Talk:Germans

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.

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

in chapter geographical distribution one of the 2 sources is citing German Speakers in other Countries, not Germans. Oliklixer (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"Germans" can have different (though connected) meanings. One of them is "native speakers of the German language". Rsk6400 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Words with multiple meanings are common, and it is clear that we should handle different notable meanings in different Wikipedia articles. Also, neither we nor anybody making summary tables or graphical representations should mix numbers involving "apples and pears". This article is furthermore clearly not really about "German speakers", even if they should be mentioned, in some historical contexts. The meaning is unusual, except when talking about historical and "heritage" topics. I think it is never used in careful speech when referring to 21st century people? Non-notable meanings do not all necessarily need to be discussed in Wikipedia, because this is not a dictionary trying to list all the meanings of all words.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear I think the deletion of that source was justified and logical. I think article needs to get more logical about these types of issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, @Oliklixer deleted only two references without deleting the referenced text. That's why I reverted them. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Moser is still cited in the next sentence, so it is not really deleted. For the reason mentioned above the other source, which is not needed, is not really supporting the wording we have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't look closely enough. Thanks to both of you, especially Andrew Lancaster for looking closely at the thing. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster Hey Guys, sorry needed some time. You're right that the edit wasn't complete, i made the edit on Mobile and had some problems to edit it there.

I've made the edit because if you look at the quote after reading the text it implies that the german-speaking population of Switzerland (and Austria) is Germans. I'm Swiss so I had some problems with that lol. There is actually a big chunk of Germans (German Nationals) in Switzerland so i think we can revert that just without the source citing german speakers, instead one that cites their nationality. Sorry for the missunderstandings --Oliklixer (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I just tried to adapt the section to the one source that is left but also to what was said above. Feel free to improve. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

@Rsk6400: Greetings! Regarding Special:diff/1354086529... the hidden text "Do not add an infobox without consensus." appears to violate the guideline WP:BADHIDDENTEXT, which says hidden text should not be used for "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit." I know of no guideline which requires pre-approval to add infoboxes; MOS:INFOBOXUSE says they are neither required nor prohibited. -- Beland (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There were a lot of discussions on this talk page about removing / adding of an info box. So we'd indeed need a consensus to overturn the result of those discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BADHIDDENTEXT says about that: "When it is only a local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing local consensus."

I did a quick search of the archives for this talk page, but I don't see a discussion that comes to a consensus that there should not be an infobox. Can you point to one? If so, it can be linked to with softer wording; if not, it appears the hidden text would need to be removed. -- Beland (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Beland the hidden text says "without consensus", so it is a pretty light warning based on how we always work, not a prohibition. We are always supposed to seek consensus, and in this case infoboxes have been deleted and disputed here many times and the current situation is that there is none. So this is just a good common sense warning. It is only fair that editors who might want to add an infobox can try to make sure they consider the concerns which have come up in the past. Are you proposing to add an infobox? Why not just post it here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not proposing an infobox, just cleaning up HTML comments. If there has not been a discussion that decided to remove an infobox, then consensus has been determined by editing, and it can be changed simply by adding an infobox that doesn't get reverted. There is no guideline that supports a requirement to get pre-approval, which is how I interpret this hidden text. I have added, "Before adding an infobox please see (link to talk page discussion)" in similarly situated articles, which has softer wording compatible with WP:BADHIDDENTEXT. Is there a particular discussion in the archives that documents "the concerns which have come up in the past"? -- Beland (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Beland I think this is the most recent discussion to go into any detail: . To be clear I did not add the template, but I think the concerns which have come up fairly regularly about editors adding the Infobox ethnic group, which focuses a lot on the diaspora of people who can be called German in various different ways, including not only citizenship or birth but also language, claims of ancestry, etc. Various different types of data are mixed and no one can explain or correct this. It is also not discussed in the main article. I think the data represents a bundle of materials that has been stuck together in various places on the internet and copy-pasted over time. Defenders of these copy pastes are unable/unwilling to discuss or fix obvious problems such as these:

• Language is often used as a basis, so Austrians and Swiss are treated as "German". This is obviously unacceptable, except in history-related contexts, but the infobox and data proposals are clearly represented as being about 21st century "Germans".
• Perceived ancestry/heritage statistics are apparently used in other cases like the US, which results in the US becoming it the main place where "Germans" live.
• Sources such as online population data (Pew, UN) are sometimes cited, but when checked for verification they are clearly being modified, for example to reduce the German population living in Turkey, and increase it in other places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I added "The addition of an infobox has been previously discussed - see talk page archives". -- Beland (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Beland because this is short and links to the archive, you could link to this thread?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Linked! -- Beland (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

This is probably the worst Wikipedia article about an ethnic group that I’ve ever seen, and it almost serves no purpose at all. It stands out compared to nearly every other Wikipedia article about ethnic groups, including articles about Germans in languages other than English and German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-30173-97 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you see as wrong with the article, so that others can understand what might need to be done to improve it? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no world map with german diaspora for starters, and no section about German DNA. ~2026-38119-35 (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

And where are the sources saying that Germans are an ethnic group with a specific DNA ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this would then mainly be relevant to an article more focussed on history. However, I don't think much has been published yet, which is true of many countries. More importantly I agree that (despite having added a lot of history information to it) this article is must mainly be about a modern people who live in a modern country. Germany (and other European countries) are not stuffed specimens in a museum. We can think about how trying to define how DNA defines modern Americans or Canadians would be pretty weird.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Concerning diaspora maps the only one's which have been proposed so far have been unacceptable for various really clear reasons. For example, they are based on language only (which means they include Switzerland and Austria), or the data is manipulated to achieve certain desired results in countries interesting to the editors such as the USA. So far we have a strange situation where the editors who want such a map don't seem to want an accurate one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Because a certain user has taken full control of the article and is actively shooting down any attempt to treat the Germans as an ethnic group. Bluevestman (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say that (compared to most articles I work on) this article does need work but it has a problem because most editors who visit the article mainly just want to complain that their own personal opinions are not reflected here, and are unwilling to do any of the "homework" necessary to improve the article with good quality information. Instead, we have a surprising number of editors who demand Austrians should be counted as Germans, that strange maps from the internet should be central to the article, and that there should be a map at the top of the article showing that the USA is the country with the biggest German population. Those positions are not very helpful IMHO. The topic is not a simple one, and requires some better sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for being clear and patient and for sticking to WP:V. Bluevestman, I replied on your talk page. Most Germans (including myself) see an "ethnic-biological understanding" of Germanness as a marker of a far-right ideology. There are also some decisions by high-level courts saying that kind of understanding is in conflict with the concept of human dignity which is protected by the first article of the German constitution. Of course, WP doesn't depend on German court rulings, but it still depends on sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. There are two users that have taken full control of the article and are actively shooting down any attempt to treat the Germans as an ethnic group. Bluevestman (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Make it three. Include me as someone who agrees with the way Andrew Lancaster and Rsk6400 handle – mostly unsourced or poorly sourced – attempts to define the topic narrowly and one-dimensionally as an ethnic group, when most Germans define their identity as tied to the country, thus as a nationality. There are German diaspora minorities, especially when migration took place before 1800, that can still be perceived in ethnic terms (although things have changed much since WWII with forced and voluntary migration to Germany). But even for descendants of the diaspora in the Americas, German descent means having ancestors originating from Germany, i.e. an ancestry based on the geographic/political entity, thus not ethnically based. –Austronesier (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Who are you? Bluevestman (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That really isn't an appropriate or constructive question in this context is it? Do you have an editing proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, can someone explain to me why there is not an infobox despite the RFC being mostly in favor of it? Bluevestman (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain which policy consistent edits are being proposed, and apparently blocked in this story? For my own part this is not an article I work on much. I've worked a little on the history bit, but that should not be the only section. I've kept it on watch and seen the article is constantly being bombarded by non-constructive editors who have no proposal, or who simply want to paste in material they found in old versions, or somewhere else on the internet. None seem to have any interest or ability to explain what they want. I wish someone would simply do some homework and work more constructively on this article. There is no rule that we have to have an infobox, but if you want to propose an infobox containing properly sourced information that has not been massaged to tell a BS story (USA has the most Germans, Austrians are Germans) then please do that. If you look through the archives of this talk page you keep seeing the same cycle of people turning up complaining, but unable to get beyond "how dare this article has no infobox".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2026 (UTC)