Talk:Germans/Archive 1

Adolf Hitler in the pictures
He is not german he is from Austria.


 * Whatever his (sub)ethnicity, I would suggest finding a less objectionable and more suitable portrait in the little gallery that's supposed to present the reader with faces of famous people of this ethnic group. When you browse the other ethnic group articles, you don't find Stalin's picture in the Georgian people article or Pol Pot in the Khmer people article. //Big Adamsky 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

move

 * This move is simply to conform to standard Wikipedia capitalization practices. Russ Blau (talk) 14:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved the page. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

previous text
The following framed text is moved here from User:Ruhrjung/Germans, reflecting a previous attempt to an article on the Germans. Some paragraphs could probably be copied from below to the actual article. --Ruhrjung 05:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

=...=

joke :)
> people or entities that are denoted as German

Just use "White Holland" and "White Dutch" instead. ;)

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/261992.html http://www.pravapis.org/art_white_holland.asp

MfG --Rydel

Duplicates
What's exactly the point behind having two articles, one on Germans and one on German People (improperly capitalized, BTW)? Halibutt 09:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche, ethnic Germans, and Germans
Volksdeutsche, ethnic Germans, and Germans may be considered terms with different connotations. It can of course be discussed, if it's good or bad Wikipedia usage to have separate articles for related concepts, but for the sake of references, and taking political sensitiveness into account, I guess this is the best. --Ruhrjung 17:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) Nope, Volksdeutsche were often conscribed against their own will from other national groups in order to fill up army ranks. --Molobo 13:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

German populations in non-German speaking countries
The article states that German peoples are "defined more by a sense of sharing a common German culture and having a German mother tongue." But the population figures seem to want to include anyone who's of (even partial) German descent. It says there are 65 million here in the united states, but I know there aren't 65 million people in this country who speak German as their first language or who identify more as German than simply white American. Unless anyone has a good reason to keep it, I'm gonna remove the listings for those countries which aren't German speaking and don't have a large German speaking minority. Perhaps a new table can be made with people of German descent.

I think that the part of the article that says that the meaning of "German" differs by time is correct. Maybe just call it by name and list in a table such data according to definition? Moreover, what about people/regions that have a dialect (plat-Deutsch) as a primary language, and only speak Hoch-German in more formal environments ?

title
Why is this article not simply titled "Germans", instead of the clumsy "German peoples"?! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The article body never even uses the term "German peoples". Any objections for me to move it back to "Germans"? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the history states:
 * 03:23, 19 August 2005 Albrecht Conz (Content of the page "German people" moved here as the article in question doesn't refer to one nationality but to nationally diverse ethnic Germans (thus the plural))

I'm moving it, because the "people" or "peoples" is obviously gratuitous in the title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Numbers of US and Canadian Germans
I've added US and Canadian Germans to this list, it's a significant number and every other ethnic group listed on Wikipedia includes their numbers in the Americas.


 * I'd like to add that the US Census numbers are not terribly reliable, since collection of additional population characteristics is not the Census Bureau's primary mission. However, the decennial census and periodic population polls coducted by the Census Bureau are probably the best data we have.


 * On a related note, according to the 1990 Census 98.2% of people who have indicated German ancestry were born in the US. Only 4% indicated that they speak a language other than English (with German being the most logical candidate). Something to keep in mind when interpreting the numbers. Jbetak 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The US and Canada have for many years spoken of hyphenated hybrid ethnicities based on self-identification (not mother language) which they call ethnic origin groups (as opposed to ethnic affiliation groups). Assimilated Germans in the Americas should be mentioned in the text, perhaps more prominently than they already are. How these people of the Diaspora should be enumerated in Wikipedia's ethnic group boxed is another matter. Perhaps we need to look at examples from other articles so as to maintain comparability with, say, articles "Irish people", "Han Chinese" or "Armenian people"? --Big Adamsky 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent comment. I wasn't familiar with the concept ethnic origin groups, it sounds like a good way to go. Meanwhile, listing the diaspora number in infoboxes seems to be a common practice. I wonder if the infobox template should be extended to include references to assimilated ethic groups in the Americas to explain the situation. There is a nice article on Immigration to the United_States which could be referenced. Jbetak 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

2000 US Census
If you wish to debate the 2000 Census numbers, let's discuss it here. I'm ready and willing to provide the answers you might be looking for -- if I have them. If you still don't find the numbers plausible, perhaps we can come up with a sound way of mitigating the fluctuations in census #s. As it is, I'm left to assume that you are simply pulling estimates out your hat, which is not acceptable IMHO. As you seem to be based in Europe, I'd urge you to learn more about the census and the ethnic makeup of the US. I think you will find it to be an unbiased source of information. Jbetak 19:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left you a message on User talk:Antidote. Cheers Jbetak 01:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I left a little step by step guide on User talk:Jbetak so he can see where these numbers come from. Antidote 06:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answers Antidote. I'll reply as soon as I have time, but a cursory look makes me feel that I will need to ask you a few more questions to better understand the reason why you insist on changing some of the US Census numbers. I can only hope that you can discuss this in an calm and constructive way. I don't disagree that there are many (perhaps too many) nationally biased editors here. I am not investigating you, just trying to understand your agenda. However as it stands you are involved in way too many revert conflicts and this indicates that something has to change. Either it's the numbers we are reporting (or not reporting) on all ethnic articles and the process that leads to them or the attitudes involved, which includes you and perhaps especially you. It took you a while to engage in a discussion despite several prompts from my end, and when you finally responded your comments are really offensive. This is uncalled for, I'd suggest that you calm down. Jbetak 07:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you don't seem to take a no for an answer. I'm moving your note back here:


 * I have yet to see WHY you can't find the number - it's rather easy, but since I do want you to see it, I'll guide you through a step by step process:


 * 1) Open link: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp3/cp-3-2.pdf (sorry, actually here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf)
 * 2) Find Population Statistics on Chart (1990 on left, 2000 on right)
 * 3) Find Germans
 * 4) Look at 1990 --- 57 million (really 58 curved) exactly what I put
 * 5) Look at 2000 --- 43 million
 * 6) Look at population change --- 15 million in 10 years
 * 7) Think - No mass exodus back to Germany - No low birth rate - No possible adimixture that destroys German identity
 * 8) Conclude that best thing to do in this case is keep 1990 census as the 2000 one does not make sense, resulting from a multitude of circumstances - many influencing surveys (as this is what it was)


 * Good enough I hope. Also, please find something better to contribute to Wikipedia than investigating my work. thanks. Antidote 06:09, 5 December 2005

(UTC)


 * This tells me that you have not even opened the link. It's the original 1990 US Census. You won't find 2000 census data anywhere in the report. The table in the 2000 US Census is somewhat controversial. I don't seems to be able to match the 1990 numbers from the 2000 census against the original data set for several ethnicities. Germans are one of them. There are several others. I have also checked the original 1980 data set, but I'm sure you didn't look at that either. Anyway, I was going to ask some resident experts on United States 2000 Census but instead I had to spend almost an hour hunting for your charming comments. Jbetak 08:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was the wrong link. I hadn't expected you'd change the original one I had on there. Here is the link I'm talking about: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf Antidote 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Händel did not live in Austria but in England. Most probably someone mixed up Haydn and Händel. Dr. Sven Goddon

Replacing Hitler with Bismarck
the problem is that there are actually two kinds of nations existing on earth -nations made up of ethnics (i.e.like Germany, Norway or Hungary) and "cultural" nations like America, Brazilia or Nigeria

ethnic nation tend to be older. but there are also mixtures ob both like Great Britain ( see anglo-saxons, welsh, scots)

Hitler was Austrian !

I've replaced the picture of Hitler with that of Bismarck. I did this because it seems more appropriate and fair. If there are any objections please let me know. Jombo 05:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I object actually. After a point can't we look back on history without attaching all sorts of conclusions here? Hitler was a German and probably the most famous in history. Bismarck is without a doubt well known and important, but how many people know him in comparison to Hitler and honestly who made a bigger splash so to speak? Hitler was also responsible for a lot death and destruction as was Genghis Khan (who still is a Mongol), Stalin (Georgian who adopted a more Russian cultural identity), Mao (he's probably the most well known Chinese person in the world), etc. Why is wikipedia supposed to be a feel good for all people so that they can have their prettiest and most shining examples (as they see it) shown as representatives while the controversial figures are swept under the rug? There should be a combination of both more universally 'liked' and admired figures and those who are infamous in history surely. At some point, we need to understand that just because Hitler was German this does not mean that he represents what Germans believe, especially today. I'd like to think that wikipedia could do better than cater to peoples' desire to gloss over the past frankly. Tombseye 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the objections, OK, now for the reply:

Bismarck is a far more appropriate representation for the German peoples not just because he didn't lead one of the most repressive regimes in the history of the world into the most destructive war in the history of the world, but because he as a Prussian, united Germany and most of the German people in the world and raised the status of Germany to that of a great power. Hitler on the other hand, an Austrian, not only saw the demise of German power but destroyed and divided much of what had come before. Fine, Hitler may be more well known than Bismarck to Americans, surely that shouldn't matter. If the benchmark for representing the German people is how well known they are to Americans then please explain to me why Goethe and Kepler and I'm afraid to add, Mozart are on there? Jombo 21:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the thing, Bismarck's a pivotal figure, BUT Hitler is well known not only to Americans, but to people WORLD-WIDE. Italians, Canadians, Chinese, Brazilians, all know Hitler before they know Bismarck. Secondly, Austrian is not an ethnic group as Germans are. Austrians are still Germans yes? Also, Hitler actually almost conquered the entire planet so that kind of trumps Bismarck's unification of Germany. Also Kepler and Goethe are appropriate because they represent other aspects of German society such as sciences etc. Although I'd keep one and add a woman like Steffi Graff or something so that there is a woman in there too and remove Goethe or something. Mozart is actually very well known in the US and abroad so I don't think that's an issue. Regardless, whether you keep Bismarck or not, most people are still going to think of Hitler at some point as a German. I'd bet that if you did a poll worldwide of famous Germans he'd make it on the list every time. Tombseye 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. However, you can be 100% certain that any German reading the article will raise an eyebrow - or two. Hitler and all of the Nazi WWII propaganda are considered taboo in modern-day Germany. In fact, use of any symbols related to it has been outlawed. You can't buy or see any of these things anywhere - except for history books, which are all extremely critical of the period. Most people don't want have to do anything with it.


 * This is not to say that he is not a notable historical figure. What the editor above was trying to say though is that the division between Germans and Austrians has become much more pronounced in the last 60 years. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Austrian that would think of himself as of a German, same applies to Germans, they'd not think much of describing themselves as Austrian - or Swiss for that matter.


 * To use a counter example: U.S. constitution excludes naturalized citizens from candidacy in presidential elections. For good reason, as Hitler's example shows; he was a naturalized German citizen. And at the time, both Austria and Germany were relatively young republics. Jbetak 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this seems to have become quite the slippery slope here. Well I know about the German taboo regarding the Nazis as I lived there myself for a time. I just thought that a wide range of prominent Germans would inevitably have to include the most famous/infamous. Since Hitler's too controversial for some I'm not going to argue the point and guard the page to keep his picture up or anything. Usually though, the Swiss and Austrians who are German acknowledge it and view themselves as a sub-group rather than a distinct group like Italians or Frenchmen, but you're correct on that score. Well, at this point I can go either way, but I do believe that Goethe should be replaced with a female figure, either Steffi Graff or Angela Merkel just to have a wider range of German people represented and include someone from the modern era etc. Tombseye 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reason for re-adding the original picture: Hitler was a very famous German. End of story. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, he wasn't German, he was Austrian. Second of all, read what everyone else has been discussing before taking it upon yourself to revert everything. Jombo 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hitler was one under many famous German. But I believe only the more positive figures should be included in it. One could argue alot who should belong in it and who shouldn't. I certainly would include Bismarck. Mozart as one Austrian. I had included Luther instead of one of the other two, but doesn't matter that much. I also believe it should also be persons from different centuries. The greateast person, with the most accomplishments should belong in it. Not the most famous - or rather infamous one. Sure Hitler is way the most infamous one abroad. But that is more the result of lack of historical knowledge and the fascination of evilness.

--Lucius1976 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article even says:


 * Before World War II, most Austrians considered themselves German and denied the existence of a distinct Austrian ethnic identity. It was only after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II that this began to change. After the world war, the Austrians increasingly saw themselves as a nation distinct from the other German-speaking areas of Europe, and today, polls indicate that no more than ten percent of the German-speaking Austrians see themselves as part of a larger German nation linked by blood or language.


 * --Khoikhoi 03:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And your point is exactly? Today we write year 2005 -- oops 2006 ;-) Jbetak 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also vote against including Hitler's portrait to represent an entire people. See also my prior posting at the top of this page. :] //Big Adamsky 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears Khoikhoi has been going around unilaterally replacing images with those of tyrants and dictators. See Georgian people as well. Jombo 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't create that image. It looks like you created your account just to change the image on this page. I'm not sure why you really want to do it. Hitler is more famous than Bismark. --Khoikhoi 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Before we branch into personal attacks - please realize that this is not a pissing contest. It's not as simple as finding the four most famous representatives of each ethnicity or nation are. Besides that task in itself could spiral out of control. Look, I empathize with Tombseye's statement at the top of this section, since peoples' desire to gloss over the past is partially responsible for German sensitivity to this issue. I was really shocked to find out that German authorities removed most of WWII relics from Berchtesgaden as soon as they could. They should have been declared historical long time ago. Nevertheless, the issue is more nuanced than this and that's why it's good that we are having this discussion.


 * And while we are dishing out snide comments: since Stalin was a Soviet politician and the Soviet Union was a successor state to imperial Russia, shouldn't he be displayed here, just to be consistent? ;-) Jbetak 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Stalin was an ethnic Georgian. --Khoikhoi 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and Hitler was an ethnic Austrian. I personally think that this is just a technicality and not a determining criteria -- but you are really asking for it. Jbetak 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just say, "before we branch into personal attacks..."? I don't think Hitler considered himself an "ethnic Austrian" (correct me if I'm wrong). --Khoikhoi 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way -- I still think that the choice of Hitler as a representative of modern (and historical) German nation is a poor choice. There are several reasons for that, the question of ethnicity is just one of them -- as I have indicated above. If the article displayed a larger selection of people, then including his image could be appropriate. Especially since he is also on the List of Germans. Although you should note that he is not acknowledged as an ethnic German there either.


 * You don't seem to care and I don't have time to put up a vote. "End of story. " as you pointedly said above. It's been a pleasure. Jbetak 07:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I did not sign up to Wikipedia just to change the picture. If I wanted to do that I'd do it anonymously and I resent the accusation. Second of all, does anyone else realise that we have two Austrians on here and only two Germans? I really do think that we should replace Hitler with Bismarck since Bismarck is traditionally seen as the uniter of the Germans and a German state. Jombo 08:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn you all, I'm not going to read all through this discussion, so here are my two cents. Hitler may have considered himself a German, well, because he believed in the Großdeutsche Lösung (big German solution, Austria + Germany). Historically, however, Germany became Kleindeutschland (Little Germany). I've had struggles over Bismarck's importance in comparison to Hitler in forums before and I concluded that Bismarck had a bigger influence on the German state of today but he is less well-known, for shame. Why is it important that he is well-known? Today Hitler is an insult. He's not famous, he's surely the most infamous person ever. If you compare someone to Hitler, the action is biased against the one compared to Hitler. I didn't recognize it was Goethe on the picture and not the other persons, neither, so a person ignorant of Germans looks at Hitler and he/she has a negative impression of Germans from the start. If he/she looks at the others, he/she doesn't even recognize them, and has neither a positve nor negative notion. Pictures are propaganda, always, and the norm in Wikipedia is giving a positive impression. For example, the article on India, a featured one, neglects to mention the poverty. So be consistent there, not only in articles about countries, but persons as well. And Stalin is not in the series of pictues, neither. And Copernicus is not even let into the list of Germans, neither, nor Mozart, nor Einstein.Engel der Vorstädte 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what was wrong with the image of Adolf Hitler. He may have been one of the world's greatest "villains" but we're not erasing the fact that he was a hugely famous figure (Austrians are included in Germans here). So, if anyone wants to return him they get my support but otherwise I'm ambivalent --- Bismark is good enough. Antidote 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck is a far more appropriate representation for the German peoples I don't think that is appropriate.Bismarck wanted to exterminate Poles: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can." Otto von Bismarck. So you are replacing one villain with another. --Molobo 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did he actually wipe about the Poles or what's your problem? --AchtungAchtung 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bismarcks ,as well as the statements of Luther made about the jews in late life, was certainly unacceptable. But they were mere words, no action followed. Bismarcks Germany never expanded it's eastward border. After the aquisition of Elsass-Lothringen, which he was hasitant to annex, he did everything he could to prevent another war about territory in europe. Bismarck might have a somewhat controversial figure, but no villain. --Lucius1976 09:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was to withdraw the proposed move --Lox (t,c) 17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Germans → German people : To follow title pattern used by other articles on peoples.
 * The assertion in the request is misleading, a quick look at Category:Ethnic groups in Europe shows that most articles are not named this way, and the change will cause confusion between articles on a people and articles about several peoples. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:36 Z 

Voting

 * Please add * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using " ~ "


 * Support following standard --Lox (t,c) 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that there is no need to distinguish between German people and the language German, as is the case between Spanish (the language) and Spanish people. However, good plan going to survey! --Lox (t,c) 14:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The desire to define each Germanic national group (e.g. Danish people, Dutch people etc.) as their separate ethnicity is misguided, they are already covered under Germanic people. This article is linked to Deutsche, which does covers the term as defined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, not ethnic Germans. There are other German articles, namely Deutscher and Deutschstämmige; which have not been translated into English yet.  Jbetak 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : Suggest Germanic people links to Danish people, Dutch people, etc – and, yes, to German people. Surely it's possible to incorporate English versions of Deutscher and Deutschstämmige into such a scheme...? I'd offer to do this myself, except my knowledge of German is... primitive. (Might you or someone else reading this be able/willing to do so in the near future?) Thanks for your thoughts!  David Kernow 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Germans are Germans not German people. One only needs people when like English it could also mean the language or some other well known thing. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : "Germans are Germans not German people." So far as I'm aware, the terms "Germans" and "German people" identify the same group. In general, however, more peoples' names will fit an "XXX people" template and hence produce more consistency within Wikipedia. This is the reason behind my reason for suggesting the change given at the start of this thread. Thanks for your interest. David Kernow 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion mere consistency is not good enough for a reason to rename the article. You'd loose consistency with other articles like Russians, Jews or Gaels at the same time. --Lysytalk 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now asked for more opinions via Current surveys. David Kernow 13:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support : It is according to standard of English - English people, Dutch - Dutch people, Italian - Italian people. The articles of * people always tell it in a more historic perspective, where all the people of one civilisation or ethnic heritage emmigrated and currently live, what languages they speak etc. It doesn't describe who nowadays is a German or English. A todays German is someone who holds a German passport or defines itself as a German. Same with other examples. I do agree it might be a bit of a problem in the English language because German doesn't only mean "Deutscher" but also someone Germanic. The Austrian for instance belong in the figures because for most of the history they were culturally and politically within the German (meaning Deutschen) culture. But, they are not German anymore because the now define themselves as Austrian, at least most ot them. --Lucius1976 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Philip Baird Shearer. --Lysytalk 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose—why is there a crusade to change the way practically all articles on peoples have been named? —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:33 Z 


 * Further to Jbetak and Michael Z.s comments above, I withdraw' my suggestion and apologise for being too bold elsewhere too. I am glad to report that others have already reverted my renaming of the Belarusians, Bulgarians and Romanians articles. David Kernow 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Well, if it remains like that it is a constant source of confusion. Some articles about ethnic groups - like the English, is splt between English, as language and nationality and English people - about the ethnos. Same in Italian and Spanish. But in some like Russians, Germans and French it is not named like this. That is the reason for the confusion in this articles. Nobody really now what is really meant there. Ethnos or nationality. I do agree that can be explained within the article but I believe there should be some kind of standard. Like: Germans (people) Germans (nationality) English (people) English (nationality) French (people) French (nationality) --Lucius1976 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose to a change but with constraints: In English language it appears those people being spezified as "* people" lack some ethnic components whereas those people not being spezified as "* people" lack some civil components. (Also: with all the linguistic argumentation I do understand "Italian people" not being "Italians".) Bottomline for the article "Germans", it should differ between "ethnicity" and "citizenship". February 26, 2006

57 Million Germans in America?
the oktoberfest is with no circumstances a clear sign for "germanness". its rathr a bavarian speciality and there are many germans who never visited it and a great amount of germans are anti-alcoholics.

Are you serious to declare 57 million Americans and 12 Million Brazilians ethnic Germans, because they have in part German ancestors? It is even highly controversial to call Austrians German (and I disagree), but the avarage American's only link to a German heritage is, apart from an often anglicised last name, an annual visit to the local oktoberfest. There should be at least some clear-cut connections to Germanness other than mere ancestry to include someone in a list about German people. I'm sure Eisenhower, Hoover and Rumsfeld would agree. Descendants of Germanised Poles or Huguenots wouldn't consider themselves ethnic Poles or French either, let alone know much about their ancestors' heritage. And the same is true for Americans. And what about Alsatians? Teodorico 12:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, true to some extent. But that flaw is also in the articles about English people, Italians, Spaniards. Of coulse no one is really of pure ancestry but the figures of the americans are due to the data from american census. --Lucius1976 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but either it's true or it isn't. I think a (partial) descent of German immigrants is not sufficient to define someone German, because this could falsely suggest that German Americans genuinely share profound cultural bonds with their ancestors' country of origin (including the command of German) - which is not the case whatsoever. The same is true for Italian Americans, Polish Americans etc. Teodorico 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well. Actually there is no such thing as a pure descent. Many Germans are of slavic descent. Actually 20 percent of all names in Germany are of slavic origin. But apart from that they do not have anything in common with slavic culture, language, religion. I do agree that all those numbers are a littlie hard to guess. But, the best shot is to ask the individuals of which descent they are, or they think they are. --Lucius1976 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's no such thing as a pure descent. The problem is that the (single or multi) German ancestry of *** Americans does not correspond to a significant subculture based on a German ethnicity which is clearly distinguishable from the rest. Ancestry is no synonym for ethnicity. But then, you are absolutely right, all those numbers are hard to guess and my complaint is a bit needless. Teodorico 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that your observation is spot on. There are two issues with the inclusion of foreign census numbers: their definition and their accuracy. I believe Germany does not track people by ancestry in their census, only by citizenship. This means that the number for Germans in Germany is based on citizenship. However the number from the US census is based on selfdeclared ancestry, not citizenship. I'm not sure about the sources for other countries, but I suspect that the numbers are like apples and oranges, since they differ in their definition of a German.


 * For the US Census, I can categorically say that about 30% of any number quoted from there are people with multiple ancestries. Also note that only about 1.3 million Americans speak German, of which about 1 million speak it well (both 2000 numbers, page 4, Table 1).


 * Also, the current number quotes the 1990 US Census, not the most recent 2000 US Census. This is mainly because of User:Antidote, who insisted on this number since he claimed that the US population with German and partially German ancestry could not have changed from 57 million in 1990 to 43 million in 2000.


 * This illustrates the problem of accuracy and intepretation. I could go on, if you wish, I just did't want to bitch about it since most people didn't seem to care. Jbetak 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

68 Million ethnic Germans in Germany
Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist flächenmäßig etwas größer als das Nachbarland Polen, hat aber mit rund 82,5 Mio. Menschen mehr als doppelt so viele Bewohner. Davon sind ethnisch gesehen rund 68 Mio. deutscher Abstammung und rund 15 Mio. ausländischer Abstammung. Etwa 75 Millionen Menschen besitzen die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit, einige zusätzlich die Staatsangehörigkeit ihres Herkunftlandes. Rund 7,5 Millionen Menschen sind Ausländer.

source: []

I realize the census data doesn't consider ethnicity, only citizenship, so the data leaves something to be desired. We should explain this distinction further down, though, since many people who are very much German have names like Gerschefski, etc. Adam Mathias 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that the German version of this very article states that while there are 100 million German native speakers worldwide, only about 80 million consider themselves to be German.


 * If you asked me, I'd say that the problem are these god-damn infoboxes on English Wikipedia. They are trying to walk the fine line between our modern understanding of a nation and an ethnicity. It's a recipe for failure.


 * We'd have to deny their German identity to several million people, because they do not have German ancestry and are therefore not ethnic Germans. At the same time, they are Germans according to the constitution of Federal Republic of Germany. In the very same infobox, we then proceed to declare 60 million Americans as Germans, although hardly any of them speak German, most of them are of mixed ancestry and many have never set foot to Germany.


 * I'd really like to know how these numbers are in any way helpful. I think they are only good for confusion, neverending controversy and edit wars. Jbetak 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much agree, but I'm just not sure what the solution is. Somehow we need to present all this information.  After all, the introduction of the article says that it's more a cultural definition, and does not even mention race (race is kind of a joke anyway for any people).  Adam Mathias 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they could be written with the caveat that there are people who have German ancestry (or partial ancestry) as it would be a shame not to mention them in some capacity. German immigrants are still the largest single group in the US even if they don't speak the language and many of them have intermarried with others. For example, people of English ancestry in the US are also quite often only part English and they're mentioned on the English people page. Tombseye 18:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jbetak is absolutely right, death to these ethno-infoboxes (although I admit the "Germans" are a particularly invovlved case). As long as we have one here, however, I tried to fix it as much as possible. As the article is of course aware, not all German speakers are considered "German", and some non-German-speakers are considered "ethnic Germans". Whatever we list in the infobox, it will be an inaccurate mish-mash. There is just no way, however, that we can list 4.7 million Swiss and 7.3 million Austrians as "Germans": These are German speakers most certainly not considered "Germans" by anyone. dab (&#5839;) 14:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think anyone just because the speak german weather there turkish is germany is considerd a german. No one is an ethnic group because the speak the language of a ehtnic group. I think to be considerd in the german ethnic group you have to have a family history from germany no matter where you are today. A turkish person would belong to the turkish ethnic group just like german that have family from german for thousands of years is in the german ethnic group, and the german ethnic group is white so if your not white your not in the german ethnic group.

Plagiarism
From the article:

"The idea that Germany is a divided nation is not new and not peculiar. Foreign powers had long interceeded in German affairs, pitting one German principality against the other. Since the Peace of Westphalia, Germany has been "one nation split in many countries". The Austrian–Prussian split, confirmed when Austria remained outside of the 1871 created Imperial Germany, was only the most prominent example. The initial unification of Germany came as a great shock to these foreign powers, who have been trying to undo Germany as a national entity ever since. Most recently, the division between East Germany and West Germany kept the idea alive. "

From a different source:

"The Balkanization of Europe, up to a certain degree, was desirable and indeed necessary in the light of the traditional policy of Great Britain, just as France desired the Balkanization of Germany.What France has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to prevent Germany from becoming a homogeneous Power... Therefore France wants to maintain a system of small German States whose forces would balance one another and over which there should be no central government. Then, by acquiring possession of the left bank of the Rhine, she would have fulfilled the pre−requisite conditions for the establishment and security of her hegemony in Europe."

Would anyone agree that the upper paragraph is a re-written version of the lower, or that they share practically the same idea? Miskin 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OMFG!!! My sides are splitting. HAHA. 10/10 man, 10/10! - FrancisTyers 21:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very likely, the whole article shares the same idea as the articles about Germans in other encyclopedias. That's "being about the same subject", not "plagiarism". Zocky | picture popups 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call the different source an encyclopedia. :-) bogdan 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but I wasn't talking specifically about the above passage. Zocky | picture popups 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The two texts are as different as any two texts dealing with a broadly similar topic could possibly be. Miskin's concern is incomprehensible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See Reductio ad Hitlerum: not everything Hitler thought or did was wrong. Also, I think that these conclusions were drawn before Hitler, who probably read them in some work of history. bogdan 11:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit the second text didn't immediately ring the bell with me. Anyway, the article excerpt is of course strongly tendentious and most probably wrong ("have been trying to undo Germany as a national entity ever since" can hardly be true after 1990; Germany was politically split up long before the Peace of Westphalia; and neither the medieval splitting nor the Prussia-Austria split of the 19th century seems to have been the work of foreign powers, as far as I'm aware. Not that I'm an expert though.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the point, this edit is a mere example. The point is that this entire article is based on a extreme right POV. The whole emphasis on European powers supposedly striving to keep Germans scattered and weak is ridiculous. It's not very far from Hitler's conspiracy theories regarding "the Jew" who hates the "White race" and wants to eliminate it from the face of the earth. England and France, like any other world-power, would try to weaken as many nations as possible, and there's no anti-German motive like this and other articles imply (see Organised persecution of ethnic Germans). The Algerians were officially known to colonial France as the "aboriginals", and black Africans were viewed by the British as exotic animals that were held in cages. The Slavs were called by the nazis "sub-humans" and the examples are generally countless. However, I have yet to meet an ethnic article which focuses so much on an imaginary, xenophobic race war. I find it ludicrous to imply that especially Germans have been victims of racial discriminations, and that therefore their actions of trying to enslave and massacre the entire world could be justified (almost implied by the article). Miskin 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

English people
On the English people page it has been agreed that although peoples from what is now parts of north western Germany did migrate to England 1600 years ago, the linkage between modern Germans (except perhaps the Low Germans) and the English is very weak. The marked difference in contemporary culture, language and genetics/blood show that the English are naturally at one with the rest of the British peoples and to a lesser degree Netherlanders/Frisians, Danes and Norwegians but with regards to the German people as a whole, very distinct. I'm removing English people from the related peoples section. I do think though that if someone is very strongly committed to having it there, that it should also include Scottish people as the Teutonic tribes also moved into Scotland. What must be remembered is that German people of the 21st century does not equal 'Germanic' tribes of the dark ages.

The current listing also implies that the English are a Germanic people. This is true in that they speak a Germanic language, but in terms of an ethnic group, the use of such a classification is misleading. Enzedbrit 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This article being about an ethnic group (rather than a nationality)
According to the disambiguation, this article is about an ethnic group (Germans in the sense of Ethnic Germans) instead of a nationality. That's terrible, for at least three reasons. Checking Dutch and French and Russian I do understand that there are many other WP articles that follow the example of this very article. Is there some sort of centralised discussion? For—at least at a quick glance—this simply violates policy. (Which is fine if there is some sort of consensus that has been established about using these words consistently in a surprising fashion.) At the very least, I suspect there is a huge amount of cleanup necessary that pipes all links to German to Germany instead of to German people. Arbor 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a perfectly nice Ethnic German article where such things should belong
 * 2) That's certainly not the most common usage of the word German. So this idea seems to violate WP policy
 * 3) The article itself, though it is unclear, also seems to want to talk about citizen of Germany (but the introductory paragraph is such a mess that I am not sure)
 * 4) The article is very difficult to wikilink. I want to write XYZ is a German politician... in some other article. I don't want to imply (or find out) if XYZ is ethnically Turkish or Polish or French or whatever. I just want to write that he is a German citizen. Having to pipe to Demographics of Germany is extremely unelegant and sends the reader to a surprising page instead of what she expected.


 * this article is about German citizens plus ethnic Germans with no German citizenship. Ethnic Germans is just about 'Volksdeutsche', while Demographics of Germany is about all residents of Germany, including resident aliens. I would be grateful if anonymous editors would stop re-inserting "Swiss and Austrians are ethnic Germans". They are not, they are speakers of German dialects, that's all. Btw., this is Germans, not German. You want to say XYZ is a German politician, not XYZ is a German politician, let alone ''XYZ is a German politician :p dab (&#5839;) 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some cleanup
The article claimed: ''Among (West) European peoples, Germans may hold the strongest roots and identity to their ancestors - worldwide. (Also refer to Ethnic Germans).'' This sounds weird, and no evidence was given anyway. I will delete it. -- ZZ 11:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

population totals
Ulritz, I have been using this talkpage, and you haven't. You seem to be pushing the minimal estimate of "pure Deutschstämmige of some 75 million. That is a possible way of counting, and I agree with citing it as low estimate (although, strangely, in former edits you seemed to be keen on including anyone speaking German dialects, including Swiss and Austrians, which is a strange Grossdeutschland attitude that is not alleviated by the colours you display on your userpage. What gives? Nobody refers to Austrians as "Germans", neither Austrians, nor Germans, nor anybody else). Still, if we give ranges like 5-45 million in the USA column, it is only consequent to sum these numbers for the overall total, yielding a range of 75-130 million, depending on how you count. We agree on the facts of the distribution, it's just that your preferred way of counting is not the only one, just the most restrictive one. Now if you continue pushing your point of view as if it was the only one without discussing, I will just revert you from now on, and also place this article on peer review or rfc. dab (&#5839;) 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * anon, look at Resolving disputes. If you just keep reverting, you'll just be rolled back. If you have a point to make, do it here. See also WP:EQ. You are just wasting everyone's time like this. If anon revert-warring continues, I'll just semiprotect to enforce proper talk behaviour. dab (&#5839;) 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary Ancestry Debate
You can take a look at all the ethnic group pages, including Spaniards, Russians, Poles, French people (ethnic group), and you'll notice that they all includes numbers of non-primary descent abroad. To comply with the standards, this page should be no different.

In addition to that, it is absolutely farcical to purport that Austrians and Swiss-Germans are not ethnic Germans. We're not playing this POV game. Any futher reports denying Austrians and Swiss their ethnicity will be reverted. 72.144.158.181 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * will they now? What about the discussion above, dear anon, where we give evidence for why they are not considered German. There is simply nobody counting them as Germans: see above. Cite a source at least before you continue this nonsense. Non-singular descent is included in the count. "Non-primary" descent is impossible to establish, there would probably be billions of most ethnicities, depending on how you count, rendering the headcount useless. dab (&#5839;) 09:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to this article ? Wheres the numbers of Austrians and Swiss Germans ? What abotuthe numbers of Germans in Canada, Brazil and elsewhere with partial german origins ? where did "between 75 and 130 million" come from? 68 million in Germany, 45 million in the US, 7 million in Austria, 4.7 million in Switzerland, 13 million in Brazil, 3 million in Canada, another 10 million or so elsewhere, the number is closer to 150 million. 69.157.126.88 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 68 million in Germany are undisputed; 45 million in the US are undisputed as upper limit. Apparently, we should correct the upper limit for Brazilian Germans to 12 million (rather than 6). "4.7 million in Switzerland" is ostensibly wrong, as is "7 million in Austria". there are about 100,000 Germans in Switzerland. If we really count absolutely everybody with a German great-great-grandfather, the high count may be 150 million, so we can arguably cite a range of 75-150 million, yes. I'm sorry, but there is just no way to count the Swiss and Austrians as Germans, as discussed above. Show us a (post-1945) source that does before we continue this debate. dab (&#5839;) 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sprotecting the article at this point. Anon, WP:CITE is policy. If you cite a recent, reputable source counting Austrians and Swiss as "Germans" I'll be willing to include them in the "high estimate". So far you have only made clear that this is your opinion, without backing it up. dab (&#5839;) 08:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch, in particular, had never even spoken a form of the German language. This sentence is nonsense. Gerhard51 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * what sentence? Low German is arguably closer to Dutch than to High German, so that the term "German" is linguistically meaningless. It's a matter of definition. The Dutch don't speak German, by definition. Linguistically, there is a Continental West Germanic dialect continuum, and linguistically there would be no reason to distinguish between Dutch and Germans. And indeed, as this article tells you, the distinction is political, arising in the 17th century (why do we have to debate this when it's made perfectly clear in the article already?) dab (&#5839;) 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, the Dutch never spoke German by definition, and neither in a linguistic sense. The West Germanic language dialect continuum, is nearly dead. lets not make any mistakes about that.  Rex  16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I begin to understand your (mis-)behaviour on History of German. You want to argue that Low German may be ignored as dead, and thus there is a linguistic difference between "Germans" and "Dutch". This may be true for the late 20th century, but not historically, and my point concerns the time preceding the 17th century. Look, it is a simple fact that the English language has distinguished "Germans" and "Dutch" since the 17th century, but not before. No amount of fidgeting on your part, short of solid evidence that I am factually mistaken, is going to change that. dab (&#5839;) 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Misbehaviour User:Dbachmann? I beg you're pardon as I'm simply questioning the information in that article. Nothing more, and nothing less. The English language, has distinguised between Dutch and German since the early 16th, not the 17th century (note that Dutch could mean both, wereas "almain" only refered to Germans), but does this matter linguistically I ask you? What you are effectively saying is that German and Dutch were the same language untill the 17th century, which is nonsense.May I remind you that the first written record of Dutch precedes that of German. Point remains, the Dutch never spoke German. Dutch belongs to a group (Low Franconian) that has been separate (note though that separate here, does not relate to mutual inteligbility) since the high german consonant shift, and never had a common ancestor with low Saxon (after the High german consonant shift, naturally).  Rex  20:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * what absolute nonsense. You keep implying that there is a single "German language". Before the introduction of Standard German, German was a dialect continuum. "The first written record of Dutch precedes that of German". Really? so hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan is  Dutch, and  aigil andi aïlrun iltahu gasokun is German? And the former was written what, 40 years before the latter? Of course the bleeding Low Franconians were "separate". Just like  the Bavarians, the Suebi/Alamanni, the Saxons, the Angles, etc., etc.: The "Dutch" were not separate from "the Germans", rather, all continental West Germanic tribes were separate from each other. Implying a "Dutch" vs. "German" identity for the 6th century as you keep doing  is a joke, and I will not discuss such nonsense any further with you. Grow up and get over your Dutchness. dab (&#5839;) 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you watch your tongue there please, you can have whatever opinion of me but I warn you that I will not let myself be insulted, not by you and not by anyone else! But let I make myself very clear: The Dutch were never part of the Germans, because (and this is very very simple) like you said ... for a time there was no distinction made. (Have you noticed that "Germans" or "Dutch" start to appear only after the fall of the carolingian empire?) If there is no distincion then how the hell can you claim that the Dutch were part of the Germans if neither existed at the time?!  Rex  14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

who said the Dutch were "part of the Germans"? I certainly didn't. You are the one claiming "Dutch is attested earlier than German", implying the distinction existed in the 6th century. If you have finally learned that 'neither existed at the time' I am glad, but next time you could just educate yourself without all the ranting.

The term Dutch is older than the signifié termed Dutch today. (I am now not talking to Rex Germanus but collecting information on the term). Shakespeare is just after the semantic transition. He has:
 *  If there be here German, or Dane, Low Dutch,  Italian, or French, let him speak to me (All's Well that Ends Well): implying that around 1600, a distinction was made, but Dutch was still ambiguous, with Low Dutch used for disambiguation
 * With hasty Germans and blunt Hollanders, Your Dane, your German, and your swag-bellied Hollander: similarly, "Hollanders" are considered distinct from "Germans" in 1600.
 * Lustig, as the Dutchman says. I'll like a maid the better: use of 'Dutch' in the old generic sense
 * There is no appearance of fancy in him, unless it be a fancy that he hath to strange disguises; as to be a Dutchman to-day, a Frenchman to-morrow; or in the shape of two countries at once, as a German from the waist downward, all slops, and a Spaniard from the hip upward, no doublet. - unclear

we need to check 16th century authors to pin down the semantic transition more precisely. dab (&#5839;) 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, Dutch is attested earlier than German, linguists consider the malmbergse glossen to be Dutch, but we cannot compare the situation then with the situation now, as the west germanic dialect continuum still had its all its glory, and there were no standard forms.

Still I ask you why are we even having this debate? The Dutch were never part of the Germans as neither existed at the time, doesn't that make this entire discussion pointless?  Rex  21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, it is a bit funny that we are having a row here on talk while unanimously reverting the anon pov-warriors on the article :) For dates later than AD 1500, we have no quarrel. Before 1500, the Dutch:German debate needs to take into account the distinction of signifié vs. signifiant and semantic shift. We can agree that neither "Germans" nor "Dutch" in the modern sense existed prior to AD 1500. The terms still existed, and the debate is about the meaning of the terms back then: both German and Dutch could refer to either Low Franconians ("Low Dutch") or Swabians or Bavarians (among others). dab (&#5839;) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean in the modern sense ? The Dutch as an ethnic group did exist before 1500 and they are still descended from those peoples. Their modern language may be different from the form of Dutch or Low Franconian used then, but they were still Dutch. Also, I agree you can't put the numbers of Austrians and Swiss Germans up without a source, but Austrians and Swiss Germans are obviously still considered ethnic Germans and this isnt just my POV, this is common knowledge. So with that in mind, why can't we just agree to an estimate ? Also, I really do think there is more than 10 million "primary" ancestry ethnic Germans in the world and it needs to be mentioned that this figure you have used is of course, unreferenced. 69.157.126.241 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we solved this problem then :)   Rex   17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CITE
To anybody re-inserting the 4.2 million Swiss, 7.3 million Austrians to the infobox: I have repeatedly asked for a reference for this. WP:CITE is policy. Unless and until you cite such a source, you are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and will be reverted, I really don't know why you even bother. Go to some library instead and see if you can find something to back up your claims. dab (&#5839;) 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Estimates
Let me ask you this, how is it that you can estimate the number of ethnic Germans in Germany with no official references, yet such estimates on ethnic Germans in Austria in Switzerland can not be made ? please, do tell me. 69.157.126.241 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's very simple ... take the demographics of Germany, you take the total population of Germany, then you look at the people of foreign herritage (Turks, Poles, Dutch, Czechs, etc.) you remove them from the total population and what remains are the ethnic germans.
 * Rex 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Is that not your own POV ??? C'mon here, you can't unilaterally chooose that Austrian and Swiss-German estimates not be included but say that your own estimates on Germany be included. I'm putting the Austrian and Swiss-German estimates back up. 69.157.126.241 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What are your reasons to include them? Rex 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Native German speakers, of German culture and common ancestry with other ethnic Germans. You could say they are subgroups of ethnic Germans, similar to Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons, etc. I can't tell you about Austrians, but I know from my own family that many Swiss Germans consider themselves German. 69.157.126.241 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of German culture? Please explain why there is a Swiss Culture and an Austrian Culture article on wikipedia. Seriously, every time when I read a post like this making claims on which peoples are also Germans I think of things like the Anschluss or Hitler talking about Sudeten Germans, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Peoples and cultures constantly emerge ... Indo Europeans split into various groups, like the Germanic peoples, who split in various groups as well including Germans ... why is it so hard to understand that? Just because someone speaks the same language which bears the name of a bigger countries doesn't mean they are neccesarily part of that people or want to be.
 * Rex 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiss culture is a national and very heterogenous culture comprising mainly German, Italian and French elements. The Swiss are by no means one unififed people or ethnic group. Just because Swiss German and Austrian sub-cultures exists, doesnt mean they are not related or part of the wider German culture, just as Bavarian, Swabian, Saxons all have their own local or regional cultures. Here's the thing about Austrians and Swiss Germans, not only do they have the same mother tongue as Germans (unlike other Germanic peoples), but their culture, history and ancestry are all greatly intertwined and part of that of other Germans. In terms of ethnicity, Austrians, Germans, Swiss Germans have a great deal in common (more than with any other people), including shared ancestry. The case between Austrians, Swiss Germans and Germans is very similar to that between Flemish and Dutch (in that they are seen by many as part of one larger group). I dont know about Austrians, but Swiss Germans are distinguished in Switzerland by the fact they're called Swiss Germans rather than some other name. 69.157.126.241 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Flemings and Dutch share the same language as well, but I wouldn't dare say to a flemming that he or she is Dutch. Also, from what I've heard some say the differences between Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are smaller than those between certain German dialects.
 * Culture, does not rely on ethic background, nor does language.

Rex 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

German Populations
The german population figures in certain regions has far too wide of a margin to provide significant statistical information. For example, the united states, according to the side window, has a 40 million person margin of error. 40 million is a very significant piece of the US population. We can get a correct figure from the US census website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.143.73 (talk • contribs)
 * the margin is not a margin of error, it is a quick summary of the situation (of varying definitions of the term), explained in greater depth in the article body. If you want to know the background of these numbers, I am afraid you'll have to read the article, not just the infobox. dab (&#5839;) 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)