Jump to content

Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Do modern "germanic people" exist?

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

Before 2015 all so called "germanic" ethnic group articles said "nation and ethnic group" instead of "germanic ethnic group" which was added without greater discussion. germanic is not neutral because it is based on old obsolete racial theories, and is really more an ancient peoples, none of the modern people call themselves "germanic" This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. 83.185.82.92 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Please explain more clearly what you are talking about, and what you are proposing. I suggest posting links to the exact types of texts you think you need to be changed, and giving exact proposals for how you want to change them. If this is about other articles then probably the discussions needs to be elsewhere. (Potentially you can start here, but editors of other articles affected might want a new discussion.) Coming to the subject matter generally, I think that there has indeed not been any germanic ethnic group or nation, self-identified or identified by contemporaries, for at least about 1500 years. But before then it starts to become at least debatable. In my mind it is probably better to think of it as an ethnic designation given to people from a specific region of Europe by people who were not themselves from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
i propose all ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" to be changed back to "x are a nation and ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.82.92 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
But are you even including tribes from the classical period? Please give an example of such an article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
No only modern ethnic groups, for example Swedes 83.185.80.154 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This could get complicated. In that case the term being used is "North Germanic". This is not exactly the same as Germanic although it might give similar concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It is complicated (see WP:ETHNO for starters, though even that long essay doesn't cover all of this). It's actually more convoluted than this thread and that essay combined will suggest, in that "Germanic" is a language family, and we're already running into problems (e.g. at Talk:Swedish people of confusion between linguistic classifications like "Northern Germanic" and ethno-cultural ones. There's also the modern genetics evidence showing that in many places the original population in an area really didn't change much but were simply subjected to a Germanicizing cultural layer, not regional genocides, so notions of ethnicity with any specific ties to ancestry and heritable-trait concepts, is basically pseudo-science at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I only know of North Germanic being a language family though this could be a result of my ignorance. And on the other hand I suppose one could argue that the term is closely connected to "Norse" which perhaps has a better case for being an ethnic name?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The nominator has a point (as noted above, it's actually even more complicated than this because of the use of "Germanic" as a linguistic classification, and genetics tell a different story than what was assumed even a generation ago). But the nom's exact proposal is probably not viable because of the confusing array of meanings that the word nation has – most often, in everyday English, it's used synonymously with country or more specifically with nation-state, though this is arguably a mis-usage. (A linguist wouldn't call it one, per linguistic description versus prescriptive grammar.) The more anthropological sense is uncommon in the minds of our readers. And it will vary a lot regionally; e.g., many Americans are familiar with it but only in reference to Native American groups, and with an incorrect sense that it's a legal definition established by various treaties and reservations; they aren't much going to understand it applied to European populations. In short, yes, the lead needs work, but not exactly this rewording. Trying to clear up an inclarity with an additional by different inclarity is not an actual improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Curious. Most nationalist movements in Europe have sought to create nation states, either by secession from larger countries, wars of conquest/annexation, or by the assimilation, expulsion, or pure extermination of their numerous ethnic minorities. I have never really heard the idea of a nation equated with the homogenuous nation state. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I was wrong, modern Germanic peoples do exist, not "north germanic peoples" so i many editors pointed a better way going way forward is to change from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • According to the sources used in this article, several modern populations are considered Germanic. The Encyclopedia of European Peoples, which is used extensively in this article, states explicitly that the history of the Germanic peoples stretches from the 2nd millenium BC to the present day.[1] Other reliable sources used in this article, including Native Peoples of the World, Ethnic Groups of Europe and One Europe, Many Nations, designate several modern populations as Germanic, including Dutch people,[2][3] Flemish people,[4][5] English people,[6] Frisians,[7] Germans,[8] Norwegians[9] and others.[10] Articles at Wikipedia should reflect what is written in reliable, published sources, rather than our own original thoughts. This is one of the core policies of the project. The proposed changes are thus not supported by either our sources nor our policies. Krakkos (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
As has been discussed many times, (a) even if something is sourceable, not all sourceable things need to be in every Wikipedia article if they are not relevant and (b) more importantly, we have never found a reliable source as per WP policy which says these things. The one you mention is by a freelance screenwriter and I believe all use of it should be removed from this article. Anyone can publish a book these days and get it on Amazon. There are thousands of books on Amazon which are actually just Wikipedia articles, many of which have probably never actually been printed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned four sources in my comment above, all of whom are to be considered reliable as per WP:Source:
We have discussed the first. The second and third only seem to mention Germanic ancient tribes and Germanic languages. The fourth one mainly sticks to that, but maybe copies old versions of Wikipedia in a few places concerning modern Dutch and Flemish people. In general the possible sourcing remains very weak indeed, and if we had to argue about making a new article for this subject I think it would be controversial (a couple of side mentions in some unknown books) - which is apparently why it keeps trying to piggy back on this article which is in any case about another subject? And let us not forget the previous RfC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
All four were used in my initial comment[11] to which you responded.[12] The second source (Danver) designates Frisians,[13] Germans[14] and Norwegians[15] as Germanic peoples. The third source (Minahan) designates Dutch people,[16] Flemish people,[17] English people,[18] Frisians[19] and plenty of others[20] as Germanic peoples. These are not "ancient tribes". Please examine sources more carefully before attempting to tell us what they contain. Krakkos (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
My apologies then, but apparently google books search did not work as expected. The problem still remains though. First, these are general tertiary sources of no great standing and they do not cite their sources for the supposed research which leads to these writing decisions. I think it is obvious that they probably don't have any. These are simply using the typical simple logic of naming ethnic groups after the modern name of their language family. So these statements are tantamount to saying that they are speakers of a Germanic language. We all know some people equate ethnic group with language group and surely we all know this is not considered uncontroversial. Second, the part you have not commented on is that we have discussed this type of thing over and over and clearly keep coming to a majority position that this article is not about such supposed modern ethnic or linguistic entities. For the Germanic language family we of course have other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
For the above reasons highlighted by @Andrew Lancaster:, it has been agreed that references to modern Germanic people is a specious subject and does not constitute inclusion in this Wiki-article. There is no good reason to keep dragging that into this page.--Obenritter (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Technically there are two issues of concern, but only one is relevant here: this article has an agreed clear subject matter, and modern nationalisms are of only passing relevance to it. Concerning the other question, whether there is enough sourcing to make an article on modern Germanic peoples, I think there is not. Passing references in very general tertiary sources on their own are not good enough. But that could better be debated elsewhere. I think indeed it keeps coming back to affect this article because it is easier to piggyback on this article. That should however be avoided, as has been agreed several times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but in English it's only used for historical populations like we use "Romans" to mean "people of the ancient Roman Empire", not "people who live in Rome". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually you do here the word Romans being used to refer to people from Rome. Of course in normal speech if you that you need to make the context clear. But that would also be an example of two quite distinct subjects, which should not be covered by one article. In contrast I think I have never ever heard anbyone speak about a modern person being Germanic (as opposed to being a speaker of a Germanic language).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
North Germanic peoples treats the ethnolinguistic group (the group speaking North Germanic languages) throughout ancient, medieval and modern times. There's no reason for this article not to proceed analogically.
If you want to limit the scope of this article, a rename into Ancient Germanic peoples (as suggested by Trigaranus before) is necessary, and overall the best solution. The current situation is simply confusing for the reader. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Excellent point. The Contemporary World Regional Geography by McGraw-Hill Education gives a clear description of the scope of the topic of this article: "Germanic peoples (3A). A broadly defined group of peoples from northern Europe who began to move south into Germany and other areas of Europe around 500 B.C. Modern Germans, Austrians, Dutch, and the Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes) are the most numerous of today's Germanic peoples."[21] Krakkos (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Krakkos, it seems to be a high school level book? Also, it is certainly a tertiary source. We have been here before. Over and over, these lowest quality tertiary sources are the only types of sources found so far which agree with this neo-ethnic BS. No surprises here. These are the level which can be expected to copy from Wikipedia. But they are clearly, according to WP content policy, not good sources. Secondly, even if they were we have several RFCs here to agree that if there was such a subject it is not what this article is about. All the Neo-Germanic enthusiast editors (look at the contributions of the people who support these things!!) have a whole bunch of other fringe articles to play with, they just want to infiltrate the one serious article which has infinitely more credibility in terms of WP policy. There is no way that this should be allowed. Why should we keep calling RFCs that keep making the same decision? I am sure there are heaps of websites working on trying to prove there is a Modern Germanic Folk, but not on Wikipedia please. This is utter nonsense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Florian there has indeed been a decision, many times, that this article's topic is limited. But it is also true that there is no good sourcing for anything outside those limits. Just saying that in another case there is, which I am not sure about, means nothing about this case. There might today be peoples who are seen as, and see themselves as, Nordic or Scandinavian or whatever. There is no population on earth who commonly and casually walk around calling themselves Germanic. There are fringe groups who say such things, and make Youtube videos, and there also others who think the world is flat. These do not constitute ethnic groups. See the difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As a thought experiment Florian, taking your logic we could equally demand that a new article would be needed called modern Germanic peoples. I am NOT saying this should be done, but please imagine what that article would look like. It would be utter nonsense. ALL these attempts to add this material into a serious article are clearly influenced by the fact that the people proposing it know this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster, as usual, you are misrepresenting my sources. Contemporary World Regional Geography is published by McGraw-Hill Higher Education, which publishes textbooks for postsecondary education, i. e., not high school students. It serves as the primary textbook for the teaching of world geography at George Mason University[22] and was produced by Elizabeth Chacko, George W. White, Joseph Dymond and Michael Bradshaw, all scholars in the field. According to WP:TERTIARY, reliable tertiary sources, such as undergraduate-level textbooks, are useful for "providing broad summaries of topics" and "evaluating due weight". When describing Germanic peoples, Contemporary World Regional Geography gives equal weight to ancient, medieval and modern Germanic peoples.[23] Similar assessments are made in a large amount of both secondary and tertiary sources which have been provided above. As Florian noted, your edits are tantamount to claiming that the people of this article have become extinct. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. Your own personal opinions sprinkled with WP:DISCUSSED and WP:GODWIN are not sufficient. Consensus can change. Krakkos (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Krakkos, please consider that policy concerning tertiary sources which you cite. It clearly means that we can not use these ones in these cases, because, to repeat once more, while we find a tiny number of non-specialist tertiary sources which mention this pseudo-fact, these are the ONLY sources anyone keeps finding. So you are NOT proposing using them for a broad summary of the literature, you are proposing using them for a fact which can not be sourced in any other way.
You are also not addressing the fact that, to repeat that also, this article would not be about that pseudo-fact even if there were sources for it. The Germanic peoples of classical times are extinct. Those people are dead, and they were not kept in racially pure breeding stockades. They ceased being able to talk to each other. People stopped referring to them as a single population more than 1000 years ago.
Clearly, the reason for wanting to slip this material into this article is because is blindingly obvious that an article about modern germanic peoples which could only cite a few single sentences in non specialist tertiary works will be more obviously sub-standard. This is clearly an attempt to create a new racial/ethnic terminology on Wikipedia in the hope that it spreads and becomes more acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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))
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)
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)
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))
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

As you might know, the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic peoples. A distinguished professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of Cambridge is certainly a "qualified person" to provide reliable sources on the subject of Germanic peoples. In addition to this, Munro was an expert on the nationalities of Europe, as outlined in his 1945-book The Nationalities of Europe and the Growth of National Ideologies. There were certainly many early 20th century scholars who proscribed to now discredited racial theories, but Munro was not one of them. This is shown by a review of his book by Otto Wirth in the American Journal of Sociology.[33] If stating that Turkish people are of little importance to an article on Germanic peoples is tantamount to talking like "we are still in the 19th century", then so be it. In any regard, as stated again and again, Webster's New World College Dictionary, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2014, uses the same definition as Munro. As far as i am aware, 2014 was in the 21st century. Krakkos (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not a Luddite Krakkos. I have really followed what is happening with studies of how ethnicities and biological population groups arise. These fields have moved a million miles since the 19th century. When a geneticist jumped too early to declare that there was an Anglo Saxon "Apartheid" it took no time for science to smash that. Those numbers just don't work. I am not talking about only my personal opinion here. Concerning the ethnogenesis of the Anglo Saxons I tend to think Guy Halsall is correct that it originates in the Roman army, with many Germanic soldiers, but not exclusively, and only later did they attract new waves of north German immigrants. I've looked enough at DNA research to feel very confident that the eventual ethnic group created was not in any way shape or form any kind of unmixed, transplanted continental population. In any case, calling that original Anglo Saxon kingdoms "Germanic" is still relatively uncontroversial. Calling the modern English people a Germanic people is very unusual in both casual and scientific circles, and I am quite sure you know I am saying the truth.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I had not looked at this remark before, as it is difficult to follow, but while we're reviewing the article length, it appears to be correct, but part of a bigger problem. Not only is the text mixing things up, but it adds wording quite different from the source being used to claim that all this is about "Germanic tradition". What the source says is that the Franks had no tradition of overall kings at this time, Clovis having been a one off who had fought hard for his position. Our anonymous poster is correct that the text also gives no causal link to what the Visigoths were doing. I suppose the question is whether to delete or adjust the text. At first sight a case could be made for deleting a lot more than just this sentence which goes way beyond the topic of this article anyway. It is a good example of how duplication around Wikipedia makes it hard to keep the quality at a reasonable level and I think many/most parts of this article could be described this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

New York

please change ((New York)) to ((New York City|New York))

 Not done: There is no link to New York in the article that I can see. All mentions of New York are in notes and references, where links are not usually used. Danski454 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Map

User:E-960,

we may agree in WP there are in an overwhelming amount inaccurate maps, pointing to those mistakes you suggest, if i'd remove all affected, a very little number would remain (especially not regarding the antiquity where things are blurry, but on those topic where nothing should be blurry - i.e. WWI & WWII).

However, recently we try to correct maps (= if user made, update them), etc. I noticed you replaced to another one, considering now you expressed you have as well another concern (too much extent to Germanic tribes), while the map you added shows a much-much less extent, thus we may conclude the two maps represented a kind of extrema.

File:Germanic expansion.gif
Germanic Tribes by 1st century AD

Thus you should gain a consensus by any means how to solve this, which map would be good to depict the extent of Germanic tribes on tha timeline appropriately. Opinion of others?(KIENGIR (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC))

Why I have issue with the 58 BC map — it splits Veneti and Slavs, who were not two separate groups at the time, this has been confirmed by Byzantine historian Jordanes, "although they derive from one nation, now they are known under three names, the Veneti, Antes and Sclaveni (Slav)" so the split came during the late-migration period of the 6th century AD. Also, strangely the eastern border of Germania looks a lot like the modern post WWII border of Poland, and not at all accurate in relation to other maps showing the distribution of Germanic tribes. --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Modern countries with Germanic languages
  • Also, Holy Roman Empire map in the Post-migration ethnogeneses section — shows a map of the Empire when it was a multi-ethnic entity based on political/religious realities, at least let's show a map of the Holy Roman Empire when it was called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, or better yet, a map of modern ethnic-Germanic nations which includes Scandinavia. (BTW, Prussia was never part of the Holy Roman Empire). So, given the sensitivities around this issue, can we use accurate maps for this article? --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • KIENGIR and Krakkos also just to address one of your points "if i'd remove all affected, a very little number would remain" — What is up with this obsession about maps in the Germanic Peoples article and the Holy Roman Empire article... look, you don't need a map for every section, especially if the map has issues (the 58 BC map was added rather recently, so it's not longstanding). I keep coming up on this in all sorts of German related articles, maps everywhere and even as you pointed out some are not correct. So, it won't be an issue to remove the less accurate versions. --E-960 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Germanic peoples. Possible inaccuracies regarding Veneti and Slavs are of minor importance to a map used here. The 58 BC map nicely shows the distribution of the various peoples in Europe at the dawn of the Gallic Wars, a watershed moment in European and Germanic history. The distribution of Germanic tribes in what is today Poland is similar to that of other commonly used Wikipedia maps.
The Roman Empire in 116 AD
The Roman Empire in 125 AD
It does not seem like the purpose of the 58 BC map is to "split" Veneti and Slavs, but rather to point out that there were additional unnamed peoples living beyond the Vistula Veneti mentioned in classical sources, who were probably Slavs. The map does something similar with the Aesti and Balts. The Spanish-language map you added illustrates the expansions, rather than distribution of Germanic tribes. The map also contains certain grave errors. For example, the Bastarnae lived close to the Black Sea in 1 AD, far to the east of the Goths. The relevance of the Holy Roman Empire to Germanic peoples is demonstrated in our sources and reflected in the article. There appears to be a current consensus on this article that modern Germanic peoples do not exist, and that such information is beyond the scope of this article. A map of the distribution of Germanic languages in modern Europe would therefore be beyond the scope of this article, unless this consensus is overturned. Krakkos (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Krakkos, I still don't understand what is the point of the Holy Roman Empire map in the Post-migration ethnogeneses section, the text does not even make mention of the Empire, why is it there?? As for the 1st century BC map, if there is no good version, we should just omit it, instead of showing a confused map. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
E-960,
Regarding your first answer, you desribed the same in the edit logs and as well more detailed about your other concern, that I expected. As I see Krakkos answered both of them (along with your HRE concern).
On the further, I don't have any "obsession", btw. I did not remove any map you added to the article. If you gain consensus for removal of any inaccurate map of really cogent reasons, I will not object it. However, I prefer to update/correct them, in some not simply evident cases it might need as well consensus. I have to admit I achieved 1 update only yet by the help of a fellow editor who we ask to correct maps usually (it was a Hungary map), as mainly majority of editors dealing with texts, but slowly maybe more could be achieved.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC))

Scholars do not see Jordanes as a very reliable source, and please note that earlier and more contemporary sources describes the Veneti as Germanic and even Suevian. However, and please note this, that does not mean that they were not Slavic. This article is about classical Germanic peoples, and according to classical descriptions the Slavs and Balts were natives of Germania.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, your view is very POV-ish (why is Jordanes unreliable, and who says that?). That's not how Wikipedia works — if you disagree on an issue then you ignore the source as "unreliable". If you read Tacitus' account form AD 98 he clearly states "Here Suebia ends. I do not know whether to class the tribes of the Peucini (Bastarnae), Venedi, and Fenni with the Germans or with the Sarmatians... Nevertheless, they are to be classed as Germani, for they have settled houses, carry shields and are fond of travelling fast on foot; in all these respects they differ from the Sarmatians, who live in wagons or on horseback." So, he classed Veneti as Germanic based on their way of life, but clearly noticed that they were not like the other Germanic tribes or the Sarmatians. Then you move a few centuries to Jordanes (who was a Byzantine historian of Gothic extraction, no less) and his account in 551 AD which states "although they derive from one nation, now they are known under three names, the Veneti, Antes and Sclaveni (Slavs)". So, I don't agree with your off-the-cuff remark that Jordanes is not reliable, it's very irresponsible. --E-960 (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • KIENGIR, the 58 BC map is debatable, but again why do we have a map of the Holy Roman Empire in the Post-migration ethnogeneses section when the Holy Roman Empire is not even mentioned in the section's text, at least I tried to suggest a connection to modern languages with a map because that's something that's referenced in the text, but the Holy Roman Empire is not. --E-960 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
User:E-960, as I see it is mentioned in the text, the eight pharagraph is a complete sentence of it.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC))
@E-960 I am genuinely surprised at the accusation. Basically any scholarly publication mentions that Jordanes is a source we have to be careful with concerning his presentation of ethnic histories. You've seriously never read anything like that? Concerning the way WP works, perhaps the issue here might be that you are not using secondary sources, but trying to use only Jordanes, as a primary source? However this is clearly the type of source where WP editors normally expect recent secondary sources to be used as well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that you can never be 100% sure on ancient sources (especially that in the case of the Romans for practical reasons they we're not too concerned with peoples further east and wrote a limited amount about them, but modern scholars generally and for some time now agree that who the Romans called the Veneti were in fact the early proto-Slavs/Balts (not going too deep into the subsequest ethnogeneses and mixing). Though, for practical reasons the Romans lumped them with Germanic peoples based on their way of life, though recognizing that they were different. Later, when those people came in direct contact with the Roman world their identity was made more clear. --E-960 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
In the classical period, the Romans and Greeks did not make many comments about differences in language at all. Hundreds of years later things were different, but by that time no one was speaking of the Germanic peoples as a single entity any more. Only in recent times is Germanic re-defined as a language family.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanic_peoples/Archive_7&oldid=939892548"