Talk:Germans

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

These arguments make sense, but I wonder: are there any scholarly sources that discuss the question explicitly, e.g. critiquing the methodology whereby "descendant" numbers are calculated? I'm wary of deciding for ourselves how to define "German" in the absence of a survey of reliable sources –– and unfortunately I don't have time to conduct this myself right now. Generalrelative (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking whether there are publications which have discussed the methodology of Wikipedia editors editing this one Wikipedia article? It is here on Wikipedia that the cocktail is being mixed. Our job here, which we are failing to do, is to report information from good sources in a way our readers can understand clearly. This does not mean all the sources are wrong (nor the opposite). In the meantime, this article is primarily about Germans as citizens, now in the 21st century, and that is at least one number which is easy to identify. The other types of numbers need discussion for various different reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No that is not what I'm asking. Generalrelative (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you just saying that we should be careful to use reliable sources and follow policy? If so then yes, fine. The article has evolved on that basis and you could perhaps also look at the talk page archives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Culture - Carnival

I think it is misleading to suggest that carnival is particularly important in Southern Germany, as one branch of the tradition is located in the Rhineland. Carnival in the Rhineland is distinct from the traditions in Southern Germany, and most people would propably agree, that the biggest carnival cities Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Bonn are in Middle/Central Germany rather than Southern Germany. Those cities also aren't even listed on the Southern Germany page. I would suggest either not singeling out a region in particular, stating it's insignificance in Nothern Germany or adding the Rhineland as a region, where carnival is a particularly important tradition as well. 134.100.137.10 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't search for sources, because I think this is not likely to be challenged. Every German knows that. Only: The third centre of German Karneval is Mainz, not Bonn. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article so poorly made?

Comparing to other ethnicity pages, there is too little infographics in the leading section, too much emphasis on the holocaust, not talking about the communities around the world and no significant personalities.-Alexceltare2 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)