DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


New World Map Image, New Zealand

[edit]

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.

Very large addition of material from culture article

[edit]

@BauhausFan89: you have basically added the entire contents of Culture of Germany. You mentioned that the culture section here is now an "extract" of the other article. This means over 70,000 extra bytes here, putting this article well over the normal recommended size. Do you intend to reduce this new section dramatically? If not then I think personally these edits should be rolled back. Why bother dividing topics up into separate articles if editors are going to come along and stick them all together anyway? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The culture section has been rewritten some years ago (not by me) based on two tertiary sources. The good thing about that is that it prevents us from arbitrarily selecting facts from the millions of secondary sources that exist about German culture. Sorry, BauhausFan89, I think we disagree about the question whether WP should concentrate on quality or on quantity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the unsourced editions (regardless if they be copy pasted from somewhere else) and very dated information. Moxy🍁 13:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These edits by BauhausFan89 are not an improvement. They should be rolled back. Carlstak (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used strong sources and wrote original, balanced content. Removing it undermines Wikipedia’s core principles of collaborative editing and knowledge-sharing. My contributions align with key Wikipedia policies:
WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:5P, WP:BALANCE, WP:CITE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:UNDUE, WP:INTEGRITY, WP:IMPROVE, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:GOODFAITH, and WP:OWN.
These rules support verifiable, well-rounded, and collaboratively developed articles. Removing sourced, policy-compliant material contradicts Wikipedia’s mission. BauhausFan89 (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huge amount of additions without sources or with horrible sources..... insertion of namespam again without sources. You've been here for quite some time to still be having these problems. I guess we're at the point where we need some intervention User:Guy Macon/One against many. Moxy🍁 15:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added enough sources, most very respectacle ones like Britannica. if you would act in the spirit on Wikipedia, you would try to improve what you dont see fit. and I added 100 to 200 word about big aspcect of German culture with a focus on important Germans themselves. you just dont like me rounding out this article. dear board members, please act in the spirit that Wikipedia wants to support knowledge and interests. BauhausFan89 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so is the consensus to let the cultural part of this article be a joke compared to the Italian and French and so one ones? making a mockery of the idea of Wikipedia? I strongly advice the board to intervene here. the consensus here by 2,3 members seems to be to leave this site as a mockery on wiki and on the whole idea of sharing knowledge. I really hope Wikipedia is free and balanced in 2025. please intervene. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BauhausFan89 Moxy🍁 16:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on this -- BauhausFan89's various edits across articles appear to be AI-generated (as do the talk page responses here), so if any of them remain in the article, that's gotta be addressed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in the lead

[edit]

I notice this in the lead which stands out because it does not agree with the rest of the lead: Today, the German language is widely seen as the primary, though not exclusive, criterion of German identity. It has a footnote: 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." This source is online and it is clearly saying something quite different to the sentence in our lead. Specifically it is saying that in the 18th century (not now, but before Germany even existed) "language became a key marker of German identity". That would fit much better with our other sources, but not with the statement we have. The rest of the source makes it clear that things changed dramatically after 18th century. For example, the idea developed that there should be a country for the Germans. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed the sentence yet, but I remain concerned. I think there is a bigger problem throughout the article, which is that we rely on several tertiary sources. These sources use different definitions for different periods and in different periods, and then we are mixing things up in further creating an illogical soup (sorry for the poor metaphor). As mentioned in the new talk page section below, this article really needs more careful writing in order to move ahead. It is not that we shouldn't discuss the different meanings of terms, but that we need to let readers understand when we are discussing which concept. The feeling that some people get that the article is missing some things is probably also partly because of the problems we are having using these types of sources, and keeping all the different meanings transparent and under control.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even citizens agree to this sourced statement German language is widely seen as the primary, though not exclusive, criterion of German identity.[1]
As for 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...this is basic textbook stuff to western countries mentioned in multipleWikipedia articles Moxy🍁 07:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence is fine, and of course it concerns the way things evolved, not the situation now. The first sentence, if applied in a simple way to the 21st century, which is how it seems to be intended, means for example that Austrians are Germans! I think it is hard to deny that this is quite simply not how the term is used, and it is (to put it simply) wrong, when placed there simply like this. This presentation is also directly opposed to the idea that being German is mainly about citizenship now. (We can't have 2 different most important things.) What I think the tertiary source was discussing was German identity, and what apart from citizenship makes a person identify as German. The "not exclusive" at least helps people see there must be more to this, but it is not clear. This is a complex and fuzzy topic, being presented in the wrong way. We need to make it more clear what we are talking about in each context, or else the article will always be in conflict with itself. Just on the logic, keep in mind also that individuals characterised as X are characterized as Y, does NOT mean the same as individuals characterized as Y are therefore X, but I think this is what we are doing by taking one way of identifying what makes people German, and then imply that it is part of the definition of a German. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR version. Maybe we could convert the first sentence to something like The German language remains dominant in Germany, and is still widely perceived as a necessary criterion for German "national belonging". Is that what was intended here? Maybe it would be better to cite the pew article you mentioned which seems far more relevant to our task.
BTW I notice that the sentence I have raised concerns about appears in the Moser footnote which is attached to another sentence. In that context had yet another emphasis, but again contrasting with historical situations. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring back the map

[edit]

This page used to have a map of the German diaspora (the way similar ethnic groups/nationalities had maps and lists of how many people from said group lived in each country). I also understand there’s a separate German diaspora page that has this map but I think it would be better on the main ethnic/nationality page. Honestly, I’m not a fan of what the Germans page has turned into since rephrasing it as the “natives, inhabitants, etc.” Please don’t take that the wrong way of course. (It could be rephrased like “Germans are the citizens and nationals,” like Austrians). However, it would be nice if it at least still featured the diaspora map, at least the Austrians page still has that. Thanks Wiscipidier (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen the previous discussion about that map you'll see that there are serious concerns about not only the relevance but also the accuracy of the information in it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the article still has problems coming from the use of sources about other topics. In the geographical distribution section one of the sources is discussing "German speakers", and we have turned them into "Germans". We've got to stop mixing up different concepts and treating them as the same. The word "Germans" when used in a 21st-century context does not mean "German speakers" or "people with German ancestry". Using careful language is really essential on an article like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]