Talk:Early Germanic culture

Topic clarity: it should not only be about Germanic language speakers?

This article seems to have been quietly split out of Germanic peoples, perhaps to avoid a debate there about how to cover early Germanic peoples who might not have spoken Germanic languages. However, the same problem has been transplanted to here. The article sometimes seems to be about Germanic peoples generally, such as the Istvaeones for example, but at other times it is written as if it is only about the people who spoke Germanic languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was split from Germanic peoples after this debate. The articles cover distinct topics, and should be kept separate per WP:SIZESPLIT. Information about the culture of Celts, Balts, Slavs, Baltic Finns, Illyrians, Dacians and other peoples who lived in the vicinity of Germanic peoples are covered at their respective articles. There is neither need nor room for such content in this article. This is in accordance with our sources on early Germanic culture. Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The link you give to Germanic peoples is just to the talk page in general. So in which discussion, anywhere, was the creation of this offshoot article discussed?? Whether your concerns and ideas are agreed with or not, you have to, for your own sake and Wikipedia's start bringing them out of the shadows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The link has now been corrected. Krakkos (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion you linked to shows (1) no clear explanations from you about the actions you were taking or proposing (2) disagreement of other editors. So if anything it makes this look worse. I have created a talk page section about this article creation here. You should not have worked this way. Please learn to coordinate with other editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To start with the lead, it needs to define what the topic covers, and explain any aspects which might be unclear or controversial or indeed not covered. Currently the article says it is about the same "people" as discussed in Germanic peoples, but that article is clearly about peoples with several different cultures and languages. For example the Goths were culturally Scythian. Looking through the article, some parts are about Norse people in medieval times, some about the first century peoples between Rhine and Vistula. It is as if the article is saying that all these peoples in all these periods shared one culture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

this article is problematic?

This article, which split out of Germanic peoples, is now bigger than it. However for anyone familiar with the topic it reads like something from at least 50 years ago and now reflects a worldview which is arguably WP:FRINGE, and based on romanticist speculation and fantasy. Most of the sources are very old, and/or tertiary, and/or NOT focused upon the topic being discussed, but just cherry picked because something suited. (Several of these specially chosen sources are used for similar purposes on other related articles.) Some of the publication dates given are misleadingly recent, presumably reflecting a new printing or similar. Ideas about this topic have been controversial after WW2, and evolved quite a lot. I think anything from before about 1990 should be used only with caution. Playing devil's advocate maybe the best way to consider the future of this article is to start by asking if ANYTHING can be well-sourced for this topic, and building from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If the existence of an early Germanic culture was a fringe theory, it is doubtful that Wikipedia would have had articles on Early Germanic law, Early Germanic warfare, Germanic paganism, Germanic mythology, Early Germanic calendar, Germanic kingship etc. There are scholars, such as Guy Halsall, who denies that there were such a thing, but as Halsall admitted in 2014, such as dismissal is "far from generally accepted or integrated in current study".[1] As of 2018, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity writes that the Germanic peoples were "distinct from other barbarians by their Germanic languages and civilization".[2]

The subject of early Germanic culture is covered in detail in works such as:

• Murdoch, Brian; Read, Malcolm Kevin (2004). Early Germanic Literature and Culture. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 157113199X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |registration= and |subscription= (help)
• Green, D. H. (2004). Language and History in the Early Germanic World. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794234. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |registration= and |subscription= (help)
• Schutz, Herbert (1983). The Prehistory of Germanic Europe. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300028638. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Todd, Malcolm (2004). The Early Germans. Wiley. ISBN 9781405117142. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This article is indeed longer than necessary, and some of the sources are of questionable relevance or possibly outdated. These issues can be fixed through using the above-listed sources and trimming superfluous content. It is my intention to do this in the future when i have time. In the meantime, i recommend that you first clean up the mess you made at Germanic peoples before you embark on the similar mutilation of this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there are more articles on Wikipedia which need similar review, but we certainly can't cite them in order to justify this one. Just naming some books also means nothing unless they actually reflect something similar to the topic which has been written up here, obviously. But this article is in conflict with these and other works. OTOH, there is no reason this article should be based only on sources chosen by one Wikipedian, and this article MAY NOT ignore well-known controversies in the field - not in the lead and not in the body. So we may NOT block mention of Halsall, Goffart, Gillett, etc. We NEED to mention them. Concerning "mutilation", I can't look into your concerns unless you can learn to communicate your ideas in a constructive and clear way. Though of course what I suspect is that your ideas are known by you to be in conflict with Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, who says I need to do all the editing. If you believe you can structure this article according to appropriate 21st century sources and WP policy, then no one is stopping you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are all the sentences currently in the lead with comments/concerns:

• Early Germanic culture refers to the culture of the early Germanic peoples. <2 things unclear: That article gives a few different possible definitions, so which is intended here? If the article is, as it seems, being limited to a certain period, then which period? How is "early" being defined here?>
• Largely derived from a synthesis of Proto-Indo-European and indigenous Northern European elements, the Germanic culture developed out of the Nordic Bronze Age. <This is a controversial statement being put into Wikipedia voice. I doubt any good specialist source published in the last 20 years makes such a simple statement?>
• It came under significant external influence during the Migration Period, particularly from ancient Rome. <This implies it was pure and uninfluenced before then, which is nonsense.>
• The Germanic peoples eventually overwhelmed the Western Roman Empire, which by the Middle Ages facilitated their conversion from paganism to Christianity and the abandonment of their tribal way of life. <The meaning of "tribal way of life" is unclear.>
• Certain traces of early Germanic culture have survived among the Germanic peoples up to the present day. <This is another controversial statement being put into Wikipedia voice. Again I doubt any good specialist source published in the last 20 years makes such a simple statement?>

I hope that someone can address such issues, starting with the lead, but also in the body of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)