back to normal as soon as possible. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(2 e/cs) I still think the wording isn't broad enough following Truthkeeper's recent changes. I'm loathe to make a change myself in case I make another blunder, but surely there are people who are neither citizens nor natives of Germany, but nevertheless consider themselves "German"? Moxy's wording seems to address that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The 'about' part would need to be broadened as well, would This article is about Germans as an ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural group work, or is that too contrived? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right it needs changing; the wording you propose may be too "listy" rather than too contrived, and I'm wondering if referring to them as "a group" isn't ideal (Moxy's wording avoids the word "group"). But in my view your proposal is better than what is there now. What about - just throwing out ideas - "This article is about people identified with modern Germany and its political antecedents" or is "antecedent" an unwise word to use, given its usual usage in family trees etc? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as the photo box isn't framed in a way as to imply Jews in Germany are indigenous Germans (which is nothing short of a slap to the face for many Jews, Einstein included), then I'm fine with leaving Einstein and Marx in the box. We should put in some of the more 'recent' immigrants to Germany, so as to alleviate these concerns (which many of this page share) and curb any further dispute. Thankfully, it seems like everyone else is on the same page. However, if you can't understand why those of us who have a strong sense of Jewish identity might be just a little offended at seeing their people conflated with those who tried to annihilate them, then you are clearly incapable of empathy and blinded by your own privilege. By calling us racist, you are effectively appointing yourselves the judge and jury of how we should feel about ourselves. You don't get to do that.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You really need to read-up this topic Paul R. Mendes-Flohr (1999). German Jews: A Dual Identity. Yale University Press. - Are you under the impression that all Jews in Germany past and present even from the time of Charlemagne are of direct Jews homeland decent? You are aware that people convert religions very often - even in Germany. By your logic we can then all assume that anyone that follows the Quran must be of Arabic diaspora origins?Moxy (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments like this only reinforce my belief that you know nothing about Jewish history or identity. First of all, Judaism and Islam are not even comparable in this context. Early Roman proselytism aside, it is well documented that conversion to Judaism has been extremely limited due to both religious and secular persecution, in addition to internal Jewish laws that prohibited intermarriage and made converting to Judaism a pain in the ass. None of these things are applicable to Islam, which has a long history of forced proselytism through colonialism, extending from the reaches of Southeast Asia to the Iberian Peninsula. And yes, I am of the belief that the vast majority of today's Jews, barring recent converts, have ethnic Hebrew descent. It is a belief that is roundly supported by multiple genetic studies on Jews.

Moxy Just show the real motive behind some who push Einstein in the same info-box with at least some German nationalists and anti-Semitics. Very good taste. I'm descended of what Moxy called German Jews and I read and learn a lot of Jewish diaspora in general and on Jews of Germany in particular. Until the 19 AC Jews were not even allowed to visit German cities without paying special Jewish tax -and their entrance were allowed only through the gates through which beasts were entranced. They had no right to convert anyone. In fact some cases of Germans who wanted to convert back then (say in 1600) are documented in Jewish traditional sources-the community took very large risk by converting anyone so usually if the German insisted what the community did is to send him/her to another community with a recommendation -usually to the community in the Netherlands -because the Netherlands was the most tolerant regarding Jews. But even then such cases were extremely rare and in any case until today Germany keep documentation of Jewish past citizens that depict the last 500 years of them in Germany. The claim that Jews in Germany are actually Germans who converted to Judaism is no less than ridiculous and also not supported by genetic studies. Talking about genetics seems unaviodable when someone argue that Jews are not a people-just a religion -but then you're the one who blamed with racism (!). As for myself I just want to make it clear that for months I had a fight about removing Felix Mendelsshon from the Jewish infobox because he converted to other religion and cut his affiliation with the Jewish community. I thought it's only right to keep there those who at least have no problem with their inclusion there (were they alive). I also nominated for AfD article about Jewish intelligence. So my motives are clean, but I fail to see how fighting to keep Einstein in this infobox -considering his personal history and how insisting on keeping only Germans "without immigration background" in the infobox is not motivated by nationalism.--Gilisa (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rants of this nature make me question the education system outside of Canada.Moxy (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean that you want to imply somethings against Israelis but you don't want to violate WP guidelines. I've nothing against Canada but even excellent education system didn't suit you with reasonable argument or answer, or teach you how to avoid pretentious arrogance. --Gilisa (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you done any research on this topic at all?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that I would fully support including a recently converted German, or someone with partial German descent in this box. On the other hand, taking someone who is of full Jewish heritage (one of whom didn't even identify himself as German) and passing them off as indigenous Germans is analogous to putting Ronald Reagan in a collage of Native Americans. In other words, absolutely ridiculous.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187. could you please stop diverting the discussion with personalised comments, which are not helpful. Please stop using this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Using the phrase "recently converted German" shows a confusion between religion and nationality which was surely an error. The lede of the article is clear enough. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, you do know that Jews are a nation, right? That it's an ethnicity as well as a religion, hence ethnoreligious group? See Jews: "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[12][13][14] Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia."

It would also appear that I was mistaken in assuming that both of Marx's parents were Jewish. I retract my earlier appeals for excluding him.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop writing this kind of nonsense. Israel is a nation, Judaism is a religion. Please stop confusing these issues and misusing this talk page as a blog. Wikipedia is not a source and cherry-picking sentences out of context as you have done is just tendentious editing. Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The passage I cited just now is fully sourced, and obviously supported by the Wikipedia community since it is a heavily monitored article. If you disagree with it, you should take your complaints to the talk page here.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What is rather racist and/or patronizing is including people who may not self-identify as ethic German or German at all. Einstein renounced his citizenship:

“ However, in 1933, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, Einstein left Germany and renounced his citizenship. After World War II ended, and the Nazis were eliminated, Einstein refused to have anything to do with Germany. Einstein refused several honors bestowed upon him by Germany, as he could not forgive the Germans for the Holocaust, where 6 million of his fellow Jews were killed.[22] [3] ”

Including Einstein seems to be nothing more than "claiming" one of the world's greatest scientists to me, rather than being objective and informative. Cavann (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering the dodgy evolution on this talk-page no reasonable men can get to any other conclusion. First they argue that the article is about ethnicity and that Einstein was ethnic German-this included non relevant arguments and extremely rude and offensive political line of claims, to say the least, stating that there is no Jewish ethnicity. When one stated the opposite he was accused for racism without no shame..Then they say that the article is about the German nation -but the German nation includes at present days Muslims and Buddhists, people of all colors and races-they are not willing to seriously discuss in the infobox people that represent the present demography of Germany. Why? Because one picture is better than one thousand words. If one see Black or Indie person in the infobox he will understand that the article is about German citizens. They soon aborted this line as well and get to another one which failed also. Making this article as broad as possible wouldn't help in removing the POV if the infobox doesn't reflect it. What else that Einstein remarks about Germany were clear and cut and IMO it's rude to include him here.--Gilisa (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You should pursue RFC, etc, and mediation for removal of Einstein from the collage after the scope is clarified. It is quite dumb to include someone who refused to be associated with Germany. Cavann (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right of return

Its been some time (not since the mid 1990s) that I have read up on "right of return" policy and cant find any new info on it. Anyone have a book to recommend that is very modern on this topic. As we should mention the Warsaw pact nations peoples that can return to Germany - and if I remember correctly those from China can also claim German citizenship - is this still active since the 2000 nationality laws?Moxy (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also confused about this and was going to research the matter. I think they phased this out at some point, but the criteria they used are going to give us a lot of insight into an almost official definition of some variant of German ethnicity. Hans Adler 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Official German state laws definition to be precise. The German law of return give people who can prove they have German roots citizenship. They can prove it by showing they speak the language from home. From what I understand about this law (which was still valid one in 2002 if I remember right) it doesn't matter if one was from a minority like Gypsies and Jews or ethnic German so the term ethnicity in this case only reflects the Bundestag position or the political situation in Germany during the time this law was modified. As far as I remember German embassies reported many cases of people who pretend to have German roots-like Kazakh who demonstrated mastery in German language that was so exceptional it led the German authorities to conclusion that he learn the language professionally and not from home. I may be wrong, it maybe that Jew who ask citizenship based on this law (there are many Jews from East Europe who can speak reasonable level of German) will be rejected. In any case, don't open new sections-you recycle the discussion and we already have consensus about the scope of this article few threads above.--Gilisa (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats sounds like what I remember. Do you have a source for this info - So we can verify and thus work on the wording of this info based on a/or many sources.Moxy (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I never heard about that language trick, but I heard that it tended to be easier for Jews as assimilation in Eastern Europe tended to be slower for them than for other German speakers. I think at some point the courts had to decide whether Eastern European Jews normally speak German due to a German or a Jewish identity.

The German sources on these matters are likely going to be the most complete and precise. They are also easier to find because it's clear what words to search for (it's not always clear how to translate a technical term), so I will start evaluating them. My first find is the following legal definition from the Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der Vertriebenen und Flüchtlinge ("law about the matters of the displaced persons and refugees", usually abbreviated Bundesvertriebenengesetz or BVFG) [4]:

§ 6. Volkszugehörigkeit

(1) Deutscher Volkszugehöriger im Sinne dieses Gesetzes ist, wer sich in seiner Heimat zum deutschen Volkstum bekannt hat, sofern dieses Bekenntnis durch bestimmte Merkmale wie Abstammung, Sprache, Erziehung, Kultur bestätigt wird.

(2) Wer nach dem 31. Dezember 1923 geboren worden ist, ist deutscher Volkszugehöriger, wenn er von einem deutschen Staatsangehörigen oder deutschen Volkszugehörigen abstammt und sich bis zum Verlassen der Aussiedlungsgebiete durch eine entsprechende Nationalitätenerklärung oder auf vergleichbare Weise nur zum deutschen Volkstum bekannt oder nach dem Recht des Herkunftsstaates zur deutschen Nationalität gehört hat. Das Bekenntnis zum deutschen Volkstum oder die rechtliche Zuordnung zur deutschen Nationalität muss bestätigt werden durch die familiäre Vermittlung der deutschen Sprache. Diese ist nur festgestellt, wenn jemand im Zeitpunkt der verwaltungsbehördlichen Entscheidung über den Aufnahmeantrag, in Fällen des § 27 Abs. 2 im Zeitpunkt der Begründung des ständigen Aufenthalts im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes, auf Grund dieser Vermittlung zumindest ein einfaches Gespräch auf Deutsch führen kann, es sei denn, er kann die familiäre Vermittlung auf Grund einer später eingetretenen Behinderung im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Satz 1 des Neunten Buches Sozialgesetzbuch nicht mehr auf diese Weise nachweisen. Ihre Feststellung entfällt, wenn die familiäre Vermittlung wegen der Verhältnisse in dem jeweiligen Aussiedlungsgebiet nicht möglich oder nicht zumutbar war oder wenn dem Aufnahmebewerber die deutsche Sprache wegen einer in seiner Person vorliegenden Behinderung im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Satz 1 des Neunten Buches Sozialgesetzbuch nicht vermittelt werden konnte. Ein Bekenntnis zum deutschen Volkstum wird unterstellt, wenn es unterblieben ist, weil es mit Gefahr für Leib und Leben oder schwerwiegenden beruflichen oder wirtschaftlichen Nachteilen verbunden war, jedoch auf Grund der Gesamtumstände der Wille unzweifelhaft ist, der deutschen Volksgruppe und keiner anderen anzugehören.

This is from the latest version of the law and still in effect. The first version was from 1953, so this paragraph will have changed over the years. It will be interesting to see if there were any significant changes.

I am not translating this right now, as this is tricky and I have little time. In any case we will also need court decisions to see how the hard cases, which due to the present dispute we are perhaps most interested in, are/were handled in practice. Hans Adler 11:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who speak German, there is some very interesting information here: [5]. It appears that there are special immigration rules for Eastern European Jews that are so much more convenient than those for the German minority in Eastern Europe, that they should normally be more attractive. Apart from some privileges (simpler process, no quota) the main difference is that on immigration as a Jew one does not get German citizenship but a perpetual right to live and work in Germany and make use of social benefits in exactly the same way as those who come as Germans. Elsewhere I found the information that this is in effect since 1991. [6]

According to the German Wikipedia [7], the above paragraph was taken almost literally from the corresponding Nazi law of 1939. It appears that Hans Globke was responsible for this. Only the following sentence was removed: "Personen artfremden Blutes, insbesondere Juden, sind niemals deutsche Volkszugehörige, auch wenn sie sich bisher als solche bezeichnet haben." ("Persons of dissimilar blood, especially Jews, are never deutsche Volkszugehörige, even if they have so far referred to themselves as such.")

If I remember correctly, at some point there was a court decision to the effect that while the paragraph now obviously can apply to Jews, it does not apply to German-speaking Jews who thought of themselves as Jews rather than German, not Jews and Germans, and who were persecuted as Jews rather than as Germans. This was felt unfair towards those who distanced themselves from being German as a reaction to the Nazis (as Einstein seems to have done, for example), and that may be one of the reasons for the 1991 rules on facilitated Jewish immigration. (The other is of course that modern Germany has an interest in having a thriving Jewish population. In that respect the law wasn't as successful as the numbers might lead one to believe, as previously liberal Jewish communities in Germany were overrun with a strange mixture of orthodox Jews and supposed Jews who didn't know the first thing of Jewish religion and traditions. That obviously caused some frictions.) No good sources for this yet, but I will look for them this evening or during the weekend. Hans Adler 12:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Article structure and content

We now have a overwhelming concusses about what the article should be about. That is "broad" in nature representing Germans as a people defined by there main criteria - (historical and/or cultural) - (ethnic) - (residential and/or legal). This would cover almost anyone who is or do consider themselves German in or outside the modern country. Lets go over the article section by section to see how it can be improved. I believe we need to add a whole section about and that leads to German nationality law.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not very happy about the sections History and Identity. I doubt that we need a long section on the history of "the Germans". That's the job of History of Germany. Not completely sure, though. Hans Adler 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• This in my opinion is pretty good as is - talks about old and new concepts, diaspora and immigrants as well as mentioning world totals.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  Looks more or less OK to me but probably needs a lot of tedious work to get the details exactly right. Language is one of the most important points, but is hidden in the more general point 'culture'. If you can speak standard German without a foreign accent and you don't immediately look 'foreign', you will pass for an ethnic German. It's even better if you can speak a local dialect. In that case a lot of people will even 'forgive' you if you look 'black'. Apart from the language, German culture is just an extract from the continuum of European culture, and is as diverse as the size of Germany (or the German-speaking area) would suggest. Many things that are internationally considered typical aspects of German culture (Neuschwanstein, cuckoo clocks, the River Rhine, Berlin, Oktoberfest) are typical for only a tiny part of Germany, or even no longer typical at all. Hans Adler 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

• Not sure why this is even here - its about how the country was named - not its people. The naming of the country is well covered in the article that is actually about the country. Should be removed and replaced with a section called "Population" like at Canadians#Population.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

History

• We will need to add some history on more groups as represented at History of German settlement in Central and Eastern Europe as well as modern peoples linked from {{Germans}}.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

• A bit long I think.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Language

• In my opinion should be moved to a sub section of culture or identity.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Geographic distribution

• Have no problem here that I see - but we should talk about the name of the parent article call Ethnic Germans - would German diaspora not be more appropriate thus we would have space for a real article covering a socio-racial classification system?Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Culture

• Needs a bit of a trim and a hell of alot of refs.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Identity

• Needs lots of verification and needs to mention the identity crisis among Jews and Turks and other groups.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Closely related articles

Articles should never be considered in isolation, but always in the context of surrounding articles. Some changes to this ecosystem may also be necessary. Let's collect closely related articles here to see how everything fits together and whether we need to reorganise something. Hans Adler 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

German nationality law

This article so far focuses on the modern situation. We should add historical information, although this can mostly consist in pointers to relevant subarticles. (Maybe broaden to "German nationality" or, to be more explicit, "German citizenship"?)

Imperial Germans

(Reichsdeutsche) Covers German nationality 1871-1945. (Is this article necessary, as opposed to a redirect to a section?)

Federal Germans

(Bundesdeutsche) Stub on West German nationality 1945-1989 and German nationality since 1989 (reunification). (Is this stub worth expanding, as opposed to a redirect to a section?)

Ethnic Germans

Contrary to what the name suggests, this is only about ethnic Germans in one sense (Deutschstämmige) who live outside the main continuous German-speaking area, or more generally about Germans outside Germany. (Maybe broaden to discuss German ethnicity in general? Or merge into present article? Or rename for clarity?)

Firstly thank you for bring up these articles that clearly should be summarized here and thusly linked. As I mentioned above and agree with you here - the fact "Ethnic Germans" is misleading and I believe should be called "German diaspora" (currently the redirect) - thus making room for a real article on German ethnicity. If things continue to progess in a positive manner - we could go for GA status after this is over. Moxy (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche

This is about a legal definition of one form of German ethnicity, based primarily on language and culture, though pre-1945 also with an element of 'race'.

National minorities in Germany

There really should be an article on this. See de:Nationale Minderheit#Deutschland. The closest thing seems to be Association of National Minorities in Germany, a stub related to 1924-1939. (Even national minority is only a redirect to minority group and not particularly helpful given that national minority is a notion of international law.)

History of Germany

German language

German language in Europe

German as a minority language

Strongly related to ethnic Germans in that article's current form.

Demographics of Germany

Collection of sources that may turn out useful

OK, a few more sources for later detailed evaluation (put here so I don't forget about them):

• [8] Huge collection of decisions related to displaced persons.
• [9] A German Landgericht says explicitly that the idea that a member of the Jewish people can at most be of German nationality but not a member of the German people is wrong. (Context was a criminal case for an antisemitic letter to the government.)
• [10] Interesting decision of a Land's constitutional court in a complicated case involving German, Jewish and Lithuanian identities.
• [11] Same court says explicitly that with German and Jewish ethnicity it's complicated and they are not incompatible. You could be registered as one only in the Soviet Union and still be the other as well.
• [12] "A rabbi can be a German, too". A 1969 newspaper article on the racism that still lingered in the Bundesvertriebenengesetz.

Hans Adler 12:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• According to Radio Prague's German service [13]: In the early 20th century, Czechoslovakia was the only Central European country which recognised Jews as a national minority and gave them collective privileges. In the 1921 census not all Jews declared themselves to be members of this minority. The numbers were 30% for Bohemia, 50% for Slovakia and 90% for the Czech parts of Ukraine. In Bohemia, most Jews spoke Czech and identified themselves primarily as Czech. Most of the German-speaking Jews identified themselves as members of the German minority. Zionists identified as Jewish. All of these, and also atheists with Jewish roots, were represented in Bohemia's elite. In other parts of the country Jews tended to be more orthodox and less assimilated. Hans Adler 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• In October 1933, the League of Nations debated whether the German Jews should get protection as a minority. The various countries' positions are interesting. [14] Germany: The Jews are neither a linguistic nor a national minority, do not feel like one, and don't want to be treated as one. UK: It is true that they are neither a linguistic nor a national minority, but they should still be protected as a minority. France: Jews actually don't agree whether they are a minority or not. The French Jews regard themselves as French, and in former times the German Jews surely referred to themselves as Germans. Nevertheless, due to discrimination by German laws they are a minority and need protection. Hans Adler 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• This scholarly book [15] seems to imply that in the 1930s the Jews in Germany were so assimilated that they did not form a national minority, and that some Zionists embraced a strategy of 'dissimilation' to become one. Hans Adler 14:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• It appears that the largest Jewish organisation in early 20th century Germany was the Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens. It represented persons who thought of themselves as Germans of Jewish faith. Einstein's 1920 strong criticism on the occasion of an invitation by the Centralverein settles the Einstein/mosaic matter for me. [16][17] Hans Adler 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if he wrote "Aryan(s)", as in your first source, or "goy" (any non-Jew), as in Rosenkranz' version (quoted earlier in this thread). Iblardi (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is lots out there we can read by way of books as seen at books.google/Germans. What we will have to talk about is what are the best ones to use - is something like Yehuda Cohen (1 February 2010). The Germans: Absent Nationality and the Holocaust. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-358-4. comprehensive and balanced? Moxy (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that nowadays, the ethnogenesis of the Germans is generally dated to late 18th century, early 19th century. [18][19] This implies that any discussion of the Germans before that time is not about German ethnicity but about other cultural or political units, or about creation myths of the German ethnicity.
• Popular accounts date the beginning of some vague form of German identity to some time around 800-1000. (Proper sources???)
• If we ever get around to discussing minorities in detail, it will be interesting that there was a language that was related to Sorbian and the other West Slavic languages in a similar way to the relation of Yiddish to German: Knaanic language. Even as a Slavic language it may be strongly related to Yiddish, via relexification. Hans Adler 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's collect definitions of what it means to be German

As the heading says. I think we have agreement that this article should be as broad in coverage as its title ("Germans") says. Most of us will have various concepts of what it means to be German, but I suggest that we only add definitions/concepts for which we can provide a reliable source or a Wikipedia article.

After the collection, we can organise the material to form a coherent discussion.Hans Adler 14:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Space for cooperative editing

• German citizenship. (No sources, should be obvious.)
• Turks living in Germany for a long time often change so much that, while still feeling Turkish in Germany, they no longer feel, or are accepted as, Turkish in Turkey. They are referred to as 'Almancılar' in Turkish. The term's German translation is 'Deutschländer'. In English one could render this as 'Germanians'. The two groups are so estranged now, that in many cases they no longer tend to intermarry. [20] [21]
• Reichsdeutsche ('Imperial Germans') roughly means citizens of the German Empire. (There would be more to say, but it's complicated.)
• de:Volkszugehörigkeit is a legally defined notion that was introduced by the Nazis but still appears in German immigration law. Literally it means 'adherence to the [German] people'. The Nazis felt a need to exclude people of Jewish origins explicitly. That part of the definition was removed after the war. There is a long history of post-war court decisions on what is required to prove 'deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit'. Some German Jews were denied this status by post-war authorities for various reasons and successfully appealed this to high courts. [22]
• Deutschstämmige. The English title of this article ('ethnic Germans') is slightly misleading and may or may not have to be changed. For the Nazis neither Volkszugehörigkeit nor Deutschstämmigkeit implied the other, though in practice it was the same in the vast majority of cases.
• Autochthonous national minorities in Germany: Danes, Frisians, Sinti/Roma, Sorbs. The Sorbs live only in Germany. The German constitution does not explicitly recognise any minorities, but the individual German states (Länder) where it is relevant (mostly) do. [23]

Space for discussion (possibly even related to the rest of this section)

There are second generation Turks in Germany who consider themselves more Turkish than German and as far as I know the most of Turks in Germany do not deny their Turkish roots. There are Turks who were born and raised in Germany but feel stronger connections to Turkey-like the soccer player whose name I forgot that refused to play in the German national team and instead playing for the Turkish national team if I remember correct. Many Turks send money to their family relatives in Turkey and many Turkish citizens have relatives in Germany. I don't think the condition of including one in this infobox is to rip him of his non German identity. More than that, the source you cite in support of your claims about German Turks being estranged to other Turks is in German language and help only those who read German. Also, from what it looks it's not academic one (though I'm not saying such phenomenon can't or don't occur, I know similar phenomenons even in people of the same ethnicity who live in the same place but are affected differently by it). The title of the article is misleading or the infobox is, I afraid that not slightly but blatantly so and it's a shame. The internal politics in Germany are of zero relevance for this article- because the scope of it doesn't include any attribution to the German citizenship laws. I insist that the infobox will include representation to all major minorities in Germany and this includes Turks, Afro-Germans and etc. As for your question-it's only and unnecessarily repeating the discussion above. We have consensus about broader definition (meaning including all minorities who live in Germany) and that's all.--Gilisa (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is not supposed to represent every single minority and definitely should not, otherwise it would be a page long. It is supposed to show examples of notable people that happen to be German and are easily recognizable. If you happen to find any ethnic Germans of Turkish or African decent that are notable enough to put among the likes of Kant, Beethoven, Catherine the Great and Planck, I would be more than happy to oblige. - Rex (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rex that's where you're very wrong. First, I suggest that this thread will be closed because it's a repeated discussion after consensus was achieved. Second, please don't insist to call Germans of different ethnicity "ethnic German"-it's POV that is pushed as an enlightened one-it isn't. Third, I can certainly find Germans of other ethnicity than German that are far more notable than both super models in this infobox or of a better taste than scientist with Nazi background. Infobox is not about the greatness of people, it's more about sample and Wikipedia guide us to find consensus about the infobox. Einstein and Marx are both neither of ethnic German origin but they are pushed in the infobox while the article itself in its ethnic section and in the table of people with German citizenship or of German ancestry by country clearly show that the article deal with Germans by the very narrow definition of the word. It's of extreme importance to have in this infobox at least 3-4, no, at least 4 German people of other ethnicity than German and with immigration background. It will not make the infobox any more longer, it will not affect its quality-but the point is, and don't skip it, that it will then represent what the article is arguably discuss: German people at the broad definition-otherwise the infobox is blatantly misleading.--Gilisa (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that defining the scope as "broad" undermines the operative principle of notability. Several individuals were introduced above with limited recognition. I would think that perhaps Angela Merkel would be reasonable to replace one of the super models as an example of a German woman that has achieved wide recognition on the basis of perform the duties associated with a high profile public office, for example, but would imagine that candidates should be considered on a case-by-case basis.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, notable doesn't mean that one is historical figure. Infobox of many other nations include historical figures, models (they have place too) and people who are very well known locally (meaning know among the people of the nation). This is the standard. Anyway, if there are no German minorities in this infobox other than Einstein and Marx (who are no doubt from the Jewish minority), and whatever the reason is, then the infobox only serve purposely misleading idea.--Gilisa (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not ask a question. It seems settled that we want a broad scope. But an article about just German citizenship doesn't seem to make sense given that there is also demographics of Germany and we also need something to offer to those who just want to learn about "the Germans" without being sure what they mean by that term.

There is no such thing as an official definition of 'German ethnicity' or even 'German nationality'. The problem starts with a choice between German translations for these terms, each of which is at least a bit off, and rapidly gets worse because the Nazis and their forethinkers wrote about these topics excessively and nowadays they are almost taboo. It's a huge, fuzzy area, and sources are hard to find.

I have no idea why you bring up the infobox mosaic in this context. Can we perhaps make this a section where the mosaic is not discussed? It's likely going to stay the only one anyway. Sometimes it's just a good idea to do some constructive work together before trying to settle the contentious things. If you are not interested that's fine.

And sorry if you can't read the sources for a minor point that is primarily of interest to Germans and Turks. This kind of thing happens to most of us at some point, but non-English sources are explicitly OK. What you say about Turks in Germany is mostly correct. The point about the 'Deutschländer' is precisely that sometimes the opposite is true. It was a surprise when the media found out about that, and was very widely discussed. So you can see I didn't just make it up, I have now added a (much less useful) source in English. [24] But that really shouldn't have been necessary. In an emergency there is always Google Translate, which works satisfactorily for German to English. (It's almost useless for Turkish to English.) Hans Adler 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler-I don't care what is the official definition for German ethnicity. Sure there isn't such thing. There is what most people consider as ethnicity and it's related to blood kinship and also to other things that are broader than the person himself. This is what ethnicity mean to most people, let's not pretend it's not like that. Terms like "ethnic look" stem from this common understanding of the term. If you want the article to consider other commentary to ethnicity you must make it clear for readers as well-and in the infobox more than in any other place. If you don't do it-if you say that ethnicity is about growing in specific culture but you have only people of the same race or presented like they are of the same race-then you have serious conflict. I'm tired from all of these endless and pointless discussion-maybe I will ask mediation to bring in the infobox Germans of different religions and colors.--Gilisa (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Read the English link-which is again very far from being academic source. The term Germanized don't mean that they are not viewed as Turks by other Turkish people-this is your own far reaching commentary.--Gilisa (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1. The forgoing long discussions to the extent that it focuses on "what would Einstein do?" or "what would Einstien be offended by?" is pointless and off-topic. The continuation of such speculation on this page should lead to bans.

• 2. The contention that Einstein had a fraught relationship with his native land, and therefore has nothing to teach about Germans is rather unsupported. There is no reason why someone with a fraught relationship with the society he came from would not teach about such people.

• 3. There are reliable sources on the internet that descibe Einstein as German-Jewish, Jewish-German, native born German, and even "the valient Swabian" a poetic term from the poetry of Ludwig Uhland that Einstein called himself. He evidently liked German Weimer, rather alot, it is said.

Interesting points, but I think you meant the Weimar Republic.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• 4. The claims of offense on behalf of the long gone great man, together with his long association with his native land have made these discussions rather inconclusive and circular. So, there is no consensus on the picture issue, and it will not be solved by the reasoning presented so far, at least absent an !vote, perhaps. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, the issue is simple: Einstein wasn't German by his own definition and certainly not but what this article describe as German-at least by the infobox. I would expect that if indeed in this article ethnicity is not about one race there would be German people of other minorities in this infobox. And yes, the inclusion of Einstein in this infobox is rude and tasteless.--Gilisa (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several metrics in the infobox, language and territory among them. He was born in Germany. He was a native German speaker. Some people want to not be from where they were from; that's not unheard of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Concise suggestion: Make the article primarily about ethnic Germans (there might be a modern immigration section or addition to the identity after 1990 part); include both limited and broad stats (for example, in the infobox, do not just write the number of German citizens if you change the article, but also include the number of those w/o imm background; the current Geographic distribution table is excellent as it provides info with respect to both viewpoints). This is an ethnicity article, not the Demographics of Germany.Cavann (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting on the whole picture/infobox issue and how it factors into the rest of the article, I have a comment for consideration. Any Wikipedia article should cover its subject matter as fully as practicable, hence I support the general consensus for a broad scope for this particular article. It is not to be expected that people/editors are going to agree about "who is a German?", because it is such a potentially wide subject, with not a little controversy attached to it. However if the article - as has largely been agreed - is to cover the topic broadly, then the differences between individual opinions should not be insurmountable obstacles, because all bases should be covered. Wikipedia articles are supposed to present information according to how it is covered in reliable sources (I'm sorry to be stating the obvious here), then readers can form their own views. Bringing this back to the picture issue and Einstein, would it not be within the scope of the article to have a section (or sections) outlining the very thing we all have been grappling with - i.e. the inherently controversial nature of the whole topic? There can then be information about people who - for various reasons - rejected the notion of being "a German". Then surely it would be able to include Einstein within the article, without (perhaps) instigating opposition from people who feel strongly that he shouldn't be there? This is only a comment/idea for discussion, and is not a rigidly-held view that I'm trying to impose. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(PS I understand that the article as it stands does refer to complexities within the concept of "Germanness" - this ackowledgement threads through the article, perhaps particularly in the "identity" section - but it doesn't appear to tackle it really explicitly, perhaps because editors have preferred to have an article stating what the subject is, rather than outlining lots of debates and alternative views. Again, just a thought.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there are no qualifiers in the collage. You can't have a body of text next to Einstein saying he rejected being associated with Germany. Hence, every picture should be uncontentious. Furthermore, as I said before, it is rather racist and patronizing to include him here when he, himself, did not self identify with Germans or Germany. Cavann (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First time I weight in on the picture problem. Why because I see above there are no qualifiers in the collage. The world is our criteria. I agree its a point of contention here on Wiki (and I would personally vote for exclusion) - however or a big butt if you will - my opinion or anyone else for that matter here from Wiki its not relevant or even a point for inclusion or exclusion. All we can do is "regurgitate" what is out there in reliable sources. What do his many many mnay many many bios say on this matter. Time to link up some books on the matter - no more guess work and personal opinions. Moxy (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let's picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew."

-Albert Einstein

− Before we can effectively combat anti-Semitism, we must first of all educate ourselves out of it.Only when we have the courage to regard ourselves as a nation, only when we respect ourselves, can we win the respect of others; or rather, the respect of others will then come of itself. (Einstein, About Zionism , MacMillan,1931, p. 33)

−

I Think Einstein himself answered the question where he belongs, clearly and loudly.--Tritomex (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting what hes got to say - but not relevant - What do scholarly publications say about his nationality and ethnic heritage? Anyone can denounce there heritage - this does not change the fact of there heritage or nationality. It seems peoples arguments are based on anti-Semitism of the time period and not on what is factually accurate about were when how. As I have said before - this argument here by us is pointless if Germans themselves and reliable source say things that others simply cant except. Moxy (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tritomex: It isn't an either/or situation in which editors decide one way or the other; it all boils down to the sources. If Reliable Source A states "X", and Reliable Source B states "Y", then the article should cover both "X" and "Y". If Reliable Sources A, B, C, D, E, F and G state "X", and Reliable Source H states "Y", then the article should still cover both "X" and "Y", but should place greater emphasis on "X". In effect the sources write the article; it is merely for editors to assemble and present the statements from them, giving due weight as required. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that anyone can denounce its ethnic heritage, this is exactly what Einstein taught, yes anyone can denounce its nationality and this is what Einstein did. I think it is of primary importance how Einstein declared himself. This is not just a case regarding him but about anyone. Of course his views about himself have to come from scholarly sources, yet this scholarly sources about his views on himself are beyond any doubt crucial in this discussion. I tried to present some of his views where he categorically stated who he is:

− "there are no German Jews, there are no Russian Jews, there are no American Jews..There are in fact only Jews." Albert Einstein [25] −

--Tritomex (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, those are the same arguments Guitar hero made, that "you can't change your heritage or background". Well, Einstein's background and heritage was Jewish, not German.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Einstein's background and heritage was Jewish, not German. - As I have said before no guess work - find sources to back up made claims - thus far all I see is "what I think should be" by many - I do find Tritomex quotes very interesting but not relevant. Many in the world have a denounce affiliation with there place of birth or heritage (things like religion, language customs etc.) but this does not rewrite the past of anyone. As I mentioned above could care less about this little picture problem. What I am trying to (as I did with the article scope and lead) is direct all towards a productive talk = making suggestions supported by sources or policy here on Wiki. Not just ranting about what they think is right or that they may be offended by someone position. Over and over wer have rants with no reference to back them up. I see a whole page on a conversion with two sides just stating what they think. If your for inclusion provide references as to why - if your for exclusion provide references to that affect. Must move forward - thus limiting the personal opinions. Moxy (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Turks are not ethnic Germans and Turks with German passports and citizenship are not either. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I think scholarly reference about how Einstein viewed himself are the most important sources in this question, I do not think we have to prove what Einstein was not. We know from sources that he was Jewish, in some period of his life he was German citizen, latter renounced its citizenship, than became American citizen etc. As a free humans we all have the right to decide where we belong and this right can not be taken away from anyone. Similar, although much more complicated example is Serbian filmmaker Emir Kusturica who was born in Bosnia, had Bosniak ancestry, but as he view himself as Serb, the Wikipedia article about him states he is Serbian. This of course does not mean that there are no scholarly references that Einstein was Jewish, but that the burden to prove something lies on those who claim that he was ethically German.

"The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence-these are features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my lucky stars that I belong to it." Albert Einstein.--Tritomex (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethically? If you mean ethnically, than the point you don't address is that the article also discusses other metrics for Germans. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker: Yes ethnically. May I ask you to elaborate on that issue. Just in order not to misunderstand each other.--Tritomex (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The other metrics include native land (land of birth) and native language. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What a discussion. This idiosyncratic definition rather complies to demography of Germany, but this article still goes under the Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. Moreover, "identified" is a pretty vacuous term and passive voice is discouraged in WP for good reasons, particularly in the lead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The cited source Lowell Barrington: Comparative Politics does not support the claim that Germans are "defined as ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural". Please quote first on talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead definition: citizenship and ethnicity

• Disagreement with consensus at Talk:Germans#Article scope ([26])

Moxy, who is supporting this consensus and on what grounds? It seems that the cart is put before the horse: not a single source has been identified yet that supports this overly wide definition of German. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I cannot make any sense of the "residential criteria". Does this mean anyone living in Germany can be considered a German? Fact of the matter is that most Germans (at least in Germany) are Germans through the ius sanguinis. This means ethnicity still is the prime criterion. The lead has to reflect this. Generelly, I suggest to collect first sources, and only then rewrite the lead. Offering an overly inclusive definition which cannot be adequately backed up by sources is, obviously, POV and OR. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

as per Talk:Germans#Article scope ([27]) next reversal of consensus text with ref will be reported WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not constructive. The admins will duly notice that you, or anyone else, did not even bother to reply one of my four talk page contributions and that you have restored a text which is not supported by the source it cites. I thus base my revert on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. You misconstrue Lowell Barrington, he does not say that "This connection may be ethnic, residential, legal, historical or cultural". If you want to bring this to ANI, instead of quoting from your source, I am fine with it. There is no policy which says that a true or claimed consensus beats WP:RELIABLE. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually whats going on is after a long discussion with many people you have come along and said "I dont like it" and changed the text. Bring it to ANI instead of editwaring pls. Joyce Marie Mushaben (1 August 2008). The Changing Faces of Citizenship: Integration and Mobilization Among Ethnic Minorities in Germany. Berghahn Books. pp. 32–35. ISBN 978-1-84545-453-1..Moxy (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad you finally managed to bring forward a source which actually supports your claims. The first after like 5 days. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Your current source, Joyce Marie Mushaben, The Changing Faces of Citizenship, is rather about German citizenship, not ethnicity, and thus more about the disambiguated German nationality law. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The other ref(s) were clear to me - but if not clear to all more then willing to add more ref. So I can presume you will be reverting bac to the consensus text? Moxy (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Barrington did not support what the text claimed. Mushaben does so, I give you that, but she writes rather about the German nationality laws which are, however, covered by a separate article as the disambiguation clearly says (For an analysis on the nationality or German citizenship, see German nationality law.). First you had no sourced definition, now you have provided a definition which applies to another topic/article. There is still no definition of an ethnic German in the lead; what you rather do is simply equating German nationality law with German ethnicity. This is not only against the established set of articles which covers these related, but different subjects in different articles, it is also – without sources – clear OR and POV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Would have been best to join the group and try to help the article as has been agreed above. Ok we would like to move on so lets nip this in the butt - pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gun Powder Ma and the article Germans.Moxy (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Moxy (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Care to address the issue now? By referring to Mushaben, you are now defining German ethnicity on the basis German citizenship, even though citizenship and ethnicity are not the same, as the disambiguation on top of this article itself says. This is OR. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your a few steps behind the group here - As we have decided at Talk:Germans#Article scope the article will be about all Germans (citizens - diaspora - etc..) not just about ethnicity Moxy (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, it doesn't matter what you've decided the article will be on as long as you have no sources to back it up. Now, Gun Powder kindly asked you to present references for the text you're trying to change. Taking him up to the AN/I is not the way to go. - Rex (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All wrong - read the source provided and best to tell your friend that reverting many people over and over is not the right way to go about things here at all. If he whats to talk then do so ...do not edit war with multiple editors after a RfC consensus on the matter. Taking him to ANI because after five days hes still reverting ( only post] I can find before today during this edit war was some odd thing about Turks)- even though I mentioned to him on his talk page about the consensus and were it was. WP:LISTEN to quote "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." - Your more then welcome to come to the ANI and express your view on his and my behavior thus far. Moxy (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• For a topic with many definitions we do not need to choose any single definition from any single source but we can combine definitions to achieve a complex definition that has the same breadth as the sources. With an overwhelming editorial consensus such as we had above beginning to editwar against it is highly disruptive. You will have to present arguments and change the consensus if you so wish, but you cannot unilaterally decide that you think the consensus is not based on sources and then revert it. That much should be clear to any experienced wikipedia editor. Persisting in this is a behavior issue that can and should be addressed at ANI. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

few comments about change in scope

Separate article on ethnic germans should be created (lots of stuff can be just taken from this article's current state).
For infobox, population in Germany figure should be changed from ethnic figure to figure that includes also other citizens, some languages require addition (Turkish, Kurdish, Yiddish, Polish come in mind), islam should be added to religion part, related ethnic groups part should be removed completely.
Same for language section, "native language of Germans is German" is not compatible with article's new scope that includes also non-native German speakers.
Probably some more things, but these are first that came into mind.--Staberinde (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent - this series of articles is all messed up - Germans article should be about all Germans - Ethnic Germans an article about diaspora should be move to the proper name and the article filled with ethnic material. Moxy (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture additions to Science Section.

• 
  Albert Einstein, official 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics photograph.
• 
  A statue commemorating Johannes Gutenberg for his invention of the first movable type; printing press.
• 
  The magnificent panorama of the metal interlinking in the bowels of the worlds first computer created by Konrad Zuse.
• 
  The Geiger counter, invented by Hans Geiger, is a type of particle detector that measures ionizing radiation.

An editor wished I seek consensus for these additions in the Science section. I believe these pictures, all found on Wiki-commons, help illustrate not only a couple important inventions by German people but also show statues commemorating German achievements in the field of Science, it is thus beneficial to include these in the article, opinions? Lazyfoxx 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the long discussion above there was a general feeling that it was not correct to include Einstein given that he explicitly dissociated himself from his German background.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I had understood that he did make many contributions to the field of Science when he was associated with his German background too, as well as after when he disassociated himself from the Nazi regime in Germany by renouncing his German citizenship, didn't he? I believe his contributions while being German are notable, as they were German contributions to the field of Science. Lazyfoxx 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not really a discussion I think it is worth rehashing. There are many other German scientists that could be added.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, since Einstein seems to be the issue here I will re-add the other pictures and leave Einstein out for now, however I believe more people should voice their opinions on this, because I believe he should be a part of the section. Lazyfoxx 21:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, consensus can change and the context is somewhat different here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Einstein's very strong opinion later in his life I think it is not appropriate to present him as an example of a German. This problem seems to be specific to that particular period. Before 1800, people didn't really have any concept of German ethnicity, anyway. (Also, antisemitism was based purely on religion rather than ethnicity. One could escape it by becoming Christian. Emancipation of the Jews was about equal rights without giving up one's religion.) In the 19th century, most Jews living in Germany thought of themselves as ethnic Germans of Jewish religion. Except for recent immigrants from other cultures this also appears to be true for most Jews living in post-war Germany, though nowadays most would probably consider it inappropriate to state this explicitly except where required in a legal context. Hans Adler 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The jury in matters Einstein is still out. The other pictures are fine and can be included. -- Zz (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Einstein and Marx attempt for resolution

Should Einstein and Marx be mentioned in an article on Germans?

Discussion

• Remove both I think Einstein and Marx both should not be in the image due to the arguments brought above. First of all, both Einstein and Marx were of Jewish ethnicity. Second, in Einstein’s case he always stated he is Jewish and he actually stated many times he isn’t to keen on Germans for various specific reasons but he never said he feels German. Third, it’s simple disrespectful to have ethnic Jews in a collage with the likes of Wagner and Martin Luther who were explicitly anti-Semitic. The arguments denying the fact Jews are an ethnicity were proven wrong. Also, I believe it was proven that though culturally assimilated Jews never assimilated to the extend to be called ethnic Germans (otherwise they would not marry Jews and they would disappear and we wouldn’t have this discussion. More simply, Jews would not state Jew in the census questions when asked about ethnicity if they would consider themselves ethnically Germans). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...so, now showing your true colours, they have to go because it is "disrespectful to have ethnic Jews in a collage with the likes of Wagner and Martin Luther". That's what this is all about - you are joking, right? --IIIraute (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero on the roof, please consider that the article now also deals with the German nation. As to your argument that it would be disrespectful to have Jews and Martin Luther in the same collage, Nietzsche didn't like antisemitists (an anti-antisemitist?, does that word exist? It's probably just called 'being normal'), so should we remove him because it is disrespectful to Martin Luther? Or perhaps you would prefer to only have anti-semitists in the collage, since, as you posted in your call to arms, you "guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist", and think that there "may be something in [their] genes". I am seriously beginning to question your motives. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The article refers to Germans as ethnicity, and since your latest edit, as a nationality, but the fact is, when the article talks about the history of Germans it talks about the history of the German ethnicity which Jews have little to do with. Even if we do it as an article about only a nationality, then it would be fair to include a Turk (for the sake of representation). Another thing is, there were quotes brought in this discussion showing that Einstein did not want to be a German citizen and he didn't like Germany as a countrry nor Germans as a people, so I think Einstein should be removed no matter how we look at the article. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And I totally agree with you, a German or Turkish origin would be great, and Einstein should be left out. Yes, the article also touches on German as an ethicity (and we have differing views on what that means), but it also talks about things like cinema, sport, and science that are clearly linked to Germans as nation. The article is not about people of German ancestry only. Anyway, it had the word 'nation' in it until someone removed it. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely support taking out Einstein and putting someone Turkish instead because then it will really show the images are chosen on a national principle, since today Turkish are the second biggest ethnic group in Germany after Germans! It was weird when IIIraute was speaking against putting a Turk in on the top discussion, I don't want to think what needs to happen to them for him to finally admitt they are normal German citizens. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, they were German by nationality, which this article ezplicitly includes. LadyofShalott 14:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• So is the compromise of Einstein out, Marx in, regardless of Einstein's nationality, acceptable to everyone then? If so please just confirm without saying things like 'but Marx should be out too' or 'but Einstein was 8th generation German!' to avoid stirring the pot again. Thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A "compromise...regardless of Einstein's nationality"?? Why this horse-trading? both stay, they were German nationals, what this article explicitly includes. --IIIraute (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'no' from Illraute, then... and I can't sway you with saying that from what he's written it looks like Einstein didn't like Germany much and probably wouldn't want to be in this collage? I guess you're right, what does he know, it's not like he's... oh, hang on, he is! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean we now have to establish a consensus for every person in the collage, whether they would "like" to be included - or maybe even ask the ones that are still alive, or actually make a decision on the fact that they are/were German nationals? Either we do include assimilated German Jews who were/are German nationals, or we don't. We do need a clear line - no musical request programme, no horse-trading! --IIIraute (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but since we already know the views of the individual in question, I frankly can't see the harm in respecting them. We would still have a German Jew (Marx) anyway, so it's not a blanket ban on German Jews or something. We don't need them all on there. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide some WP:RS on the claim that he did not want to be seen as a German-born theoretical physicist, i.e. German national. Because that's what he was for most of his life - the second time by choice! → Albert Einstein. And I am not talking about considering himself an "ethnic" German. --IIIraute (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Iblardi already gave one. Rosenkranz (2011) p.75: I am neither a German citizen nor is there anything in me that can be described as “Jewish faith.” Also he formally renounced his German citizenship immediately upon landing in Antwerp on 28 March 1933. Einstein was German-born the second time by choice? When I'm born the second time, I'll choose to be Qatari! :o) Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the "choice" did refer to "German national". He was a German national for most of his life, the second time by choice. A German-born theoretical physicist he stayed his whole life. And that's why he belongs here. --IIIraute (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I was obviously being flippant about the birth thing. However, he was Swiss for most of his life, not German. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...yes, obviously. He still was a German national for most of his life, i.e. his lifespan! - I didn't know we had a competition going on... sigh! --IIIraute (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't, but it seems to me that he was a Swiss national for over 50 years (until his death), but was a German for less than 40. I think this is an important point here. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@Illraute: A. Calaprice's The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2011, with references) has a citation from a 1929 interview in which Einstein is asked if he considers himself a German or a Jew that seems to speak in favour of your position:

"It is possible to be both. I look upon myself as a person. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." (p. 324).

However, some of his later utterances show that he had not wanted to be a German citizen:

"The overemphasized military mentality in the German state was alien to me even as a boy. When my father moved to Italy, he tooks steps, at my request, to have me released from German citizenship because I wanted to become a Swiss citizen" (1933; p. 164); "In 1919 the Academy urged me to accept German citizenship in addition to my Swiss one. I was stupid enough to give in" (1938; p. 168).

His attitude towards Germany and the Germans appears to have radicalized during the war:

"The Germans as an entire people are responsible for these mass murders and must be punished as a people..." (1944; p. 168); "Since the Germans massacred my Jewish brethren ... I will have nothing further to do with Germans, including a relatively harmless academy" (1946; p. 169); "After the mass murders that the Germans committed ... it should be evident that a self-respecting Jew does not want to be associated with any official German event. My membership in the Orden pour le mérite is therefore out of te question" (1951; p. 170).

Interestingly, p. 174 has a quote from 1926 in which Einstein criticizes the usage of "a great <fill in any nationality>", saying that nationality or the environment in which "great men" were brought up should not be taken into account (presumably as a factor of their greatness).[28] Iblardi (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes! I believe those quotes are more then enough to remove Einstein from the infobox! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ilbardi, for finding these quotes. I must say I'm a little shocked at "The Germans as an entire people are responsible...", but they thoroughly prove the point. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It still does not change the fact that he was a German national for most of his life, and also did consider himself to be German, at least till 1930.--IIIraute (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Illraute, you asked for references to support the claim that Einstein rejected to be identified as a German, and these have been given. Ilbardi found some excellent references, why did you ask for them if now you just reject them out of hand? Anyway, he was a German national only for just over half of his life (having been 'stupid enough to accept' it the second time round), not most of it. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...because he did not reject to be identified as a German for a very long time of his life. He even chose to return to Germany, although maybe later he did regret it, but not at the very time. He did choose to receive the Nobel Price as a German laureate. --IIIraute (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All those stuff don't make him ethnically German, and even though he recieved it as a person from Germany, what else could he do? What you say doesnt make sense with the topic. You need to be desparate and with little self respect to insist on a person to be in the image which doesnt want to be there. Bobby Fischer was ethnically Jewish, but I don't see Jews putting his picture in articles about Jews simply because they have enough self respect not to put someone who wouldn't want to be in it. Einstein didn't like Germany or Germans, he was ethnically Jewish and he got rid of his German citizenship, those are facts. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, they were not Germans by ethnicity, they were Jews. Remove both---Tritomex (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But it makes him a German National - the second time clearly voluntarily. "What else could he do?" No one forced Einstein to take German citizenship again in 1914, to become director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics (1914–1932), professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, or president of the German Physical Society. He did choose to become a German national - and that's a fact. For someone who did not want to be associated with Germany, and who did not like Germans, to make all those moves, and let himself be celebrated as a German Nobel Price laureate... now that would be of very low, and extremely opportunistic self-respect. Urgh! --IIIraute (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Remove both Einstein and Marx. They were not ethnically Jewish, not German. They are two separate ethnic groups and it is foolish to conflate them together, simply because they were born in the same country.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rainbowrasse, you do not have consensus for revising the intro of the article, thus broadening its scope. You are well aware that there are numerous people in here who disagree. Wait until you get consensus, and then make your change. Never mind the fact that it was obviously done just so Einstein and Marx would be allowed to stay, even though they aren't part of the German nation either.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not need consensus to change the lede as I was only recreating the scope of the article as it was when the collage was inserted. At some point (19 April 2011, I think), the reference to 'nation' was removed in an unexplained edit. Anyway, nobody here complained about restoring it to the original version until you came along and changed it, so clearly there was consensus for my restoration. I think that from your point of view your change made the situation worse, as now Marx and Einstein are presented as ethnic Germans (by your criteria), which you oppose. To clarify, in case you missed it in this disussion, I have no interest in Einstein being included and have argued against it, so your accusation that I "obviously" changed it to be able to include him is utterly baseless. Aside from that fact, it really, really is beyond any doubt whatsoever that both Einstein and Marx were German nationals, there really is no way you can possibly argue that away. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The things is the content of the article itself talks about the history of Germans as an ethnicity and it has little to do with the Jewish history, Jews from Germany don't represent what's in the article. I think both should be removed but while I understand the logic in keeping Marx (though don't agree with it, I think he should be removed to), Einstein should definitely be removed. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We are largely in agreement then. Still, I do not think the article refers only to Gemans by descent, but also treats them as a nation (apart from my previous arguments for this: "Legally, Germans are citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany.", "...the total number of Germans worldwide lies between 66 and 160 million, depending on the criteria applied (native speakers, single-ancestry ethnic Germans, partial German ancestry, etc.)". I therefore suggest restoring the original mention of 'nation' to the article. This would also alleviate your uneasiness about Marx (Einstein stays out), as he was and has always considered himself a German national. You know that I do not agree with you on what constitutes an ethnic group, but that problem does not really belong in this thread. If you like we can discuss this on my talk page. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, if we say the article is based on nationality and there is only one non German ethnic group represented in it (Jews in the fact of Marx) it's a bit weird, if we will put someone Turkish instead of Einstein then it would be clear that it's really based on nationaloty and it will be fine, because then really we could say the images are chosen on a national idea. Turkish are the second biggest ethnic group in Germany after Germans and it's a growing one so I think they deserve one representative. I'm glad we agree about Einstein! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove Einstein from the infobox: Wasn't German by ethnicity and didn't see himself one. Was (with emphasize on past tense during his lifetime as well)German by nationality but revoked his citizenship with no intent to ever reclaim it. If this infobox is indeed about nationality then 1. make it clear in the article itself. 2. include high profile Germans of other ethnicities (Turkish, Afro-Germans and etc). Otherwise this infobox is misleading and serve nationalistic feeling and not encyclopedic values. P.S. who removed my previous comments hereand by what authority? --Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

IblardiEinstein was very clear about Jewish ethnicity saying that: "There are no German Jews, there are no Russian Jews, there are no American Jews....There are in fact only Jews." Also, consider that this whole discussion started from ethnicity (and those who support Einstein in the infobox failed of showing any valid argument) it's strange that now we talk about nationality-but nevertheless, Einstein wrote that he's affiliated with the Jewish mentality and in his biographies you will find that many Jewish people played influential role in creating his scientific environment-from childhood to the formulation of the theory of relativity. In many quotes of him he tanked the Jewish tradition-the most known one is "The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence-these are features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my lucky stars that I belong to it." and attributed it his best sides as human being. He also tanked Switzerland-where he gain his academic education and formulate relativity and other works of him - he never tanked Germany or said that the German environment made him great scientist.--Gilisa (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

→→ check this out: [29], the German environment had absolutely nothing to do with it, or with the German scholarly ethic? → Z. Rosenkranz, Einstein before Israel: Zionist icon or iconoclast?, Princeton, 2011: "His relationship to his own German identity was also fraught with ambivalence; in the end ... he felt a great deal of allegiance to German culture, and even more to the German scholarly ethic" (p. 255-56). No one forced Einstein to take German citizenship again in 1914, to become director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics (1914–1932), professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, or president of the German Physical Society. He did choose to become a German national - and that's a fact. For someone who did not want to be associated with Germany, and who did not like Germans, to make all those moves, and let himself be celebrated as a German Nobel Price laureate... now that would be of very low, and extremely opportunistic self-respect. --IIIraute (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Listen, it's already agreed by mist here. Einstein will be removed. Why? Because he didn't like Germans or Germany. Who do you think you are to tell him what he is? Now since the attempt is to show the images are based on nationality and not ethnicity we need a Turkish person there due to the fact they are the second biggest ethnic minority in Germany. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Remove Einstein and preferably remove Marx. Per discussion and arguments in the thread above. As for accusations for canvassing-this is really not the first time I have participated in very similar discussions on Wikipedia so if one publicly notified me on my TP that another round is going it's not really canvasing and it sounds now like the use in this policy come to discredit the arguments against the inclusion of Einstein in the infobox, given that no valid arguments for inclusion exist.--Gilisa (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are enough quotes of Einstein that prove he felt a great deal of allegiance to many other things aside for German culture and lack of quotes that show hiss affiliation with the German culture though no doubt it effects him as it effects any Jew who lived in Germany. What you quote here is commentary of Einsteins feeling by third side, and who ever the third side is -it's not as reliable as Einstein himself, certainly when the third party wasn't even close to Einstein. Nevertheless, the original discussion here was about whether Einstein ethnicity is German and the answer we all agree with is no. Now the discussion is whether Einstein nationality was German and the answer is "yes but". Meaning, again and again-ignore it as much as you want, he revoked his German citizenship and there are numerous quotes of him that show he feel no affiliation with the German people or nationality. Some of his quotes are actually much more extreme than these one can find on this TP. He did reclaim his German citizenship-but it didn't come of any patriotic feeling, he was offered position he couldn't refuse then, that's all. Einstein was citizen and resident of many countries (Italy, Switzerland, Germany and US)-while he kept grateful feelings for Switzerland and US (I don't know about Italy), he had negative feeling through Germany and declared he have no connection with it-no less. In fact, even before that he aired his bitterness about his childhood and youth education in Germany -moving to Italy meant much for him. He did like German culture when it come to music especially (like many people then, but his preferred composer was Mozart whose nationality was Austrian -still the language of Mozart was German you can include it in German culture without the nationality) but he never was German patriot, in fact he despised any sign German patriotism since being child. You try to force such connection on him and this is much of bad form because the infobox show exemplary Germans and of course Einstein didn't see himself such. Again, if indeed you're honest when you say that this article is about the German nation and this is not just tactic argument to win this discussion, include in the infobox exemplary Germans of Turkish and African origin.--Gilisa (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So true! Out o all people, for IIIraute it has to be the one which wanted nothing to do with Germans and Germany! It's very simple, if the article is based on an ethnic principle Einstein and Marx should be removed, if it's based on a national one Marx should be replaced with someone Turkish, because after all, how can an article about German nationality not include the second biggest ethnic group in Germany after Germans in it? Whatever the outcome is, it shouldn't stay what it is now. I think for him it's just a matter of "winning the argument" no matter what. He will response to everything except quotes, and he will pick on anything irrelevant. To be fair, I think if we leave aside his barking we are close to a concensus. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What a giant hypercane shitstorm! -- Therefore, my proposal: Remove the word "nation", as well as the images of Marx and Einstein and/or any other Jews -- and for all the wonderful arguments given, do not include Jews to this article anymore, EVER! - also remove the part of Jewish assimilation in the "Ethnicity" section, and don't forget to attach twelve leaden seals on that tremendous intellectual shithouse! --IIIraute (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

↑↑↑ I think you misread my previous comment: "What a giant hypercane shitstorm! Proposal: Remove the word "nation", as well as the images of Marx..." as meaning: "What a giant hypercane shitstorm proposal: Remove the word "nation", as well as the images of Marx...".

Please note the exclamation mark, meaning a "break", and the capital letter "P" → [30]. Btw, a "hypercane" is a giant storm and has nothing to do with the term "hypocrite"!!↓↓↓--IIIraute (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You really have mental issues and you need anger management. It has nothing to do with being a hypocrite. If the images are based on an ethnic principle then Einstein and Marx shouldn't be there because they are ethnic Jews. If it's on a national principle Marx could stay there to represent the Jews, while Einstein should be replaced with someone Turkish simple because there should be a representative for the second biggest ethnic group in Germany. Where exactly do you see the problem here? What is your suggestion? Einstein wanted nothing to do with Germany, you were brought many qutoes and you ignored them, so he shouldn't be in the image. Simple as that. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

...and you still do not understand the concept of "Ethnicity"! sigh!! --IIIraute (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Said the guy that said Jews are a religion and not an ethnicity. Ethnicity is 3 components. Self-identification (for example, stating Jew in a census), genes and history. Simple as that! Jews are an ethnic group with different genes and history from Germans, and in the case of Einstein he clearly identified as a Jew. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that - so stop your manipulative lies - or point out the text where I supposedly have said it! --IIIraute (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of German-Turks [31] we can pick 2 of them to the infobox. Also, list of Afro-Germans [32]-at least 1 of them in the infobox. Also, one of these [33]. In any case, Einstein shouldn't be here-he strongly dis-identified himself with Germany. Ignoring that seems to come out of strong wish to include him just to glorify Germans and Germany and no by any relevant motive.--Gilisa (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fatih Akın, Mesut Ozil and Cevat Yerli are very well known! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein and Marx are not in the picture gallery, for being/representing German Jews, or their genetics, but for their achievements. Vice versa, you don't get into the picture gallery for having an immigration background or your colour of the skin. Hence, what a nonsense/racist argument. ...funny, you just can't help yourself. --IIIraute (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Einstein and Marx are not in the picture gallery, for being/representing German Jews or their genetics, but for their achievements." If achievments is what we talk about, why not include Nikola Tesla and Mendeleyev? Forget the fact they have nothing to do with Germans, after all, it's achievments what we look at. No on a serious note. If the images are done on an ethnic basis, Einstein and Marx should be removed because they are not ethnic Germans. If they are done on a national basis, it would be racist not to include a Turk simply because when talking about nationality you have to give representation to all major groups in this nationality. I would find it shocking ro see an image about Americans without any Afro-Americans in it. For the sake of representation there has to be a representative of the second largest ethnic group in Germany. It's funny you call polit-correctness in representing a minority "racism", it reminds me the white-trash in America saying that making sure black people will have positions in the government is racism. Doesnt make sense to me, but to a racist mind it does. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are being racist. They are all German nationals - and they compete in an equal manner for the gallery due to their achievements! and not because of their race, genetics, heritage, or their colour of the skin!!! --IIIraute (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean, just read this: throw in "2 of them" Turks; "at least 1 of them" Afro-Germans... ah, and yes - don't forget to add "also, one of these" Pakistani people -- that's so fucking racist! "I would find it shocking to see an image about Americans without any Afro-Americans in it." Do you really think they are included to the gallery because they are black? and not maybe because of what they achieved??? The two of you, do you ever listen to yourself?

If you in- or exclude individuals only on the basis of their race, or colour of the skin, without taking their personal qualifications or achievements into consideration, then yes - this is pure racism.

What do you think - how many of the players of the German National Team are included because of their origin, race, heritage, or colour of their skin -- or was it maybe their personal achievement/qualification that got them into the team? --IIIraute (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats were you got it wrong. The Image is not a prize for achievments, its support to give representation of an ethnic group or nation. If this selection is based on a nation you can't not give representation to the second biggest ethnic group, the Turks. Simple as that. Just like not giving representation to women would be discrimination. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep Marx and remove Einstein, also restore the page as it originally was, including the word nation. Seriously, this has gone on long enough, with both sides acting immaturely - reading this discussion was was mind-numbing. Also, Guitar hero or whatever your name is, please refrain from throwing wild accusations as they are in no way productive or contribute to a consensus; another thing, to be honest, Guitar Hero, your conduct so far has been enough to make anyone seek anger management so I would advise you to take a day off from the wiki. - Reanimated X (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the record I do think removing Einstein is probably warranted, since I think it is improbable that he would like to be used as an example of "a German" or "a Jew". Marx on the other clearly identified as German and was considered a German in his time. The best solution would be to remove the stupid picture cavalcade altogether, in all articles on ethnic groups and nationalities.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Marx, and Einstein could be removed, as per Maunus' comments.

It would probably not be inaccurate to characterize Einstein as an internationalist intellectual, as indicated in various references in this article [34].

This does pose definitional and scope related issues, as Einstein was born and raised in Germany, attended a Catholic school as German Jew, etc., even though he reacted strongly as an individual against the political events embroiling Germany, Europe and the world, renouncing his German citizenship while he was still only a teenager.

Marx was not only German but an obviously important figure in German intellectual history, with notions such as "historical materialism" derived partially in relation to the thought of Hegel, not to mention his influence on the Frankfurt School and critical theory, etc.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both The ridiculous argument about Jewish ethnicity would mean that no white or black people in the USA could be called American - they are all ethnic Europeans and Africans. The attempt to politicise facts about nationality and to revise history is misplaced in an encyclopedia. While the world understands the desire by some Americans, probably bred of a staggering ignorance of history, to revise everything to suit peculiar American points of view that are pretty much laughable anywhere else in the world, it would be better to stick to facts. What's next? Einstein can't be listed as German because he was a secret member of some obscure progenitor Tea Party? Or he was, in fact, black? Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support He was born in Germany, this information should not be hidden because he is jewish. ―Rosscoolguy 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question: If the article is changed to include only those of German ethnicity, but not nationality, does this bring into question the inclusion of anyone else besides Einstein / Marx? If not: Can we not just remove the reference to German nationality, remove Einstein & Marx and be done?

--Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 16:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a consensus not to remove Marx, so what is the point of you post?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• What? Either this question is malformed or the responses are. At any rate, no case is made for absolutely ruling out "mention" of anyone. As for who should be in the infobox picture: no opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  Just ignore the word mention and interpret it as something sensible, as the others have done. I think this is just a case of very poor wording by a non-native speaker. There should be no problem mentioning Albert Einstein as an example of someone born into German culture who later renounced German ethnicity, while continuing to speak German. This phenomenon is of course very important for understanding what it means to be German nowadays. Hans Adler 10:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that the closer is going to have to read this, and see what question, if any, is answered by consensus. And how much confidence they have in whether participants are actually responding to the same question is not now known. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both echoing Peter S Strempel sentiments above. -Quasipalm (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. --IIIraute (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Marx image, remove or contextualise Einstein. There appears to be no doubt whatsoever that Marx was ethnically German with ethnically German and Dutch ancestors of Jewish faith. For Einstein it's different. Clearly he was ethnically German by 19th century standards, but he lived in the 20th century, when religious antisemitism had turned into racist antisemitism, and he witnessed the Holocaust. I think nobody can blame him for staying within the logic of his time and renouncing everything German. His case is symptomatic for the problems with the very recent (c. 1800) notion of German ethnicity. We should discuss him in the article. At the moment, Einstein's image can be misunderstood. Maybe we can put him into a row of images that demonstrate the breadth of German ethnicity in the widest sense. Possible candidates for such a row: a German politician of Turkish descent such as Cem Özdemir, a South American politician of German descent, an Austrian figure who strongly thought of themselves as German (we could actually put Hitler here, though maybe we shouldn't), Erwin Strittmatter as a German author who I believe also felt strongly as a Sorb. Hans Adler 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Einstein and Marx. A purely ethnic definition of "German" is impossible. Instead, a broad definition based on a combination of language, culture, and citizenship in addition to ethnicity should be used. Otherwise, we will run into never-ending problems and discussions. It is well-known that Einstein did not want to be considered German after the Nazis came to power, but this was only a political reaction to the racist policy and does not change the fact that he was a German citizen by birth for many decades, and that his personality was strongly shaped by the German cultural and educational milieu of that time. By the way, the article French people also contains images of Marie Curie (Polish?), Gustave Eiffel (German?), and Josephine Baker (African-American?), supporting the view that we should use a broad definition here. Wouldn't any other policy constitute a late victory for the Nazis, as it would force us to apply the Nuremberg Laws? Levimanthys (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Marx, remove Einstein if it is demonstrated that he abandoned self-identification as a German. This article has been defined as about the variations of German identity - be it ethnic, citizenship, or ethnolinguistic. There is no such thing as pure ethnicities, ethnicities are based on culture, similarities, and presumed similarities, and throughout history have assimilated or redefined their identity, or have merged or splintered. For instance almost all Austrians recognize themselves as being part of an Austrian ethnicity, a trait that began after World War II when Austrians wanted to distance themselves from Germany, ending years of historic association as ethnic Germans. Merely declaring some set-in-stone barrier between German and Jew is something that may be presumed particularly by chauvinist bigots amongst German nationalists and Zionists, but it is ridiculous in reality. Inclusion should be based on self-identity of the person. Marx was a native-born person from Germany and he identified as a German, and he was fully assimilated into German culture. Although Einstein was a native-born person from Germany, if it is accurate that Einstein renounced his German identity when he arrived in the United States and incorporated an American identity while living in American culture, then we should respect his self-identity.--R-41 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. This article (according to its lead) is about Germans in a very broad sense which is wide enough to include both. While it can be justified that because Einstein renounced his nationality he should no longer be listed among German citizens, he nevertheless remained ethnolinguistically a German, and has been reported as saying that German was the only language in which he could express himself. Making a claim about a person's self-identity as suggested above would constitute original research. Oysvorf (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Stern

Some of you may be interested in Fritz Stern's Einstein's German World.

• Einstein's German World, Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1999 ISBN 0-691-05939-X.

Sca (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Took 4 days to read - but very interesting covers a long period of time ...World Wars, interwar and postwar years. below a copy that most should be able to see.Moxy (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Stern (26 March 2001). Einstein's German World. Princeton University Press.

Pictures and galleries

Not sure what anyone else thinks but we have an overload of images on this page recently added. Makes the article look very very disorganized and made for a child. As per WP:IMAGELOCATION and WP:Galleries we should clean up all the images that are sandwiching text and those gallery section should be removed and the main important images incorporated into the article. Will see what others have to say before cleaning this up.Moxy (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"or people of descent to the ethnic and ethnolinguistic group associated with the German language"

A lot of Austrians and Germanophone Swiss will probably disagree with that statement, and by doing so essentially disprove it as self identification is something quite basal in being part of an ethnic group. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct and it isn't. The issue here is that German ethnogenesis, mostly including Swiss and Austrians, happened in the 19th century (caused primarily by Napoleon), and Swiss and Austrian ethnogenesis is a more recent phenomenon that is still not completely finished. My impression is that a lot of Swiss people and even more Austrian people feel at least as much ethnically German as they feel ethnically Swiss or Austrian. For some groups this is probably more true than for others:

• Swiss and particularly Austrian citizens who live close to the national borders and are aware that the cultures are very similar on both sides and that dialect borders have nothing to do with state borders.
• Austrian and particularly Swiss citizens who live in a part of their country in which French, Italian, Rumantsch or Slovenian dominates, or historically dominated and is still strong. Here it is an issue whether you are a German Austrian, or a German Swiss, or a member of another traditional language-defined group. There is a perceived cultural border.
• Older people, especially in Austria. Swiss and Austrians collectively think increasingly of themselves as ethnicities distinct from the other German speakers. In general, this does not happen because individuals change their attitudes, but rather because the attitudes shift from one generation to the next.
• German speakers far from the DACH countries. This is perhaps the most important point because it's not going to change very soon. I have recently looked at the language situation in Brazil. The country has plenty of 20th century immigrants from all German-speaking countries. It appears that almost all self-identify a Germans now, and this makes perfect sense as the key criterion is the language which they have in common and which is in stark contrast with Portuguese. This even goes so far that in one settlement of originally Swiss and Luxembourgish immigrants, the variant of German spoken today is Pommersch, the second most dominant German dialect in Brazil (after Hunsrückisch). See Brazilian German. Hans Adler 19:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is correct and it isn't, then logic dictates that the current wording is in fact just false and thus needs rewording. It would be wrong to leave incorrect wording in the lead; which by the way contradicts itself as it is now; by claiming ethnicity based on language while just a few lines further down also claiming the two primary groups meant by that would beg to differ.

Furthermore, it is in my view wrong, or tricky at best, to include (a) people within another an ethnic group based on the similarities they share on contact borders. After all, apart from language the cultural differences between northern Germany and neighboring Denmark are minute. As are they between the Czech Republic and the German south-east. Similarities could and would be found in traditional music, cuisine and religion. Still, this does not make them Germans; or conversely makes it possible to call Germans by the name of Danes or Czechs.

But that very notion makes it very unconvincing to portray Austrians of German-speaking Swiss (note also that Switzerland has a long history of being a nation state, far longer than modern Germany, and that Swiss German is considered to be largely unintelligible to speakers of Modern Standard German) as Germans; as important characteristics soon change away from the direct border. The Swiss for example are traditionally reformed by faith and have rather unique way of government quite unlike anything seen in Germany. One should not compare a Swiss from Berne with a German from Waldshut, but with a German from Kiel or Dresden to truly find similarities.

This, I think, is the main problem here. This article makes the assumption that smaller ethnicities such as those of the Austrians and Swiss are 'break aways' from the larger German ethnicity; but for that to be true there would have to have been an all-encompassing German ethnicity before that, which is clearly not the case ... It is wrong to claim another people as part of 'your' own ethnic group based on what are essentially certain cultural or linguistic similarities. To assert an ethnic component would require quite a lot of sourced material, which - as of now - is completely absent. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are making some points that I can agree with without reservations, but also some that I find problematic. E.g., the intelligibility or otherwise of Swiss German with standard German isn't really relevant. In Switzerland it's the usual spoken form of the language, but as far as I know it's not yet standardised in any way comparable to standard German, and it's not normally used for writing. (Swatch's recent annual report in Swiss German was widely reported as a provocation typical for the company.) Therefore it functions as a dialect w.r.t. (the Swiss variation of) standard German, and therefore must be compared with the closely related dialects of Baden, Swabia and Vorarlberg, with which it is clearly mutually intelligible, and with all the other regional dialects of standard German. In the sense of dialect required here, this even includes the North and East Frisian languages.

Ethnicities are not mutually exclusive, and they depend on context. The same person can be described as Swiss in an international European context, or as (Swiss) German in an internal Swiss context.

At the beginning of the 20th century, language-based ethnicity as a way to distinguish between citizens was an issue in Austria as well. There are a number of places near the language border which have "deutsch" in their names to indicate that they were "German" settlements, as opposed to Slavic or Hungarian settlements: Deutsch Jahrndorf, Deutsch Kaltenbrunn (vs. Hungarian Kaltenbrunn bei Weißbrunn), Deutsch Schützen, Deutschkreutz (vs. Hungarian places called Keresztúr, in German often translated as Kreutz), Deutsch Griffen (vs. Griffen, formerly Windisch Griffen), Deutsch Goritz (vs. Goritz bei Radkersburg, formerly Windisch Goritz), Deutschfeistritz, Deutschlandsberg (vs. Windisch Landsberg).

It is of course tricky that there are several kinds of German ethnicities which overlap to a significant extent. I have the impression that you might be from Switzerland. Maybe you can understand this better if you think of Liechtensteiners. I haven't met many of them and I don't know how they feel in terms of ethnicity. But I wouldn't be surprised if they feel Swiss to some extent. Maybe if you think about this, you can understand how one can include Liechtensteiners in Swiss or Swiss German ethnicity to some extent without denying the existence of a Liechtenstein ethnicity or trying to include them for nationalist reasons.

You are certainly right about the long history of the Swiss state. But I am sure you are aware that this argument does not apply in the same way to Austria. In fact, some of the events that led to German ethnogenesis in the early 19th century and a lot of similarly important later events were shared by Germany and Austria to a great extent. Paradoxically, it was the essentially peaceful annexation of Austria by Germany which ultimately caused the emergence of a separate Austrian ethnicity, which is still in progress today.

The precise flavour of Christian religion (Catholic) might be a relevant factor for understanding Austrian ethnicity (and similarly Bavarian and Austro-Bavarian ethnicity), but in fact it is not very relevant for German ethnicity, which is just generally Christian: Primarily Protestant in the north, primarily Catholic in most parts of the south, and mixed in the middle. Switzerland is actually mixed Catholic and reformed, so fits in by this criterion at least as well as the primarily atheist eastern part of Germany.

I agree with you that ethnicity is not about similarity at all. I think a sociologically more correct definition would look at how people mix with each other and who they marry. I have trouble finding statistics, but I guess that by this criterion, Germans and Austrians essentially form one ethnicity, and Switzerland is composed of several near-ethnicities each of which mixes with the others roughly as much as with the related ethnolinguistic groups in neighbouring countries.

But ultimately we are not even really claiming here that any Austrians or German-speaking Swiss are part of the German ethnicity. We are just saying that German in the widest sense includes them. This is a question of how the word "German" is used in the English language. Here is what I found in the online version of Merriam-Webster:

"2 (a) a native or inhabitant of Germany (b) a person of German descent (c) one whose native language is German and who is a native of a country other than Germany." [35]

One might argue that a German in sense 2c is not a true German. In fact, you did argue that way. But that's very similar to arguing that Sorbs or Austrian Slovenes are not true Germans. Or to arguing that Karl Marx wasn't a true German because he was of Jewish descent. (See other discussions above for someone arguing this way from a Jewish nationalist point of view.) Ultimately, there would be no true German, just like there is famously no true Scotsman. Hans Adler 20:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, I think you confuse (or intermix) ethnicity and nationality to some degree. Especially when concerning the inhabitants of Switzerland.
• Secondly, a grave problem here, I feel, is the questionable legacy of pangermanism. We must see pangermanism for what it was (or, in some circles, is) a wish, not a fact per se. Intellectuals might have seen great similarities in culture and language among the various inhabitants of what is now the western part of Central Europe; they, the general populace, themselves did not display much (feelings of) unity until several decades after the unification of Germany itself. Indeed, William II is to have seen World War I as the catalyst in which the Germans were to truly become a single people, as up until then loyalties were still highly regional. The article should, in my view reflect this. Instead it projects Germans back in to the past, to in fact; the Early Middle Ages. A time which shows no evidence of any shared consciousness among 'Germans'. In that respect I find your notion on an "emerging Austrian ethnicity post '45" unconvincing.
• I think, the approach chosen by the editors of the article on the Dutch provides a great framework for this article as well. The Dutch too have their origins in Germanic tribal confederacies (just like modern Germans) and they too have a complicated relationship with the Flemings who, like the Austrians and German Swiss compared to the Germans, speak the same language. The article concerning them take a deep but structured approach to the formation of their ethnicity (which obviously predates that of the Germans and - in terms of subject matter - is less complicated) but which I think could also greatly benefit the scope of this article. Could you look at said article and comment on its usefulness here? Greetings, 195.169.209.53 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty familiar with the Dutch people article, but I can't see how it would be helpful here. The situation for the Dutch is much simpler: Essentially we have Dutch speakers in the Netherlands and Flemings in Belgium, separated by a national border and religious/cultural differences. Also, the article can easily define the Dutch people as an ethnic group because there is little doubt that one exists, the only problem being whether to include the Flemish or not. The present article is, and must be, a lot more vague because the situation is so much more complicated. And I have trouble finding reliable sources that could be used for precise statements, except two kinds that are far from optimal: Highly problematic nationalist literature from the first half of the 20th century and German court decisions on ethnicity on the occasion of people's attempts to gain German nationality.

I don't think I am confusing nationality and ethnicity, but I am certainly 'mixing' them because for the topic "German people" they have to be both considered and compared. We can't write an article about just German ethnicity, because that term is too ill-defined except by Nazi authors and their precursors. And an article about people of German nationality would essentially just be a fork of Demographics of Germany. Therefore this article is about "Germans" in all modern senses in the dictionary. It's the kind of article that would be useful to a Chinese (say) reader who never previously thought about the distinction between speakers of German, inhabitants of Germany, holders of German passports and people of German ethnicity living all over the world. Here such a reader is (or should be) made aware of the problems with the various definitions of "German", and how they are related to each other.

Pangermanism is of course irrelevant today. But this doesn't change the fact that Germany and Austria have formed essentially a single cultural area since at least Austria's adoption of standard German under Maria Theresia. (This was after the project of a separate oberdeutsche Schreibsprache failed.) And Switzerland as well as the smaller German-speaking regions are also part of it to some extent. (E.g., as a child I became aware of the Swiss author Dürrenmatt through the German mass media. It didn't make a difference that he was Swiss. His books that I bought were published by Diogenes, not by a German publisher. Similarly, the comic books I bought had prices printed of them in the currencies of all countries with German-speaking areas.) Of course, if people didn't find it so easy to move between German-speaking regions in today's Europe, they might be more inclined to revert to the unfortunate idea that national borders have to follow linguistic borders. Hans Adler 23:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• The situation among the Dutch is simpler, but it is not that simple. The main differences between what the article calls Northern Dutch and Southern Dutch (people/cultural area) lies in the Netherlands, not Belgium. In the same way that major dialect and religious differences among German speakers, nearly all lie in Southern Germany. Adding to that, Flanders is a different state/political entity, with a Southern Dutch base rather than the Northern base of the Netherlands as a whole, just like for example Austria and Germany. That is why I think it is a very good role model for this article, which should be able to describe German ethnicity for what it is; namely a very lengthy and complicated process which perhaps has certain aspects which the majority of other European ethnicities lack.
• You say, this article is better of being vague because the situation is complicated. Well this is simply beyond me, because that by itself warrants a precise and layered rather than vague article.
• Your remarks on that supposed 'single cultural area' is troublesome too, as no such area has boundaries. You say you read Dürrenmatt as a child (I am not Swiss by the way) but I'm sure you've also heard of the 3 musketeers. Does that make you French? Germans (or Germanophones) are not limited to books by German(ophone) authors and never have been. I don't see how this supports your earlier statements. Cultural areas are fluid. They occupy different disciplines across different fields which often overlap. The question is, where does 'typically German' begin and commonly (Central/Germanic) European end? That's what this article should explain; the various degrees of cultural overlap as (everything above proves) a single closed definition is impossible. Greetings, 195.169.209.53 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"You say, this article is better off being vague because the situation is complicated. Well this is simply beyond me, because that by itself warrants a precise and layered rather than vague article." The problem is that the term "Germans" is multifaceted. We could reduce it to one of its many aspects, but then the article would become a duplication of some other article, or boring. (I note that the Dutch people article doesn't do this, either.)

I quoted from Merriam-Webster. You just ignored it, and I think you shouldn't have done this. Let me quote from the Collins dictionary this time: "2. a native, inhabitant, or citizen of Germany; 3. a person whose native language is German: Swiss Germans; Volga Germans". Germans in this ethnolinguistic sense live outside Germany in many areas. Many of them descend from people who emigrated from the area of today's Germany before there was anything resembling today's German state, many descend from people who emigrated from the area of today's Austria, and many descend from people who emigrated from today's Switzerland. Some of them even descend from people who emigrated from the Netherlands. So long as they speak German, they are generally referred to as Germans. The so-called Pennsylvania Dutch (more properly Pennsylvania Germans, as they came from southern Germany, Switzerland and Alsace) are a good example.

The German article Deutsche may be closer to what you have in mind, but it is also very explicit about one thing: "Das Ethnonym Deutsche wird in vielfältiger Weise verwendet. Im Sinne von ethnisch Deutschen wird darunter die Gruppe von Menschen verstanden, deren Angehörige Deutsch als Muttersprache sprechen und spezifisch deutsche kulturelle Merkmale aufweisen, oft wird auch eine gemeinsame Herkunft postuliert [...]." -- "The ethnonym German is used in a multifaceted way. In the sense of ethnic Germans it describes the group of humans whose members speak German as their mother tongue and exhibit specifically German cultural attributes, often a common origin is also postulated [...]."

The Austrians, and to a lesser extent the Swiss, still fit into this definition. The German article does not say so explicitly, but instead mentions that apart from some very right-wing people, today's German-speaking Austrians self-identify with an Austrian, rather than German identity, and that the Swiss have been much more clearly separated since the late 19th century. The article also mentions that Liechtensteiners self-identified as Germans until well into the 20th century.

I think it's pretty clear that there is only on ethnolinguistic group associated with the German language, and that it's the 'Germans'. It's not clear who, precisely, are the members of that group, but that's normal for such notions. So I really can't see your problem with "people of descent to the ethnic and ethnolinguistic group associated with the German language". It appears to me that this definition is equivalent to the one in the German Wikipedia, and that it is correct. It's certainly better than the one in the Dutch Wikipedia: "De Duitsers is een volk dat voornamelijk wordt bepaald door een gemeenschappelijke cultuur en taal, en minder door de grenzen van een land." -- "The Germans are a people/nation that is determined primarily by a common culture and language, and less by the borders of a country." This definition conflates the two relevant dictionary definitions of "German". It pretends they describe the same concept, and then tries to define it. Hans Adler 16:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Without any intent on being rude, but I ignored your referrals to dictionaries because this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia gathers scientific knowledge and bundles it, which in turn appears in crude, generalized and simplistic form in dictionaries as a definition. A dictionary is therefore an endpoint, not a starting point. Nor do I think citing other Wikipedia's (especially the Dutch one, which I've come to understand is very badly written) is really helpful.
• Furthermore, you elude one pivotal point, which is self-description and perception of others. Would Germans describe Pennsylvania Dutch, Swiss or Austrians as being Germans like them and would then in turn the Swiss, Austrians and Pennsylvania Dutch describe themselves as being Germans? If the answer is not yes, which (I hope you will agree) it is not; then there are 'only' cultural and linguistic similarities but no shared ethnicity. In other words, even despite speaking a related dialect or even the same standard language, even when religious borders do not coincide with state borders, even if culture is shared or even identical: if the people themselves do not perceive it so ... they cannot be called a single entity/ethnicity. I think it is this articles task, to expand on that (and there is material to plenty on this matter) expand on this cultural, religious and sociological matters within an ethnic framework. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So you don't like dictionaries as a source on word the word "Germans" means? Well, at least they are some reliable source, which is more than you have offered here. We can't rewrite the article based just on your opinion or on mine. We need reliable sources on what "Germans" are, and the problem is that it's not fashionable at the moment to write about that. Here is the kind of reliable sources that I have found: (1) Obsolete ones from a very nationalist and racist era. (2) Mostly primary sources (like laws and court decisions) on aspects of "Germanness" with legal implications, especially the right for certain culturally "German" people abroad to move to Germany and become German citizens.

Sources of type (1) are pretty clear that they include Austrians, I think also the Swiss, and in some cases also speakers of other Germanic languages. In sources of type (2) I have so far not found anything about Austrian and Swiss people. The question of the Pennsylvania Dutch doesn't arise because those laws deal only with people displaced from Eastern Europe, not for descendants of emigrants.

"Would Germans describe Pennsylvania Dutch, Swiss or Austrians as being Germans like them and would then in turn the Swiss, Austrians and Pennsylvania Dutch describe themselves as being Germans?" -- This is in fact asymmetric. Cultural diversity within Germany is such that most Germans simply include Austrians, and mostly also Swiss people, as not appreciably different. This is not reciprocated by the Swiss, and only to some extent by Austrians. Austria would easily fit into the Federal Republic of Germany as an additional state. Such a 'reunification' would be a lot easier by all measures than the reunification with the German Democratic Republic. The main reason why nobody considers anything like it is that something very similar has happened before, under the leadership of an Austrian who became one of the most famous Germans, and Austria didn't fare particular well with this. (By the way, even the word Österreich became illegal at the time and was replaced by Ostmark and later Donau- und Alpenreichsgaue.)

The Pennsylvania Dutch are a relatively small group and form an extreme exception. They do refer to themselves as "deitsch" (=deutsch, German), but due to their isolation from the rest of the German-speaking area (first geographically, now for religious reasons), this does not mean that they are German. Journalists from the Palatinate region of German find that standard German is useless with the Pennsylvania Dutch but communication in the Palatinate dialect works very well. But they are an extreme sect, and that makes it impossible to ascribe any broader ethnic affiliation to them after those centuries in isolation.

German speakers in Brazil, in Kazakhstan or in Romania are better test cases. For them, German is a minority language, and in fact the language of a national minority. The minority being that of Germans, i.e. German speakers, regardless of which German-speaking country their ancestors emigrated from. In those places far from the main German-speaking area, German-speakers with Swiss ancestors have no interest in being ethnically different from their neighbours with ancestors from Hunsrück, Bavaria or Tyrol, and so they all form one ethnicity which they call "German" after the language. Just like the country of Germany itself was originally named after the "diutisc" (Old German for "popular", later turned into modern German "deutsch") language.

You claim there are lots of sources for your 'ethnic framework'. Great. I am not intrinsically interested in ethnicity anyway, I just came to this article due to a silly dispute that spilled over to a noticeboard. I haven't found any such sources. If you know good sources, share your knowledge. Just claiming that they exist is not going to help you make your case. Hans Adler 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The same issue can come up with almost any ethnicity because nation boundaries were not and could not be draw so that they coincided with ethnicity and ethnicity itself can be divided, for example there are both ethnic Bavarians and Saxons, distinguishable by ancestry and dialect. Swiss btw is a form of Upper German which includes southern German dialects and is therefore closer to the German spoken there than either is to Northern German dialects. TFD (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• My issue with Swiss German was not its relation to the German language, merely that among the German Swiss it is the everyday language as opposed to the Standard German (or dialect influenced Standard German) spoken everyday in other Germanophone languages. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In Bavaria, the Bavarian dialect is the everyday language. TFD (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bavarian dialect is not spoken in the north of the state and decreases in use as younger segments of the populations are reached, unlike in Switzerland. Nonetheless, I know dialect use to be larger in Bavaria than in any other German state. I also know, Bavaria is among the most regionalist of all states and (afaik) the only state to have a separatist party as well as their own form of nationalism. If that alone is true for Bavaria (a part of the German Republic) then how would this reflect on either Switzerland or Austria? 195.169.209.53 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pointing out the fallacy of your argument. You said that Swiss are not Germans because they speak a different dialect. Yet there are Germans who speak a dialect more closely related to Swiss than it is to standard German. Rather than argue that Bavarian is dying out, some Bavarians are separatists and asking for more examples, could you please re-phrase your argument to take into account the new information. TFD (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That was never my argument. I merely mentioned that the use of a different everyday language (whatever its relation) is one particular element which undermines the statement that a 'shared ethnicity' exists as an absolute. You then mentioned Bavarians, which adds to my point, as I do not think it is coincidence that the group within the Republic of German which retains its dialect to most also appears to be the least susceptible (though of course dependable on context) to the construct of being 'German'. Do you understand my what I'm saying? 195.169.209.53 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I still fail to see your argument. No one has claimed ethnicity exists as an absolute. TFD (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple tags added to the article

Adding numerous tags in one edit is not a helpful way to edit or improve articles. If there are concerns, please discuss them here. Some of the tags have been added to completely innocuous statements in violation of WP:POINT. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Then by all means what 'point' am I trying to make. The tags are there so that the issues they address may be addressed. I could have (per WP:Source) have just as as easily (and rightfully) have removed the unsupported/vague/incorrect statements, instead. The tags allow for editors to edit or clarify the issues. It is wrong and offensive to removed ALL the tags, especially if you only think "SOME" are added to "completely innocuous statements". THAT is nonconstructive.

I've re-added the tags once more; if this again made undone I will not re-add them, but instead REMOVE the currently unsupported statements all together per WP:SOURCE. As you can read above, 'most' are valid points. If you disagree then you should be here on talk. Colleabois (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are engaged in edit warring and POV-pushing. I am now going to report you at WP:AN3. I gave you a warning above, which you ignored. Mathsci (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reporting a user for breaching the 3 revert rule requires three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, a quick check will show you that I have not done that, nor do I have any intention to do so in the future.

• You accuse me of 'POV-pushing' while all I have done is questioned statements in the article. I have added no 'point of view' of my own to the article other than on this talk page while discussing the contents of the article.
• You revert ALL added tags while on talk only saying that you think SOME are inappropriate.
• You ignore the fact that per WP:POINT, the true cornerstone of Wikipedia, I have every right to question unsourced, badly sourced or incorrectly sourced material as well as vague statements of which there are a plenty in this article.

In other words, it you not I who is disrupting the process of improving this article by removing valid tags and re-adding invalid, incorrect and unsupported content to the article. I will tell you what I aim to do: You can either leave the tags or invalidly remove them again in which case I will not re-add tags (so that the problem can be addressed and the content perhaps retained) but will remove all unsourced material, again per WP:SOURCE, altogether. Your choice. Colleabois (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You can argue your case at WP:AN3. Threatening to blank content on the multiple places where you have left tags is classic disruptive editing. I am removing the tags because you added them to innocuous sentences. That is unreasonable. Here's a simple example of disruptive editing, You tagged: "From the multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) left a core territory that was to become Germany." That is not a contentious statement. Why therefore did you threaten to remove it. I am again removing the tags. Please do not add them if they apply to innocuous uncontroversial sentences like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your request has failed. I'm well aware of Wikipedia policy and rest assured that, in the light of you choosing (again) to remove all tags behind invalid or unsupported claims will be dealt with through WP:SOURCE in the near future. Colleabois (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the warning is clear enough.[36] (You can be blocked just for edit warring.) But, while you're here, please can you explain exactly why you dispute this neutral and anodyne statement? "From the multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) left a core territory that was to become Germany." You tagged it four times. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I tagged that sentence once. Not four times, once. Furthermore, all cite tags have added rationales in hidden script explaining why they are there. In other words, your question isn't only false in its premise it has already been answered before it was asked. Colleabois (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's tagged all four times you added the tags. Discussion takes place here on the talk page, not in hidden notes in the article. You couldn't edit the page using your Nijmegen IP 195.169.209.53, because the article is semiprotected like Europe (and presumably for similar reasons). You edited the talk page with the IP and have now started editing the article with your recently registered account. Anyway, for the third time, please explain why you object to the phrase, "From the multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) left a core territory that was to become Germany." Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's tagged once. That you chose to edit war based on anything but WP:AGF and WP:SOURCE and forced me to revert your harmful removal of the tag doesn't change that. Neither does me editing from Nijmegen, which, for whatever reason you found important to mention. Furthermore, adjust your tone; I don't like being barked at and owe you nothing, besides that it would be better not to get so worked up, you'll get heartburn. As I said, prior to removal; I'll list all the reasons why; but I'll gladly give you a preview on this one: "From the multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) left a core territory that was to become Germany." :

• The supposed "core" would, looking at the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire in 1648, consists of modern Germany, the entirety of Belgium, parts of northern France, Burgundy (France) and large parts of the Alsace (France), the entirety of Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Luxembourg and large stretches of land belonging to the Republic of Poland. The only time in history that modern Germany possessed all of these area's was between 1941-44!

That's why object to that phrase. Now, given that I've answered your little question; why not return the favor and answer mine: "Why don't you object to that phrase?" Colleabois (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have not been edit warring. You received a warning.

In all four of your additions the sentence was retagged, so you revert warred this particular tag into the article four times. As for sourcing or disputing the statement, you need to find a WP:RS. This page is not a WP:FORUM for you to express your own personal opinions. You are just a wikipedia editor and not a reliable source. A source is a book, e.g. Eda Segarra's "A Social History of Germany 1648-1914." She writes (P.5) that the most significant aftermath of the Peace of Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Years Wars was the emergence of 300 states, owing little more than nominal allegiance to the Holy Roman Empire. That seems to confirm the phrase chosen.

I just watchlist the article and don't intend to edit it. Other editors, more familiar with the history of Brandenburg-Prussia and history books (possibly in German), can probably provide assistance. The key is to find good sources and not to use this talk page as WP:FORUM. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can look at a map (why not this one, on wikipedia) and see what I said is true. Your statement, that "the emergence of 300 states" confirms the phrase currently in the article is utter nonsense, as it does not in any way prove that it left a core that became Germany. If only because those 300 states included the areas I mentioned before, you've provided no argument whatsoever that proves that the Holy Roman Empire post-1648 was destined to become Germany. You claim to be a mathematician, well this is history; not math. If you don't intent to edit the article then why are you even here? Provide reliable and convincing sources for claims or the claims will go. Colleabois (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I helped rejig most of the history section in Europe some years back in 2007, using multiple sources, so am familiar with how to source history. "Looking at a map" is not how wikipedia is edited. That's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you wish to discuss content you must find sources, in this case undoubtedly books, just like the one I mentioned. wikipedians are not here to play at being historians. Their role is just to summarise and paraphrase what can be found in reliable sources. At the moment you are making extremely heavy weather of one single sentence which is quite uncontroversial. I have no idea why. I intervened here because your edits created a problem: I would do the same thing on Europe (or even occasionally Ethnic groups in Europe). Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I've taken this sentence because you took it and presented it as somehow indisputable and therefore somehow 'proving' my obtuseness. Well it is disputable as proven, there are no sources supporting it -- and as long as there are no sources; it will be removed. I don't have to provide anything here, you (and for that matter, any other editor who believes this is correct and should be in the article) is to provide reliable sources. You have not done that in even the most slightest respect. Al you've done so far is a weird attempt at reversing the burden of proof and made a attempt at accusing me of original research for having linked to a map; which (clearly visible) is based on the Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at the University of Texas. Further information from Overy, Richard, 2006, The Times Complete history of the world Times Books ISBN 0007181299 as described on its page. I repeat: provide reliable sources or the phrase will be removed per WP:SOURCE. Colleabois (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unless you intend to be blocked, you should not argue qbout content by looking at maps. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For verbal content we look at SOURCES as explained in WP:RS. Another good source is "A Mighty Fortress: A History of the German People" by Steven Ozment. Go and find it in a library. There is a chapter there discussing the aftermath of the Peace of Westphalia and the emergence and independence of the German states and principalities. If you want to use atlases to produce your own original research, please do that on a blog, but not wikipedia. WP:RS is clear enough and I'm afraid you don't have the option of ignoring it. So forget your atlases. The skills that are required are the ability to take articles or books written in English (or possible even German) and summarise their content where relevant. A history of the German people obviously is relevant to this article. Your own ruminations about what you can see in a map are not. Maps do appear in Ozment's book and are discussed in the text. I have mentioned your threats to remove the sentence without consensus based on your own original research to EdJohnston and ItsZippy. You were warned. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The "core of territories" left after the peace of Westphalia are the once I mentioned, visualized by the image itself based on Richard Overy's 2006 book Complete history of the world published by Times Books. You can ignore that, as you try, or you can simply acknowledge your position is untenable. In either case I don't care as per WP:SOURCE reliable sources need to be provided by the editors who want to include certain content. So please, do go on in distorting the matter at hand here by trying to reverse the burden of proof, accusing me of bias, POV pushing, giving out 'warnings' and trying to intimidate me by claiming to have 'mentioned my threats' to admins. A promise to abide WP:SOURCE is not a threat of any kind, simple and obligation for any editor of Wikipedia. I repeat once again; the only obligation I have will be to provide better or more authoritative source material when a claim is properly sourced. If sourcing if false or (such as in this case) absent I have no obligation to add or search for sources and am fully in my right (as is any other editor) to remove such claims. Which I, as I already said, intent to do in the near future after a summary on all disputed (which have already been marked as valid by at least 2 users here) on this talk page; giving people like you a chance to prove their worth by referencing proper material to their support. If you continue as you've displayed above; that is to not provide reliable or to the point sources they will then remain removed, per WP:SOURCE and there is nothing 'illegal' about that in any way. I suggest that if you intend to dispute my coming lists you visit a library as soon as possible. Colleabois (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding hidden notes with your interpretations is not a good idea and will lead to conflict. Have you been doing this as an IP alot? - anyways - I agree with most of your assessment but not the manner it was done in. The average editor or reader will have no clue there is a note there - thus its more disruptive (as seen above) then productive. Lets not add any hidden notes of the nature back - instead lets move forward and bring them up here one by one.Moxy (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

They were 'hidden' as explain the presence of the cite tags without adding personal commentaries to an article, which isn't allowed. The 'conflict' here is caused by the removal of valid tags and false and unfounded accusations of POV pushing. In any case, I'm glad you agree with much I've addressed, as said before I will place a summary list on this talk page soon concerning the unsourced material. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The atlas doesn't use the word core, Colleabois is using it and interpreting maps. Core is an innocuous word meaning centre and is actually not that relevant here. The text is supported by both textbooks' that I mentioned. I would summarise what they say as follows. "After the ravages of the 30 years war, with a severely depleted population, around 300 German states emerged as a result of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), each with an autonomy and independence from the Holy Roman Empire that would eventually lead to the formation of modern Germany." That statement is what can be found in both sources mentioned above. The map in Ozment's book does show the states of Germany as lying at the centre or core of the Holy Roman Empire, but that word has no particular added meaning in English. Heart, core, centre, nucleus, large part, take your pick. Certainly the sources also mention the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine (the supremacy of France), as well as Sweden and the Netherlands. But those are all minor issues. The phrase is basically correct, perhaps more accurate in my formulation, since even the recovery in the 18th century was slow. My sentence can certainly be used in the article, since it is sourced. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm done bickering (as it is far from debating) with you here for the moment. Simply wait for the summary. If you still believe you're correct then, simply join the discussion. Hopefully many more editors will do so and you can try to convince them with your theories. Colleabois (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No. At this stage I have proposed uncontroverisal content. For where it occurs this is my suggestion:

"After the Peace of Westphalia (1648) at the end of the Thirty Years War, around 300 independent German states emerged from the weakened Holy Roman Empire. They would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century."

That is some kind of overall summary, with no mention of ethnicity. The facts are mentioned later in the relevant part of the history section. The content above is supported by the two sources (Segarra and Ozment). Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You can repeat that till hell freezes over, but it holds not even a grain of truth. Provide accurate sources or the disputed phrase will be removed per WP:SOURCE. Colleabois (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The content in the article has already been modified (with slightly tweaked wording). That particular content is already in many different wikipedia articles on German history and even in a slightly modified form later on in this very article. Your comments are therefore inconsistent with what is already on this encylopedia and even with your own tagging. Here are the sources which have been added to the article. Please go and read them (most of them are readable on the web).

• Ozment, Steven (2005), A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People, Harper Collins, p. 120-121, ISBN 0060934832
• Segarra, Eda (1977), A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914, Taylor & Francis, p. 5, ISBN 0416776205
• Whaley, Joachim (2011), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199693072

Saying that the statements have "not even a grain of truth" implies that you think all these three sources are unreliable. If you think you're correct, and have not jumped the gun, please go to WP:RSN to verify whether these textbooks are good sources for wikipedia. Also please make a request at WP:NPOVN if you think the statements are false and involve egregious non-neutral POV-pushing about the history of Germany. As far as the cultural history of Germany in the 18th century goes, I wrote quite a bit on that for Clavier-Übung III (reception of J.S. Bach), so have some experience with locating and using sources for this particular period. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you think you do. It doesn't change the fact that you need to provide reliable sources, regardless whether you've written "quite a bit" on Bach. Fact remains that no, the 300 states of the Holy Roman Empire would NOT form Germany. Only would form it; Prussia; and only a portion of those earlier mentioned 300 were part of that Germany. Anything stating otherwise is incorrect.Colleabois (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the 'Science', 'Literature' and 'Philosophy' sections

These two sections are about scientists and writers (and their accomplishments) from Germany. In which way do they truly relate to the Germans? In other words, does 'German science' exist? Does German literature (which is different from literature in the German language) exist? And does German philosophy, that is as a popular philosophy adhered to by a considerable number of Germans, exist? Colleabois (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is in response both to your tagging and to Mathsci's comment on it in the section below. While it is unusual to tag so much in one go, I think most of your concerns are absolutely valid. Whether they are tagged or not, they should be addressed.

One problem with this article, however, is that in recent decades not much seems to have been written in high-quality sources such as scholarly publications. For good reasons, being German is still not very fashionable, and this seems reflected by a certain lack of enthusiasm to even ask what that means. Therefore we may have to be content with using relatively weak sources for the article or just leaving out certain bits of information.

More specifically in response to your questions:

• Science: This seems to make little sense. Germans tend to be proud of German scientists, of course, but that is hardly even worth mentioning in a sentence as it is so normal. I doubt that Germany's share of scientists in history has been disproportional, and the article doesn't claim it. I also doubt that German scientists had some particular approach in any way more specific than generally modern western science. The article doesn't claim it, either.
• Philosophy: The article seems to suggest that Germany's influence on philosophy was disproportionate, and I am under the impression that this could be accurate. I keep hearing that students of philosophy all over the world learn German for such reasons. That does not mean that there ever was such a thing as "a German philosophy". I am just thinking of a European centre of philosophy; a climate in which philosophical thought was nurtured. This certainly has nothing to do with ordinary Germans, of course, except as another thing to be proud of. Still, as it's something that does tend to come up in connection with Germans, I think we should cover it in this article in some way.
• Literature: The German ethnicity has spawned the Swiss one (cum grano salis), and an Austrian ethnicity is still in the process of maturing. (Let's ignore Luxembourg and Liechtenstein as those countries are so small.) That does not mean that "German" can no longer apply to Swiss and Austrian people in certain contexts. When concepts change and nations are formed, this does not result in sudden changes (the Austrians no longer being German from a certain date) but in contradictions, ambiguity and paradoxes. The beginning of the article makes it clear that "Germans" can also refer to the ethnolinguistic group associated with the German language. In this sense, a theoretical Sorb who does not speak German well and a member of the Danish minority in Schleswig are non-Germans with German passports, and the Swiss and Austrians are Germans without German passports. Due to this inherent vagueness, it seems appropriate to discuss German literature here to some extent, even if it isn't clearly separated from Austrian and Swiss literature. Similar to other aspects of culture, Austrian and Swiss literature each have some specific features with respect to the literature of Germany, but the latter does not have such features dividing it from Swiss and Austrian literature. Such phenomena explain the fuzziness of the term "German". Hans Adler 22:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak sourcing is no excuses, especially when bold statements are made. If the proper sources cannot be found, or, as you claim, do not exist; then the information should be left out until sources to support it do emerge.
• Science: My point is this; there are German scientists but the science they practice it not particularly German nor limited to Germany. They adhere to the basic Western Scientific Method. In others words, though they might be Germans, there is nothing (or perhaps there is but that remains to be proven) particularly German about their work. As this article is concerned with Germans, it should limit itself to the features that are specific and/or particular to them as a whole. A section of Germany's most successful scientists is a nationalistic anomaly which should not be given a place in this article as it serves no clear purpose. Unless, for example, it can be proved that some of these scientists have a special position in German culture. For example, if it were true that every German has a portrait of Einstein in his or her living room, but even then, this would be in the culture section; not a separate one. Most of the articles on Wikipedia (you will find) do not have it to begin with. Colleabois (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Philosophy: In essence the above also goes for this: What you describe is an era in German history in which German philosophers were popular and/or influential in the Western World. However, if such a section should have a place (again, nearly none of the articles on Wikipedia related to peoples have it to begin with) it should describe what is typically 'German' about Goethe's thoughts. A list of famous German thinkers is something I'm sure a German would (and should) be proud of, but it has no place here in its current form.
• Literature: I never said anything about Swiss or Austrian literature. To the point; same as the above but trickier as I think 'literature' and culture in general have more in common. This section (and again, its virtually unique to this article) should not be a list of famous German writers, it should explain if and how what they write is typically German. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Watson, The German Genius: Europe's Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution, and the Twentieth Century, Harper, 2010 - --IIIraute (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope that source can say something about not the relevance of German philosophers (undisputed), but the relevance of mentioning them for Germans as a people. Does it? Colleabois (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does.--IIIraute (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In what does it answer the questions asked above? To be sure, the dispute here is not about the influence of philosophers from Germany, which appears to be the books main concern. Colleabois (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We do not need a reference that supports "...the relevance of mentioning them [German writers, philosophers and scientists] for Germans as a people" unless we make the explicit statement in the article that German writers, scientists and philosophers hold a special relevance for the German people. Lacking that explicit statement, simply including information about the contributions of Germans to the fields of literature, science, and philosophy is perfectly acceptable and consistent with the article's topic, as writers, scientists, and philosophers are generally people and thus, if German, they are German people and therefore in scope. (The article on British people has even more cultural subtopics than this one.) Thus the inclusion of this information is a matter of editorial discretion (i.e. consensus on this forum) and informed by (among other things) total article length. If the article is too long then these sections are prime candidates for breaking out into their own articles, much as the article on Belgian people references a separate list of notable Belgians. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

can someone please change "Germans (German: Deutsche) are the citizens or native-born people of Germany" to the orignial "The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Central Europe" thanks 95.196.162.216 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The article is about all Germans not just ethnic Germans - as per Talk:Germans/Archive 6#Article scope - That said this change has happened since then - is this the change your referring to? Moxy (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that pre-change wording for the first sentence wasn't better, not least because the current phrasing "people of descent to .." is nonsense English (and it's worth noting that the change back in February was one of several identical ones made by that user to several "people" articles, inserting a one-size-fits-all boilerplate wording; see also here, where it was particularly inappropriate as there is no such thing as an English "citizen"). The above suggestion is subtly different from what was there pre-February, which was bit wider and did cover both alternative if overlapping conceptions, ie those of citizenship and ethnicity. On that point, the later sentence "Legally, Germans are citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany" by contrast subsequently excludes ethnic Germans outside modern Germany, which is a bit confusing. N-HH talk/edits 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

no i mean this this change 95.200.3.147 (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy that that version is too limited in scope. The opening "definition" needs to be broader and/or vaguer in order to avoid fixing just on ethnicity. N-HH talk/edits 10:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - too vague.--Launchballer 18:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion

The data are out of date!!

2010

Roman Catholics: 24.651.001 = 30,2 % Protestant: 23.896.089 = 29,2 % Orthodox (approx): 1.200.00

Muslims (approx) 3.500.000

without a denomination (approx) 25 %

Resources: REMID - http://www.remid.de/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.98.104 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Disputed Claims & Phrases : Part I

Below are the issues found with the current article. One week is given to provide sources for the claims, if they have not been provided after that time I will remove them from the article to which they should only then be placed back until proper sources and references for them have been provided. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Collage Includes Non-Germans

Karl Marx and Einstein are jews, not Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.167.23 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Leaving the "Core" of Germany after Westphalia

The original disputed sentence was "From the multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) left a core territory that was to become Germany." which has since been changed to "After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years War, around 300 independent German states arose from the declining Holy Roman Empire. They would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century."

Naturally either are still incorrect as the Peace of Westphalia simply didn't leave a "core" territory to become Germany in 1871, nor did the remaining 300 independent German states (< map based on R. Overy's Complete history of the world) as these, like the supposed "core" mentioned in earlier wording, included parts of France, parts of Italy, parts of Poland, the whole of Austria, Belgium and the Czech Republic as well as the most northwestern portion of the Balkans.

The new phrasing (by Mathsci, who claims to be a 'professional mathematician') adds new flaws as he suggests that these 300 states (which undoubtedly did exist between 1800 & 1815) "then formed" Germany in the 19th century. Well, they did not as from 1648 onward these states had been subjected by either France or the twee principal German states of Prussia and Austria of which it was Prussia that created the German Empire in 1871. To claim these states (though again: "they" didn't to begin with, for the geographical and historical reasons mentioned earlier) formed Germany is the same as to claim that the Roman province of Germania Superior or the Frankish Realm "would eventually form" Germany. "Eventually" is a weasel word.

For his new claims Mathsci (again a mathematician) added three books (which he had apparently lying around his house) in support. Two of these books A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People and A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914 can not be checked as A Mighty Fortress is not available online and the page Mathsci refers to A Social History of Germany is also not available from Google Books. His third source, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806 is available on Google Books but no page number is provided by Mathsci as to where to find any possible content that would back up his claims. A review by Michael Hofmann in the British newspaper The Guardian of A Mighty Fortress says that Gratefully, almost reflexively, one takes the rise of Prussia ("the Northern Sparta," Steven Ozment calls it) for the creation of Germany - at last, some kind of single narrative. But perhaps to do so is mistaken, and it is the loss of several dozens of other Germanies one should be mourning. (link) going on to says about the book that I wonder if a narrative like Ozment's is really much help in understanding the place or the people. I would have liked something more speculative, more inferential, and more literary. (link)

In short, it is my personal suspicion that Mathsci has not read the books he has recently added as sources. Nevertheless one must assume good faith, this however does not mean on should be uncrittical and hence full citations of the above works will be required in support of either the first wording claiming that the "core" of the Holy Roman Empire post 1648 would become Germany, or the second wording which must prove that the 300 states would eventually form Germany. Emphasize is added to both 'woulds' and 'eventually' as these claim 'inevitability' which an historian must always support with the utmost of sources and evidence.

Gross assumption of bad faith

Colleabois has written that he suspects that I have not read the sources in composing two sentences. That claim is wholly false and unsupported by my content creation and editing history. Here is the content under discussion with sources and page numbers. It is uncontroversial and extraordinarily well-known. The statements above about core are irrelevant. The word core does not figure in any of the references. Multiethnic also does not figure, as that applied to the Hapsburg Empire, which was different from the so-called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (1495-1806). The content is a paraphrase from the sources. They are viewable on google and or amazon, which is where I accessed them. It's not difficult finding those sources on google and amazon.com.

Originally part of the Holy Roman Empire, around 300 independent German states emerged during its decline after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War. These states would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century.

• Ozment, Steven (2005), A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People, Harper Collins, pp. 120–121, ISBN 0060934832
• Segarra, Eda (1977), A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914, Taylor & Francis, p. 5, ISBN 0416776205
• Whaley, Joachim (2011), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199693072

Please read the sources and please stop quizzing this uncontroversial and well-known content in such an unhelpful, unscholarly and disruptive way. Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

They are either completely un-accessible, Ozman, or the pages mentioned are not available. As said: add full citations. That should remove all (very reasonable I should think) doubts on whether you've actually read the above books and (more importantly) if they truly support what you claim. Colleabois (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No. If you lack the ability to locate the sources (e.g. on the web, in a public library or by buying the books), then you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to edit this article. Here for example is just one of the sentences in Segarra: "Politically, the most significant effect of the peace settlement of Westphalia, the treaties that finally ended the war, was the emergence of over 300 states, owing little more than nominal allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor." (It is one I have chosen from many, so has to be viewed in context of the whole chapter.) But I'm not your father, mother or nanny. I am not going to spoonfeed somebody indisposed to locating the sources themseves, even after being told how to do so. They were easy enough to find and all you've done is make personal attacks about your "suspicions", expressing a gross assumption of bad faith. If you lacked the ability to find the sources on google books or amazon, there's no reason to suppose that of other editor, particularly if they've already quoted some of the content.[37] (I could give the UK link to, but am editing at the spicions moment from an IP in France.) So please use a little bit of initiative, find those sources and check these well known facts using the page numbers listed in the article. Otherwise there will be a report at WP:ANI for tendentious editing and generallly wasting time with childish trolling. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with you, not me. If you have actually read the books (the information of which, I again stress, is not available to check online) then you should be easily be capable of providing full citation. Mentioning of books (I'll ignore the fact that you included dated works and works of generally low standing in the academic world) is not enough. You also don't seem to be aware (or refuse to be aware) that it is not contested that the 17th and 18th century HRE had a lot of states, you should read better. In the time you've spend typing the above post in which you (I suppose) attempt to insult me, belittle or otherwise browbeat me, you could have easily provided the needed citations already. provide full citations to back up your claim. Colleabois (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect and you evidently do not understand wikipedia editing policy. All I have to do is provide the paraphrase with the page citations. The content has to be verifiable. I don't commit a copyvio by pasting in whole chapters from books. If you dispute the content, then you have to look up the sources yourself and demonstrate that I have misrepresented them. Evidently I have not and you're just waffling, wasting more time on two uncontroversial sentences. Anyway you can explain your disruptive conduct here and elsewhere at WP:ANI. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It has already been established that it cannot be readily verified as the books you claim to "paraphrase" are not available online. Again PROVIDE FULL CITATIONS. Also (second time I've said this, not counting the original description of the issue) it is not contested whether after the Peace of Westphalia the Holy Roman Empire consisted of many, many states. That is close to common knowledge. What is contested, is the assertion that these states "then would form Germany in the 19th century" as "they" (this has been clearly proven) did not; for the simple reasons that the HRE states spanned almost all of central europe, even post 1648. Colleabois (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the term 'German'

The disputed phrase is the following: The English term Germans has historically referred to the German-speaking population of the Holy Roman Empire since the Late Middle Ages.

This might well be, but as it stands now; this is the 'reference' it uses as 'proof': "alongside the slightly earlier term Almayns; John of Trevisa's 1387 translation of Ranulf Higdon's Polychronicon has: Þe empere passede from þe Grees to þe Frenschemen and to þe Germans, þat beeþ Almayns. During the 15th and 16th centuries, Dutch was the adjective used in the sense "pertaining to Germans". Use of German as an adjective dates to ca. 1550. The adjective Dutch narrowed its sense to "of the Netherlands" during the 17th century."

This however, is not a source but simple original research.

Considering one-self German

The disputed phrase is the following: Of approximately 100 million native speakers of German in the world, about 66 to 75 million consider themselves Germans.

This statement is vague as this article continually mixed various different definitions of 'German' together. What definition is meant here, and (more importantly), what is the source for these number of self-identification? Currently there is none.

There are 80 million Germans living in Germany, and all of them consider themselves Germans, and are of German citizenship. A lot of more than only 70 million. 82.113.121.184 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Austrian identity

The disputed phrase is the following: Today, people from countries with a German-speaking majority such as Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, have developed their own national identity, and since the end of World War II, have not referred to themselves as "Germans" in a modern context.

As said before, this article in its current form provide no 'context' whatsoever on what is supposedly meant by 'Germans in a modern context' so that 's a major problem to begin with. Secondly, the sources used for this statement are an article from Pravda (the political newspaper associated with the Communist Party of the Russia) a simple link to a google search on "autrians are not Germans" and an article from LIFE dated 1943. These are not sources, these are antiques.

"Österreicher fühlen sich heute als Nation" →→ [38]. --IIIraute (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"The absence of an Austrian national identity was one of the problems confronted when Austria became a country in November 1918. Before 1918 there had been no tradition among German-speaking Austrians of striving for national independence as a small German-speaking state separated from Austria-Hungary or separated from Germany. Within the context of the multiethnic and multilinguistic empire, the great majority of the inhabitants of what was to become Austria considered themselves "Germans" insofar as they spoke German and identified with German culture. " → "After the State Treaty of 1955 arranged for the end of the Allied occupation and a subsequent proclamation of Austria's permanent neutrality, Austrians increasingly identified themselves with their country and saw it as a state with traditions and a history distinct from those of Germany. Although a persistent right-wing minority in Austria continued to insist on "Germanness" as being one of the attributes of being Austrian, ever more Austrians came to identify with the Austrian nation in the decades after World War II. Seventy-nine percent did so by 1990, compared with 47 percent in 1966. In this respect, Austria is a "young nation."" → [39]. --IIIraute (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be perfect! Colleabois (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Caption of the German Kingdom map

The Holy Roman Empire

HRE in era from Emperor Otto I to Konrad II included present-day: Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, northern half of Italy, Switzerland, (south)eastern France, Belgium and the Netherlands Imperial region   Borders (Solid); Otto I (927)   Borders (Dots); Konrad II (1032)   Theodisc kingdom (Solid)   Saxon Eastern March (Slashed)   Kingdom of Italy   Kingdom of Burgundy / Duchy of Bohemia Other regions   Byzantium   Papal States   Republic of Venice   Saracens / Moors / Arabs   Not Specified

The disputed phrase is the following: The Holy Roman Empire around AD 1000. The sphere of German influence (Regnum Teutonicorum) is marked in blue.

First, it is debatable if Regnum Teutonicorum should be translated as "German Kingdom", but in most publications is generally is and is done so within proper context and though this article does not provide that same context this a minor issue. What should be removed however is the term "German sphere of influence", that in a total anachronism. The average German's (if they existed at the time, which is quite disputable) 'sphere of influence' would have been his field of turnips. Kingdoms are ruled by kings, not peoples.

The monarch is the person at the head of a monarchy, which is a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled or controlled. --IIIraute (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you disgaree with map, you can take up that particular dispute on the map page. I have amongst my books the Penguin Atlas of Medieval History by Colin McEvedy (1961). On page 61 is a map of Europe in 1071, showing the "German Empire", the "Byzantine Empire", the "Seljuk Sultanate" and the "Fatimid Caliphate". (Incidentally I created most of the article on Fatimid art.) Its roughly the same as what can be found in the text. The main difference is that the map in the Penguin book has captions in English whereas the wikipedia map has German captions. Mathsci (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you choose to add your opinion please read carefully. There is no problem with the map, the problem is with the caption used in the article. Colleabois (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Eastern Frankish or German Kingdom is a political entity. Why does the caption call it a "sphere of influence"? Iblardi (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed apart from anachronistic it is also an incorrect use of the term. Colleabois (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The map is used several times on en.wikipedia with several different captions. The one I just included is the most detailed, with colour codes for the regions. A possible caption is "Extent of Holy Roman Empire in 927 (red border) and 1032 (dotted red border). The Kingdom of Germany is marked in solid blue." Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Moot now. The caption now describes the map unambiguously. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Emergence of German ethnicity

The disputed phrase is the following: A German ethnicity emerged in the course of the Middle Ages, ultimately as a result of the formation of the kingdom of Germany within East Francia and later the Holy Roman Empire, beginning in the 9th century.

This is supposedly the start of "the Germans" and it has no sources whatsoever. Apart from a total lack of sources, it is highly doubtful the 9th century saw the emergence of Germans in any truly recognizable form. Also note that the article appears to contradict itself by first going on about Julius Caesar and the Germanic tribes and then stating bluntly that no Germans existed prior to 800 CE.

"diutscher"

The disputed phrase is the following: the term ein diutscher ("a German") is used for the people of Germany from the 12th century.

Naturally there was no Germany in the 12th century to begin with, but aside from that; this etymological claim has no source whatsoever.

origin around 360 AD → (Gal. 2:14) → Ulfilas → [40]. The use of theodisce/deutsch was first attested in 786 in a report to Pope Hadrian I. → [41] & [42] -- the Old High German "diutisc", attested ca. 1090 in the Annolied --IIIraute (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the book give any further context? Attestation doesn't necessarily mean identical-ness in meaning. After all it originally means "people". Is there by any chance a expansion on its meaning in the annolied? Colleabois (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hanseatic League

The disputed phrase is the following: Along the trade routes, some Hanseatic trade stations became centers of the German culture. German town law was promoted by the presence of large, relatively wealthy German populations, their influence and political power. Thus people who would be considered "Germans", with a common culture, language, and worldview

What is meant by common language? Which AFAIK wasn't modern German, but Low Saxon. Which shared German culture? Would not a Dane be similar in culture to a Hanseatic German than a Tirolean? Which "worldview". Again by the way, no source is provided at all.

Revolution of 1848

The disputed phrase is the following: The Congress of Vienna was essentially conservative, assuring that little would change in Europe and preventing Germany from uniting. These terms came to a sudden halt following the Revolutions of 1848 and the Crimean War in 1856, paving the way for German unification in the 1860s.

The liberal revolutions of 48 where a complete failure as far as the German unification is concerned. Frankfurt became the laughing stock of Europe. In what way did these liberal revolutions (let alone the Crimean war!) 'pave the way' for the autocratic state of Prussia to unite Germany? Again: no source provided for the above claim.

Austrian desires

The disputed phrase is the following: Integrating the Austrians nevertheless remained a strong desire for many people of Germany and Austria, especially among the liberals, the social democrats and also the Catholics who were a minority within the Protestant Germany.

"Many" is a weasel term, it does not have any source present to support its content.

The disputed phrase is the following: The dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire after World War I led to a strong desire of the population of the new Republic of German Austria to be integrated into Germany or Switzerland.

The provided reference only mentions a plebiscite the state of Voralberg not the whole of Austria. The treaty that prevented it from doing so was the Treaty of St. Germain, not Versailles as Mathsci claims.

• I have made no such claims. So please stop lying. Two other editors removed your disruptive tagging and have you have been warned about Tendentious editing. It is what you are doing at the moment. Please stop this nonsense and stop misusing wikipedia.Mathsci (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have. In the same way that you've remarked that I supposedly added '4 cite tags to one phrase' by reverting your complete removal of all my valid tags four times, then by your own 'logic' you've also removed my correction of St. Germain instead of Versailles, 4 times. This what you get when you revert all instead of some, hardly an improvement, hardly constructive. Also, more importantly, do provide sources or simply refrain from adding your false accusations. This is about finding sources, not about you. Provide sources or simply walk away and let others solve the listed problems. Colleabois (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"After 1918 many Austrians identified themselves as being members of a "German nation" based on shared linguistic, cultural, and ethnic characteristics. Since unification with Germany was forbidden, most Austrians regarded their new country as a "second" German state arbitrarily created by the victorious powers. During the troubled interwar period, unification with a democratic Germany was seen by many, not only by those on the political right but across the entire political spectrum, as a solution for Austria's many problems." → [43]. --IIIraute (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is very good! But note two things: 1) that it says that many Austrians saw unification with a democratic Germany as a solution to its 'many problems'. But democratic Germany stops to exist in 1933, 5 years later an annexation/unification took place; under dubious circumstances. A further expansion on the extent of Austrian 'agreeance' with this is quite welcome. It is also important to clarify in what respect (or if) the desire for unification was politically fueled rather than ethnically.Colleabois (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)