Jump to content

Talk:Germanic peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.164.153.226 (talk) at 10:59, 27 May 2019 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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

Pytheas

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[1] 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".[2] 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."[3]"
  • "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.[4][5] ...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.[6] This has been interpreted as signifying that a council is ecumenical if attended by representatives of all five patriarchs.[4]
  • 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."[7][8]
  • Eastern Orthodox state that the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451)[9] explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople,[10][11] and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.[9] The patriarch of the imperial capital succeeded in his efforts[12] 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".[13]
  • "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".[14] 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".[15] 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".[16]
  • "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".[17]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Ayer (1913), p. 538
  2. ^ Ayer (1913), p. 553
  3. ^ Code of Justinian I.5.21 Archived 27 July 2013 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Idea was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. patriarch (ecclesiastical), also calls it "a title dating from the 6th century, for the bishops of the five great sees of Christendom". And Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions says: "Five patriarchates, collectively called the pentarchy, were the first to be recognized by the legislation of the emperor Justinian (reigned 527–565)".
  6. ^ "NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library". CCEL.org. Retrieved 16 April 2017.
  7. ^ Kling, David W. (20 April 2005). The Bible in History:How the Texts Have Shaped the Times. Oxford University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-19-988096-6. Retrieved 31 October 2012. Obviously, the church at Rome, given the dual presence of the apostles Peter and Paul, claimed a special authority. In the first three centuries, church leaders and thinkers throughout the empire increasingly recognized Rome as a center of Christianity. At the same time, the literary evidence yields no clear-cut claims to, or recognition of, papal primacy.
  8. ^ "Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time". Orthodoxytoday.org. Retrieved 23 February 2013.
  9. ^ a b Schaff, Philip, ed. (2005-06-01), The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Christian Classics Ethereal Library, NPNF2-14, retrieved 2 June 2012
  10. ^ Romanides, John, Romanity, There are no primacies nor primates according to Roman Orthodox Canon Law, but only bishops with "Seniority of Honor" since all bishops are doctrinally equal. The Franco-Latin and Protestant translations of "Seniority of honor" by "primacy of honor" is theirs, not ours
  11. ^ Council of Chalcedon, 451 (resource materials), Monachos, 2012-05-28, archived from the original on 26 May 2012, retrieved 2 June 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Bunson, Matthew (2009), Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Infobase Publishing, p. 115, ISBN 978-1-43811027-1
  13. ^ Schadé, Johannes P (2006), "8", Encyclopedia of World Religions, Foreign Media, ISBN 978-1-60136000-7
  14. ^ Ayer, John Cullen, ed. (1913). A Source Book for Ancient Church History. Mundus Publishing (2008 reprint).
  15. ^ McKim, Donald K. (1996). Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-66425511-4.
  16. ^ Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. University of California Press. p. 328. ISBN 978-0-52006983-1.
  17. ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware), op. cit., p. 67.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No only modern ethnic groups, for example Swedes 83.185.80.154 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I mentioned four sources in my comment above, all of whom are to be considered reliable as per WP:Source:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Andrew Lancaster, until you have reliable sources there cannot be a discussion involving you here, i mean what would the point of such a discussion be? Everyoneelse: we must follow policy and provide reliable sources!, You: i dont have any other sources other than my personal opinion "i dont like it" remember that it is you making the changes here and therefore must provide reliable sources here, not us but we still do, TONS OF SOURCES which you replace with "i dont like it" Johansweden27 (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johan, no on Wikipedia you do not demand that people find sources for there being no sources for the thing you want to add. The onus for finding sources is upon the people who want to add something which editors doubt has been notably and reliably published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP:TERTIARY say that "we can not use these ones in these cases"? WP:NNC states: "Content coverage within a given article... is governed by the principle of due weight." WP:TERTIARY in turn states: "Reliable tertiary sources... may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." The tertiary sources provided are therefore, in accordance with policy, very useful to determine a dispute like this. By stating that "this article would not be about that pseudo-fact even if there were sources for it", you admit to ignoring the sources. This is a blatant violation of WP:NOR, one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. Your accusation of "pseudo-facts" and claims that Germanic peoples are "extinct" are extraordinary claims, which require extraordinary sources. So far you have not provided a singe source, only resorted to original theories and violations of WP:AGF. Krakkos (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Tertiary explains the limited ways in which such sources can be useful and you are accurately quoting that. But this situation is not one of those situations. We do not have any conflict between secondary and primary sources. We do not have a need to find good summaries for a big complex body of material which we got from better sources. You are trying to use these as the ONLY source. That is clearly NOT what they are to be used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with Johansweden27 that we should not be saying "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x", but also with the removal of Krakkos's long sections which have all sorts of problems, beginning in the first words with "Indo-European", which is clearly the wrong link. As always Krakkos fatally assumes language=ethnicity, which is always going to be rejected by modern English-speakers. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well yes and no, no to "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" and yes to "x are a germanic ethnic group", either the latter or omit the whole sentence completely! if you are interested in the subject i invite you to join our discussion at Talk:Swedes#Germanic_or_North_Germanic like i said there (read why there) lets remove this "north germanic" original reasearch nonsense once and for all! (and replace it simply with "germanic") Johansweden27 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i also worked out a bold compromise solution, give me your opinion if it works for you Johansweden27 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a mass revert of multiple edits back to nonsense and away from the subject of the article. Please don't edit if you are not even reading what you are reverting back to. I asked you in my previous edit summaries to go through edit by edit and explain your point, because frankly I think you do not even know what you are reverting to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the possibility—which has been mentioned here before—of changing this page name and the links to it from Germanic peoples to Ancient Germanic peoples. Like many, I view this constant bickering about modern Germanic peoples as nonconstructive, and potentially detrimental to the content of this page. Discussion about modern Germanic people in a post-twentieth century world risks venturing into unsavory discussions best directed elsewhere. To this end, please consider this change so this incessant squabbling can cease. --Obenritter (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an entirely inappropriate proposal. Who are "modern Germanic people"? Do you mean speakers of modern Germanic languages? Have you ever met a person who says they are "Germanic" and did not mean that they speak a Germanic language? What kind of person would that be?
  • To repeat, we have not found sufficient sources that "Modern Germanic Peoples" are a valid notable encyclopedic topic. We have a tiny number of non-specialist citations which seem to be using the term in a very passing way to mean speakers of Germanic languages, which is lazy writing because being in the same language group does not equate to an ethnic group. But more importantly we have Wikipedians whose editing implies obsessional interest in trying to divide the modern world up into ancient ethnic groups. For them, those citations, which they went looking for, are just a tool to get their personal opinions published.
  • To say the least, your proposal should be the other way around. The classical topic has to be the main one, and it does not matter if there are other classical terms which do have important modern equivalents. There is absolutely no disputing that 99.99999% of all published mentions of Germanic people are purely about a classical ethnic group which ceased to be meaningful more than 1000 years ago.
  • Like I already suggested, now please imagine what that Modern Germanic Peoples article is going to look like. I think it is highly likely to be objectionable on the one hand. If you successfully avoid making an ethno-nationalistic fringe article, which should quickly be removed BTW, meaning the "bickering" will only get worse, then the only non-fringe meaning I can think of, which presumably lies behind the tiny number of generalist tertiary sources who use the term, is "Peoples speaking Germanic languages"? But we already have other articles for such topics? Every valid modern Germanic topic has an article already?
  • All this is about, is a small number of people with an ethnic obsession trying to piggy back on a real topic to make their fringe material look more respectable on the platform of Wikipedia.
  • This has all been discussed before and RFCs have been called before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Lancaster:i dont like the sources etc etc etc......., well andrew did you not listen to me at all? until you have reliable sources there cannot be a discussion involving you here, i mean what would the point of such a discussion be? Everyoneelse: we must follow policy and provide reliable sources!, You: i dont have any other sources other than my personal opinion "i dont like the sources" remember that it is you making the changes here and therefore must provide reliable sources here, not us but we still do, TONS OF SOURCES which you replace with "i dont like it" thank you for proving my point Johansweden27 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been explaining Wikipedia policy to you, and I think honestly I am explaining it correctly. If you think I am personally biased we can have yet another RFC and call in the community, again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Germanic peoples are defined by reliable published sources, not by "persons we have met in our personal life". A large number of specialist secondary sources and reliable tertiary sources have been provided to determine this definition, but you refuse to hear that, insisting that we cannot diverge from your personal definition "even if there were sources for it".[24] If there is indeed "absolutely no disputing that 99.99999% of all published mentions of Germanic people are purely about a classical ethnic group which ceased to be meaningful more than 1000 years ago", then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Your accusation against other editors of having "an ethnic obsession" and using citations as a "tool to get their personal opinions published" are unsubstantiated and thus an assumption of bad faith. Your repeated argument that "this has all been discussed before" ignores WP:CCC, which states that editors may propose changes to the current consensus when "unconsidered arguments or circumstances" are encountered. A large number of previously unconsidered sources are being unearthed in this discussion, and WP:CCC thus clearly applies here. Krakkos (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. We should find published sources. [ADDED: which you have failed to do as per WP:RS] I mentioned not ever meeting anyone called a Germanic person just to appeal to common sense. It is only additional to the fact that I also never read about such people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obenritter, i've been thinking along the same lines as well. Such a move would however not be unproblematic, but it could be viable as a last solution. A large amount of interesting sources are however in the process of being unearthed, so i still have faith that the issue can be solved at this article in an entirely peaceful and satisfactory manner. Krakkos (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as this article is concerned, in fact there has been a slightly variable "compromise" over a long period in the sense that there is agreement that the main subject is the classical ethnic group, and there should also be discussion of how the subject has a linguistic aspect, what happened to the Germanic people, and what political etc beliefs have been influenced by them, such as Nazism of course. You are both either exaggerating or else actually saying that this past compromise is now something you are going to work against under the stimulus of the new editor. Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, keep in mind my thought experiment as a real practical possibility, and an honest good-faith challenge: Why not make an honest draft of a properly sourced article about Modern Germanic Peoples? Show how it will be properly according to WP core content policies, and show that it will not be covered by existing articles. If you say "no" then I presume this discussion is over, because the work required is only what you have to be able to do under all scenarios.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: If you Sir are insinuating that I am being unreasonable by suggesting changing the page name to Ancient Germanic peoples then you have missed my point entirely. I believe that a modern Germanic peoples page is quite feasible, although I personally would refrain from editing such a page entirely. As one of this page's principle contributors, I am convinced that the content is and has been focused on the Germanic people in a classical as well as a medieval sense and have worked diligently to edit this page to this end. However, the arguments being made by others are not entirely without merit. Some of the recent additions were properly sourced and free from any political agenda. Adding modern references about current ethnographic population groups, however, is not without its risks, so this page would need to be even more carefully monitored so racialist agendas from wackjobs and trolls doesn't detract from the content. Getting more allies to this end makes more sense than fighting tooth and nail against any and every contemporary mention and reference to modern Germanic peoples. Maybe we build a coalition of people willing to protect the page from such nonsense. If it comes down to it, we may all agree that a name change could be a necessary evil as well as the creation of a separate Post-Medieval Germanic peoples page. Hear out the discussions being presented at the very least. While I am fundamentally aligned with you in trying to maintain the page's focus as it currently exists, Wikipedia is a joint project.--Obenritter (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Obenritter, we simply cannot ignore that the term Germanic peoples are not obsolete to be used not just outside the antiquity, but recently to those ethnics, nations people, by origin and language who share these roots.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Is that what he said? Whatever, but find a source and explain how it is relevant to this article about classical times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I do not propose that a Modern German Peoples article is justified, but no matter what everyone's stand point is, if a draft is impossible to write then I don't know what merit anyone is seeing. Concerning the past way we have edited this article, if you agree with that then why are we discussing changing anything? The way I see it, we have a cycle of people adding things about Afrikaners or whatever and then these being removed. This new discussion, the way I understand it, seems to be saying that this should change, and the article should be more about Afrikaners and Luxemburgers? Or not? Please someone explain. I see no valid arguments. Some of the edits which triggered this discussion were for example saying that the classical Germanic peoples were Proto Indo European speakers, so not even just ethno-obsessed but also just plain low quality editing. I am guessing you did not look at the edits of the editors you say have merit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, I did not involve myself deep on the edits and the discussion, I just overviewed the case, and I expressed an opinion. Take it like so, I have no problem if ancient Germanic people are treated a bit differently or separate articles would care about Post-Medieval Germanic peoples or modern Germanic peoples, or at least discuss about this issue or atleast present more viewpoints.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps what many might be missing is that the general nomenclature under which this article is subsumed, is ancient Germanic history and this implies refraining from the modern context. This also provides a little impetus in my mind about changing the title. If @Andrew Lancaster: has proven that this issue was already properly vetted and is protecting the page consequent that decision, then I shall cede to that judgment. What I think his point is after reading this thread in its entirety—is that those who see this issue as so pressing should provide a solution by offering up an outline and content for a page which covers these more modern "peoples." Maybe it needs its own page, but certainly not under the umbrella of ancient Germanic history and culture.--Obenritter (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent evidence has come to light, showing that Johansweden27, who initiated this RfC, is a sock of Freeboy200. Freeboy200 was the initiator of two previous related RfCs here on this talk page.[25][26] He was blocked shortly afterwards per WP:NOTHERE for "long-term fucking around".[27][28] I believe it is unwise to base the scope of this article on the outcome of RfCs initiated by an illiterate troll. Krakkos (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of record, here are two useful sources concerned with the definition and scope of the topic of Germanic peoples:

More sources, in particular scholarly secondary sources, will be provided in the near future. Krakkos (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did mention to look at the editing patterns of editors triggering this discussion. LOL. Krakkos, concerning these types of sources, the pattern which I always see is that first they are very brief passing statements, and second they anchor the implication of a modern population to (a) languages and/or (b) classical ethnic groups. (a) and (b) correspond to what we have always tended to agree on as the most notable and published-about uses of the terms, and there are several articles covering all these things already. Without a real body of secondary sources (we don't have notability if we have one source) it is honestly difficult to imagine any Modern Germanic Peoples article (or section) which does not look very borderline in terms of Wikipedia policy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that the only "pattern" you permit yourself to see when inspecting sources are bogus patterns that suit your preferred definition and scope of the subject.[31] What constitutes "very brief passing statements" is defined at the part about trivial mentions at WP:GNG, and certainly does not apply to the sources provided here. The article on Teutonic peoples in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is a detailed scholarly review of the subject, in which Germanic peoples as a modern population are introduced in the first defining sentence. The definition in the Webster's New World College Dictionary is short, but right to the point. Whether a mention is trivial or not, is not defined by the length of the source, but the by the weight the subject is given in the source. Looking forward to the creative "patterns" you will discover when inspecting the number of secondary sources which will be introduced shortly. Krakkos (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, a "a detailed scholarly review of the subject" in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Here is "The skull and head of a young orang-utan, and of a negro" from the vaunted 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Incredible gall, or ignorance, or both, here. Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teutonic peoples is attributed to Hector Munro Chadwick, professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of Cambridge and "one of the notable polymaths of Cambridge history". Although he was probably ignorant on how to measure orangutan skulls, he was certainly one the world's leading experts on the topic of Germanic peoples. Please refrain from such red herrings through the argument from fallacy. Krakkos (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a red herring; rather, your reply is an example of misdirection. Please refrain from citing antiquated, outdated scholarship to support your quixotic and doomed-to-fail campaign, or from adding such nonsense to the article. For god's sake, the 1911 edition of the EB is not a reliable source for illuminating the subject, nor is a hundred-and-eight-year-old article from it relevant to a modern understanding of the subject. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The very first sentence of Chadwick's article is problematic to a modern understanding of the subject. He says, "...the English-speaking inhabitants of the British Isles, the German-speaking inhabitants of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, the Flemish-speaking inhabitants of Belgium, the Scandinavian-speaking inhabitants of Sweden and Norway and practically all the inhabitants of Holland and Denmark. Do I really have to explain that a modern understanding of the subject recognizes that there are now substantial populations of immigrants or their descendants in each of those countries who speak the languages of their respective countries of residence? I've yet to see them mentioned in this discussion. Do you think that the hundreds of thousands, millions of persons of Turkish origin who hold German citizenship but have no "Germanic" ancestry are inconsequential and not relevant to an informed, modern understanding of the subject? Why are they not even considered here? Carlstak (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Webster's New World College Dictionary, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2014, concurs with Chadwick, so this definition has not become outdated.[32] Chadwick is careful to note that peoples of "Celtic nationality" who use "no language but English" (such as the Irish) and immigrant populations to Germanic countries who "have adopted the languages of their neighbours" are not to be considered Germanic. Turkish people are not considered here because they are a Turkic people. I do not believe that "persons of Turkish origin" are "relevant to an informed, modern understanding of the subject" of Germanic peoples. However, if you are aware of reliable sources indicating the contrary, feel free to provide them. Krakkos (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krakkos your own explanation makes it clear that this is an early 20th century racial theory of being Germanic. I think it is very well-known that before WW2 there was a lot of interest in connecting races and languages and classical history as pat of a nationalist program; and that much of that romanticist discussion is now seen as invalid. A professor of Anglo Saxon, for example, would not be considered a highly qualified person in terms of population histories today. The two subjects of how ethnicities and biological populations formed have divided and changed completely, and especially the latter has also been removed from the language and classical departments, so to speak. Why do you continue to write as if we are still in the 19th century?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

change ... crossed into Norticum (Austria) in 113 BCE ... to ... crossed into Noricum (Austria) in 113 BCE ...

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum 83.164.153.226 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanic_peoples&oldid=899020148"