Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

modern germanic peoples

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the article say modern germanic peoples? Freeboy200 (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Too binary. The wording "ethnic groups descended from" is better. Batternut (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• lets just remove it altoghther Freeboy200 (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment.(Summoned by bot) It would be helpful if the disputed text were made clear, with quotes from sources, rather than just the abstract principle. I wonder if it is "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Faroe Islanders, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Swedes.[3][4]". If so, I find some of this very problematic. The modern English (the only group I know well), are a madly-hybrid people speaking a madly-hybridised language, the most that could be said about us is that we have a substantial Germanic inheritance, ethnically and linguistically, but to say we are descended from any ancient people or group of peoples, is just wrong. Regarding sources, not only do there need to be good sources to support the point explicitly, but the balance of good sources need to support the assertion in order for it to be put in WP:VOICE. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• No Having read the disputed text, that text is clearly wrong, I cannot speak for all the named groups, but the idea that the modern English are generally referred to as a 'modern Germanic people' is nonsense, one hardly needs to ask for a source to support it. I also/still have problems with the 'other' text. The wording "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, etc." is conflating a nationality with an ethnicity. The English (and I suspect, but do not know about, other mentioned groups), are a national, not an ethnic group. I don't know percentages, but the 'Germanic' input into England's 'gene pool', is obviously substantial as a result of conquests up to, and possibly partly including, 1066, but that is quite some way from claiming that the English are a unitary ethnic group which is descended from any source. Would this wording work: "Modern nations substantially descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, etc."? Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - reliably referenced but the article needs to be expanded, as I have stated in the past, to include the history of Germanic peoples in the modern era. I am not convinced by the above arguments, whether the English in particular are embarassed about their ethnicity (their Germanic nature having been de-emphasised since WWI for political reasons, despite their linguistic and ethnic origin) or not does not mean that it should not be pointed out, as this is an objective classification. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems several of us think it is not reliably referenced, not only because the sources are of a very weak type for this subject, but also because they do not say what WP is citing them for. So can you explain why you think this is reliably referenced please? (Maybe below in the threaded discussion.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

their Germanic nature having been de-emphasised since WWI for political reasons, Errrr a substantial number of the modern English have no Germanic nature. 'Ethnicity' is an imprecise, and often subjective term, and whilst the WASP English may often be defined as a distinct ethnic group (who do have a substantial Germanic component to their 'make up'), 'the English' are simply not generally regarded as an ethnic group, any more than 'American' is an ethnicity. I don't know which other countries on the list this is true of. As phrased, the implication is that English=WASP, others are, in some sense, not English. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Better than "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples" which has several problems. Chief among them is that the claim of descent must be "more or less"/ Many English have, like Cheddar Man's modern descendant, non-Anglo-Saxon blood; some may well not be Anglo-Saxon at all. (The same applies, for various reasons, to everybody else on this list.) That being given, why exclude those groups (the Normans? the Lombards?) which have Germanic descent, but don't speak a Germanic language?

  We may want the links; if so, say something like "Modern ethnic groups speaking a Germanic language...." Even that has problems with North Americans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The group (Western Hunter-Gatherers) Cheddar man belonged to was replaced in the late neolithic period by an invasion of the Bell Beaker people. This is long before the time of the "Germanic peoples", and their invasion of the region, began. "Normans" and "Lombards" are not mentioned in the sources, so that is why they are not mentioned. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• No as previously mentioned, too binary Wolfson5 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• there are reliable source included and making them say things that arent there is against WP:WEASEL, modern germanic peoples exist just as modern slavic peoples or romance people Freeboy200 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Post some of those sources here them. I for one have never heard anyone refer to romance people. In Europe people talk most often about southern europeans, northern europeans, eastern europeans. A bit less often they refer to religious alignments (catholic, protestant, orthodox + atheist isms). Romance and Germanic are words used in linguistics and history as far I experience them. This discussion on this article has literally been going years and we keep seeing people who feel otherwise, but can not find good sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm new here and don't particularly want to take a side, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples should probably be considered together with this article. Sakuranohi (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have a similar long-term confusion about what the article should be about, or maybe worse. Once again there are linguistic uses and historical uses which are both valid but quite distinct, and both covered in other articles. However the case is not exactly the same because Latin Americans are obviously a third factor in that particular set of terms for a set of modern peoples (but referring to peoples whose ancestry is only partly southern European). Short answer: not sure that we should hold up fixing one of these articles because of the other in this case. More to the point would be if one of them finds a great way of handling these issues, it might then help other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The "ethnic groups descended from" claim appears well sourced, and is fairly fundamental to the article, so it should probably stay. Batternut (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is well sourced and fundamental to the article. These two claims are not self-evident. 1. They are sourced from short entries in relatively unknown tertiary sources which are clearly not by population geneticists or specialists in the history of the peoples involved. If specialists in these subjects believed the same thing they would have said it somewhere? 2. The article is not about "peoples descended from" and the notability of such speculations seems very low given that Europe as a whole, seen from a biological point of view, is one interbreeding population, and the Germanic population as defined classically was also very large and basically ended up all over Europe. (The French for example can claim to be descended from the Franks, and the Italians from Lombards.) Basically these are just amateur speculations based on things like where modern peoples live and what they call themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Two published sources isn't bad, though as you say they seem to be non-specialist authors. Discussion of what may be termed modern Germanic groups is fundamental if this article is to cover existing ethnic groups. Most of the article is about the history of these peoples - unless we consign Germanic ethnic groups to the past or simply reduce it to Germanic language speakers, this perhaps more contentious issue must be covered. Current Germanic ethnic groups include groups that self-define as being Germanic. Batternut (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and why would we not say that "Germanic peoples" is a term used in good sources either for past peoples or modern linguistic groups (which has its own article)? That is indeed the question here. The two weak sources you mention do not even in any case tell us about any third use of the term, and it is not like people have not been trying to find a source for years for this and failing. (They do not claim that descendants of ancient Germanic tribes or speakers of modern Germanic languages are called Germanic peoples?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not having either of these sources available to me I cannot verify what they say or imply about Germanic peoples; the main claim has been in the lead since about June 2013. Having had a brief look for further sources I understand the trouble finding them. I wonder if the last 100 years has generated a reticence to label nations as Germanic when the similar "Latin/Latino" label is more readily accepted (despite Hernán Cortés and co). Batternut (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you are making a speculative theory about why no one can find sources, but this theory is also not based on sources. You show no evidence that there was ever a past situation (100 years ago) that was different, but even if that was the case we still do not live 100 years ago. Well if we are allowed to speculate, maybe serious writers just never widely used the term this way, because they realized that Germanic languages and classical Germanic peoples were two things which went different ways, both spreading and changing, meaning that the idea of a "modern Germanic people" in the post colonial world is now ill-defined and only creating confusion? Maybe Wikipedia editors who know the subject LESS well keep misunderstanding this and assuming there must be such a term because there are terms like "Latino" which have their own different history? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The substantive point, theorizing aside, is what precisely the Minahan and Pavlovic sources say about Germanic peoples. If anyone has them to hand, quotations would at least settle the issue of their use or misuse. Batternut (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I cited a URL for one of them previously, I think to google books?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Re "Disputed text": Freeboy200's edit's (here, subsequently reverted) that prompted this rfc changed "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include ..." to "Modern Germanic peoples include ...". My interpretation of the wording was that "descended from" generally allows the possibility of other ancestor peoples, whereas the alternative was more exclusively Germanic. Thus the English could be descended from Germanic, Celtic, Basque and who knows who/what else ... Batternut (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you are technically correct about "descended from" generally allowing the possibility of other ancestor peoples, but the inference is that the 'Germanic' input is the exclusive, or at least the predominant component and I think it would be better quantified, even in a general way (substantially/largely?). As I say in my post above, I actually question whether the English are generally thought of as an ethnic group, as opposed to a national group. I don't know which other European peoples that would also be true of, many are possibly more ethnically homogenous than the English. Among my 'English' friends I count people whose descent is Scots, Welsh, Irish, eastern/middle European Jewish, Greek, Spanish, Italian, French Hugeonot - most of whom have been English for generations, and that's before we include all the C20th migrations from outside Europe? Are these people not English? Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"... substantially descended" would be an improvement; with the caveat that we must always be guided by the sources. Batternut (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Very much appears to be WP:OR and also guessing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is guessing, and the precise wording should reflect good sources, but you don't need many sources to know that 'English' is a nationality describing anyone born in England. There are Jewish English, Caribbean English, Indian, Pakistani and East African English in their millions as well as Polish, Slavic, and other recently European English, plus Scots and Welsh English (if the last trio ian't a contradiction?), Norman French English (who have I forgotten?). This may not be true of those groups on the list who are defined by ethnicity rather than nationality, but to a greater or lesser extent, this is obviously true of all 'nationality' groups, such as the Dutch. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

At least there are people who would think of themselves as English or American in a way which goes beyond simple citizenship. But I don't recall hearing people referring to themselves as members of the Germanic people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a discussion more relevant to English national identity. In any case, why do you recognize some ethnic groups (Scottish, Welsh, etc.) but say that the English are not an ethnic group? Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Why am I recognising the Welsh/Scots etc as an ethnic group? There are Pakistani-Welshmen, Italian-Scots etc, but the English come from a particularly 'mixed' base and it is even less common to hear them referred to as an ethnic group .... it is almost as silly as referring to Americans as an ethnic group. Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there any "pure" ethnic or national groups? I think ethnic groups are not biological to begin with. They can literally be made, or come into existence by accident. They can be ancestry or language or state-related, sometimes, but it is not necessarily so. They exist when people see themselves that way, therefore if the people in the group see language as what defines them, then language does define them simply because that's how they see it. Therefore what is ridiculous is people on the internet trying to reason out whether there might be an ethnic group which the supposed members do not know they are part of, and who do not speak the same language, live in the same states, or share any other marker of common nationality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a tendency for English people to be humiliated by their ethnicity.

These specimens come in two categories (1) the old school anti-"Fritz", "ten German bombers" chauvinist crowd, which results from WWI and the attempt to distance England from any connection to "the Krauts" (2) bourgeois liberals, who in a post-empire world are embarassed about their past actions of their ethnic group, the tactic here is to try and blur the lines and pretend that the English are really Celts (they're not) and have been in these Isles forever (they haven't) or take the cosmopolitan citizen of the world approach (as seen above).

Still, the objections of some English does not detract from the fact that Germanic is an objective and useful taxonomical category for a major group of humans, just like Slavic, Arab, Turkic and so on, or that it has a modern signifiance. In particular, the article needs to be expanded to discuss the movement of Pan-Germanism. There is a clear difference in Belgium, for example, between the French-originated Walloons and the Germanic-originated Flemish. The relevance of modern Germanic peoples is arguably more relevant to the continent, but still needs to include all. The Germanic-Celtic distinction is essential for understanding the modern "British" Isles for example (19th century population movements, Anglicisation, devolution). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And can you find a reliable source for these opinions, or examples of the terminology even being used this way in a good source? Please consider WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the wording, the line should be removed from the lead (the line about the migration period tribes could be removed as well). This rfc was started by a SPA (possibly a sockpuppet too due to their knowledge of Wikipedia policy despite no serious edits outside of this page, and repeated blanking of their talk page to become auto-confirmed). I doubt these types have even read the whole article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais:, I would be very interested to hear how you go about asserting that particular groups are "Celtic", "Germanic", "Slavic" etc. "the English are really Celts (they're not)"; what is the basis in which you judge one group to be "Celtic" and another group not to be "Celtic"? Brough87 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Surely that is exactly the problem many of us feel exists with this idea here that there is a modern "Germanic" people at all. No sources. If people don't call themselves Germanic, and "experts" don't either, why are we even implying it with these badly sourced comments about modern descendants?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I happen to believe that the categorisation of certain arbitrary groups as intrinsically 'Celtic' and certain other groups as intrinsically 'Germanic' (etc etc), are rather spurious in nature and offer little encyclopedic value. For example, @Claíomh Solais: says the English 'are not really Celts', why? Because they're just not apparently; what kind of value does that offer exactly? Brough87 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, without having to find sources we can just give any opinion we like. There is one modern meanings of Germanic which have already covered in other ways: Germanic languages. But this is a whole family of languages which are not mutually intelligible anymore, and not any kind of normal ethnic group. The question of whether any modern peoples are descended from the ancient ones would not make them Germanic, and it is clearly a subject which can only sensibly be covered together with European population history as a whole (which we have an article for), because there are all types of ideas published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 9 May 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.

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.

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)

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)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 15:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)