Talk:Germans/Archive 8

Rfc for due weight regarding the ethnic vs. nationality meaning of "Germans"
How should the ethnicity and nationality dimensions of the term Germans be weighted on Wikipedia? --Tserton (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Note: The bulk of the discussion on this topic occurred on WikiProject Ethnic groups, but I'm posting the Rfc on Talk:Germans as it directly concerns that article. --Tserton (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Create two separate pages for Germans and Ethnic Germans, perhaps with a disambiguation page linking to both
 * Rewrite the article as a broad concept article
 * Tweak the lead of Germans to mention the overlapping but distinct usages (e.g. as in this edit)
 * Leave the article as is

Survey

 * Leave as is I think "German" certainly is an ethnic group, Germans have existed much longer than Germany. It does also mention that it can also be used to describe anyone with a german citizenship. That is certainly important to mention. Perfectly fine as is in my book. Jort93 (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One article leave article broad in nature. Ethnic, national, dispora, historical.-- Moxy 🍁 02:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One article, but rewrite the lead – At this point, the  below has a dozen sources, of which more do not mention ethnicity (nine) than do (three).  Numbers 3, 4 and 7 do mention ethnicity; 1, 2, 3,  mention linguistic grouping, #6 mentions history & culture, #10 mentions citizenship. Several have no entry for Germans (5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) although most of those do have entries for other ethnic groups (like Finns, or Basques), which makes me think that those sources do have articles on ethinc groups, and consider "Germans" not to be one of those. I was surprised at this result, but it leads me to believe the lead should be rewritten, with a non-ethnic definition appearing first, per majority view as described at WP:DUEWEIGHT, and a secondary definition, perhaps in a second paragraph, which mentions ethnic definitions. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thomas.W.'s solution below is better; changing my vote to One article plus a subsection in another. Mathglot (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave as is, One article, the lead has been already rewritten which is already an improvement to the previous phase, and reflecting appropriately the triple ethnic, citizen and ancestry affiliations, the wisest and sane order. Just because there are some editors who try to reinterpret some terminologies because some inhabitants or subject may feel hurt by a desingation/interpretation is very unprofessional, btw. the discussions may be read as well in the above section, or the WikiPorject discussion the nominator linked.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
 * One article, but rewrite the lead. To the arguments given by Mathglot above, I'd like to add the dictionary definitions by Merriam-Webster and OED ("a native or inhabitant of Germany, or a person of German descent"). Why do you think that the current order is the "wisest and sane" order ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I explained everything in the talk page sections I referred.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC))


 * Leave as is/One article with the ethnic definition appearing first. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. It primarily covers encyclopedic topics rather than terms. This means that this article should be about a topic on Germans rather than the term Germans. Of the tertiary sources so far provided in this discussion, only five are actual encyclopedic entries on Germans which addresses them directly and in detail:
 * Source (1), (2), (3), cover the Germans as an ethnic group, source (4) covers Germanic peoples, while source (5) covers the Germans as a nationality. Source (1) and (2) are recent sources written by German university professors (Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser), while source (5) is a relatively old source written by non-scholars. The German ethnic group has therefore received more notable and reliable coverage than the German nationality, and the German ethnic group is therefore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article.
 * Source (1), (2), (3), cover the Germans as an ethnic group, source (4) covers Germanic peoples, while source (5) covers the Germans as a nationality. Source (1) and (2) are recent sources written by German university professors (Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser), while source (5) is a relatively old source written by non-scholars. The German ethnic group has therefore received more notable and reliable coverage than the German nationality, and the German ethnic group is therefore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article.
 * Source (1), (2), (3), cover the Germans as an ethnic group, source (4) covers Germanic peoples, while source (5) covers the Germans as a nationality. Source (1) and (2) are recent sources written by German university professors (Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser), while source (5) is a relatively old source written by non-scholars. The German ethnic group has therefore received more notable and reliable coverage than the German nationality, and the German ethnic group is therefore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article.
 * Source (1), (2), (3), cover the Germans as an ethnic group, source (4) covers Germanic peoples, while source (5) covers the Germans as a nationality. Source (1) and (2) are recent sources written by German university professors (Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser), while source (5) is a relatively old source written by non-scholars. The German ethnic group has therefore received more notable and reliable coverage than the German nationality, and the German ethnic group is therefore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article.
 * Source (1), (2), (3), cover the Germans as an ethnic group, source (4) covers Germanic peoples, while source (5) covers the Germans as a nationality. Source (1) and (2) are recent sources written by German university professors (Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser), while source (5) is a relatively old source written by non-scholars. The German ethnic group has therefore received more notable and reliable coverage than the German nationality, and the German ethnic group is therefore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article.
 * Source (1), (2), (3), cover the Germans as an ethnic group, source (4) covers Germanic peoples, while source (5) covers the Germans as a nationality. Source (1) and (2) are recent sources written by German university professors (Harald Haarmann and Johannes Moser), while source (5) is a relatively old source written by non-scholars. The German ethnic group has therefore received more notable and reliable coverage than the German nationality, and the German ethnic group is therefore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article.


 * German nationality is already covered at German nationality law, while inhabitants of Germany are covered at Demographics of Germany. I don't think it would be helpful to duplicate the scope of those articles here, and thereby virtually delete our article on the ethnic group Germans. The German ethnic group is one of the most numerous in the world (100-150 million according to Moser), and should certainly serve as the primary topic of a Wikipedia article.


 * The German ethnic group has existed for around 1000 years, while the German nationality did not come into existence until the unification of Germany in the 19th century. After the unification of Germany, there were still millions of Germans (Baltic Germans, Volga Germans etc.) who were not of German nationality. In terms of time and space, the ethnic concept is the broadest understanding of the term Germans, and therefore the WP:BROADCONCEPT for Germans.


 * For these reasons, i believe the ethnic definition should appear first, but that we can add a notice for the fact that the term "Germans" may mean other things, as has already been done. I believe this is consistent with our source material, our policies, and related articles such as Greeks, Armenians, Albanians, Russians etc. Krakkos (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if people are supposed to talk here, but the section is named "survey", so I'm assuming it is. I strongly support this position, it is pretty amusing how the Germans being an ethnicity is being questioned. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you're drawing a conclusion that "the ethnic definition should appear first", based on the five out of twelve sources which have an article with a definition that supports your claim, rather than on the seven which do not? Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Mathglot said: Your sources 1,2,3, and 5 are irrelevant for the question. All of them focus on ethnology and so they are naturally bound to prefer the ethnic definition. I bet that it would be quite easy to find dozens of legal or sociological works ignoring the ethnic definition. That's why I think only general encyclopedias or dictionaries can support one or the other of the two conflicting views here. Your source 4 is based on books from 1960 and 1971. Nobody is questioning that Germans are an ethnicity. The question is whether the ethnic definition is the main definition. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as i can see, out of the twelve tertiary sources listed in the section below, only five (listed by me in the comment above) address the topic of Germans directly and in detail. I believe we should draw our conclusions on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article from such sources. Three of those sources, including the two most reliable, address Germans as an ethnic topic. This suggests that the ethnic topic is the primary topic of this article. Krakkos (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I responded to you in the discussion below. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Germans. The primary topic for an article is the topic which has received the largest amount of notable coverage. Notable coverage is coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail. Five of the twelve tertiary sources listed in the section below address Germans directly and in detail. Those five sources (listed by me in the comment above) are therefore of great relevance to this question. Three of those sources (excluding source 4), including the two most reliable, address Germans as an ethnic topic. The ethnic topic thus appears to be the primary topic for Germans. The legal topic of Germans is already addressed at German nationality law. Duplicating that legal topic here would not be an improvement. Krakkos (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One article plus a subsection in another The IMHO only logical way to handle the dual meaning of "Germans" is to move this article to Germans (ethnic group), removing everything that deals with the nationality from that article, and leaving Germans as a redirect to the article about the ethnic group, with a pointer to the demographics section of Germany (or a new subsection about nationality and citizenship) at the top of Germans (ethnic group). Because German nationality has everything to do with the Federal Republic of Germany (where there are members of many ethnicities) but very little to do with the ethnic group (since there are ethnic German minorities in several countries in Europe, in addition to the ethnic Germans in the federal republic...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a viable, probably even the best (if not the only) solution. It's a pity this option wasn't offered in the list of choices in the Rfc statement, because I would have voted am voting for it. Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the only logical way to handle the dual meaning is to move this article to a page title that says "(ethnic group)". I think it equally logical to leave this here and to move all the legal stuff to a page whose title says something like "(nationality)" or "(residents)" or "(citizens)" or "(legal status)".  But leaving aside that quibble, I do think that having two articles would address the small amount of legitimate confusion, and perhaps renaming this article to "(ethnic group)" would solve the problem of a few people feeling excluded and hurt because the article titled "Germans" doesn't include people with non-German ancestors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a much worse solution. For legal stuff we already have German nationality law, and again, in this article German citizens are not excluded, read the lead so the remark in your last sentence does not hold (anyway we don't write articles based on who would be hurt (???).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC))
 * The main subject of this article is, and has been for at least a decade, (only) an ethnic group, regardless of where those people live or what their legal situation is. Some ethnically German people are German citizens; others are not.  Some German citizens are ethnically Germans people; others are not.  The main subject of this article is people whose families came from the the large number of central European places that approximately correspond to the current legal borders of the modern state of Germany.
 * The central problem is not the content of the articles. IMO the central problem is that a few editors are unhappy that the page title of "Germans" points to an ethnically exclusive group, and does not include any German citizens with non-German ancestry.  They might feel like this title implies that the grandchildren of Turkish immigrants to Germany, who have only ever lived in the state of Germany and who speak only the German language, are "not really Germans".
 * We can solve this problem without pretending that a person who can trace their ancestry back through five generations of Prussians is in the same ethnic group as a person who can trace their ancestry back through seven generations of Turks. For example, "Germans" could become a disambiguation page that essentially asks the readers to decide whether they want to read about ethnic groups or citizenship.  We could also do that by emphasizing the scope of the article more clearly – essentially hanging out a "You're probably in the wrong article!" sign at the top of the page.  But IMO we should not muddle ethnicity and legal status by making the article be about anyone and everyone who has any claim at all to calling themselves "German". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting and creative idea, and I too wish I'd thought of it when I created the Rfc. (To play devil's advocate, though: if there are articles on other peoples that aren't today identified primarily by their ethnicity, like Americans and Canadians, there's no reason not to have an article on Germans.) I was wondering what the way forward for this debate would be, given the fact that it doesn't look as though a clear consensus is emerging from this Rfc. Even though it wasn't a given option, maybe Mathglot's Thomas.W's suggestion would be one most editors can get behind? --Tserton (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thomas.W's idea has its problems. removing everything that deals with the nationality from that article would mean to remove e.g. sports (there are several players in the German national teams who are not ethnic Germans), literature (Heinrich Heine was a Jew, i.e. he is excluded by the condition "common ancestry and history", Navid Kermani is not an ethnic German), remove Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel (they were not elected by the ethnic group) and so on. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But maybe that's a good idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it would be inappropriate to remove notable ethnic Germans from an article about ethnic Germans, but it would be appropriate to remove people who are not usually considered (by reliable sources) to be ethnic Germans from this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this, the more I think it's a box of worms, for two reasons: (1) the truncated article "Germans (ethnicity)" would be either extremely short or extremely arbitrary and (2) there is at least one section that really belongs in a more general article on Germans.
 * I've had a look through Germans to see what would be left in a hypothetical "Germans (ethnicity)" article. In its current state, Germans is essentially a shortened version of Germany - a bit of a hodgepodge of German history, the German language, German culture, and Demographics of Germany, all of which have their own articles. But presupposing such a collection of information is worth reproducing in this form (which I assume is a decision Wikipedia made long ago), the only things that are really relevant to ethnicity are history, language, and Geographic distribution. The article would be about one-third of its current length. That isn't a problem in itself, but it represents a major bit of surgery. Even if we decided to keep the list of famous Germans (currently under "culture") but excise everyone who doesn't meet the ethnic cutoff (which would be deeply arbitrary - do Nowitzki, Beethoven, Liszt and Mendelssohn make the cut? Do we include Austrians, who have their own article?) the existence of such a list would also imply the encyclopedic relevance of a corresponding list of famous Germans independent of ethnicity. Which I assume would go into an article called simply "Germans" or "German people."
 * Then there's still the question of what to do with the only section of the article that isn't currently duplicated somewhere else: German identity, which is (today) independent of ethnicity and wouldn't belong in a "Germans (ethnicity)" article. --Tserton (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, you still did not read the lead? You pointed "that the page title of "Germans" points to an ethnically exclusive group, and does not include any German citizens with non-German ancestry." -> so you think the pages Estonians, Finns, Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians would be as well incorrect? Just because some supposed feelings, which are irrelevant and unprofessional, Germans may be unleashed and it's main meaning? Also we will not use the term "blonde", because it may hurt the people who are not blond or paint their hair? Or Black, Red, Brunette or Purple? So go and please read the lead -> Any person counting with German citizenship may also be regarded as a German, this including the immigrant population of Germany. Point. Any suggestions you are contemplating here trying to reinwent the wheel, just causes more deep problems, and all these fuss is made by some who think they are very correct with some individuals who may feel possibly hurt (!). This cannot be taken serious anymore, since hundreds of years it is obvious that from the nation it's citizens are not excluded, shall the subject have any origin, etc. Anyway none of you should reiterate long discussions that have been already discussed, this place is not meant for that primarily, given the fact the page and lead is not anymore in that form when the already referred preliminary discussions started.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC))


 * One article with a rewritten lead, mentioning nationality first. Many editors on both sides of this issue seem to be surprised by the people more familiar with either the ethnic or non-ethnic usage of the word Germans. (I personally concede that I only hear the ethnic sense used in occasional, very specific situations.) All of us have different backgrounds and probably come from different countries, so it's perhaps not surprising that there are sharp differences in how we understand a term with such a rich and complicated history. But Wikipedia is an evidence-based project, and based on the evidence: while both meanings of the word are in common use, the non-ethnic usage is today the more widespread. I'd like to underscore this is not about political correctness or trying to stop "a few people from feeling bad" (although I'm not sure if 25% of the German citizenry qualifies as "a few people.") Rather, it's a matter of accuracy.--Tserton (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From the above discussion and reading the various sources I too support one broad concept article. "Feeling bad" is not the issue, the issue is modern documented conceptualizations.  I do not express a particular order, but the unsourced second clause of the present first sentence of this article seems very unclear, if not imaginary. Who are these people "who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history" (emphasis added)? That unsourced cumulative commonalities list seems like it could only be a tiny, tiny group somewhere, if it exists at all: is there common German ancestry, given the history of western, central and northern Europe (a German Adam and Eve that have passed down a specific DNA perhaps?);  common culture(?), the cultures in various parts of Germany today differ, don't they, otherwise why would anyone talk about Bavarians, etc.? -- and on top of that, what about peoples outside of modern Germany that this article wants to discuss, they have no cultures of there own?; common history? isn't so much of the history fragmented in Europe alone, and then there is the rest of world and time periods this article wants to cover. (Just one small illustration, there are probably people descended today from those who migrated to the U.S. from Bayreuth, Breslau, Bern or Budapest, etc, who may call themselves German Americans, what's common?).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One article. I would oppose having a separate article. The debate appears to touch on issues that aren’t particular to Germans - the distinction in usage between “Germans” meaning German citizen or meaning of German ethnicity (as self-identified based on mother tongue, religion, culture etc.) could be applied to any European country (and wider), and the words in the example edit could apply to the article of any nationality.  As far as contemporary usage is concerned, I agree with Tserton that reading “German” you’d think of nationality first, and only ethnicity if the context so implied. The WP article on ethnicities of Europe treats Austrians as a separate ethnicity, and that is just one of the issues you’d be straight into in writing an article about German language speakers across Europe. Historically, however, things aren’t so clear.  Before the 19th century, Germany did not exist as nation, yet many histories refer to “Germans” in earlier centuries, based on language in a similar way that you find with other language groups that haven’t always had a discrete political unit on the map, such as Hungarians or Poles.  So any reference to “Germans” before the 19th century means ethnicity.  The more I think about this, the more I think this is a wider issue about the agreed definitions and scope for all WP articles based on ethnicities/nationalities (the ones I reviewed do seem to lead off with ethnicity in a historical context) with rather less specific to “Germans” than might at first appear.  As such this discussion needs to go wider, and elsewhere.  MapReader (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! I wish there had been more participation in this Rfc. The Rfc is an offshoot of a wider discussion at WikiProject Ethnic groups about how ethnicities and nationalities are treated on Wikipedia. The discussion kept using Germans as a case study / example and became more and more specific to that page, so eventually it made sense to bring it here. I fully agree with you that the arguments put forth on this talk page would also apply to other nations (highly multiethnic societies like French people, Dutch people, etc. are especially striking). I think a broader discussion would make sense and would be open to starting/participating in one - but far-reaching changes like that would require pretty broad participation, and we've had difficulty hammering out a concrete consensus even on this more focused topic. --Tserton (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One article: It's ridiculous to claim "Germans" applies for a citizenship and not an ethnic group. Why would we need separate pages for every nation or have to remove "ethnic group" term. We can easily solve it by saying that Germans are an ethnic group and a nation, similar to Turkish people article. It is also not healthy to compare Germans with Americans, Brazilians and Canadians; considering there are not nation states and are founded due to colonialism. There is no ethnicity such as American. It's a nation name. Unlike German, French, etc. are ethnicities and a nation. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One article, and clarify the lead as needed. There are actually more than two definitions at play, anyway: 1) the early-modern to modern nationality; 2) the medieval to early-modern meta-nationality (remember that the HRE was once named, in English translation, anyway, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and included way more than modern Germany); 3) Germanic peoples and/or speakers of Germanic languages in general; 4) the subset of them that settled in and around Germany, Switzerland, Austria, etc. (so, inclusive of the Angles and Saxons before they became fused into the English, but not inclusive of the Danes or Norse, and usually not the Franks, though it depends on one's definitions and context); 5) the specific ancient group known as the Germani; 6) and probably some others.  For maximal encyclopedic relevance, I would think this article should primarily focus on the post-HRE nationality (in the broad sense of nation), and link to other articles (with improvements at them as needed) to account for other meanings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * can you clarify? It sounds like you're describing a WP:Broad concept article, which is fine (and one of the options I'm good with), but if that's not what you're advocating, can you elucidate how it differs from it? Mathglot (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought I was pretty clear that the aritcle at Germans "should primarily focus on the post-HRE nationality (in the broad sense of nation), and link to other articles (with improvements at them as needed) to account for other meanings." That said, I'm not completely opposed to a broad-concept article, nor to a disambiguation at this title and all actual articles having disambiguated titles. As long as there's enough disambiguation, nav templating, in-text clarity and linking, etc., that readers can easily find exactly what they're looking for, whatever that might be (and are not confused into not looking for it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is, and rightly should be, an article about the German ethnicity at Germanic peoples. This article should be about the people who live in Germany.  (Compare: British people and English people.)—S Marshall T/C 20:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both articles you put to compare similarly care about English/British in a broad ethnic concept as well (the latter of course is not an ethnicity, but regarding citizens). Germanic peoples are a collection of ethnicities, etc., btw. in the the English could be the same way included per your argumentation, however it is logically not adequate as demonstrated.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC))
 * .I'm sorry. I don't understand you. Could you explain that in different words?—S Marshall T/C 01:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's try shorter and easier, you argued the "article should be about the people who live in Germany", and brought up the English people article, which has indeed a broad concept and shows the diaspora as well outside the country. Moreover what you try to insist, is methodologically not correct, since an ethnic group is not necessary bounded by one country's boundary.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
 * But that's the point. "Germans" are the citizens of Germany; the ethnic group, who live in Germany, Austria and many other places, are the "Germanic peoples".  There isn't an English word that means "Volksdeutsche".—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, ethnic Germans also live outside of the borders of Germany. Germanic peoples are a broader term, which not just include Germans. Btw. ethnic German is the best approximation indeed for the term.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Oh, I get it: you think "Germans" should be about the ethnicity rather than the nationality. Maybe Germans should be a disambiguation page pointing to German citizens, Ethnic Germans and Germanic peoples. I think many native English speakers' understanding of the term "Ethnic Germans" would be coloured by the events of the late 1930s, so that article would risk a lot of vandalism and need to be very closely watched.—S Marshall T/C 01:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it seems you did not read the full discussion here and related talk pages, where we extensively discussed and clarified our points (hence what you introduce here has been the 3rd layer of an approx. 10 layer discussion in total, we are long after this). Your concern is unfounded, we already settled this, the current broad term include Germany's all citizens, nation and ethnic diaspora, just read the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Sorry to say, but we didn't settle anything. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you there, KIENGIR, it's not at all settled and in fact the very meat of the disagreement at hand. The question at hand is one of DUEWEIGHT. At the moment, the lead and parts of the article give more weight to the ethnic meaning of Germans (some portions of the article do acknowledge, implicitly or outright, the post-ethnic meaning). One of the possible ways of dealing with the ambiguity, such as it is, might indeed be to split up the article, though no one has advocated for that specific approach so far. (I personally think splitting it up would be unnecessarily complicated and involve a lot of arbitrary cutoffs, but I won't spill digital ink over that just yet Shade.png). --Tserton (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, both of your desires have been incorporated to the article (even at some points with an overemphasis), so none of you may be disappointed, however I won't reiterate what we have already discussed, but the weight is not(even have real weight, but even became too minimal.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC))

Survey of tertiary literature
Reliable tertiary sources, such as published encyclopedias, are a good proxy for what the majority of reliable, independent, secondary sources say, and and may be helpful in evaluating due weight. We can survey tertiary sources, which are more limited in number, to estimate what secondary sources are saying. Such a survey can give us some hard data which will increase our confidence that we are reading the secondary sources correctly, and in the right proportion, which can help resolve the Rfc question.

Here is a summary of what some tertiary sources say about this issue, discovered during the related discussion at WT:ETHNIC:

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe German linguist Ulrich Ammon who cites many others says it best for our situation .-- Moxy 🍁 15:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey of encyclopedic entries on Germans
Below is a survey of the encyclopedic entries on Germans that have been presented so far in the discussion. Given the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as well, these entries are helpful for determining the notability of concepts. Krakkos (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Covers Germans as an ethnic group primarily defined as speakers of the German language
 * 2)  Covers Germans in the sense of ancient Germanic peoples
 * 3)  Covers Germans in the sense of ancient Germanic peoples
 * 4)  Covers Germans as an ethnic group primarily defined as speakers of the German language
 * 5)  Covers Germans in the sense of ancient Germanic peoples
 * 6)  Covers Germans as a nationality
 * 7)  Covers Germans as an ethnic group

Fallacy of incomplete evidence
I wanted to respond to Krakkos' argument above about the ethnic definition of Germans in the Survey section. Krakkos, you !voted for "One article with the ethnic definition appearing first", and in support of this choice, you pointed out correctly, that of the twelve tertiary sources, only five mention the ethnic aspect, so you chose to examine those five sources exclusively and base your conclusion upon what you found there. But this is an example of the fallacy of incomplete evidence, and does not prove your point, it merely confirms what you already believed, without viewing the full picture.

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following hypothetical thought experiment: some Wikipedia editors are looking at the Origin of life article, and wondering about astrobiogenesis&mdash;the theory that life was seeded on Earth by intelligent aliens who spawned the human race. As a way to determine majority and minority views on the topic of origin of life, editors examine two dozen encyclopedias or other tertiary sources, mostly general ones, as well as some specializing in astronomy, exobiology, and ufology. The result is, that only six of them mention astrobiogenesis at all: four ufology encyclopedias or almanacs, one exobiology encyclopedia, and one astronomy encyclopedia in passing. From this, Wikipedia editors from "WikiProject UFOlogy" conclude the following:"'The primary topic for an article is the topic which has received the largest amount of notable coverage. Five of the 24 tertiary sources listed in the section below address astrobiogensisis directly and in detail. Those five sources are therefore of great relevance to this question. Four of those sources (excluding the exobiology encyclopedia) address astrobiogenesis as a viable life origin theory. Based on four out of five, the astrobiogenesis topic thus appears to be the primary topic for 'origin of life on Earth'." Do you see the fallacy in their thinking? They regard the fact that numerous tertiary sources fail to mention astrobiogenesis, as meaning they play no part in the examination to determine the primary topic per WP:DUE WEIGHT. But this is false: the lack of an "astrobiogenesis" article in 18 general encyclopedias is in fact conclusive, and relegates the the five that do cover it to a minority point of view. By selecting only those five to examine, the Ufology Project editors fell into the fallacy of incomplete evidence, and their conclusion is erroneous.

In my view, picking only the five encyclopedias that say something about ethnic Germans, and ignoring the rest that do not, amounts to the same thing and is not a valid way of evaluating what the primary topic is here. In addition, of the five sources you chose, four of them are ethnology sources, as already pointed out, and as the Law of the instrument says, "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Another attempt at a compromise
What about The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a people native to Central Europe. ? That would mean replacing "ethnic group" with "people" and dropping the unsourced clause "who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history." Whether "Germanic" should be included or not is open to further discussion. "People" (Volk) may be understood as a synonym for "ethnic group", but it may also be understood as the group of German citizens. Although some Germans today think the word might be used to promote nationalist ideas, it is used in official language (e.g. in the oath a member of the German government has to take and in central parts of the German constitution - E.g. Article 20: "(2) All state authority is derived from the people."), where it is understood in the latter sense. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * May I ask how you define Nativeness and how you differenciate between People and Nation, in this specific case? --−Sargoth 08:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t support a proposal that by its vagueness or ambiguity let everyone read into it whether it did or didn’t include ethnicity; that’s not a compromise it’s just a cop-out which doesn’t solve anything. What about a high school student who came here with no preconceptions at all and just wanted to learn; being wishy-washy about the definition doesn’t really inform it just confuses. If sources disagree or if it means two different things, then just say that. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to the problems of my attempt. Next try: The Germans (German: Deutsche) are a people whose history is linked to the inhabitants of Central Europe in antiquity. While the constitution of Germany defines "the German people" as the group of German citizens, persons of German descent or native speakers of German living outside Germany may also identify as ethnic Germans. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Better, especially the second sentence, but the first sentence pushes off the vagueness or uncertainty onto the expression a people. Don't be discouraged; at least you're putting out concrete proposals, which is what we need. Plus, I'm only one person; I wish others would chime in as well. But as long as you're working within the confnes of a single article named "Germans", I'm not sure how this can be dealt with other than listing multiple definitions or doing a BCA.   Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already wrote two new versions of the first sentence(s): The term Germans (German: Deutsche) has several interrelated meanings: It can denote natives or inhabitants of Germany, or persons of German descent, or native speakers of the German language. and Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with Germany. The term may be used as a synonym for the citizens of Germany or ethnic Germans who are native to Central Europe, and who share a common German ancestry, culture, and history. Both were reverted by KIENGIR, sadly without giving any substantiated reasons. I still don't see a possible way of defining two groups for two different articles. Every aspect of social life in Germany today includes Germans who are not "ethnic Germans". E.g. you can't talk about German literature today without mentioning Navid Kermani, born in Germany to Iranian parents. But you cannot talk about it either without mentioning Herta Müller, an ethnic German from Romania who already was an author before she relocated to Germany. Even associations for preserving traditional regional culture in Germany have members whose parents immigrated from Spain, Turkey or Nigeria. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to warn you again to avoid that misleading statement like without giving any substantiated reasons. I did, more places, more times, as well others did. Disliking it does not mean they did not happen.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC))
 * While I agree that the term "people" is a little woolly, that woolliness simply reflects the complexity of the issue and I would be okay with Rsk6400's suggestion. As for explicitly noting the ambiguitiy, a previous iteration of the lead that clearly called out the ambiguity was reverted (as Rsk6400 noted), but at this point I would argue that the reverting user was and is engaging in status-quo stonewalling and is unlikely to agree to anything more than token changes. It's worth noting that the votes are currently 6:2 in favor of some kind of major revision of the article, and rewriting the lead might be the "lowest common denominator" of those options. Of course, consensus is not the result of a vote, and it would still be preferable to have a consensus hammered out by the participation of a wide range of users. But nor is consensus unanimity, and we shouldn't discard options just because they were rejected by a single user uninterested in compromise and consensus. So with that in mind, how about: "Germans (German: Deutsche) are people who identify with Germany by citizenship, culture, ethnicity or heritage. The term once referred primarily to ethnic Germans, an ethnic group that emerged in antiquity from central Europe, but today is also widely used to describe German citizens independent of ethnicity." I think this sort of "teaches the controversy" and can be backed up by the literature. Alternatively, we could go for simplicity and call out the ambiguity right in the first line: Germans (German: Deutsche) can refer both to citizens of Germany and to ethnic Germans or their descendants. While the constitution of Germany defines "the German people" as the group of German citizens, persons of German descent or native speakers of German living outside Germany may also identify as ethnic Germans.--Tserton (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another proposal, more sweeping and hopefully hitting the right notes: The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today widely refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent. A chronological approach lists the ethnic meaning first without giving it undue weight. Thoughts? --Tserton (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with all three proposals, but have a slight preference for the second one ("... can refer both to ..."), because the constitution plays an important role in modern discussions on Germanness, see e.g. Constitutional patriotism. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tserton, telling different the story as it happened is never useful in our community, since it may be verified (it could not be status quo stonewalling, since I subsequently modified/updated the text, etc.), so I have also warn you to stop misleading representation of the events. On the other hand, the current lead is not anymore the lead as it was - and the latest modifications were not even carried out by me - and should satisfy everybody because they reflect even more that you wanted. On the other hand your proposals contaning to much verbiage and dubious explanations, however like refer both to ethnic Germans, citizens of Germany or their descendants would seem the most fine, if I would combinate from the recent proprosals.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC))
 * To the the editors in favor of keeping the ethnic definition first, does the most recent compromise proposal, or a variation thereof (please do make suggestions), sound acceptable to you? ("The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today widely refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.") I genuinely think most of us agree more than we disagree on this issue and can find a solution everyone's broadly okay with.--Tserton (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe a solution like that would be acceptable. Jort93 (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead of the article has already been substantially rewritten, and thus already represents a compromise. The proposal above is not an improvement in my opinion. The proposal treats Germans as a term rather than a concept, which is a violation of WP:NAD. The proposal does not appear to be based on any source material, and contradicts the key tertiary sources previously mentioned in this discussion. There appears to be universal agreement on Wikipedia that German ethnicity and German citizenship is not the same thing. German citizenship is already covered at German nationality law. Several editors, including WhatamIdoing, Super Dromaeosaurus, KIENGIR, Thomas.W, LeftiePete, Staberinde and myself, have supported maintaining an article on German ethnicity. Germany is and has always been a multi-ethnic country, and i believe Wikipedia should have an article about the most numerous ethnicity in that country, namely the Germans, just like we have articles about Greeks, Armenians and Albanians and other ethnic groups with nation states. Krakkos (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to every single proposal that excludes the definition of Germans primarily as an ethnic group. I think the current version is the most adequate. I don't understand what is the need to include German immigrants and put them on the same level as ethnic Germans whose ancestors have lived on Germany for centuries. I have seen an editor declare "you can't talk about German literature today without mentioning Navid Kermani, born in Germany to Iranian parents". Sorry, but try as you might, Kermani is an ethnic Iranian. This does not mean that he cannot contribute to German literature and society, that would be something stupid and primitive to think. But ethnicity is not something that can be molded, it is not something that can be changed. Personally, I am an ethnic Romanian in Spain. No matter what I do, whether I become the most famous writer, the richest businessman in the country or the president of the government, I am not going to magically become an ethnic Spaniard. And the same would apply for a German living in Iran, don't think I am discriminating immigrants from Germany for being Muslim, Asian or something like that. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with Krakkos and Super, the new proposal has an extensive verbiage and we don't have to give a history lesson in the lead, which anyway would stand similarly for any other nation. I reiterate, the current lead is just perfect all this issue already reached it's goal.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC))
 * While I think it’s important to mention that “Germans” may refer to either ethnic Germans or the citizens of Germany, your claim that the term “Germans” in modern contexts is “widely used to describe German citizens independent of ethnicity” is your own opinion and is not supported by any of the sources used in the article. Do you have any sources to support your claim?--LeftiePete (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ever since Germany became a nation-state in 1871, it has been a multi-ethnic country. There have been Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Danes, etc, living in Germany for decades and decades. In parts of Eastern Germany, there were historically large settlements of Slavs and 20% of Germans in Eastern Germany have paternal Slavic ancestry and 20% of Germans have Slavic surnames. Also, even when the term “Germans” in the late 19th century and early 20th century was generally associated with the völkisch movement, the German people or, as they were known as then, the German Volk, were still viewed by anthropologists as a racially mixed group like any other group. Heck, as much we shouldn’t care what the Nazis thought, even they used the term “German or related blood” in the Nuremberg Laws which dealt with citizenship.
 * Also, we need to remember that in the last 100 years the term “Germans” has changed even with regards to it being used from an ethnic point of view. For example, the Austrians up until 1945 considered themselves to be Germans and it took up until about 30 years ago before the vast majority of them considered themselves to be a separate group from the Germans and most Austrians today would find it offensive to be called German.--LeftiePete (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we're kind of talking past each other. No one wants to erase Kermani's Iranian ethnicity, or remove mentions of ethnic Germans from the article. All of us clearly agree that Germans has multiple distinct context-dependant meanings. This is about covering these multiple uses and giving them due weight in the lead, nothing more. I can understand that you're nonplussed by editors for whom "German" doesn't refer primarily to the ethnic group, just like I (and many others here) are surprised by the reverse. In situations like that, we should rely especially carefully on evidence. And there's considerable evidence of both of these meanings.--Tserton (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that the "widely" in "Germans today widely refers to citizens..." might be too emphatic for a topic this divisive. How about "also"? (...While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today also refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent.) If you'd prefer, we could also remove the "irrespective of ethnicity and descent," since that's already implied. As for sources: I was definitely planning on sourcing the changes we make. Most of the sources currently used in the article are used for highly specific citations, but some of the more general ones do cover the non-ethnic use of the word (although many were removed by Krakkos earlier today in an unrelated edit), and some also address its evolution over time. For example:
 * Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia" by Jeffrey Cole, 2011: The Germans live in Central Europe, mostly in Germany (82.2 million inhabitants, of whom 75 million speak German), and in many countries around the world, both as German expatriates and as citizens of other countries who identify culturally as German and speak the language....German identity developed through a long historical process that led to the definition of the German nation as both a community of descent (Volksgemeinschaft) and shared culture and experience. Today, the German language is the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity.
 * Most of the tertiary sources (see Mathglot's post, above) also at least acknowledge the ambiguity, but I know Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. But there are plenty of those, e.g.:
 * The new Germans: a country facing its future by H. Munkler, M. Munkler, 2016 (I only have access to the German original, but I believe there's a translation out.) Describes a recently emerged civic identity for "who is German".
 * https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/04/12/how-germany-and-the-germans-have-changed
 * Then there are thousands of mundane news articles referring to non-ethnic Germans as simply "German."
 * https://medium.com/cv-vc/philipp-r%C3%B6sler-becomes-president-of-the-new-advisory-board-of-cv-vc-93234f3786c5
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/29/merkel-heckled-by-german-mps-as-she-defends-second-soft-covid-lockdown ("Citing an interview with the German science writer Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim..."
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/sports/tennis/07petkovic.html
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-05/coronavirus-research-moves-faster-than-medical-journals (quotes Ijad Madisch, "a German virologist")--Tserton (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding "also" wouldn't have a change too different from the current version of the lead. Perhaps we could add the part of "regardless of ethnicity or descent" into the sentence "Any person who has German citizenship may also be regarded as a German, including the immigrant population of Germany." Super   Ψ   Dro  14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely also want to change the lead to start with some variation of "Germans has multiple meanings" though. The survey of tertiary literature was clear on the dual meanings (and, in fact, suggested a non-ethnic usage to be the primary one), and the results of the Rfc, while differing in the specific preferred proposals, also largely favored treating both concepts at least equally. To quote my suggestion above (which everyone is invited to make suggestions to) again in its entirety: "The term Germans has historically had several overlapping and interrelated meanings, reflective of the changing borders of central Europe and of immigration into and within this region. Since the Middle Ages, it has referred to ethnic Germans throughout central and eastern Europe. Members of the German diaspora also sometimes identify as Germans culturally, ethnically or by heritage. While these meanings continue to be used in many contexts, Germans today also refers to citizens of the modern-day country of Germany, irrespective of ethnicity or descent." --Tserton (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add two more sources to Tserton's list above:
 * https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Current-Population/Tables/liste-current-population.html (From the official site of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, which knows only "Germans" and "Foreigners")
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/world/europe/germany-identity.html (2019 article of NYT about German identity]
 * The NYT article states that "Two decades after the country stopped defining citizenship exclusively by ancestral bloodline, the far right and others have started distinguishing between “passport Germans” and “bio-Germans.”" - Meaning the current lede follows an outdated definition of Germanness which today is upheld by the far right. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop these misleading statements, neither recent version was like that which today is upheld by the far right. Enough, really.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC))

No such thing
As a German, I reject the very idea of such a thing as "German ethnicity", except maybe as a short-lived historical invention.

There is citizenship, and there are language skills. Both can be acquired by birth / as a first language or later in life, and there isn't too much ambiguity. What's left if you remove these from the concept of German "ethnicity"? People above have noticed that very little that would remain of the article in question when these concepts are excluded, and that's a testament to its accuracy.

If a baby is born to "ethnic Germans" but raised by French-speaking Canadians in Mexico, will that baby still be an "ethnic German"? If you believe so, the concept you have in mind is one of race. And we aren't going to go there for obvious reasons, but also because it would be scientifically wrong: there is likely more genetic difference between north and south Germans than, say, people from the Saar region and French, or some eastern German regions and Poland.

If the baby isn't "ethnic German", then the concept is merely about language skills, citizenship, and maybe cultural familiarity, in which case it's far easier to just state those attributes, since they tend to have universally-agreed definitions.

As the sources above show, there may be something not entirely unlike a historical concept of "Germanic tribes". But look at any map older than 200 years and you'll find (as the plural hints at), it's more of a catch-all for what's left in Europe once French/Polish/Italian are accounted for. At that time, these tribes were united mostly by the need to agree upon a limited, universally-understood set of insults to enable most of the communication deemed necessary.

If one were to insist on defining any German "identity" distinct from citizenship today, it would be one that emerged after 1945, and one of it's core tenets would be the rejection of a concept of ethnicity. Yes, this is about "feeling bad". But that "feeling bad" happens to be a concept that is more "real" than "ethnicity". Consider the Grundgesetz (basic law / constitution). It begins:

"Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,

Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe,

the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law"

People above referred to the mention of people (Volk) here as an invocation of something akin to ethnicity. But it should be noted that there are three references to "feeling bad" before "people": "conscious of responsibility" / "inspired to promote world peace" / "equal partner in a united Europe".

One long list of individual states (ethnicities?) later, it continues:

"This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people."

...which is helpful here to disambiguate the reference to "people". Nobody would argue that the German constitution does not apply to naturalised German citizens, or that it applies to Leonardo di Caprio because his Great-Grandma had an Ü in her name. The only valid interpretation is, therefore, at least every person with German citizenship, and, at least partially, everyone subject to German jurisdiction.

--Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to those passages of the Basic Law. Let me emphasize the phrase the German people ... have adopted this Basic Law. This means that the definition of "being a German" given by the Basic Law is in fact how the German people wants to see itself, i.e. as a group including every citizen, regardless of ancestry. The current lede shows disrespect for the self-definition of the Germans as well as disregard for the sources.
 * On the other hand: While I totally agree with you that there is no possibility of defining a German "ethnic group" inside Germany, descendants of Germans living outside Germany may well self-identify (or be identified) as "ethnic Germans", e.g. Herta Müller (before she left her native Romania for Germany in 1987). --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathias Winkelmann,
 * short-lived historical invention? Are you kidding? It has nothing to with babies born an raised in an other place, that would mean German ancestry. Ethnic meaning means what it means outside Germany or Germans, all around the world, as ethnic Hungarians, Romanians, Poles etc. may live outside their present-countries due to many reasons, they cannot be exluded. The lead appropriately reflects the triple interpretation inclusive now.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Denying the existance of the German ethnicity is a laughable joke and I can't believe it's still being pushed this hard. As a matter of fact, yes, an ethnic German baby raised by French-speaking Canadians in Mexico is still an ethnic German. What will be next, the German language isn't real either? Super   Ψ   Dro  14:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people reject the idea of ethnicity altogether. If you believe that a group of "people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area" is "not real" (e.g., because it's subjective; because it's changeable; because you think that culture is unimportant), then of course you would believe that there's no such thing as German ethnicity.  You would also not "believe in" Mexican ethnicity, or Irish ethnicity, or Romani ethnicity, or French-Canadian ethnicity, or any identification with any other ethnic group.
 * Technically, I believe that this hypothetical baby's ethnic group is whatever group of people the child grows up to identify with, and to be identified with by others. If that baby is raised to participate in French-Canadian culture and to believe that s/he is a French-Canadian person who just happens to live in Mexico, and if the local Mexican people treat this child as being "from away" rather than one of their own, then that baby will grow up to be an ethnic French-Canadian person, rather than ethnically either German or Mexican. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Both races and ethnic groups are social constructs. I mean, even today, some people associate certain physical characteristics with Jewish people, Chinese people, Indian people, Irish people, etc, which are what have been determined by different societies over time. Although scientific racism is still advocated by some people (typically those who hold far-right political views), it has been debunked for a long time. In fact, science tells us that 94% of physical variation happens between people of the same ‘race’.--LeftiePete (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...ethnic groups are social constructs? For real? To be of an ethnic group, it is not enough to think that you are part of it. You can raise a baby as you want, teaching them the language, culture and national identity that you want. However, if the parents are for example Russian and the baby (let's say adopted) is Ukrainian, the baby will not be of Russian ethnicity. What if once this baby grows up, they meet their Ukrainian biological parents and decide to start carrying a Ukrainian identity? Has that person changed of ethnicity again? Ethnicity is not like, for example, gender. Gender is psychological and subjective. But ethnicity is carried in the genes and blood of an individual. You don't just change it. If you do not like your ethnicity, if you want to change it or if you want to include your foreign friend in the same as yours, you have to live with it, becuase you can't change it.
 * By the way, the concept of ethnicity in the Americas is not the same as in Europe. America was colonized and therefore the people there are a mix of settlers, natives, etc., with lots of different backgrounds and ancestries. But Europe was never colonized and the people is generally homogeneously divided into nations. For this reason, the article of Canadians for example cannot be used as a comparison with this article. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Super Dromaeosaurus, I think you need to read the article on Ethnic group. I think you're confusing it with ancestry.  Ethnicity is carried in culture, not DNA.  If ethnicity were just a matter of DNA, then the world could have neither Canadians nor Americans:  we would have only indigenous Americans (2% of the US, 5% of Canada), and the descendants of immigrants (98% of the US, 95% of Canada).
 * It is not helpful in these discussions if editors use words to mean significantly different concepts. If you are talking about ancestry, then please use the word ancestry so that other editors know what you're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ancestry plays the biggest role in ethnicity. One can't be as German as a native from Germany without having any German ancestry and thus should not be granted the same importance as the native Germans whose ancestors have lived in the same place for centuries. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first reply to me is full of strawman arguments. If I wanted to use the word “ancestry” then I would have done so, but no, we are discussing ethnicity. Ancestry and ethnicity are not synonymous. Do you have some reliable sources which prove that ancestry plays the “biggest role” in defining ethnicity? The rest of the statements in your latest reply are your own opinions and are not facts.--LeftiePete (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ancestry plays the biggest role in ethnicity" is an opinion. It is not an opinion shared by everyone.  It is not unusual for a child whose parents come from different countries to be accepted as belonging to one of those countries ethnically.  It might be true that very few people with exclusively East Asian or African ancestry would be accepted as members of that social group, but that doesn't mean that French families from Strassbourg, or Austrian families from Vienna, or Polish families from Szczecin could never become accepted as being ethnic Germans despite technically having non-German ancestry.
 * Some years ago, I met a man whose grandparents are from four different countries (two in Europe, two in Asia), who was born and raised in a fifth country (in Africa), and who now lives in a sixth country (in the Americas). Despite all of this, his ethnicity is:  just Indian.  His ancestry is three-quarters non-Indian, but ancestry is not actually the biggest factor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The Austrian ethnic identity is comparatively young (it developed primarly as a conflicted successive distancing from Prussian-German culture, with the final blow of WWII), but it exists. Even Austrian right-wing politicians today aren't very eager to merge their country with Germany, let alone being called German. Calling a Deutschschweizer an ethnic German could under circumstances be onsidered an insult, after all, a German living in Switzerland is considered a speparate thing regarding cultural (even if (s)he naturalized) and national identity form being a Swiss-German speaking Swiss living in Switzerland, just as a Swiss Romand is no French. Swiss people think of themselves as a seven hundred year old independent nation. The people of the GDR always consindered themselves being German, this understanding was the foundation for the German reunification. It is a completely different case compared to Switzerland and Austria, the ethnic identity was never really a question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A4:9840:D0AA:9806:5F29:C1CE (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Germanness and Jews according to secondary sources
I took a short look at some texts I found at JSTOR searching for "Defining Germanness". Among others, I found. That text looks at the debates in Germany during the last century about who can be called a German and who not. Different ideas like "Volksnation" (the nation seen as a people) or "Kulturnation" (the nation seen as bound together by a common culture) have been discussed in Germany. This whole discussion should be included in the section "Identity", but it is strangely absent from there.

In the early 20th century, there was a special focus on whether Jews can be included in the concept of Germanness. I hope that I am mistaken, but I fear that the current lede with its stress on "common German ancestry, culture, and history" corresponds more or less to the "völkisch" (literally "people-ish", i.e. national, ethnic) definition used to exclude Jews which led to the Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust. Since Jews are normally endogamous, in many cases they don't share a common ancestry with non-Jewish Germans, and to say that the murderers at Auschwitz share a common history with their victims seems to be cynical. If my interpretation of that formula is correct (I hope it isn't), it is anti-semitic and follows the worst traditions of Germany. The fact that the Holocaust is not mentioned in the article (except in the time specification "after the H.") adds to this picture of an antisemitic tendency in the article. Antisemitism and all other forms of racism are inherently incompatible with WP, see WP:NONAZIS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The question to ask is do sources define Germans just as an ethnic group or as nation of peopleS.-- Moxy 🍁 03:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The only secondary sources I know of which define Germans are sources dealing with the legal definition, i.e. citizenship. The historical, sociological, and ethnological sources only report debates (normally among Germans) about defining Germanness. While historically, Germans were seen as belonging to different tribes (Stämme) like Bavarians, Swabians or Saxons, the words people (Volk) or nation (Nation) have not been used in plural to describe Germans since the Middle Ages. Tribal identities still exist, although today they are called "cultural identities". E.g. politician Cem Özdemir, of Turkish ancestry, famously self-identified as an "Anatolian Swabian". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's aswesome what you invent so far for your cause really (now creating/inventing a Jewish question...amazing...) The lead is clear about the inclusion of German citizens, in which Jews are included, as anybody else regardless of origin, religion or any other criteria.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC))
 * By the time the völkisch movement had come to have any significance in Austria and Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century, most of the Jews who lived in Austria and Germany were largely assimilated and considered themselves to be Germans.--LeftiePete (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Over the course of today I have significantly improved the Identity section with regards to how a German identity was viewed by Jews and non-Jews in Austria and Germany during the late 19th century and early 20th century.--LeftiePete (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * These are clear improvements. Thanks and good work. --Tserton (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources in line with far-right discourse
I compared some of your edits which seemed strange to me with the source you quoted:
 * Your edit (diff) says The greatest challenges facing modern German society include globalization and immigration, which has eroded the German social fabric and labor market., sourced to Moser 2011, p.175. Moser says that "globalization and the attendant neoliberal shift in economic policies ... have eroded the social fabric and labor market arrangements established in the postwar period". Meaning, you left out the "neoliberal shift", presented immigration (which Moser mentions only afterwards) as the sole cause of the erosion and made the erosion look a little worse by changing the object from "arrangements" to "labor market". This is a typical far-right argumentation, not based on sources, but on feeling: "The immigrants are stealing our jobs".
 * Another quote from the same edit: a large number of monuments being constructed in order to demonstrate German guilt. The closest to this which can be found in the source (Moser p.174), is Germans have grappled publicly with war guilt. The combination "German guilt" is found nowhere in the source. The wording is important because after WW II there was a heated discussion about a "German collective guilt". The connection "in order to" which you made is mentioned nowhere in the source, but is a favourite subject of the German far right, see e.g. the reference to Björn Höcke I recently came upon in "The Atlantic". BTW: That article also states that the "Neue Rechte" (German "New Right") focuses on "identity and culture", contrary to what you told me recently about far-right people focusing on a "German race".

There is much more which is dubious in your edits, such as the removal of the Jews from the history of the Middle Ages, your mentioning of the Holocaust as a result of the war (which may be an error, but it is also a connection which Hitler made), your forgetting of Heinrich Heine (a Jew until he was nearly 30 years old) when you first copied the list of German writers from Moser (you corrected it after I complained). You alleged that I am on a "campaign". Could you please comment on why you represented the sources the way I described above ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is pettifoggery. There are limits to how closely one can paraphrase the sources without violating copyright rules. Your outright removal of Moser's sourced comments on the effects of globalization on German society are not constructive. As far as I'm aware, none of the tertiary sources on Germans mention Jews in the history of the Middle Ages. That's why that topic hasn't been added. All of the sources mentioned the Holocaust, and this is why i added a significant amount of material on it. The personal views of non-specialist politicians, whether they belong to the far-right, far-left or something in between, should not be the primary determinant of the content of this article. This article should primarily be based on what is written by specialists in reliable sources. I believe this article currently does that. Krakkos (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That immigration and globalization are among the greatest challenges facing Germany today is indisputable, if a bit bland since that can be said for almost every rich Western country today. Saying that they have eroded the social fabric is a more subjective and contentious thing to say about an ongoing event, though. These forces and events have changed the country, certainly, but not necessarily for the worse, and "eroded the social fabric" is decidedly pejorative. --Tserton (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And the Holocaust/WWII monuments weren't put up to "demonstrate" German guilt but as a reminder of a crime against humanity and in memory of its victims. We should avoid parroting political talking points.--Tserton (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for Rfc closure
Hey everyone - if no one disagrees, I would like to request formal closure of this Rfc, since the topic of discussion for which it was created (i.e. how to construct the article in general and what to do about the lead in particular) has largely concluded and we're going in circles again. The other discussions that have sprung up under the Rfc section (though important) aren't really pertinent to the Rfc itself. I'm open to suggestions though. If the dispute still persists after the Rfc is closed, we should move it to another dispute forum. --Tserton (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I'd suggest you ask for closure by an admin, not just by any uninvolved editor, since this discussion has become very weird. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any rush in calling for a closure just yet. In view of the recent improvements that have been made to the article, i would welcome more input from the wider community. Krakkos (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also would welcome more input from more editors, I just don't think it's going to happen, and there is such a thing as letting Rfc's run too long. But I don't have a problem letting it run a bit longer, we'll just have extend it so it doesn't get auto-ended by Legobot in a few days. Also, the recent changes notwithstanding, the article (esp. the lead) still addresses primarily ethnic Germans under the overarching descriptor "Germans," which is the issue that was at heart of the Rfc. --Tserton (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any rush either, but I agree with the closure of the RfC. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Results of the RfC
This RfC has gotten quite long and convoluted. In an effort to establish clarity, i have created a tally surveying the arguments of participants. Please correct me if the tally contains errors:
 * One article covering primarily German ethnicity - 4 editors (Jort93, KIENGIR, Krakkos, Super Dromaeosaurus)
 * A 5th editor, Staberinde, put forward the same argument at the preceding discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups.


 * One article covering primarily German ethnicity, with a subsection about German nationality in another article - 3 editors (Thomas.W, Mathglot, WhatamIdoing)
 * One broad article - 3 votes (Moxy, Alanscottwalker, MapReader)
 * One article with a dictionary definition of Germans One article defining Germans primarily as inhabitants or natives of Germany - 1 editor (Rsk6400)
 * At Talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Austronesier has expressed support for the position of Rsk6400, and stressed that we should emphasize language rather than ancestry when defining ethnicity.

Krakkos (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One article covering primarily German nationality One article in which German nationality is mentioned before German ethnicity - 1 editor (Tserton)
 * One article about both German ethnicity and German nationality (similar to Turkish people), in which ethnicity is strongly emphasized - 1 editor (Beshogur)
 * At Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Jotamar has suggested that the article maybe should be deleted, or that we should at least explain clearly the ambiguity of terms such as "Germans", and perhaps make a WP guideline on how to do so.
 * You misrepresented what I, and I think some others, said. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry and thank you for the correction. I based the representation on this edit by you. Every user mentioned has been pinged, and if anyone feels misrepresented, corrections are most welcome. Krakkos (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to clarify my position (but I don't think it was deliberately misconstrued): I don't want to cover "primarily" the nationality - I just think it should be mentioned first in the lead (though I would also be okay with equal weight). The article itself (given the apparent consensus for keeping it a single article) should still contain much of the information it currently does on ethnic Germans. (My position is also compatible with a broad concept article, and in hindsight might be better served by that option.) It's also a bit fraught to break down the votes this explicitly, since number of editors took or expressed sympathy for multiple positions. --Tserton (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also: you included the opinions of people who did not formally vote in the Rfc (like Staberinde and Whatamidoing), but only those who agreed with you. I don't know if that was deliberate, but it's dishonest in consequence if not intention. If you're going to go beyond the Rfc for "votes," there were a number of other editors who participated in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups discussion, notably Austronesier and Jotamar.--Tserton (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a summary of the discussion should be done by somebody as much involved as Krakkos is. I took the mispresentation of my views together with the earlier misrepresentation of the source to WP:ANI. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, . Whatamidoing has commented in the RfC, while Staberinde has previously been mentioned. I have tweaked the tally and added notes of the views of Austronesier, Jotamar and Beshogur. Krakkos (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with your representation of my views and I still think that neither you nor me should try to summarize, since we are both heavily involved. This only adds to confusion and is not helpful in any way. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all well and good, but as Rsk6400 said, only neutral observers who didn't participate in the discussion or the Rfc should attempt closing summaries of Rfcs. More importantly, consensus is not the result of a vote, but rather of open-minded editors working out a wording that as many people as possible are happy with. That was the whole point of the attempts at hammering out a compromise below. --Tserton (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Save your breath; nobody taking part in this Rfc has any say in the closing process. Everything in this section will be ignored by the closer, who will apply proper closing principles to the process, and not pay attention to further advocacy, intentional or otherwise, by involved editors in the guise of disinterested tally summaries. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

After the closing of the RfC
Phew, that was a long wait. I still think that the definition of Germanness by "culture, descent and history" is not acceptable and not supported by reliable sources. The second problem with the current lede is that German citizens who don't share the "descent and history" are only reluctantly called Germans in the third sentence, which is contrary to the commonly accepted way in which Germans speak about themselves today.

Since the last RfC was not very successful (except in establishing consensus that we don't want to split the article), I'd propose to take the issue to WP:DRN. Any thoughts ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Source verification problem. Proposal to remove a few words
This article is clearly intended to include modern Germans in its subject matter, and centre around them? But I notice we have this sentence in the opening, which seems to equate the topic of this article with a very distinct use of the same term by classical historians, which is NOT normally intended to include Germans when used in this way, but rather refers to the concept we cover in Germanic peoples: The term "German" may also be applied to any [...] member of the Germanic peoples,[19][20][21][22][23] Almost all the sources are from WP:TERTIARY sources, which is not ideal. But here is a closer analysis...
 * 19. "German". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 22 December 2020.
 * It says: "a member of any of the Germanic peoples inhabiting western Europe "


 * 20. "Germans". Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. 2013. Retrieved 5 December 2020.
 * The article says it is about an "ethnic complex" of "" which is partly ancestral to some modern peoples. Apart from the title, nowhere in the article are "Germans" referred to, only "German tribes" (which clearly excludes medieval and modern Germans) and nor are any of the modern peoples described as being in this same ancient group.


 * 21. Drinkwater, John Frederick (2012). "Germans". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 613. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199545568.001.0001. ISBN 9780191735257.
 * This is from an article entitled "Germans (Germani)" and the Encylopedia title also tells us that this is another article about an ancient group.


 * 22. Todd, Malcolm (2004b). "Germans and Germanic Invasions". In Fagan, Brian M. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology (1 ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 250–251. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195076189.001.0001. ISBN 9780199891085.
 * Same again. The article is called "Germans and Germanic Invasions". The author is known for using the term "Early Germans" as a translation of Germani, the classical group.


 * 23. Wells, Peter S. (2010). "Germans". In Gagarin, Michael (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195388398.
 * Same again. "The Roman concept of “Germans” was based on Julius Caesar's characterization, in his commentaries concerning the Gallic War of 58–51". This is not the topic of this article is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal. Germanic-language-speaking versus German-speaking versus Germanic. Also: source fails verification
I've tried reading the very long RFC and obviously it is very difficult to get exact conclusions out of it, and it is important to focus on smaller bits. I think the term "Germanic[11] ethnic group" in the opening line should be changed, perhaps to "German-speaking ethnic group". Here are some reasons:
 * If we can use clear language, we should, right?
 * Ethnic groups can be defined or partly brought together by being speakers of the same language, but large old language families do not bring people together and define ethnicity.
 * One thing about ethnicity is that people in the ethnicity know they are in it. There is no modern GermanIC ethnic group. People do not describe themselves as Germanic, and academics don't do it either.
 * In medieval and modern times, now that Germanic languages are very diverse, there is no Germanic ethnicity and there is also no Germanic language. There is the German language. [And it really is used in discussions of German ethnicity.]
 * In classical times there really were Germanic peoples but there is no evidence they were an ethnic group either. Romans developed the terminology and expanded it, by their own account, to a bigger category of peoples. It was not a language-based designation either.
 * The source we are using, the current footnote 11, gives a quote described as coming from Tomasz Wicherkiewicz in 2003. Actually if you go to page 443 and look, it is in a footnote which is quoting a footnote from Florian Biesik who wrote before 1930. If I understand correctly, the footnote has been translated from German. So this citation is not relevant for current scholarly ideas about German[ic] ethnicity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your complaints are here. Germanic is a term rooted in language, just like Celtic, Slavic, Italic and others. These terms wouldn't exist if the Proto-Indo-European language hadn't fragmented and corrupted over time in various parts of Europe to develop the proto languages for all these groups. Roman concepts of who is and isn't Germanic (or anything else from the north) were vague at the best of times, to say the least, but Germanic peoples themselves clearly had a concept of some sort of a shared identity with one another, and their terms for foreigners and how (and WHO) they apply them to are clearly language based. Most terms for Germanic speakers from other groups (like Slavs) are also rooted in language too (the Slavic word for Germans vaguely translates as 'those who don't speak' or 'mutes'). Most peoples generally go by their language. Especially in places like Central Europe where you are often surrounded by peoples who speak a totally different language you cannot understand. You might not understand that living in a world where you feel like everyone can speak English, but I'd suggest you travel somewhere where people generally have a poor grasp of English to see just how foreign you feel and how important you will come to view language as a component of identity. The few exceptions to this are areas where there are no language divides and haven't been for a long time, and people tend to devolve into tribalism based on things like geography or ideas of 'distinct blood' or stereotypes and various other factors.

I honestly don't know what your problem with the term 'Germanic' is. I've just taken a look through your history on related articles and you have been ceaselessly warring against these language based classifications (overwhelmingly just Germanic ones) for years now. It's just a method of subdividing large groups of peoples under umbrella terms. It's not that big of a deal, is fairly accurate and useful and says more about the people getting 'offended' by the classifications than it does anything else. I'm sorry to break it to you, Andrew, but you're Germanic. Whether you identify as that or not, that is your classification.

"People do not describe themselves as Germanic" I find it incredibly hard to believe you've never encountered someone describing themselves as Germanic, being from England. I'm not even from England and I've met countless people describing themselves, and the English people, Germanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 (talk) 01:44, May 13, 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to get into the substance of Andrew Lancaster's suggestion right this second, but remember to assume good faith. The topic is extremely polarizing; the words German and Germanic means more than one thing to different people, and Andrew's attempt to find common ground is perfectly legitimate. --Tserton (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It's polarizing because people get offended by the term 'Germanic' due to its hijacking by far-right peoples and racists at the turn of the 19th century and later the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and modern groups, bizarrely, influenced by them. All Germanic has ever originally meant was 'speakers of Proto-Germanic or languages descended from it'. Proto-Germanic people were mixed to begin with (heavily), they continued to mix with others throughout their existence and absorb and assimilate peoples. The idea of them being a 'biological race' is as ridiculous as... well just about any other 'racial' categorization (such as white or black Americans). Any attempts to attach a 'biological racial' angle to Germanic peoples are entirely another matter and something that is equally problematic with many other ethnolinguistic groups like Slavic, Celtic, Italic and other peoples. It's not Wikipedia's place to censor objective realities and ethnolinguistic classifications because fringe lunatics don't understand what the term means, don't understand anything about the history of the people they feel they have some kind of affiliation with or attachment to... and perhaps most strangely of all (considering how crucial 'blood' and 'genetics' seems to be to their sense of identity and origins) seem to understand absolutely nothing about human archaeogenetics and the picture it's slowly painted over the past 10-20 years. I can start taking offense at you using the term 'blond' tomorrow. I can probably convince a great deal of others to start taking offense at the word 'blond' through pointing out that blondism was hijacked by very similar peoples at certain points in time as the term 'Germanic' was and used to justify the same atrocious acts... in fact I've met many people who are 'repulsed' by blond people today and have made absolutely ridiculous and offensive comments to me, as well as judged me and made amazing assumptions about me simply due to the fact that I have blond hair and blondism was some cherished trait among fringe lunatics who managed to finagle their way into power in 20th century Germany. That doesn't mean blond people don't exist. It doesn't mean people don't identify themselves as blond. It doesn't mean blond isn't a useful (but ultimately rather trivial and superficial) method of categorization humans in a physical sense. Germanic people are an ethnolinguistic group. A living, breathing, existing one today. Whether it's people identify strongly with that or not, they are a thing and many of them DO identify with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is bloody ridiculous. Germanic peoples are the ONLY ethnolinguistic group this is an issue with. The SOLE one. Turkic peoples apparently exist, Slavic peoples apparently exist, Celtic peoples apparently exist (even though they don't even speak the languages, bizarrely, explain that one to me... I guess Thracians, Illyrians, Baltic Prussians, Picts and numerous other extinct ethnic groups are still with us today since people descended from them live on, LOL), Semitic peoples apparently exist, Romance peoples apparently exist, Bantu peoples apparently exist, Greek people apparently exist, Armenians apparently exist, Baltic peoples apparently exist, Finnic peoples apparently exist. Pretty much every ethnic identity you'll find is rooted in a language group. Almost every single one begins as a language group. They all make clear mention of the fact it's mostly a language based term (the larger umbrella terms), and that there are divides (sometimes hostile) within the larger ethnolinguistic bloc. That's absolutely fine.


 * They make it clear? So you often come across people who state their ethnic identity to be Romance, or Semitic? You've met Swedes who identify as "German"? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the term Latin? Or Latino/Latina? You've honestly never heard someone from France, Spain, Italy, South America, the US etc. refer to themselves as 'Latins'? What do you think that term means exactly? They definitely don't share ancestral origns, in fact the original Latin tribe didn't even shared ancestral origins being a mix of all different peoples adopting the language and identity of the Latins. The people the Romans went on to assimilate all over Europe shared even LESS of an ancestral origin with them. Exact same thing with the Slavs, massive levels of Slavicization all over the regions Slavs settled historically. I've met PLENTY of people who consider themselves 'Semites' and 'Semitic'. In fact the term used for hatred of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group which originated out of a confederation of Semitic tribes in Canaan, is funnily enough 'anti-Semitism'. A people who, by the way, have a SEMITIC laguage as their 'traditional and holy tongue', and who resurrected that language as the lingua france of the State of Israel. What's the total Semitic genetic inheritance of modern Jews? You probably don't know the answer to that, but it's far lower than you probably would think it is. And as for Swedes, why are you conflating German with Germanic? Swedes don't speak German, they speak Swedish which like German descends from the Proto-Germanic language, making the speakers of both languages... wait for it, GERMANIC. Every Swede I've met has strongly identified as Germanic, or sometimes more specifically North Germanic. Not a single one has disputed this term. Have you ever actually spoken to someone who doesn't speak English as their mothertongue, Andrew?

Yep, hide it away as always lmao. All you'll do is further incentivize Germanic peoples to strongly identify as such and push for this. As history repeatedly shows us, the harder you try to 'quash' an identity or 'purge' it, the stronger it is held among people.
 * Bring scholarly sources to this discussion or it is a waste of time. This is a Wikipedia article not an online forum for people seeking arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see another editor deleted the response, which is appropriate, but assuming that this person really does not understand how Wikipedia works (which is certainly how it seems) I will just explain some of our standard policies: On Wikipedia our task, in a nutshell, is to summarize what the best published sources say, and not go beyond those, where "best" is defined by a source's apparent reputation for expertize among other experts. So that is the reason for asking for scholarly sources. The same rule can and should indeed be implied to all other articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

New suggestion for the lede
Once again, I'd like to suggest a new beginning for the lede:

Germans (Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. When used in the context of ancient history, it can also mean members of Germanic peoples. The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany.

The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century ...

What do you think ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Normally on Wikipedia, we do NOT say that the topic "can also mean" something else which we cover in another topic. We use disambiguation links etc. I'd say there is an extremely strong consensus that we should always do this, and there are very good practical reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Next try:


 * Germans (Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany.
 * Germans (Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, the people of German descent or the native speakers of the German language. The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen. During the 19th and much of the 20th century, discussions on German identity were dominated by concepts of a common language, culture, descent and history. Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity. Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany.


 * The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century ...


 * Thanks for fixing that one specific problem. Apart from that issue, how do you see this draft as an improvement? This is not a sarcastic question. Flicking between the current version and this one, I am not 100% sure what your aim is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The phrase "characterized by a common German culture, descent and history" refers to the views of the late 19th / early 20th centuries (according to the quote from the source), but our article misrepresents it as the current view. I don't know of a single source claiming that Germans are seen or see themselves this way in the 21st century.
 * 2) All 21st century sources that I know of state that each and every citizen of Germany is a German in the full sense of the word. But the current lede says "may also be applied to any citizen", implying that German citizens who don't share the common history or descent are Germans in a somewhat lesser or secondary sense. In contrast to this, all dictionaries that I consulted put the definition "German citizen" or "inhabitant of Germany" first. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: The current lede basically has a notion of Germanness that is based on the ethnic-cultural aspects. Such a notion (in German: Ein "Volksbegriff, der auf das Ethnisch-Kulturelle verengt" ist) is rejected even by the AfD, the rightmost party represented in German parliament (German text of the declaration on AfD's official website). Many people (including myself) consider the AfD racist and part of the extreme right. That is to say, the notion expressed in the lede is even more right-wing than the most right-wing party in German parliament. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That explanation makes sense to me to some extent, although I wonder if we really have a source which says the old concept no longer applies, which is what your text implies? I am finding it hard to keep flicking between pages, so here is a comparison, broken into similar bits, and some comments:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea to split up the big problem into smaller ones.
 * It still seems a bit odd to have no mention of either citizenship or ethnicity in the proposed opening sentence I personally believe that it should be "citizen" instead of "inhabitant" (exactly because of the persons living in Germany without identifying as Germans who you mentioned), but both my Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition, 2010, on Kindle) and Merriam-Webster say "inhabitant". The idea of ethnicity is expressed by the words "German descent", and I think this also covers the "OTOH" example you gave.
 * Maybe there needs to be two articles Not to split the article was the only thing we were able to agree on in the RfC, see Talk:Germans/Archive_8.
 * how are Germans being defined here? I think you really spotted the weak point: The source says: "... depending on how German is defined". I now suggest this wording: "Depending on the definition of Germanness, estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, and most of them live in Germany.".
 * I intend to write something about the fourth line of your table, but won't be able to do so today. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the source given in the section „Ancient history“ (Peter Heather, ref. no 24), I’d suggest „Middle Ages“ instead of „Early Middle Ages“: „The history of Germans as an ethnic group began among Germanic peoples of Central Europe in the Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Germany emerged from the eastern remains of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century“ I hope that this in sufficiently vague (both geographically and temporally) to meet your concerns. —-Rsk6400 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for making the effort.
 * I think we have to be careful about relying on tertiary sources in a case like this, where we know there are some "issues". I think the proposed first sentence is an improvement, but it will be controversial and eventually it will be removed.
 * Fine by me. It is an idea which will probably come up again if we can NOT make a good article without splitting.
 * Germanness in statistics. I guess sources for that might be a question, but OK so far.
 * The middle ages. I have problems with that. Probably this is just an add-on for most people, so not our core topic for now, but (a) there was, in this period and all others, no united action in any part of written history by any entity called the Germanic peoples, unless you mean "Franks", in which case I think the word "Franks" would be more clear, but still not right. What happened was that the eastern Franks were now in a kingdom with Saxons, Thuringians, Allemanians and Bavarians, and trying to get a unified act together fighting against people to the east, and also trying to define their relationship with their fellow Franks in Lotharingia (the proud Frankish homeland, under their control on and off at first) and France (which had been the original Merovingian powerbase, and had a longer run of Carolingian kings). (b) There are different definitions of Central Europe but in most of them places like Aachen, Cologne, and Trier are on the edge, or outside of it. The Holy Roman Empire, the eastern Frankish kingdom, had a lot of power centres around the Rhine and was only starting to push towards Central Europe when its Eastern bit started to realize that it was maybe not going to join up again with France. (c) Despite the importance of Lotharingia and France to Franks, the Eastern Kingdom was not just a remnant, but one very big and legitimate part of the Frankish political domain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

how about doing a narrow / broad distinction in the opening sentence, such as Germans (German: Deutsche) are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language. ? Second, concerning the last bit, how about The history of Germans as an ethnic group began with the separation of distinct Kingdom of Germany from the eastern part of the Frankish Empire under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century, forming the core of the Holy Roman Empire.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC) thanks for your edit, but it raises some old questions: First, aren't Austrians only Germans in an extended and slightly controversial way? (Not the same way that a German is a German.) If you call Austrians "German", why not Swiss, Belgian, French, Rumanian, Russian etc German-speakers? See my suggestion to Rsk6400 above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For some weeks now, I've had the intention of replying as soon as I'd find enough some quiet moments. But since the question had become so complicated, I always shrank back from it. So, thanks for your idea, I hope that my edit is OK with you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is definite improvement, yes. Thanks for your efforts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, just wanted to briefly chime in and offer my support to both your efforts. I think the wording you've painstakingly hashed out is a marked improvement, and the level-headed detail you've brought to this discussion is welcome on a topic too often dominated by emotions. --Tserton (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021
Please fix the edits by User:Rsk6400 that introduced two different values for pop12 and region12 in the infobox. 98.230.196.188 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems there is now a doubling of the number 12. Not sure what the best fix is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for the hint. Sorry for the error, I set it right now (hopefully) --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Germans in Poland
c. 700,000 🤣 They are only 147,814! (2011) Abraham (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Source please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Germans as an ethnic group?
Why is it that of all Ethnic groups listed on Wikipedia, the Germans are basically denied their existence? Norwegians> Ethnic Group. English>Ethnic Group. Poles>Ethnic Group. French>Ethnic Group. And so on and so forth. But when it comes to Germans, who undoubtly are an Ethnic Group with common language and culture and usually origin, it all of a sudden becomes this endless discussion constantly leaning towards denying any German ethnic group at all. Quite ironic, considering the Germans have been around for so long.

Best regards, an ehtnic German.


 * The article starts with the broader concept of German identity then mentions German ethnicity. This has been worked on to try to cover several different concepts in a balanced way. Being German is "multi-dimensional", not ONLY ethnic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes but German identity is also regionalism, tradition and ethnical continuity.--2003:CB:2F43:5894:24B2:3F33:4B2:C9CF (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Source please ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the lede currently doesn't make any mention of ethnicity — it might be worth adding a brief mention. There are clearly people who perceive Germans to refer to an ethnic group (whether that's in addition to or in place of the nationality is neither here nor there). And in the various discussions that preceded the current version of the lede, ethnicity was one of the major ways editors recommended Germans to be defined. Maybe something like: "Germans are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of ethnic German descent or native speakers of the German language." Or, if we're going for precision over brevity, something like "Germans are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people . People in other countries who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language are also sometimes referred to as Germans or ethnic Germans in some contexts. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tserton (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I saw it, the proponents of a definition as an ethnic group in those discussions were misreading the sources. On the other hand, we already have the mention of the ethnic group at the beginning of the second paragraph in a historical context. Regarding your two suggestions: The first one ("ethnic German descent") seems to raise more questions than simply "German descent". E.g. are Jewish Germans excluded from being "ethnic Germans" ? The second one: "Sometimes ... in some contexts" expresses the same idea twice. I'm not so sure about "Germans or ethnic Germans", but I feel it sounds complicated. Still, I could live with your second suggestion without the last three words ("in some contexts"), but I prefer the current text. The problem is that we don't have a modern scholarly text saying something like "Today, Germans see themselves and are seen by many non-Germans as ..." --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Germans in Britain
If you want a change to be made and you see that another editor (in this case, me) disagrees, you take it to the talk page, but you don't start an edit war, see WP:BRD. Since the definition of "Germans" is rather broad, there are no well-defined numbers for any country. That's why I don't think, we should have a special marker "ancestry" just for the UK, and we shouldn't have three lines when all the other items have only one. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You realise it was me who edited so that it was 297,000 in the first place right? I wanted to undo my own change because it wasn't accurate and was about British people who were born in Germany (there are British military bases there for instance). And since it saves me the effort of re-arranging the list so the UKs share of Germans is lower I figured I'd display the actual number of German nationals living here as well as those who simply have German ancestry. --Dan27032 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether it was you or somebody else who made the original edit doesn't matter for WP, see WP:OWNERSHIP. But if it was you, you might be in the position to provide a source (reference). Further discussion will be easier based on such a source. And another thing I'd like to ask you: Please use a colon to WP:INDENT. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Germany
the flag has been in the article since at least May. In May, Germans were still defined as an ethnic group. After a long discussion (which fills the whole archive 8 of this talk page), the definition of Germans as an ethnic group was dropped. That's why I'd prefer to leave the flag where it is. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not expressed expicitly in the lede that Germans are an ethnic group, it is just nonsense to say that it is not. The definition natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language is a definition of an ethnic group. What else should it be? If the article was strictly about the citizens of Germany, it would be another matter, but it is not. If 40M US citizens, 3M Brazilian citizens, 1M Australian citizens etc. mentioned in the infobox are German in the sense of the article, the flag is completely inappropriate. I will leave the discussion to the regulars, just noting that in the vaste majority of articles about people connected to a national state or to a regional unit, flags have been deemed undue and been removed or have never been there in the first place. --T*U (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "Germans" defies simplistic characterizations such as "it is an ethnic group" and "it is not an ethnic group". It generally depends on geographic and situational context. The first sentence of the lede captures this quite well. As for the flag, it is not "fully inappropriate" because of e.g. 40M people identifying as Germans in the U.S. census. For many of them, the German flag is a symbol of Germanness (which can be seen e.g. in Oktoberfest celebrations). That said, I don't care whether the flag is in the infobox or not. Visually, it has a dominance that it doesn't have in the infobox of the article Germany. –Austronesier (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the German flag generally is that much used as a symbol for the German diaspora that it is appropriate to be the main illustration of the infobox. It might be mentioned in a separate section about symbols further down in the article (see Macedonians (ethnic group) for an example about a flag that is universally very much used as a common symbol), but as the first thing you see, I find it completely undue. As for the Oktoberfest, if you look up pictures from celebrations in the US, I think you will find (like I did) that the German flag is far less prominent than the blue-and-white colours of the Bavarian flag. --T*U (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * T*U, I don't think the comparison to Macedonia is helpful, but yes the German flag is indeed primarily a relatively neutral political symbol of a modern country. (Indeed, there is a while story about why we find it less promoted by cultural organizations than Union Jacks or Stars and Stripes.) However I agree with Austronesier that at least in the case of Germans, the country and the ethnicity are substantially overlapping, and as reflected in our introduction, connections to that country increasingly dominate most ways of defining who is German. So like Austronesier I find it hard to feel strongly about the flag, and like Rsk6400 I am a bit concerned that your rationale effectively dismisses the way our article is currently written (after a lot of discussion)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I do not dismiss the way the article is written. Two points: 1) Even if the article does not state explicitly in the lede that Germans are an ethnic group, it does describe them as citizens and/or people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language, which imho is equivalent to 'an ethnic group' (which is completely uncontroversial). 2) I think the German flag should definitely be mentioned in the article. However, I find the prominent placement of the flag as the topmost picture in the article to be undue. --T*U (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just having opened the page on a mobile device, I can absolutely follow here. The flag does not represent Germans as much as e.g. the Stars and Stripes represent both the US and its population (including diaspora). And FWIW, Turkish people looks perfectly ok without the flag, even though in general they are much more of the flag-waving kind than Germans are. :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I find those explanations very reasonable. Like I said, I don't feel strongly about the flag. I think Rsk6400's concern is also reasonable, but it is written in the context of how removing the flag may be a step away from the balanced position we achieved rather than a strong position about the flag as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't have strong feelings about the flag, either. But I have strong feelings about the idea of removing it if the rationale is that Germans are an ethnic group. I don't know any recent source defining them as such. The only viable way to define Germanness is by describing their relationship with Germany. BTW: Turkish people defines its subject as an ethnic group (I'm not sure whether all Kurdish citizens of Turkey like that, but that's another question). --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just checked some other articles on nationalities that are not defined as ethnic groups: Americans, Canadians, Austrians, Belgians, and British people all have a flag. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And Cubans, Iraqis, Omani people (etc etc...) don't. The whole thing of "ethnic group" or not is a false flag in this discussion, as it is totally unrelated. The only question is: does the image in the infobox serves its purpose to illustrate with high visual prominence what the article is about? –Austronesier (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of us seem to feel super strongly about the flag as such so perhaps the best approach is to consider whether we need a symbol at all. I don't think that worrying about subsequent edits in the future is the best approach. OTOH to the extent that some editors (not me) think articles need symbols it is not a bad choice as Germans are a group that is quite difficult to pry apart from a specific modern country, and I can't think of a symbol that would get much more support, so I'm neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I fear that the whole infobox is a mess, because it sums up data of different kinds, especially German citizens and people who report German ancestry. I'd suggest: Remove the flag, the map, the "Total population", "Language" (few of the 40 million Americans reporting German ancestry know German), and "Religion" (the current version totally ignores German Muslims) data from the infobox. Then we could base the "Regions" on this data collection and add "ancestry" data where available, e.g. in the US. Any thoughts ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it's a mess and all apples and pears oranges. I mean, if we based "Languages" on "Population", we would have around a third of all Germans as native speakers of English! "Population" is a hodgepodge based on sources that define "Germans" quite differently: some figures follow Haarmann (2015), but the entries e.g. for Austria and Switzerland do not (which is a sensible choice for these two). And things like "Languages" and "Religion" are much better covered in Demographics of Germany. –Austronesier (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Germans in Mexico
The definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is given in WP:PSTS. According to that definition, Canal Once may be a secondary or a tertiary source, but it is surely no primary one. A typical primary source might be a study by a historian or geneticist estimating the number of Germans in Mexico. Additionally, primary sources should be used with care (because in most cases they have to be interpreted), but their use is not forbidden, especially not in this case, because the simple copying of a number doesn't involve interpretation. For me, the only question is whether Canal Once can be considered a reliable source according to WP:RS. I guess, in this case it may be considered reliable enough, and I'd suggest the number be readded. But I leave that to you. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , you brought up a good point and I really appreciate it. It seems that does not clearly understand the difference between primary and secondary and tertiary sources. If I were him or her, I would readd the numbers I added before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpoviro (talk • contribs)
 * Canal One is not fiable: see in Spanish Wiki. Is secondary source, but doesn't indicate sources in German section, diferent to other sections. In parallel, don't exist references in web, books & others with there numbers. Wikiedro (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , no he does not agree with you. You are missing the whole point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpoviro (talk • contribs)

Italy
, rather than edit warring to add the 500,000 figure, please engage in discussion here. The source you are citing says that there are 280,000 Germans in Italy, not 500,000. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There are about 211.000 citizens of Germany in Italy according to this source:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-and-emigrant-populations-country-origin-and-destination

and there are around 360.000 ethnic Germans with Italian citizenship living in Italy:

https://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/speciali/minoranze/Caria.html#:~:text=Nell'Italia%20settentrionale%20isole%20linguistiche,Sauris%20e%20Timau%20in%20Friuli.

Making for around 570.000 Germans in Italy. I see that the figure for 40 millions of Germans for the United States is based on self declared German Americans with the American citizenship. You either delete such absurd figure or let me post the real number of Germans in Italy.

LambdofGod (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep adding a figure of 500,000 if it's 570,000? But a more fundamental issue: do you know that there's no overlap in these two figures? If there is, they can't simply be added together. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no overlap between them. One is about foreign Germans and the other is about German minority in Italy with italian citizenship. LambdofGod (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the figure of 360,000 in the source you're now citing? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know there is no overlap? According to German nationality law, it's possible for a German to retain dual citizenship in some cases. According to Italian nationality law, it's even easier for Italian citizenship in recent times. It's therefore entirely possible for an ethnic German living in Italy to have both Italian citizenship and German citizenship and to fall into both categories. What evidence do you have that such people are excluded from one of these categories. In any case, the fact you have to look into such things IMO is sufficient evidence this is too complicated to comply with WP:CALC and it is therefore WP:OR. Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

German language etc
In the opening paragraph we have: "Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary though not exclusive criterion of German identity.[13]" This footnote 13 is a reference to a source that we are leaning on very heavily in the opening "Haarmann 2015, p. 313. "After centuries of political fragmentation, a sense of national unity as Germans began to evolve in the eighteenth century, and the German language became a key marker of national identity."" If I understand correctly the intention here is to allow for some fuzziness in what "German" means, going beyond mere citizenship? However: I suggest tweaking might be appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference does not justify the sentence. It is referring explicitly to the 18th century and not clearly referring to the situation today. And things have evolved.
 * It does not really help explain one side of the fuzziness today. This definition would include German citizens whose parents were not German speakers. I suppose the quote is very specifically intended to cover another kind of fuzziness and include people who live in German speaking communities outside Germany (in Russia, Argentina, etc)? But foreign communities of German speakers (apart from Austria, Switzerland) are now not so significant?
 * If we really want to be clear then our opening paragraph should surely be saying something about the bigger gorilla in the room? Austrians and Swiss German speakers certainly don't call themselves German. This is a much more important point than trying to account for what is left of smaller communities in places like Russia?


 * I mean it's just a more honest article than others, Germans generally do heavily emphasize speaking German as the primary criterion of Germanness, other ethnic groups like to delude themselves that they share 'common ancestry' (at least any more than they do with any other living, breathing human on Earth, particularly neighboring ones, with whom they share a recent common origin in Africa and 99.9% of their genetic code with).
 * I think it's great the Germans article even attempts to tackle what actually constitutes the German identity, and there's a lengthy, fantastic section on 'identity' in this very article that goes into what constituted and constitutes the German identity, so having the stuff about language in the opening isn't all that necessary I guess, although I don't see the harm in reinforcing the idea.
 * Unlike many other ethnic group articles which seem to not want to even attempt to tackle what constitutes their identity since their identity is so convoluted, vapid or fantastical. 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Austrians and Swiss German speakers certainly don't call themselves German"
 * No, they do, as does most of the world constantly, regularly group them all as 'just Germans'. And did for most of history. Again you're confusing a political identity with an ethnic identity. Swiss Germans are literally defined by their speaking German in contrast to the French and Italian Swiss (3 traditional ethnic divides of Switzerland). Austrians being 'confused' for German is... a tired old joke by this point.
 * You probably also think Flemings don't call/consider themselves Dutch, right. Ironically Belgium is divided into 2 ethnic groups based on the Dutch-speaking Flemings and the French-speaking Walloons, and the idea of unification of Flemings with 'Greater Netherlands (Groot-Nederland)' has conistently VERY HIGH support in opinion polls in both Netherlands and Flanders.
 * What a shock.
 * "This definition would include German citizens whose parents were not German speakers."
 * Yes, those people (assuming they speak German) are, more often than not, considered ethnic Germans by other ethnic Germans. I mean you even had Germans with Polish surnames serving in high positions in the NSDAP, even they didn't care about 'blood' when it was convenient for them not to.
 * Are you suggesting they're not? Would you like to tell me why those people are not ethnic Germans, Andrew.
 * Are you going to delight us all with a stab in the dark at 19th century racial science? 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)   WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Germanic people came into contact with other tribes
When the Germanic people moved from Scandinavia to modern-day Germany they came into contact with Celtic, Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes. Shouldn’t this be mentioned in the article? I tried to add it but it got removed for apparently not discussing it on here first. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about Germans and not Germanic peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The various Germanic tribes helped form the German ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't think that is correct in any meaningful way. Germany developed out of a part of the larger Frankish empire. It was not built up by tribes. The period when there were Germanic "tribes" in this part of Europe was many centuries earlier. But secondly, even if correct in a simple way, your reasoning would still not justify making an article about A, into an article about A+B, when we have another article about B.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew Lancaster. Also: The article is largely based on tertiary sources, so we should not add material that is not considered relevant by those sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The concept of a German ethnicity came out of the Germanic tribes. The empire you wrote of - the Frankish Empire - was a Germanic empire. It’s true that Celts and Slavs historically settled in modern-day Germany, but the concept of “Germans” came about when the West Germanic tribes emerged together and became known as “ethnic” (diutisc). The article itself even states, “The German ethnicity emerged among early Germanic peoples of Central Europe, particularly the Franks, Frisians, Saxons, Thuringii, Alemanni and Baiuvarii.” Present-day Germany was settled by various ethnic groups and tribes, including groups and tribes from outside of Europe because that’s how historical migration happened. What’s wrong with mentioning it in the origins of the Germans?
 * Speculations about people moving from Scandinavia and coming into contact with "Celtic, Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes" do not match the topic of this article. The multiethnic Ottonian empire split out from the ethnically diverse Frankish empire. It was therefore by definition not built up from smaller units. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Germany developed out of a part of the larger Frankish empire."
 * Yes, the parts that spoke Germanic languages, in contrast to the western parts which spoke Vulgar Latin or languages descended from that. 88.110.103.12 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There’s no “speculation”. The Indo-European and Indo-Aryan migrations are well documented. Present-day Germany has had tribes that weren’t Germanic tribes settle there for centuries e.g. Celtic tribes and Slavic tribes. All Europeans are descended from tribes outside of Europe because that’s how historic migrations happened, why should that be excluded with regard to Germans as an ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are all different subjects than "Germans". We obviously can't discuss every topic in every article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, Celtic and Slavic tribes descended from the exact same Bronze Age population bloc as Germanic tribes. The differences (which evenutally over millennia developed) between them was effectively one of language and culture, but even their language descends from a single Bronze Age ancestor (Proto-Indo-European) as do all their cultures (and regional subgroup cultures).
 * The article makes note of Celtic tribes being Germanicized, but it makes no mention of Slavic or other peoples (Baltic, Romance etc. etc.) being Germanicized and/or Germanized, I don't really know why that is.
 * Every ethnic and ethnolinguistic group absorbs 'outsiders' and assimilates over time, you won't find a single one in the world that hasn't done it.
 * The English Wikipedia seems to have a problem with this simple concept of assimilation, perhaps because it is dominated by American editors who think a test tube defines their 'ethnicity'. 88.110.103.12 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Germanic tribes, Celtic tribes, Slavic tribes, anything which happened in the Bronze Age. All of those topics are NOT the same as "Germans". the fact that we can say there are connections does not mean they are the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an article about modern German people, many of whom had ancestors from these non-German, non-Germanic groups who were all Germanized at various times throughout history.
 * So yes, it's extremely relevant to the article on Germans, many of whom are only German today due to this process of Germanization in the past.
 * Let me present you with an alternative question, do you think the English people article should make no mention of the Celtic Britons (or other historical non-English groups) who were Englishized at various points in the past, Andrew Lancaster? 92.14.219.81 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this is a problem, the Polish people article makes many references to different groups who have been Polonized in the past and are now part of the Polish ethnic group.
 * Many other ethnic group articles talk about the various outsider peoples who have been absorbed and assimilated into them.
 * I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that the various groups Germans have absorbed and assimilated in the past are somehow not relevant to the article on German people.
 * Bizarre. 92.14.219.81 (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am confused about the fuss. We do mention in "Medieval history": Over time, some Slavic populations were assimilated by Germans, resulting in many Germans acquiring substantial Slavic ancestry. We could, however, probably mention more about other assimilation events due to expansionism (Old Prussians, protestant Lithuanians) and migration (Huguenots, Poles, post-WWII immigration etc.). –Austronesier (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I am also confused. No one would deny the connections, some more definite than others, between modern Germans and various ancient populations. There are various such connections which deserve and hopefully have their own articles. Using the comparison which is made, when writing about the English we would typically not go back to the Bronze Age. We would typically start somewhere near the earliest definite English but of course also make sure the article has good linking to articles where readers can go further back. It is a practical issue as much as anything. We need to split articles up and use links.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep talking about the Bronze Age. In fact Celtic and Slavic and Germanic peoples didn't even exist in the Bronze Age, merely the population bloc ancestral to them all did, Proto-Indo-Europeans, and later Proto-Italic-Celtic-Germanic Europeans and Proto-Baltic-Slavic-Europeans and so on and so forth until we get to the present.
 * Germanization happened much later, however they still came into contact with Celtic and Slavic and Baltic and Romance and other types of peoples all throughout their history, because peoples who spoke languages descended from Proto-Celtic, Proto-Baltic or Latin all definitely existed during the time of Germanic migrations and of course from the earliest days of Old High German-speaking communities onwards.
 * Why do you keep mentioning the Bronze Age? 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, all we are suggesting is making note of signifcant Germanization campaigns, as you have alluded to it was particularly effective and prevalent in the Baltic regions while various German political entities had colonial holdings there.
 * There was also widespread historical Germanization of Jewish peoples and others.
 * This isn't just a problem with the German article though, a lot of ethnic group articles on this site seem to kind of whitewash or ignore historical assimilation events and like to pretend they never happened. 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to split articles up into logical separate topics. As long as readers can find their way to related topics, things are working. Bronze ages were not first mentioned by me, and anyway when do you think the proto Celtic language was spoken? And why do you keep equating German with Germanic? These are two different concepts that don't have such similar words in most languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Well we can safely assume Proto-Celtic began to be spoken sometime between PIE-speaking men carrying predominantly R1b-L151 spreading into Central Europe from the East and branching off into northern Germany/southern Scandinavia (Proto-Germanic), the Central Eastern Alps (Proto-Celtic) and the Italian Peninsula (Proto-Italic). Why are you now interested on when Proto-Celtic began to be spoken? The specific when and the specific where isn’t all that important tbh, there are estimates on most of the proto language Wikipedia pages if you’re interested, strongest estimates for a definitive Proto-Celtic language and culture are around 800 BC in Halstatt, and like I said it happened over millennia, what we can safely assume is that initially they were speaking a singular language and had a fairly uniform culture before it broke down into various proto languages and cultures (many of which are now likely lost to time such as hypothetical Belgian branches of Indo-European). You seem to be of the impression that this assimilation predominantly happened in the Bronze Age or something, the vast majority of Germanization happened in the historical period, well after Old High German came into existence. I’m well aware of the differences between Germanic and German, what makes you think I’m not? We would call it Germanicization before Germans existed and it was Germanic tribes assimilating non-Germanic tribes, and Germanization from the earliest days of the German language onwards. You could also still use the broader term Germanicization for Germanization, or for any of the other processes whereby non-Germanic regions became Germanic (such as the British Isles), but there isn’t all that much point being vague is there. If you look at the Slavicization page, it has neat little sections for all the more specific types of Slavicization since Slavs broke up into distinct ethnic groups (Russianization, Polonization, Czechization, Belarusianization etc etc) What’s complicated about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.219.81 (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)  WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't you just invented this term Germanization? I doubt whether there is any good reason for Wikipedia to have a stubb article called "Slavicization" but at least that might be a word you can find used here and there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Haven’t I just invented the word ‘Germanization’? Are you having a laugh? There’s an entire lengthy article on Wikipedia itself about Germanization. It’s in dictionaries, it’s in Wiktionary. Are you honestly for real? The Slavicization article isn’t a stub page, or maybe it is but it directs to the more specific kinds, and the Slavs article itsef talks extensively of Slavicization events, and there’s also a page on Celticization which I’m sure you’ll have absolutely no problems with Andrew, for some peculiar reason. Do you just not understand the concept of assimilation and how prevalent it has been historically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.219.81 (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would you think Germanization was an invented term? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation

Do you think Englishization is an invented term too? Polonization? Gaelicization? Russianization? So is it literally just Germans and Germanic peoples in general you have a problem with when it comes to this concept? It is, isn’t it, you simply cannot accept Germans and Germanic peoples generally can assimilate other peoples and absorb them. Good Lord… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.219.81 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)   WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly these are all strange words for me. But I don't claim to know everything. If there is a valid article article about Germanization, then that's surely the place to have the main discussion of that concept? Of course there can be links between the articles, as I keep saying. But the Germanization article we have focuses mainly on a deliberate policy in the 18th and 19th century, and not proto Celtic peoples etc. It does not seem to make any claims about pre-Ottonian Germans, which is the claim this discussion seems to have been about? (If that is not what is being claimed, then you need to define more clearly what exactly it is you are proposing. Like Austronesier, I find it very confusing.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I’ve been perfectly clear, I was discussing many types of Germanization from the earliest stages of Celtic and Slavic tribes being absorbed to much later (definitely post-Otto) cases of Baltic peoples (Prussians, Livonians etc) and others being Germanized during the Middle Ages onwards. In fact there were even significant Germanization policies brought about in eastern French areas conquered by Germany in the 1800s or so. Why do you keep bringing up Otto as if Germans only existed from that point? You keep focusing on the political state as if that matters. The political state and fragmentation only came about due to the ethnic differences that had developed between Germanic-speaking parts of Francia compared to Romance-speaking parts of Francia. Because funnily enough, Andrew, most people’s ethnic identities are strongly tied to the language they speak. That existed before the state fractured. That (political state) might matter in the British Isles with your Yugoslavian tier meme regional identities masquerading as ‘ethnic identities’, but it’s not what matters in the vast majority of the world. The vast majority of ethnic identities have little, if anything, to do with the sovereign state they exist within, unless it happens to be a sovereign state representing the specific ethnic majority within it. If you know so little about these terms why would your first call be to accuse me of making them up instead of just, you know, quickly googling them or checking Wiktionary or even Wikipedia itself? Don’t you think that’s a little strange? Austroneiser understands the concept of Germanization perfectly, he just doesn’t think it needs mentioning in the article anymore than it already has although he’s acknowledged it could touch upon Baltic and other more recent types of Germanization. I’m pretty exhausted with this, tbh, Andrew, and I’d really love to know why you seem to pop up in every article related to German or Germanic peoples more broadly and seem to be pushing the same agenda on every single one. Do you have a problem with the concept of Germans, or Germanic peoples more broadly, absorbing and assimilating peoples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.219.81 (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)  WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did not recognize "Germanization" as a commonly-used term relevant for the Middle Ages. And indeed the main use seems to imply a deliberate cultural policy by a modern state? Is it your intention to imply this is what happened in the middle ages? That would seem a little odd to me. That German dialects spread eastwards from the Ottonian period seems uncontroversial, but I'd say was a result of a policy of physical conquest?
 * What you are proposing is not clear at all. You insist on mixing concepts like this: "Germans, or Germanic peoples". But it still seems your real concern is about periods long before the Ottonians? (You keep mentioning Celts for example.) In any case, please make clear editing proposals and explain what published sources can be used to justify them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only assume you are feigning ignorance of what I'm talking about here in some obtuse way of obfuscating and attempting to derail and block what I'm suggesting, because you don't like what I'm suggesting. I think it's very clear you don't like what I'm talking about.
 * I've mentioned Celtic peoples no more than I have Baltic, Slavic or any of the others that Germans and/or Germanic peoples have assimilated historically.
 * You clearly have some emotional attachment to the Celtic concept and fixation on it though because you've honed in on that with laser focus ever since the brief mention of them (along with other ethnolinguistic groups) cropped up.
 * Celtic peoples have existed from the Proto-Celtic period onwards. Celtic peoples include the original Proto-Celtic-speaking population of Central Europe and later populations who speak languages descended from Proto-Celtic (many of whom only ironically only became Celtic through an identical process of Celticization).
 * Germanic peoples have absorbed Celtic peoples (among myriad others) at all different stages throughout history. So sometimes the process of absorption is Germanicization (between Proto-Germanic first being spoken and Old High German first being spoken) and at later times it is Germanization (once Germans existed as a distinct group).
 * Since we can say Old High German (earliest stage of the German language) came into existence around roughly 750... Is it possible there were any significant pockets of Celtic-speaking populations absorbed from 750 onwards by Germans? Hard to say really, unlikely though, so we can safely assume that most Celtic peoples were absorbed by earlier Germanic peoples, whose language and identity however is what Old High German emerged out of.
 * Is that clear enough for you?
 * They didn't stop existing when Proto-Celtic diverged into different languages, they merely fragmented into individual ethnic groups much like Slavs and Germanics and Romance peoples later did. 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've answered a lot of your questions (often ones I've already answered), now I'd simply like you to answer one of mine, Andrew.
 * Do you believe Germans and Germanic peoples can absorb and assimilate peoples who are non-German and non-Germanic, and in doing so make them German and Germanic? Do you believe this is possible.
 * It's a simple question. 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "but I'd say was a result of a policy of physical conquest?"
 * Yes, this often precedes processes of assimilation and absorption, forced or otherwise. Generally speaking, conquering tribe bans language and culture of the conquered tribe (at least historically), in addition to planting colonists from their own tribe who speak their own language in order to assist in this process.
 * There's also usually an immediate population decrease among the males of the conquered tribe anyway due to whatever battle they just loss that led to them being colonized, so this aids in the process of assimilation and leads to less resistance, the conquered elite are also either usually killed/exiled or themselves assimilated (as the Romans often chose to do).
 * Because that generally wipes out the conquered tribe, depending on thoroughness. Even if it doesn't wipe them out, it binds that population to your own people since they now all share a language with you and are anchored to your world.
 * What point are you trying to make with this? That it didn't happen because it was at the point of a sword? 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making no clear editing proposal and your sourcing is also not clear. Maybe we agree on lots of things, or maybe not. I honestly can't follow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Austroneiser understands the concept of Germanization perfectly. Yes, thanks. Consequently, I would never describe things that occurred before the 8–9th century under the label "Germanization". And I wouldn't really prefer to use it for any assimilation process before the emergence of the modern German nation-state. Germanization implies agency, and such agency didn't really happen until the late 19th century. –Austronesier (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean assimilated and absorbed is fine too, Germanization (generally) is just a more specific term for a type of assimilation committed by Germans, as with all the other related terms.
 * I'm not sure what you mean to suggest, that 8-9th century Old High German-speakers didn't have agency and didn't intentionally Germanize peoples they encountered? All assimilation, since tribal times onward, has required agency on behalf of the tribe attempting to assimilate, and the outsiders targeted by assimilation.
 * Has it not?
 * To give you an example, we speak of Slavicization from the 6th century onwards. Because Slavs did intentionally assimilate non-Slavs in huge numbers, in fact as far as I'm aware (don't quote me on this one though) Slavs would often take prisoners of wars for a short period of time, giving them a choice to assimilate and become Slavs at the end of it, or leave and return to their homes. We also speak of Celticization events long before various Celtic tribes had any kind of sophisticated governments or central planning.
 * Gaelicization, we talk about with the Picts for example from around the 7th century onwards. We speak of Romanization long before either of these issues.
 * If you mean by this that Germanization (or any other type of assimilation) requires sophisticated planning, organization and enactment by a centralized government, then no. It simply doesn't. 92.14.219.81 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, BEFORE the 8-9th century, sorry I misread that I guess. well I thoroughly agree, and I never suggested that should be called Germanization, rather Germanicization before 8th-9th century. We can say the German identity... roughly begins to form from the days of Old High German onwards. Obviously it would by no means have been some instantaneous process (just as the development of Old High German from Proto-West Germanic wouldn't have been either), but Old High German-speaking peoples would undoubtedly have grouped together in some sense and viewed themselves as related peoples just as any language group would, especially in those times and especially when surrounded by other peoples who spoke entirely unintelligible languages. 92.7.131.133 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that any explanation of early predecessors of German identity, whenever and however that started, is going to be about both low and high german speakers, but not dutch speakers? But as usual it depends what sources we find. Secondly, if we find there is a lot to say about this, then automatically the practical question arises of whether we should split out a specialized article - especially since we would then be talking about predecessors of germans as we see them today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "North of this line, the Franks retained their language, but it was not affected by the Second Sound Shift, which thus separated the Old Dutch varieties from the more easterly Franconian dialects which formed part of Old High German"
 * Why would the Dutch be included in an article about Germans? If you want to make note of the Franconian dialects from which Old High German and Old Dutch emerged then sure, but why would the article focus on this once the eastern and western dialects of Franconian had begun to diverge and the gradual ethnogenesis of the Dutch and German peoples has begun to take place.
 * What's interesting is you have the populations of Neustria and Austrasia becoming Romance-speaking, the more middle regions becoming western Franconian and the eastern regions of Francia becoming eastern Franconian.
 * Perhaps this was, at least partly, the basis of the tripartite division of the Frankish Empire into Western (Romance-speaking), Middle (western Franconian) and Eastern Francia (eastern Franconian). 79.66.113.154 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like hand-waving anachronistic speculation to me. "Why would the Dutch be included in an article about Germans?" Exactly. It wouldn't, but you can't say Dutch is in a different dialect continuum. That's the point. It makes no sense to suggest that being German can be defined by linguistic classifications until modern times. Germans did not have a single standard and distinct dialect of West Germanic to compare themselves to until modern times. Germany was not clearly definable as a distinct language zone. The way medieval people saw it, it contained several distinct "ethnic" areas. Roughly speaking, we can say that these had their own "languages". But the country as a whole did have a politically defined identity. You've given no evidence to show that any serious scholar sees German identity as having its origins in the coming together of peoples who recognized themselves as sharing a common heritage before they were brought together by imperial circumstances. Linguistic theories of ethnicity came much later.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just parroting your earlier logic back at you, Andrew. You didn't want to mention Celtic, Slavic, Baltic and later ethnic groups within these ethnolinguistic families who Germans had Germanized in the past earlier and now suddenly you want to talk about Dutch people in an article about Germans, just seems like a weird turn to take for you.
 * Old Dutch is slowly beginning to diverge from Old High German from the Second Sound Shift on. The ethnogenesis of Dutch people becoming distinct from German people in general is also, funnily enough, a long and murky process too with no clean break-off point (even today there are issues there, hence the name 'Dutch' in English for those people in the first place lol), just as the languages diverging was too.
 * Simply not true, from the time of Old High German begins to emerge (750 onward) on you have the earliest stages of the tentative German identity. Yes, we can talk about Low German zones and Frisian zones and other zones that were not High German-speaking and their nebulous relationship with Germanness (very similar in many ways to Dutch people's situation).
 * To put it in vaguely similar context, the English identity begins to form with the spreading of Old English throughout the various Germanic regions of the British Isles, yes? It's not an instantaneous process, they don't just magically go from Jutes and Angles and Saxons and Frisians etc. to Merry Englishmen the next morning. It takes a long, long time for them to begin seeing themselves as English due to their shared tongue and eventually ethnonym, it takes solidifying events (such as wars with neighboring and invading peoples who don't speak Old English).
 * Ethnic identities don't happen overnight, they form over long periods of time, often with a lot of setbacks too, there's no flick of a switch and suddenly these tribes are all happily one and monolith. There are conquests, absorptions, assimilations, political acquiescence, bribes, annihilations, rebellions, separations, solidifying events.
 * You just keep honing in on this politically defined part. I don't know what you're getting at with this. A centralized government legally mandating certain people to be categorized as things doesn't magically make them so, that isn't how ethnic identities work. It might aid in the process, it also might fall flat on it face, like attempts by the Norman kings of Scotland to forge a common ethnic identity between the distinct ethnic groups within the Kingdom of Scotland (now of course it works, because they all speak English in a certain range of accents funnily enough).
 * Or attempts to politically foster a 'Belgian ethnic identity' or a Swiss one. These simply have not worked, although political identities have formed around them.
 * "You've given no evidence to show that any serious scholar sees German identity as having its origins in the coming together of peoples who recognized themselves as sharing a common heritage before they were brought together by imperial circumstances. Linguistic theories of ethnicity came much later"
 * Okay, you're clearly fairly ignorant on the subject then if this is your conclusion. I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't speak German and probably haven't read many German scholarship on the German identity and its origins and formation. 79.66.113.154 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, a Dutch-language-based identity did not split out of a High German identity, and Low German was not just some small exceptional case within a country that saw itself as defined by speaking High German. Low and High are connected to each other and distinguished from the Dutch because of political history. Linguistically the medieval continuum west Germanic speakers had a name for their single dialect continuum but they apparently understood it only as linguistic. Yes, ethnicity or identity often develops gradually. So? How does this prove that language causes political entities and not the opposite? Bring real sources (German is fine) and make clear editing proposals, or else please stop posting on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying Dutch and German split from shared Franconian dialects.
 * Old Dutch, and Old High German begin to gradually diverge FROM ONE ANOTHER upon the Second Sound Shift onward, this is the tentative 'breaking away' of these languages from their shared ancestral Franconian dialects.
 * You're so desperate to try and score points here that you're not even taking the time to read what I'm saying and attempt to understand it.
 * I also didn't claim Low German was a lone exceptional case whatsoever and referenced other related languages like Frisian and others, so I have absolutely no idea how you've come to this conclusion.
 * "Low and High are connected to each other and distinguished from the Dutch because of political history."
 * That's complete nonsense. What political label we, or others, choose to slap on Low German doesn't change the fact that it is closer to Dutch and has been for most of history. The only reason traditionally Low German regions are growing closer to traditionally High German areas today is precisely because High German is obliterating Low German in those traditional northern regions today due to the ever increasing dominance of High German throughout Germany, and indeed much of the German-speaking world.
 * "How does this prove that language causes political entities and not the opposite?"
 * You're suggesting the reason Francia politically disintegrated into, effectively, Romance-speaking West Francia and Germanic-speaking East Francia wasn't caused by language shifts? That the language shifts happened AFTER he political disintegration?
 * What? 79.66.113.154 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * German sources are fine? I thought we weren't allowed to present non-English sources to the English Wikipedia. Okay, you really want German sources discussing the formation of the German identity and the crucial nature of the German (and to a lesser extent, wider Germanic) languages in doing this? You'll accept them? 79.66.113.154 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Linguistically the medieval continuum west Germanic speakers had a name for their single dialect continuum but they apparently understood it only as linguistic."
 * Most peoples of the past also considered language groups to be 'racial groups' that must be of shared ancestral origin (otherwise how would they share so many cultural traits and beliefs and other similarities, in addition to a tongue).
 * Your idea that peoples of the past looked at those who shared a language with them as merely 'completely separate and unrelated individuals who just happened to share a language' is ridiculous.
 * This was the Middle Ages. There was no Duolingo. There were not institutionalized schools and learning facilities.
 * The only way languages spread in those times were through extremely intimate relations and dynamics, groups of peoples living in tight communities for long periods of times and mixing and interacting and trading. 79.66.113.154 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done with you anyway. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how ethnic identities form and work (particularly in Central Europe or other language contact zones).
 * These peoples all referred to themselves by the same names 'Duits' 'Deutsch' 'Plattduitsk' (it's why we still call Nederlanders Dutch in English and refer to Pennsylvanian Dutch as Dutch instead of Pennsylvanian Germans!) from the same root, and viewed themselves as a common peoples with common origins despite tribal divisions within them or political divides.
 * Gaelic Ireland had ethnic divides too between Milesians, Laigin, Cruithin, Eiarann etc., but these peoples were actually considered to be different 'races' of distinct ancestral origins who all just happened to speak Gaelic if you actually read contemporary Irish sources. Despite this we refer to them as a singular ethnic group today and the idea of ethnic divides within the Gaelic people is completely forgotten (ironically by a considerably more ancestrally mixed and diverse Irish population who all speak English).
 * The idea of the Dutch (Duits as they traditionally called themselves) being separate from Germans (particularly Low Germans) is a very new thing, and even today doesn't have particularly widespread belief even in the Netherlands.
 * There's just no reasoning with you, you have a completely artificial and unrealistic perception of ethnic groups due to growing up in the English-speaking world (which likes to delude itself that their speaking English as as mothertongue is not a crucial part of their identity).
 * But other peoples DO see you as a common bloc of people despite political divides and terms like 'the Anglo-Saxon world' are already widely prevalent in foreign media.
 * You have your wish, I am done. 79.66.113.154 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the statistics of the regions with significant german populations
In Kazakhstan 900,000 Germans are taken. They were 900,000 in 1990, when the USSR still existed, the same for Russia (800,000 Germans), but these are too old numbers, from 1990, most of them emigrated to Germany in the nineties ... In Brazil they are too few, in Argentina according to many data, including the government, say there are several million, the same is true for Canada and Mexico, in South Africa most of the Boers / Afrikaners have partial German origin. We should also include the Alsatians and Lorraine who although they speak French are of German origin. Many South American countries are missing: Chile, Peru ', Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay (Mennonites), Guatemala, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico ..... and European countries: Netherlands (Frisians), Luxembourg (Luxembourgers are considered Germans), the German minority of Belgium, the German Greeks who return to Greece, the German Turks who return to Turkey, ... Furthermore, you add could also the Swiss and the Austrians, not only because they speak German but also because they are still very similar on a physical level and for the somatic features
 * Sources ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Germans in Brazil:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20110715050625/http://www.passeiweb.com/na_ponta_lingua/sala_de_aula/geografia/geografia_do_brasil/demografia_imigracoes/brasil_imigracoes_alemanha
 * Germans in Mexico:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160305092624/http://www.oncetv-ipn.net/losquellegaron/back_programas.html
 * Germans in Argentina:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20111006142933/http://www.cacw.com.ar/sitio/notas_detalle.php?id=NTk%3D
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20100213071340/http://www.embajada-alemana.org.ar/culturas/becas1.htm
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20111128203016/http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/areas/secretaria_gral/colectividades/?col=1
 * Germans in Canada:
 * https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=105396&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=95&VID=0&VNAMEE&VNAMEF
 * https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/imm/Table.cfm?Lang=E&T=31&Geo=01
 * Germans in South Africa:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20091009211626/http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/meadows/7589/intro_en.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20121013012659/http://africanhistory.about.com/od/southafrica/p/AfrikanerGene.htm
 * Germans in France:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian_dialect
 * Germans in Paraguay:
 * https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Paraguay.html
 * Germans in Bolivia:
 * https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Bolivia.html
 * Germans in Chile:
 * https://www.dw.com/es/alemanes-en-chile-entre-el-pasado-colono-y-el-presente-empresarial/a-14958983-1
 * Germans in Peru:
 * https://www.peru-spiegel.de/Peruanische-Bevoelkerung/Deutsche-Einwanderung-in-Peru.htm
 * Germans in Netherlands:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20181009222941/https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/CCD504EA-9D41-40C2-AE28-BFB0A51C2045/0/2005k3b15p096art.pdf
 * https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/en/dataset/37325eng/table
 * Germans in Kazakhstan:
 * https://stat.gov.kz/ Alebastien (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At least some of those sources are not reliable. The requirements for reliable sources are given at WP:RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of these sources are not reliable? 87.14.175.112 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed there are huge discrepencies in the data presented in this page. The US sources in particular seems to take an entirelty different methodology. The table present in German diaspora seems to be more consistent - for instance, it presents the 2nd and 3rd largest diasporas (Brazil and Argentina) as having 12 million and 4.5 million respectively. This article uses a (apparently) secondary source that has far lower numbers for everyone, except the US, which in both cases uses a separate survey (not a Census one, for that matter!), whereas the diaspora article uses official government data, which is primary. I was thinking perhaps this article could have the sources replaced. FelipeFritschF (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * German diaspora uses different sources for different countries, so there is no common definition for Germanness. The result is total chaos and ridiculous definitions like defining all native Alsatian speakers as Germans. Rsk6400 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia secondary sources are generally seen as preferable to primary sources, because we are not meant to be the ones interpreting the raw data, because that could involve original research WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a common problem with diaspora, nationality and ethnic group articles. I revised Moroccan diaspora so that the infobox uses a single, secondary source, but it's very much an exception. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean the apples and pears problem? But I am not sure that was what this discussion was originally about in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The apples and pears problem but also errors in the reported figures. Infobox population estimates very often get inflated by bad-faith editors and go unnoticed, and even when suspicious changes are spotted, it can be time consuming to check the sources because they're often interactive pages on statistics agencies' websites, so require more than a single link click to verify. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this is how just how it has to be for any article which collates data, and where there is no strong secondary source. In theory Wikipedia could probably best try to avoid such topics, but in practice we can't really make that happen and it therefore often takes a lot of vigilance. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)