Talk:German diaspora/Archive 1

message: For example, the German Alsatians and the German Balts were called "Alsatian Germans" and "Baltic Germans" against their will in Germany's nationalistic phases.  
Who added such nonsens (against their will, nationalistic)? Quotes from one magazin (Fact) with obviously a biased political attitude. Alsatians called themselves Alsatians, which can be regarded as equal to Bavarian, Hesse, etc. Baltic Germans were called Balts or Germans, beginning with the late 19th century: Baltic German - or: German-Baltic. Baltic German had soon made it to be the general denomination for a German inhabitant of the Baltics, since German-Baltic would describe someone of German origin, who has been assimilated to a local culture and language. But this has definitly not been the case with the Baltic Germans, since they were the dominant and even ruling group in the Baltics, from the 13th century until at least the beginning of World War I That's why the denomination "German-Baltic" would be definitly mismatching. Since 1919 and 1940, the 700 years old community of the Baltic Germans doesn't exist any more - erased!
Someone please add references for the statements that before WWII, Austrians generally considered themselves ethnic Germans but that since then, only 8% do. It's not that I doubt the statements, but I'm interested in looking into this issue and would appreciate references for where to read more about it. --Angr (t·c) 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I edited both of these sections, they were filled with weasel words such as "German politicians attacked and rejected." Also the section about the (Now founded) center for expelees was factually completely incorrect. The center is not focused on German expelees from eastern europe. Rather it focuses on many expulsions, the ethnic German expulsion being one of them. Also the contemporary view which includes Germans as victims does not seek to deny crimes by the Nazis, rather shed light on an otherwise ignored subject. 
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1799910,00.html 
Regarding the polls cited as evidence that Poles feel Germans risk "returning to Haugtiness." Is it actually even relavent to include polls which are sixty years old? If it is truly a widly held belief in Poland that polls regarding German opinion in 1947 are an accurate representation of today's beliefs in Germany, fine. Otherwise this reference should be removed.Hvatum 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restrictions on the sale of property to foreigners & Polish criticism of German "revisionism"

message: I dont want to edit now while you're editing, but basically this is a reminder to myself that I should maybe use 4 equals signs to make the Eastern Europe subsections subsections, and also I should change the name of Eastern Europe to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union or something that also encompasses Kazakhstan, Uzbekistant, etc.  Also, Kazakhstan should be mentioned in the intro par of that section. Adam Mathias 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: When I was listing the groups, sub-groups aside, it's difficult to use a list or tree to present something that's not at all linear.  I'm thinking of creating a giant map with a numbered key, which would be everywhere there's been significant presence, so basically 1912 overlaid on 1940 overlaid on 1988.  Also, maybe we could have some sort of non-map image or group of images to represent the diversity of the group: Swabian farmers, Mennonites, Germans in Brazil, Germans in Russia (I've got a hard-copy picture of some in a camel-drawn wagon), maybe some images of migration, or some famous representatives. Adam Mathias 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps, Images

message: Maybe somebody who knows more about these areas could add something.  Also, maybe some information on Germans in Scandinavia (I kind of have the feeling there were some in Sweden).  Adam Mathias 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poland, Czechia, and Baltic Area

message: Maybe somebody could add something about why Jews, despite having often been in the Yiddish/German cultural sphere and having contributed to a huge amount of German language art and culture in Germany as well as in Eastern Europe and the Americas, are not considered ethnic Germans even when they were more German than many of those who are. etc.  A good model of this explanation could maybe be the one for why Yiddish is a language, not a dialect of German.  Adam Mathias 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, boy. We go around that one in so many articles. See, for example, the exchange about a month ago at Talk:Jew#Jew_and_German (hope that link is useful: that talk moves fast and it may be archived soon). Certainly the Czechs thought of the Jews as a Germanizing influence. It gets very complicated very fast. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's damn complicated, since before the Holocaust lots of Jews considered themselves culturally German, and afterwards not, and one can easily respect that.  But instead of repeating that debate here, I'm wondering if there's a could article we could link too, since I'm trying to keep this article from repeating all the debates at various other pages, and instead let it be an overview of something that there wasn't an overview of before.  Maybe Who is a Jew - I'm not too familiar with it - like I say, I'm more knowledgeable in the Balkan area.  With Germans and Poles it also gets complicated - when I was in high school in Germany, I had 2 inarguably German teachers with names ending in -ski, and my 2 Polish friends who had grown up in Germany but whose parents were inarguably Polish had German last names.  Half the place names in East Germany end with -au.  I guess my idea for the article is not to give an answer, since POV and this is wikipedia, but to point out that its not simple, debates exist, and here's a link.  But there's no reason why my particular view on what this article should be should rule.  I basically just think that in the case of every subgroup, there can be an article written with the specifics of the history, else it'll just get way too long here.Adam Mathias 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is even more complicated if you take into account history and who takes the look. In Czech lands during 19th century/first half of 20th century Jews here were typically German speaking. Because of lack of today's sophistication the Czech nationalists saw them just as another Germans (read: enemies of our nation, don't buy from them, supporters of Habsburg rule, we must unite, etc ...) and this view stuck. I am not aware that this had radically changed after establishing of Czechoslovakia. After WWII it happened, on occasions that Jews, (by religion) were expelled as Germans since they claimed themselves to be Germans in statistics before the war. Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews

message: Lots of numbers; they all look about right to me, but citation is needed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Used other wiki articles, but ended up on ethnologue.com - their numbers are very extensive, but, I suspect in the case of Eastern Europe and CIS, quite inflated (on account of being 5 or 10 years old).  I'm pretty shaky on citations in Wiki, I'll just put what I said in the notes.  - Adam Mathias 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A shame too about their being lots, I was hoping to make it more of a group focused article, and let the numbers people hang out at German language.  I guess that's what the groups list is. Adam Mathias 06:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Poland Germans?? Never heard about that. Ok there were small "islands" of Germans all over the country, especially Voyvodina-Germans. But I think you mean East-Germany, one third of Germany which was occupied and eventually annexed (remains unclear) by Poland. But this population was almost completely murdered and expelled. 
The part added about poland to an already long sentence was very much a run-on sentence -  interested readers can click on the Selbsschutz link (I for one did).  That said, I notice that the coverage of the Selbschutz (the 10% number) is not mentioned in the Selbstschutz article - you should definitely add it there.  In general, I very much see the truth in these edits but I think they belong on articles like "German exodus from eastern europe", etc (not sure if they're already there) - the links given in the article.  I gave the links so that the Eastern Europe sections wouldn't get too long, since it's already much longer.  I'll try and shorten the Yugoslavia bit, but notice that it was "such as Y". Adam Mathias 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People's mouths are inherently "lazy" - every group has their own take on every toponym (and every other name), because they can't say certain things (for example, Italians have basically no words ending in consonants, and unless I'm mistaken, Polish has no ü).  It's part of the fun!  Now about Sczcin, I assume you meant Sczcecin?  Just because I'm a linguaphile, using English orthography it's Shtechin, using German it's Schtetschin?  I do like your pronunciation theory though - I hadn't really thought about it like that, and I was indeed wondering why certain ones were retained,  since ones like Sibiu/Hermannstadt are definitely equally easy to say, but it seemed to me like it was just a matter of size (like Warsaw and Moscow), and proximity or notoriety, ie. basically how much it comes up.  For the some reason London in Polish is Londyn, but Somestupidvillagenearnewcastle is still Somestupidvillagenearnewcastle.  As far as Germans in the Romania and Yugoslavia etc, they can't even pronounce German right, so it wouldn't surprise me if the Prussians had trouble with Polish ;)  Adam Mathias 22:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poland Germans

message: Recent edit, mostly a removal, looks like a liability to me, but I'm not particularly working on this article. I recommend a revert, but I'll leave it to someone active in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be corrections of numbers; if so, fine, keep them; but most of this feels to me like The War on Prose. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert? 

message: Again could you please stop editing with no reason 
All this text is very general and is full of non relevant facts,  I have to read four times to understand it, that's why I removed, you can talk about a huge country in general. 
   
""Latin America is home to considerably-sized and fairly well-known German groups, mostly originating from Eastern Europe and Austria, who came either before World War II for religious or economic reasons, or who came as refugees following the war.""
This is not relevant and every single country has Germans of different origin.
""but very often ethnic Germans in Latin America have their own fairly independent communities often designed to look like traditional German villages in all their various forms, and prosper by raising wheat or dairy cattle, often without the native manual labor ubiquitous among the more affluent classes in Latin America.""
there are more German towns in Brazil and Argentina but they are dispersed everywhere and in every sdingle class, so again, it's not good this generalization. 
{{Subst:unsigned|200.126.218.25]]
: It is better to refine and improve than to remove.  The original author was trying to say something which may not be well written but there is probably a kernel of truth in what he/she was trying to say.  If you think it is too general, then make it more specific.
: For example, I believe that it is true that there were at least two major waves of migration from Germany/Austria to Latin America.  The first wave being pre-WWII and the other being after WWII.  I would expect that there are differences between the people who came in each wave, their economic conditions, their attitudes and the reception that they received when they got to Latin America.  I say "I expect this...". I don't know anything about it.  I would hope that this article could fill in the gap in my knowledge.  So, please don't remove the deficient text, improve it by making more complete and more accurate.
: --Richard 17:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: Toward the beginning of the article we read that some 60 million Americans claim German ancestry and then further down we read that most German settlement took place in Eastern Europe. Surely there aren't and indeed never were as many German descendants in Eastern Europe as there are in America? Or am I missing the point in that American Germans don't count since they have been assimilated into American society in a way that Germans in Eastern Europe never were? Perhaps this should be clarified by saying that the greatest Exodus of Germans abroad was to the USA.--62.158.92.251 14:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine that it is the assimilation issue. Many Germans in Eastern Europe remained distinct, largely marrying within the group and usually continuing to speak German and to retain significant aspects of specifically German culture. An enormous number of Americans have some German ancestry, but quite few of these are of unmixed German ancestry, and even fewer speak more than a smattering of German. I'm not quite sure how to handle this in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: We list the Bambrzy under "Germans of Poland" but then write "(notice, that Bambrzy are not part of German minority)". So which is it? - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bambrzy

message: The number of "standard German-speakers" in Chile was recently modified from 35,000 to 250,000 with no citation provided. Does someone have something citable? - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers: Chile 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the  template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!--Ling.Nut 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

message: This title originally came about because at the time there was question about Germans as an article title (because of its possible ambiguity as to nationhood vs. citizenship). We have now had the Germans article for more than a year; similar titles now exist for the peoples closely associated with most of the nation states of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Romanians, Poles). So is there any remaining reason not to merge these articles? - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge 

message: I've reverted the first sentence back to "Ethnic Germans are those who are considered, by themselves or others, to be ethnically German, but do not live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany or hold its citizenship." The definition of ethnic Germans as being those who "do not live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany" but "do hold its citizenship" is erroneous. As the main entry on Germans outlines, the term Ethnic German is used to denote those people of German descent living as minorities in other countries. It states: "In English usage, but less often in German, Ethnic Germans may be used for assimilated descendents of German emigrants." Considering German citizenship is automatically lost when a German citizen acquires the citizenship of another country, it seems fair to assume that the majority of ethnic Germans resident in the countries listed in this article do not hold citizenship of the Federal Republic. Otherwise, for example, an estimated 9% of Canada's population would be entitled to a German passport. Therefore, it is important that we clarify the difference between ethnicity and nationality. ZwickauDeluxe 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Germans and citizenship 

message: What about the so-called "alpine Germans" of southern Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, an ethnic group that seems in many ways distinctly different from the Prussian Germans of the North.  Not to stereotype, but they tend to be Catholic rather than Protestant, shorter and stockier in build (as compared to the tall and thin Prussians), and overall have darker (Slavic?) features when compared with the lighter Scandinavian/Nordic Germans.  Am I making too much of stereotypes, or is there some truth in this?  I'm sure that I've read about "alpine Germans" somewhere or another.  Plus, it just seems quite obvious that there is quite an ethnic difference (that may be subtle, or it may not) between the Alpine German from Southeastern Austria and the Prussian that hails from Northern Schleswig-Holstein; it is this ethnic difference which I am trying to gather information on.  --Pseudothyrum 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that those "alpine germans" (south German or Allemanic might be more appropriate if at all) and overall have darker (Slavic) features when compared with the lighter Scandinavian/Nordic Germans when it's indeed the northern Germans who are partially descended from slavic populations. In any case, this doesn't sound all that scientific.--Caranorn 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnicity and "race" isn't science in the least; it's a method of categorization and isn't strictly empirical as true science is (despite burgeoning DNA technology).  There does seem to be a definite difference in the "ethnic makeup" of Austrian Germans vs. Prussian Germans; I suppose this is what this individual is trying to pin down.  --172.166.83.17 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'd mostly look at it from a historic perspective. There is an obvious difference in settlement history between southern and northern Germany. In the historic period strong Celtic settlements (over prehistoric settlements of other cultures/ethnicities) in the south, followed by Germanic immigration (as well as obvious ethnic additions from other areas of the Roman Empire), the entire South was also under strong Roman influence while the North was much less so. For the south Slavic influence (other then possible mixed Germanic-Slavic groups around the fall of the Roman Empire) was minimal for a very long time (obviously Austria-Hungary and to a certain degree it's predecessor state was at least in part Slavic and accordingly at least individual migration east to west existed). In the north on the other hand there was no Celtic base population, only Germanic and Slavic... Of course ethnic mixes in Europe (and I expect any other continent) are never homogenous. To complicate matters we have the separation of Germanic tribes/nations into various modern ethnicities including German and then again as illustrated regional differences within those modern ethnicities.--Caranorn 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpine Germans? 

message: I have changed the phrase "The traditional English language" to "The traditional American English language practice" because I have never heard of anyone in England call Robert Graves a Geman-English or a English-German, There are currently hundreds of thousands of Germans in Britain. They are either "(expat) Germans", or English (The kids of an Anglo-German marrige would usually be either German or English depending where they spent most of their childhood (as was the case with Robert Graves) BTW I have looked at the article German-Briton and noted Talk:German-Briton#Point of article --Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional English language practice  

message: should this article be moved to German diaspora?
*pro: more unambiguous term, compatible with our other :Category:Diasporas articles
*con: 'Ethnic German' happens to be the term in common usage. 'German diaspora' appears to be less widespread by  at least a factor of 10 (based on google scholar).
Applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names):
:Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.
I can see arguments going in both directions, and I suppose it is arguable to move it just as it is arguable not to. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should. It would also avoid mix ups with Germans, which is also about ethnic Germans, but those who live in Germany.Rex 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, Ethnic Germans would still be a redirect to German diaspora, of course, and we'll need to keep the disambiguation notice either way. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was bold and moved the page, for the sake of consistency and clarity. The apparent prevalence of "Ethnic German" vs. "diaspora" comes from the fact that it is necessary to stress that someone is an ethnic German only if he's discussed in context of a foreign country. However, "ethnic Germans" is clearly synonymous with Germans out of such context. If anyone has a strong objection, we can perform a proper RM. Duja► 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move?

message: Since DBachmann has grown a liking to calling my edits trolling, let me explain all the cite taggs, you see, I was under the impression that they spoke for themselves. Here they are:
*In English usage, but less often in German, the term may be used for assimilated descendants of German emigrants
#No proof of that statement, this article may be written mainly by Germans this doesn't mean they can speak about German(y) without providing references. 
*However, the modern trend is to emphasize the status as citizens of the new country and to invert the order of the compound expression.
#A claim on trends in English naming, but no sources.
*For example, the German Alsatians and the German Balts (who also called themselves that way) were called "Alsatian Germans" and "Baltic Germans" against their will in Germany's nationalistic phases.
#Where is the proof on how they called themselves?
#Where is the proof on them being 'renamed' against their will?
*Many German-speaking Austrians used to consider themselves as ethnic Germans until after the First World War
#No proof, this claim has popped up virutally everywhere on wikipedia, Austria, Germans, Austrians etc, but never with a reference or source.
*Ethnic Germans are an important minority group in many countries
#German POV, no proof and how does one define important?
*German (Americans) has been the largest ethnic-origin group in the United States for almost its entire historyincluding before independence
#Apart from the obvious spelling mistake, how can you proof this monsterous claim? 
*Brazil: Mainly in Southern Brazil and São Paulo, there are 6 million single-ancestry ethnic Germans, 3% of the national population; 12 million Brazilians are part German, 6% of the national population
#No references.
*Chile: During the middle 19th century 70,000 Germans emigrated to the south of Chile; almost 450,000 direct descendants of that people now live in the country: 245,000 counting standard German-speakers only, formed in several German schools among the country
#No references.
*Ecuador: 32,000, counting standard German-speakers only. 
#No references.
*Mexico, Bolivia, and Belize: 40,000, 28,567, and 5,763 Mennonite German speakers respectively, as well as notable (but more assimilated) public figures from various German groups
#No references.
*Puerto Rico: 1,453 speakers  
#No references.
*Peru: The communities of Oxapampa and Pozuzo in the high jungles of the Peruvian Amazon basin were settled in the middle of the XIX century by Austrian and Prussian immigrants. Many of its present day inhabitants speak German. The government of Germany currently provides different forms of economic and educational aid to these communities. 
#No references.
*Colombia: 20,000 Germans  + * Colombia: 20,000 Germans  
#No references.
*Uruguay: 28,000 standard German, 1,200 Plattdietsch.  
#No references.
*Dominican Republic : There is a colony of around 25,000 Germans who have settled in the country, mostly on the northern coast's Puerto Plata, as well as a colony of the descendants of German and Austrian Jewish refugees in Sosua. 
#No references.
*In Italy there are two main groups, the main one being at least 290,774  or 69% ethnic Germans
#So while the Swiss and Austrians 'aren't' Germans 'anymore', the German speakers in Italy are? Where's the proof for that statement?
*Germanophone Swiss vs. German Swiss. 
#Here German POV becomes very clear... because suddenly the German speaking Swiss are Germans.
*The German-speaking population is estimated at 1,500,000, plus another 40,000 for ethnic Luxembourgers. 
#No proof of the 1,5 million number, and since when can one ethnic group be a part of another one? "Ethnic Luxembourgers" are also "Ethnic Germans". References anyone?
So here you are Dbachman, all my worries with this article on talk. All pretty obvious. Now stop removing POV and cite taggs without providing references and refrain from calling me troll or I will report you for personal attacks.Rex 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed, and German POV in the article. 

message: Hi, admin here. I added some of the  tags back in, in places where the article really could use sourcing. There are some references (just not enough), so the  tag isn't really appropriate. Please add specific sources for numbers of ethnic Germans in various countries, etc. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My take

message: The opening sentence and the content of the article do not support each another. How can "Ethnic German" and "German diaspora" be the same thing? Yet, there is an article called "Germans" which somehow is different from "Ethnic Germans"?? The term diaspora refers to a forced or induced move from traditional homelands. This definitely applies to German immigration to the US, Argentina, etc.... but the majority of ethnic Germans in Switzerland, Italy and much of eastern Europe are not part of a German diaspora. In most cases they have lived there for centuries. Mariokempes (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diaspora??

message: The title "German diaspora" would seem to be more appropriate for the bulk of the content of this article. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with perhaps the bits about "Ethnic Germans" merged with Germans or separated to a new article if the meaning is different. Mariokempes (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: you may want to read the discussion above, especially Matthead's comment, and perhaps also the article itself. We state that "Ethnic Germans" are "those who are considered, by themselves or others, to be of German origin ethnically, not born nor live within the present-day Federal Republic of Germany, nor necessarily hold its citizenship nor speak the German language". This manifestly excludes Bundesdeutsche as well as Swiss or Austrians. The term "Ethnic Germans" is synonymous with "German diaspora". dab (𒁳) 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: Substituted at 06:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment