Jump to content

Talk:Germans: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 54: Line 54:
:::{{re|BauhausFan89}} in your recent edits you are insisting on treating all or most Austrians and Swiss as Germans. You have no consensus for that. The text is also not making it possible for our readers to understand the basis of the numbers.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|BauhausFan89}} in your recent edits you are insisting on treating all or most Austrians and Swiss as Germans. You have no consensus for that. The text is also not making it possible for our readers to understand the basis of the numbers.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


::::I agree with [[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]]. Articles about nationalities like Germans, Italians or Japanese should include only people who hold nationalities of those countries, not "descendants", many of whom have zero conection with their great-grandparents' land. In many cases, the number of "descendants" is made up and come from nowhere. I'm from Brazil and I'm aware that people here made up the number of descendants of certain ethnic groups (they usually inflate the numbers) but these sources are unable to provide how they got to those numbers. In the case of the U.S, Canada or Australia, the number of descendants come from self-classification, which may be also incorrect, because people may lie or do not know their real origin (for exemple, people who are adoped and do not know that). Of course that the number of "descendants" may be exposed along the article, but I think that the main table must include only the numbers of people with German citizenship. [[User:Xuxo|Xuxo]] ([[User talk:Xuxo|talk]]) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with [[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]]. Articles about nationalities like Germans, Italians or Japanese should include only people who hold nationalities of those countries, not "descendants", many of whom have zero conection with their great-grandparents' land. In many cases, the number of "descendants" is made up and come from nowhere. I'm from Brazil and I'm aware that people here made up the number of descendants of certain ethnic groups (they usually inflate the numbers) but these sources are unable to provide how they got to those numbers. In the case of the U.S, Canada or Australia, the number of descendants come from self-classification, which may be also incorrect, because people may lie or do not know their real origin (for exemple, people who are adopted and do not know that). Of course that the number of "descendants" may be exposed along the article, but I think that the main table must include only the numbers of people with German citizenship. [[User:Xuxo|Xuxo]] ([[User talk:Xuxo|talk]]) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:36, 15 March 2024

New World Map Image, New Zealand

Hi, i think we need a new world map image since there are actually more than 10,000 people of German descent in New Zealand- the real figure according to the New Zealand government is some 200,000.

Diaspora and ancestry population estimate

BauhausFan89, in this edit you added a diaspora and ancestry population estimate of 68 million, sourced to this, which contains no such figure (or indeed any figures). Judging by the URL, it is also a wiki, which means it's not a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the state of the international numbers in the infobox. It is obviously not a good thing to have a table where nearly ever number is put in doubt by a scond number which is completely different! I can not think of any good faith reason for doing this. These are "apples and pears" numbers and there is no quick and easy way for readers to assess the different ways they are being estimated. If there is not simple way yo clean this up I would prefer removing these numbers. At the moment the information looks deliberately misleading. Lists of estimated numbers of citizens is probably something we can achieve but hand waving about people who have some other sort of German identity seems undoable in such a table.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Map of German descent

In all other major national ethnic gropus there is a world map. can I insert one here? BauhausFan89 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map was removed after discussion on the talk page. I'm afraid I don't remember where the discussion has been archived. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removing the Geographic distribution section and the world map. The information is sourced and interpreted in an eccentric and misleading manner. By using a coloring scheme based on absolute numbers the largest counstries in the world automatically have a tendency to shower dark colours. We also need a clear and agreed methodology about what definition of German is being used. That method, and the sources would need to be clear. These are very straightforward and fundamental problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BauhausFan89: Feel free to search the archives for the discussion I mentioned above or to add to this discussion using arguments based on RS and WP policies, but please remember that WP is a collaborative effort, meaning you should not add the map by way of edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BauhausFan89: I saw that you restored the section „Geographic distribution“ which I removed following the suggestion by Andrew Lancaster above. I think you should explain why. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was there before the recent edits of me and others. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and geographic information seems to be a basic part of any article about a group of people with global spread. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but how the map is designed and the definitions being used need to be made clear, as explained above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle total population in text

The final sentence of the first paragraph currently states:

Estimates on the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 to 150 million, most of whom live in Germany.

The ref quote states:

The Germans live in Central Europe, mostly in Germany... Estimates of the total number of Germans in the world range from 100 million to 150 million, depending on how German is defined, but it is probably more appropriate to accept the lower figure.

Here's the thing: the population of Germany is given in the side bar as 72,569,978, meaning that the upper estimate of 150 million would imply that slightly less than half of Germans live in Germany. The source states that the lower estimate of 100 million is "probably" more accurate, which weighs in favor of the most of whom live Germany clause, but it's still quite confusing. Is anyone aware of additional sources that might help us arrive at a more definitive figure and therefore less contradictory language? Generalrelative (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the longer term problems of this article, including those messy numbers, comes down to one thing. We've got an article here which is about Germans in the most common 21st century sense, which corresponds reasonably closely to citizens of Germany. That concept is pretty clear, and if we could stick to that we would solve many problems. However, around the world there are various types of people, who for various types of reasons, want to extend the term to people who speak German, or even people whose ancestors spoke German, and so on. This is very difficult to handle, because while an American or Brazilian might be happy to think of themselves as Germans for such reasons, they clearly won't be seen as German for most Germans (or other people), and what's more this type of definition would even be offensive in some parts of Europe. Most importantly, if we get flexible about this then this article's subject is no longer clear. I believe we already have enough articles to track where the German language is spoken. The concept of "ethnic Germans" outside Germany probably needs its own article. It would not be easy to write it though. In the meantime I think this article has to try to limit its coverage anyway. I suggest we remove all the extra numbers and stick to citizens.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your view is fair, but other nationality pages like Italians also count non citizens. I would say lets agree on "100 to up to 150 million". what do you say? BauhausFan89 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Italians article needs to be changed too, or perhaps there is a special situation with Italians which I am not aware of. I think in general Wikipedia has had problems in the past with this type of article, and there is still a lot of cleaning up to be done. In any case, my main concern is to make sure any numbers which are not based on a clear definition like citizenship need to be properly labelled and easy-to-understand. The current situation also appears to be designed to confuse and create deliberately overblown numbers. I think any such numbers should be pulled out of the infobox for a start, and if they are to be kept at all it needs to be in distinct sections or articles where there can be proper explanation. For example, do they include people who simply speak German, people who identify in a secondary way as Germans (German-Americans etc.), people who have German ancestry? I suspect our numbers come from a dog's breakfast of all of these. Anything which is not properly explained or sourced should be removed. The infobox should be kept very simple, and should IMHO only show the citizen numbers. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BauhausFan89: in your recent edits you are insisting on treating all or most Austrians and Swiss as Germans. You have no consensus for that. The text is also not making it possible for our readers to understand the basis of the numbers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrew Lancaster. Articles about nationalities like Germans, Italians or Japanese should include only people who hold nationalities of those countries, not "descendants", many of whom have zero conection with their great-grandparents' land. In many cases, the number of "descendants" is made up and come from nowhere. I'm from Brazil and I'm aware that people here made up the number of descendants of certain ethnic groups (they usually inflate the numbers) but these sources are unable to provide how they got to those numbers. In the case of the U.S, Canada or Australia, the number of descendants come from self-classification, which may be also incorrect, because people may lie or do not know their real origin (for exemple, people who are adopted and do not know that). Of course that the number of "descendants" may be exposed along the article, but I think that the main table must include only the numbers of people with German citizenship. Xuxo (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]