Talk:Germanic peoples

lets remove the line about "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A straightforward closing: remove the sentence indicated. Only one participant expressed an opinion possibly opposed to that, & she did not explicitly cast a !vote. As a side note, it would have been easier for the closer to perform his task had the location of this sentence been provided; he had to look at the article history to find where the sentence had been & understand the discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the the line "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples" be removed? Freeboy200 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Snow Close. RfC repeating previous, from an SPA that has done nothing but attack this page. Probably an experienced wikipedian, auto-confirmed in 9 minutes flat by "repeated blanking of their talk page" (observed above) just 8 weeks ago. Who are you, Freeboy200? Reveal yourself! Batternut (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove I fear this is an example of people trying to exploit Wiki for an agenda. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

... or this RfC might be for another agenda - that of drawing a veil over Germanic influence upon the modern world. Batternut (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The what influence of the what? You realize this sounds a bit strange? This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. Or are the Germanic tribes a kind of ever-present illuminati in your mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the controversy is here. Can the concerned parties provide pro and con reasoning? Sakuranohi (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is intended to cover the concerns discussed in most of the previous discussions on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Given the ongoing debate and controversy about this single line in the Summary—which is in no way a substantial part of the article's body—my inclination is to delete the line altogether so we can dispense with this agonizing banter in the Talk section. Germanic peoples is a generic term for people who speak Germanic-derivative languages and who have a history in western Europe's general historical development. It would benefit more to omit/delete this sentence than it helps us since strife has been its only reward. BTW-somebody also inserted this controversial line near the end of the article...so whoever takes the axe to it, please remove it from the Summary and Body.--Obenritter (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obenritter: So the Irish are Germanic rather than Celtic because they mostly speak English? I don't think so! You could be right that the lead should not even mention this small part of the body, ie that it is WP:UNDUE. However, some cost-benefit evaluation of controversial content is no justification to WP:CENSOR it completely. Batternut (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: There's plenty to be discussed with reference to the Celts since they also traversed some of the same territory on the Iberian Peninsula that the Germanic Visigoths did and there was known contact with other Germanic tribes...so yes, they might be part Germanic as well. They were not entirely immune to contact with the Normans, Saxons, and/or Vikings as well, so any attempt at ethnographic exclusivity for the Celts is probably misplaced. Nonetheless, this is not about censorship in so much as it is about reducing dissension. Frankly, I could care less but my opinion was requested.--Obenritter (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obenritter: I was summoned by a bot. Who/how were you roped in? Batternut (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Support The line adds nothing to the le/ad/e. What is with the recent round of malformed RFCs filled with bludgeony and/or aspersion casting participants? This makes #7. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) would editors find it suitable to remove the sentence if it concerned: "Modern ethnic groups descended from ancient Bedouin people"? Or "ancient Inuit people"? (2) Would reference to scientific evidence concerning not only linguistic but DNA affinities (haplogroups) be of assistance here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yseult-Ivain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Yseult-Ivain (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The first question is not relevant, and looks like a "trick argument". The history of one ancient people is not the same as another. The simple answer to the second question is yes, but the complicated answer is that this is totally missing the point. WP has various different articles about northern European population genetics etc, and indeed this article has a section about such things. No one is objecting to those, but they are a whole subject on their own, ongoing research without many clear results we can link to Germanic tribes, and not easy to summarize. The concern that has kept coming back in this article is to a specific passage in the lead of this article which presents itself as a simple relevant core fact, but which is not reliably sourced from the types of sources you mention at all. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, please don't worry about any "trick arguments" coming from me: people who understand brainstorming would know an invitation to do so when they see one, and few such would likely be "tricked" by much of anything.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not something I am entirely unfamiliar with. But I personally think the quality of brainstorming is not something which "just happens". It needs work, and avoiding illogical folksy positions helps to keep quality higher, in terms of both results and effort/time. I think what you are thinking of is more like developing a sales pitch. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that some of the contributors here are not in the habit of guessing at others' "hidden agendas" or at their "hidden motives."

I will continue to read these contributions with the greatest interest, and very much look forward to doing so.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your point is not clear but looks like it is intended to be an unclear accusation. People who make points unclearly can expect misunderstandings, and should not complain too much about people reading agendas into their words. However, I don't know why you suggest people are saying you have an agenda in this case. In case I was unclear also, I will restate my points: 1. Your first argument above is not logical, but it is salesman-like or "tempting", and therefore a "trick argument". In other words you are using a common "logical fallacy". Whenever I see those I tend to mention it. Partly this is because I wish everyone recognized them more quickly, because that would make the world better :) 2. Use of such arguments does not help "brainstorming" and learning to recognize and avoid common logical fallacies would improve your skills in brainstorming or discussion generally.

None of this is meant to imply anything more than it says. It just my understanding of the facts, and I offer the advice in good faith. I make no claims about knowing your agenda. Trick arguments are a type of argument (convincing-sounding logical fallacies) the way I see it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove (summoned by bot) as per my previous comment on this issue in the closed discussion above. Inaccurate, misleading, and excusable only for the links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

conflation of franks with visigoths?

I made a change (838551115) which was reverted (838551115) and which I have again reverted and this is my attempt to prevent it from being reverted again. apologies if I am not doing the bureaucracy part of this correctly, I typically just make drive-by corrections

the previous version of the line in question was "Against Germanic tradition, each of the four sons of Clovis attempted to secure power in different cities but their inability to prove themselves on the battlefield and intrigue against one another led the Visigoths back to electing their leadership." which seems to confuse two different subjects with each other. the source (bauer 178-179, https://books.google.com/books?id=1u2oP2RihIgC&q=amalaric#v=snippet&q=amalaric&f=false) briefly discusses the frankish succession and resulting civil war among clovis's four sons, then _by way of example_ tells of amalaric, who became king of the _visigoths_, some two decades later, before being killed for incompetence and replaced by an elected warleader. somehow these two different events, tribes, and individuals were merged into the one sentence, which I have removed

Problems with summary

The lead does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. Undue weight is given to etymology and the relationship between Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire. It would be better to make these parts shorter so that one can include other important information addressed in the article. Krakkos (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pytheas

In the section on Pytheas his floruit is missing. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The template was broken. But, in fact, we don't know. Edited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Term for the mainstream Rome-centred religion Clovis joined etc

There have been a series of edits and reverts concerning terms derived from "Catholic". This should be discussed here now. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dimadick#Germanic_peoples--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that needs to be done and for the involved editors (3) to reach a consensus. Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The main articles on the religion of Clovis I and the rest of his 6th-century contemporaries are State church of the Roman Empire and East-West Schism. The term "Catholicism" was in use for the churches of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and those in communion with them:

• "Justinian definitively established Caesaropapism, believing "he had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest details of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church". According to the entry in Liddell & Scott, the term orthodox first occurs in the Codex Justinianus: "We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.""
• "Justinian was the first to use (in 531) the title of "patriarch" to designate exclusively the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, setting the bishops of these five sees on a level superior to that of metropolitans. ...When in 680 Constantine IV called the Third Council of Constantinople, he summoned the metropolitans and other bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople; but since there were representatives of all five bishops to whom Justinian had given the title of Patriarch, the Council declared itself ecumenical. This has been interpreted as signifying that a council is ecumenical if attended by representatives of all five patriarchs.
• While the church at Rome claimed a special authority over the other churches, the extant documents of that era yield "no clear-cut claims to, or recognition, of papal primacy."
• Eastern Orthodox state that the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople. The patriarch of the imperial capital succeeded in his efforts to become the leading bishop in the Byzantine Empire: he "headed a vast curia and other bishops who resided in Constantinople constituted a permanent synod, which became the real governing body of the church".
• "In the areas under his control, Justinian I established caesaropapism as the constitution of the Church in a scheme according to which the emperor "had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest detail of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church". According to the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, this caesaropapism was "a source of contention between Rome and Constantinople that led to the schism of 1054". Explicit approval of the emperor in Constantinople was required for consecration of bishops within the empire. During the period called the Byzantine Papacy, this applied to the bishops of Rome, most of whom were of Greek or Syrian origin. Resentment in the West against the Byzantine emperor's governance of the Church is shown as far back as the 6th century, when "the tolerance of the Arian Gothic king was preferred to the caesaropapist claims of Constantinople".
• "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".

So there was no distinct "Catholic" or "Orthodox" church in the 6th century, and it is not that clear that there was any in the 11th century. As for Clovis I, in recognition of his nominal affiliation to the Byzantine Empire, he reportedly received the title of Roman consul by Anastasius I Dicorus. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dimadick, but the large text you have pasted in does not seem to suggest any clear proposal or any clear problem with the word catholic? In the context of Germanic people in western Europe, the competitor to the religion in question was not any other type of orthodoxy, but Arianism. So we only need a clear common term to make that contrast. Furthermore there is no real potential confusion in this region about which church is being referred to as catholic because even in the eyes of other orthodox patriarchies, western Europe was Rome's territory. So to me it seems from your post that you accept that catholic is not a technically wrong term. Therefore we should just pick the most common and easily understood term in English?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree to linking to Catholicity, but not the Catholic Church which did not even exist at the time. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So why did we not just change the wikilink? And on the other hand, I still do not understand what point you are making, because it seems you admit there was a catholic christianity, and that there was a church of Rome which was catholic, and surely this is referred to as the Roman catholic church? It did not begin to exist in the 11th century it only became more distinct from other catholic/orthodox churches? What am I missing? But in any case does anyone have any opposition to simply changing the wikilink?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Not opposed to changing the Wikilink. The editor just needs to leave the actual text as worded, where both Walter Pohl and Herwig Wolfram use the term Catholic.--Obenritter (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Do modern "germanic people" exist?

i propose all "north germanic" ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" chagned back to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.90.106 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (created account) Johansweden27 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Before 2015 all so called "germanic" ethnic group articles said "nation and ethnic group" instead of "germanic ethnic group" which was added without greater discussion. germanic is not neutral because it is based on old obsolete racial theories, and is really more an ancient peoples, none of the modern people call themselves "germanic" This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. 83.185.82.92 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Please explain more clearly what you are talking about, and what you are proposing. I suggest posting links to the exact types of texts you think you need to be changed, and giving exact proposals for how you want to change them. If this is about other articles then probably the discussions needs to be elsewhere. (Potentially you can start here, but editors of other articles affected might want a new discussion.) Coming to the subject matter generally, I think that there has indeed not been any germanic ethnic group or nation, self-identified or identified by contemporaries, for at least about 1500 years. But before then it starts to become at least debatable. In my mind it is probably better to think of it as an ethnic designation given to people from a specific region of Europe by people who were not themselves from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

i propose all ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" to be changed back to "x are a nation and ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.82.92 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

But are you even including tribes from the classical period? Please give an example of such an article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No only modern ethnic groups, for example Swedes 83.185.80.154 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This could get complicated. In that case the term being used is "North Germanic". This is not exactly the same as Germanic although it might give similar concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is complicated (see WP:ETHNO for starters, though even that long essay doesn't cover all of this). It's actually more convoluted than this thread and that essay combined will suggest, in that "Germanic" is a language family, and we're already running into problems (e.g. at Talk:Swedish people of confusion between linguistic classifications like "Northern Germanic" and ethno-cultural ones. There's also the modern genetics evidence showing that in many places the original population in an area really didn't change much but were simply subjected to a Germanicizing cultural layer, not regional genocides, so notions of ethnicity with any specific ties to ancestry and heritable-trait concepts, is basically pseudo-science at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I only know of North Germanic being a language family though this could be a result of my ignorance. And on the other hand I suppose one could argue that the term is closely connected to "Norse" which perhaps has a better case for being an ethnic name?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• The nominator has a point (as noted above, it's actually even more complicated than this because of the use of "Germanic" as a linguistic classification, and genetics tell a different story than what was assumed even a generation ago). But the nom's exact proposal is probably not viable because of the confusing array of meanings that the word nation has – most often, in everyday English, it's used synonymously with country or more specifically with nation-state, though this is arguably a mis-usage. (A linguist wouldn't call it one, per linguistic description versus prescriptive grammar.) The more anthropological sense is uncommon in the minds of our readers. And it will vary a lot regionally; e.g., many Americans are familiar with it but only in reference to Native American groups, and with an incorrect sense that it's a legal definition established by various treaties and reservations; they aren't much going to understand it applied to European populations. In short, yes, the lead needs work, but not exactly this rewording. Trying to clear up an inclarity with an additional by different inclarity is not an actual improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Curious. Most nationalist movements in Europe have sought to create nation states, either by secession from larger countries, wars of conquest/annexation, or by the assimilation, expulsion, or pure extermination of their numerous ethnic minorities. I have never really heard the idea of a nation equated with the homogenuous nation state. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I was wrong, modern Germanic peoples do exist, not "north germanic peoples" so i many editors pointed a better way going way forward is to change from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• According to the sources used in this article, several modern populations are considered Germanic. The Encyclopedia of European Peoples, which is used extensively in this article, states explicitly that the history of the Germanic peoples stretches from the 2nd millenium BC to the present day.[1] Other reliable sources used in this article, including Native Peoples of the World, Ethnic Groups of Europe and One Europe, Many Nations, designate several modern populations as Germanic, including Dutch people,[2][3] Flemish people,[4][5] English people,[6] Frisians,[7] Germans,[8] Norwegians[9] and others.[10] Articles at Wikipedia should reflect what is written in reliable, published sources, rather than our own original thoughts. This is one of the core policies of the project. The proposed changes are thus not supported by either our sources nor our policies. Krakkos (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, (a) even if something is sourceable, not all sourceable things need to be in every Wikipedia article if they are not relevant and (b) more importantly, we have never found a reliable source as per WP policy which says these things. The one you mention is by a freelance screenwriter and I believe all use of it should be removed from this article. Anyone can publish a book these days and get it on Amazon. There are thousands of books on Amazon which are actually just Wikipedia articles, many of which have probably never actually been printed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned four sources in my comment above, all of whom are to be considered reliable as per WP:Source:

• Encyclopedia of European Peoples is written by freelance writer Carl Waldman and published by Infobase Publishing
• Native Peoples of the World is written by Steven L. Danver, a historian at Walden University and a recipient of the Outstanding Academic Title, and published by Routledge.
• One Europe, Many Nations is written by James B. Minahan, a writer of numerous published works on ethnicity, and published by Greenwood Publishing Group
• Ethnic Groups of Europe is edited by Jeffrey Cole, who is Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Anthropology at Connecticut College. He is considered an an expert on migration, race and ethnicity in Europe and was formerly President (2012-2014) of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe of the American Anthropological Association. His book is the result of a collaborative effort by more than 80 top scholars in the field and published by ABC-CLIO. The parts in that book on modern Germanic peoples are attributed to Jeroen Dewulf, who is Professor of German Studies and Director of the Institute of European Studies at University of California, Berkeley. Krakkos (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed the first. The second and third only seem to mention Germanic ancient tribes and Germanic languages. The fourth one mainly sticks to that, but maybe copies old versions of Wikipedia in a few places concerning modern Dutch and Flemish people. In general the possible sourcing remains very weak indeed, and if we had to argue about making a new article for this subject I think it would be controversial (a couple of side mentions in some unknown books) - which is apparently why it keeps trying to piggy back on this article which is in any case about another subject? And let us not forget the previous RfC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

All four were used in my initial comment[11] to which you responded.[12] The second source (Danver) designates Frisians,[13] Germans[14] and Norwegians[15] as Germanic peoples. The third source (Minahan) designates Dutch people,[16] Flemish people,[17] English people,[18] Frisians[19] and plenty of others[20] as Germanic peoples. These are not "ancient tribes". Please examine sources more carefully before attempting to tell us what they contain. Krakkos (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies then, but apparently google books search did not work as expected. The problem still remains though. First, these are general tertiary sources of no great standing and they do not cite their sources for the supposed research which leads to these writing decisions. I think it is obvious that they probably don't have any. These are simply using the typical simple logic of naming ethnic groups after the modern name of their language family. So these statements are tantamount to saying that they are speakers of a Germanic language. We all know some people equate ethnic group with language group and surely we all know this is not considered uncontroversial. Second, the part you have not commented on is that we have discussed this type of thing over and over and clearly keep coming to a majority position that this article is not about such supposed modern ethnic or linguistic entities. For the Germanic language family we of course have other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

For the above reasons highlighted by @Andrew Lancaster:, it has been agreed that references to modern Germanic people is a specious subject and does not constitute inclusion in this Wiki-article. There is no good reason to keep dragging that into this page.--Obenritter (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically there are two issues of concern, but only one is relevant here: this article has an agreed clear subject matter, and modern nationalisms are of only passing relevance to it. Concerning the other question, whether there is enough sourcing to make an article on modern Germanic peoples, I think there is not. Passing references in very general tertiary sources on their own are not good enough. But that could better be debated elsewhere. I think indeed it keeps coming back to affect this article because it is easier to piggyback on this article. That should however be avoided, as has been agreed several times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but in English it's only used for historical populations like we use "Romans" to mean "people of the ancient Roman Empire", not "people who live in Rome". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually you do here the word Romans being used to refer to people from Rome. Of course in normal speech if you that you need to make the context clear. But that would also be an example of two quite distinct subjects, which should not be covered by one article. In contrast I think I have never ever heard anbyone speak about a modern person being Germanic (as opposed to being a speaker of a Germanic language).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

North Germanic peoples treats the ethnolinguistic group (the group speaking North Germanic languages) throughout ancient, medieval and modern times. There's no reason for this article not to proceed analogically.

If you want to limit the scope of this article, a rename into Ancient Germanic peoples (as suggested by Trigaranus before) is necessary, and overall the best solution. The current situation is simply confusing for the reader. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. The Contemporary World Regional Geography by McGraw-Hill Education gives a clear description of the scope of the topic of this article: "Germanic peoples (3A). A broadly defined group of peoples from northern Europe who began to move south into Germany and other areas of Europe around 500 B.C. Modern Germans, Austrians, Dutch, and the Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes) are the most numerous of today's Germanic peoples."[21] Krakkos (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos, it seems to be a high school level book? Also, it is certainly a tertiary source. We have been here before. Over and over, these lowest quality tertiary sources are the only types of sources found so far which agree with this neo-ethnic BS. No surprises here. These are the level which can be expected to copy from Wikipedia. But they are clearly, according to WP content policy, not good sources. Secondly, even if they were we have several RFCs here to agree that if there was such a subject it is not what this article is about. All the Neo-Germanic enthusiast editors (look at the contributions of the people who support these things!!) have a whole bunch of other fringe articles to play with, they just want to infiltrate the one serious article which has infinitely more credibility in terms of WP policy. There is no way that this should be allowed. Why should we keep calling RFCs that keep making the same decision? I am sure there are heaps of websites working on trying to prove there is a Modern Germanic Folk, but not on Wikipedia please. This is utter nonsense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Florian there has indeed been a decision, many times, that this article's topic is limited. But it is also true that there is no good sourcing for anything outside those limits. Just saying that in another case there is, which I am not sure about, means nothing about this case. There might today be peoples who are seen as, and see themselves as, Nordic or Scandinavian or whatever. There is no population on earth who commonly and casually walk around calling themselves Germanic. There are fringe groups who say such things, and make Youtube videos, and there also others who think the world is flat. These do not constitute ethnic groups. See the difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As a thought experiment Florian, taking your logic we could equally demand that a new article would be needed called modern Germanic peoples. I am NOT saying this should be done, but please imagine what that article would look like. It would be utter nonsense. ALL these attempts to add this material into a serious article are clearly influenced by the fact that the people proposing it know this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, as usual, you are misrepresenting my sources. Contemporary World Regional Geography is published by McGraw-Hill Higher Education, which publishes textbooks for postsecondary education, i. e., not high school students. It serves as the primary textbook for the teaching of world geography at George Mason University[22] and was produced by Elizabeth Chacko, George W. White, Joseph Dymond and Michael Bradshaw, all scholars in the field. According to WP:TERTIARY, reliable tertiary sources, such as undergraduate-level textbooks, are useful for "providing broad summaries of topics" and "evaluating due weight". When describing Germanic peoples, Contemporary World Regional Geography gives equal weight to ancient, medieval and modern Germanic peoples.[23] Similar assessments are made in a large amount of both secondary and tertiary sources which have been provided above. As Florian noted, your edits are tantamount to claiming that the people of this article have become extinct. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. Your own personal opinions sprinkled with WP:DISCUSSED and WP:GODWIN are not sufficient. Consensus can change. Krakkos (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos, please consider that policy concerning tertiary sources which you cite. It clearly means that we can not use these ones in these cases, because, to repeat once more, while we find a tiny number of non-specialist tertiary sources which mention this pseudo-fact, these are the ONLY sources anyone keeps finding. So you are NOT proposing using them for a broad summary of the literature, you are proposing using them for a fact which can not be sourced in any other way.

You are also not addressing the fact that, to repeat that also, this article would not be about that pseudo-fact even if there were sources for it. The Germanic peoples of classical times are extinct. Those people are dead, and they were not kept in racially pure breeding stockades. They ceased being able to talk to each other. People stopped referring to them as a single population more than 1000 years ago.

Clearly, the reason for wanting to slip this material into this article is because is blindingly obvious that an article about modern germanic peoples which could only cite a few single sentences in non specialist tertiary works will be more obviously sub-standard. This is clearly an attempt to create a new racial/ethnic terminology on Wikipedia in the hope that it spreads and becomes more acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)