Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 10

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


Two simple and fundamental questions for Andrew Lancaster

In April 2019, Andrew Lancaster, made a series of profoundly radical edits. He changed the article topic from being about peoples identified as speakers of Germanic languages into being about peoples "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples".[1][2][3] The previous topic had lasted for thirteen consecutive years (2005-2019).[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] As far as i can tell, he did not provide any sources, and he did not refer to any consensus, to justify this change of topic. This raises two fundemental questions:

(1) - In what sources are Germanic peoples primarily defined as being "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples"? Please provide a link and quote.
(2) - When was a consensus reached that the topic of this article should be changed from being about peoples speaking Germanic languages to being about peoples identified by the Romans as being different from neighboring Celts? Please provide a link to the discussion in which this consensus was reached.

These are essential questions on which this entire controversy rests. Krakkos (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos who cares about your efforts to rewrite the past? Just explain what you are proposing for the future. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
My proposal is that information in this article must be based upon sources and consensus. Repeating the question: Where are the sources? Where is the consensus? Krakkos (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
We obviously disagree about the past. Say what you think should happen in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about sources and consensus. The fact that you refuse to answer these two essential question speaks wonders. Krakkos (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
What is your point then about the sources and consensus? Are you saying you have a consensus supporting your new proposals? But shouldn't you define those new proposals first? If you really look for relevant things in the archives:
  • Consensus has been difficult to get not because people agreed with you, but because of many fringe positions such as people wanting this article to be about Germans, a Germanic race, DNA etc, etc,
  • Older versions of the article were agreed by serious participants, or many, to be mixing different topics and there was never a good coherent version (and we are still not there now).
  • Discussions about sources such as atlases and books about Roumania and WP policy did not go your way. Obenritter recently described my role in getting this article into only clear direction we could find so far as something like a policeman! I don't really like that, but it reflects the reality that I was the main explainer of WP policy in those discussions, which you still clearly don't understand well. To explain more:-
  • The idea of having an article about Germanic speaking peoples always got stuck so far because its proponents wanted different things in reality. Many really wanted a racial article which excluded most of the world's germanic speakers. Some clearly just wanted an alternate version of the history sections, and therefore substantially a copy. See WP:POVFORK. So it is obvious how such a discussion could be looked at again. Obvious questions would be: unambiguous title and clear redirecting etc, how to avoid overlap concerning Roman era, how to avoid too much overlap with Germanic historical linguistics articles.
  • The idea of having an article about "Modern Germanic peoples" raised similar concerns of it simply being a work around WP policy. In that case you proposed it, and discussion stopped when, given the obvious doubts, I suggested you make some sort of draft document to show how it would avoid those problems. There is so little sourcing available that this article would have just been a WP:OR list with very bad sourcing and no notability justification. However as was noted many times the idea of there being "Germanic speaking peoples" is more sourceable, and indeed your sources for modern Germanic Peoples are mainly just referring to that in shorthand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question. Where are you sources? Krakkos (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't accept your description of my past editing actions, and I am not interested in helping you make up details for the story. It is obvious how silly this is when we consider how much on this talk page, now and in the past, you've discussed sources about the current topic and shown that you agree it corresponds to something real, and appearing in reliable sources. Presumably this is some long winded way to imply something. Maybe that the sources demand that the article title be changed? But then make your whole vision clear concerning all the connected topics. Put it on the table. I'd welcome constructive proposals for the future. If you really can't get to the point and find a way to work with others, then you should cease editing this article, including the temporary POVfork at Germani. Wikipedia is not for people who work solo.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

The topic is being debated in several threads above. No need for these rhetorical exercises. – Uanfala (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

I propose that the topic of this article should be defined by how it is defined in reliable sources. Krakkos (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree with this Andrew Lancaster? Krakkos (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop playing games. Topic definitions do not have to match individual sources. They are editing decisions. Come out in the open and say what you really want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Stop dodging the question, Andrew Lancaster. Should our editing decisions on defining the topic of this article be determined by how the topic is defined in reliable sources? Krakkos (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You are being silly. They do not have to be, and as there is no proposal being made I can only speak of whether they always are or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2020 (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.

If racial "Germanics" are the problem, then let's also put this on the table...

This is something I placed on my talk page today. Perhaps worth posting here also, in the hope it cuts to the real core of problems on the said article, and gets more useful discussion?

In reply to the objection of Obenritter that I have been "deletionist" on Germanic peoples:
  • I disagree if you think I am trying to "delete" material about Germanic-speaking peoples, but I can see that is the impression Krakkos is perhaps trying to create, by constantly inserting duplicated materials into the wrong places (especially the first paragraph) where they have to be deleted. However there is nothing stopping editors from adding more information about Germanic-language speakers, including modern ones, as long as it respects the existing logical structure. Languages are currently first noted in the second paragraph, because something needs to come second. (If the article was Germanic-language based first, Roman era secondarily, this style of edit would have the same problem. Duplicating things constantly into the first paragraph, and multiple sections, is a question of bad editing.)
  • I do agree that I am one of the editors resistant to reintroduction of lists of modern Germanic peoples "by descent", i.e. racially, NOT linguistically defined e.g. Afrikaners, but not Jamaicans or Ashkenazi Jews etc., such as in the lists the article once had. Krakkos has not mentioned them since this latest split attempt, but he keeps referring back to his split attempt last year where these were certainly the real demand.[18] The more I look at the situation and past discussions, the more I think that this is the real reason why these things are being done now, and Krakkos is not wanting to explain any real rationale.

The racial idea is of course sourceable to old works (from Grimm up to the defeat of the Nazis). That historical way of talking can also be covered in this article and others as being something now rejected by scholars, and more typical of fringe groups. Instead, ancestral groupings are studied by population geneticists in quite new ways, with new terminology. The lists which are demanded would in contrast treat the old racial theories as current, when they are not. This is also reflected in the fact that Krakkos has never found good sourcing for modern Germanic peoples except in the linguistic sense. Lists of Germanic modern languages could be fitted into the article near the end without changing the topic. That has never been a problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the current debate. What's your issue with defining Germanic peoples as the speakers of the Proto-Germanic language? Germanic languages are just linguistic descendants and historically beyond the scope of this article, as Romance languages are for an article about Romans (and similarly, the Latin language is a fairly acceptable solution for defining Romans as a people until the end of the Roman Republic). Azerty82 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. I personally have no big issue with that option so that is a misunderstanding. Also, the result will be almost the same as because of the substantial overlap between the linguistic and classical definition. What we need either way, it seems, is more finality about the "racial" Germanic question (a third Germanic topic which is making people do strange things), and what, if anything WP can do about it. I can not speak for others, but I am guessing the following three options can all lead to a stable solution, keeping in mind the overlap of two uncontroversial topics:
1. Primarily about the Roman era Germani, and secondarily about the Germanic speaking peoples. (Current situation. Puts the oldest and most explanatory part of the subject first in the article so that we can, like in reality, move to the derived neologism. Modern Germanic languages handled near the end.)
2. Primarily about the Germanic speaking peoples, and secondarily about the Roman era Germani. (Not so different. Puts a confusing neologism first and would make a near chronological article a bit tricky. Structuring would require some thought and discussion.)
3. Two articles, for example, "Germani" for the Roman era Germani and "Germanic speaking peoples" for those. (Problem is how to avoid 90% overlap, so this has not been a popular option in past discussions.)
Does that make sense? I think the third option is a bigger debate, and the first, like we have now is less problematic. But I think none of these three options change the racial Germanic issue as defined above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The Proto-Germanic language theory derives from the existence of a) the Germani and b) Germanic languages recorded since the first millenium A.D., so I'd rather prefer option 1 – i.e., the Germani were a grouping of Germanic tribes that spoke a common language, Proto-Germanic. Azerty82 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos:@Obenritter:@Florian Blaschke:@Austronesier:@Joshua Jonathan:@Ermenrich:@Carlstak:@Johnbod:

I think over several years, most editors who take the time also come to see 1 as the practical approach. I understand it to be the consensus. However, getting the article to look like this has been very difficult - leading to the frustrations. There is a complication that helps explain our problem. Not all peoples called Germani, at least in the earliest phase of Roman contact, definitely spoke Germanic as defined today. (See for example Nordwestblock, and Lugii.) I think most of us who've looked at this case on WP believe the overlap is so big between the two definitions (modern linguistic and early Roman) that it is easy and best to handle them together carefully with suitable comments to explain the imperfection of the overlap. The origin of my post here was a concern of User:Obenritter that I make it difficult for User:Krakkos to add information about the linguistic aspect. I am saying that is a misunderstanding, which is a useful opening for discussion:
  • The content disagreement between me and Krakkos, which is not obvious from recent edits, is his aim to have Wikipedia defining a single racially defined modern Germanic people. (Stating this to be a fact, not mentioning it as an old controversial terminology.) In contrast, the linguistic definition of Germanic peoples, would not be difficult to integrate better if this other effort was not mixed into it, but...
  • While I have rejected edits of Krakkos, this is most often because they duplicate information into multiple sections, and generally disrupt any attempt to give the article a structure. There have also been some terrible misreadings of sources, hidden within an exaggerated footnote thicket. This type of editing is something Obenritter has complained about many times to Krakkos over several years, and did not start with my efforts to clean the article up. But the more recent edits, as shown by the posts of Krakkos, are connected to a bigger aim also.
  • As a result, there is not much in the article that makes anyone including me very satisfied. Attempts to recently portray the blockage as me pushing specific wordings is misleading. The article is certainly not my work. It is uneditable because of these problems. The article still has obvious problems noticed years ago. I would like to make a concerted effort for a period, and started a few weeks ago, which is when Krakkos created a new article, called a strange RFC, and deleted a big chunk of this article - leading to the situation of today.
I hope this helps clarify my perspective, in a way which can help us see the way forward.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Azerty82: The identification of Germanic peoples as speakers of Proto-Germanic (in analogy to Romans as speakers of Latin unfortunately does not work. Proto-Germanic is a totally unattested, reconstructed language based on evidence from attested Germanic languages and early loans into Finnish. Germanic peoples entered history at a stage when Proto-Germanic already had significantly diversified into distinct branches/languages. And for most Germanic peoples that were in contact with the Roman empire, we have little or zero documentation about the language they spoke, except for evidence from personal names (with the notable exception of Gothic).

@Andrew Lancaster: I can assure you that most editors will not put the blame on you alone for the current full PP. I have asked for full PP because of constant edit warring, and it takes two to war (at least).

As for the primary problem, the scope and topic of this article, we have actually two things to decide on (and is only then that we can discuss potential size-splits):

  1. Which one of the several possible definitions of "Germanic peoples" do we adopt? (= Scope)
  2. What meaningful and coherent information can we present in the article based on this definition (WP is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary)? (= Topic)

Both things matter, as we can see from sources that principally cover the subject "Germanic peoples". A simple example will suffice: the oft-cited EB article Germanic peoples employs the broad linguistic definition ("Germanic peoples, also called Teutonic Peoples, any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages"). Yet the article only covers the "ancient" Germanic peoples and fades out in the Early Middle Ages. When we cite sources, we should do it in full context. Citing EB for a definition of "Germanic peoples", but only as justification to fill this article with content not covered by EB is cherry-picking of the most superficial kind.

Before addressing question 1 in the concrete context of "Germanic people", I want to ask first: is there a principal need in WP to classify ethnic groups into higher groupings/clusters etc.? Of course, classifing people into larger entities such as the obsolete concept of clear-cut "races" is an old endeavor. The idea of using linguistic affiliation as an objective criterion (instead of the discredited racial marker) for classifying the peoples on this planet is of course also not new, and goes back at least to Leibnitz. Modern ethnology and anthropolgy is however not concerned with simplistic models of lumping together ethnic groups based on a single marker, even though many wish so, as we can see from all these amateur-dominated websites and forums about human genetics. Comparative-historical linguistics and the establishment of language families are an important tool for understanding the relations between contemporary and historcal ethnic groups, but it's just a piece of the puzzle, and not the key to it. There is always a significant overlap between the distribution of cultural features and linguistic families (especially in families/subgroups with a relatively shallow time-dpeth), but also significant mismatches. This also holds for other markers such as those provided by modern genetics (and not just haplogroups!). Languages, cultures, genes diffuse and diversify in different ways. So the overall tendency to create a WP article corresponding to a language family is potentially misleading for our readers, especially if the ethnic groups concerned cannot be characterized by a marker other than linguistic affiliation.

In the case of the "Germanic peoples", if defined only by language, there is little more than linguistic affiliation which would hold the article together when covering the modern-day ethnicities. If we consider the latter the principal topic of the article, we can maximally create a shallow panorama-style article of pretty diverse European peoples, plus the artifical cut-off phenomenon when Ashkenazi Jews and Jamaicans for some invisible reason are not included, as Andrew Lancaster has rightfully noted. The linguistic definition alone leads to a dead end, and we need more than that for weighing out the sub-topics for a meaningful and coherent article.

The language criterion also fails if we go back in time. Bones don't talk, and yet archaeologists have good reasons to associate Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age cultures with later Iron Age cultures that can be clearly related to the Germanic people (maybe with even more coherence and continutity than between the "ancient" and "modern" Germanic peoples).

I don't want to offer a solution here, because I lack necessary expertise in details, but overall, the "long-standing" version which primarily covered the ancient Germanic peoples was IMO a good solution. –Austronesier (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

PS @Andrew Lancaster: please let us breathe, man! –Austronesier (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL. I agree! Let me say two things in response to your remarks.
  • Already the comment of Obenritter alerted me to the fact that the languages are poorly linked into the Roman era definition. Did I play a role in that (during the 2019 racial definition arguments)? Probably yes, but it was not my intention, and the editing and talkpage environment has been dysfunctional since. But see my drafting exercise.
  • Does WP need all these semi-racial hierarchies? I share your concern and so do many others. I would add that "Germanicism" gives a special level of concern which needs to be handled carefully, as our 21st century linguistic and historical sources all mention in their various prefacing remarks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ @Austronesier: The analogy is not perfect indeed. As specified in another comment, the proto-Germanic theory was born as a consequence of the historical existence of Germani, not the other way around. Still, proto-Germanic may be the most reliably reconstructed proto-language, as we have inscriptions from all three branches/dialects dated to the first centuries A.D., which allow another dive into the past of 'only' 500 years (as could fairly reconstruct Vulgar Latin with Romance texts from the first millennium A.D. The analogy stops here.) Azerty82 (talk)
@Andrew Lancaster: We share in the effort and caution about keeping modern "Germanic" people out of the discussion for these ancient peoples. We've collaborated for several years on that front. Where I think some confusion arises is the seeming conflation being made that Germanic people implies some monolithic affiliation. That is not what this article originally argued, but only that they have related Proto-Germanic roots. If this were not a true statement, then many of the Germanic tribes that worked together to fight Rome—many of whom eventually were assimilated—would have never had the ability to communicate and coalesce to that end, but they did (at least if we believe the ancient historical accounts). Nonetheless, you have been correct in many of your rebuttal edits and deletions to contributions made by Krakkos. My concern was that you too were joining the deletion camp in response to his reckless editing, some of which may have been justified (when it was misplaced or redundant material) but some of the quality content itself has also vanished entirely. This page and the associated Talk Page have become so convoluted that it's hard to tell which direction to go and yes, I find Krakkos culpable for much of this. His carte blanche approach to editing the Germanic peoples Wikipage has indeed, mutilated this article, taken some of the information out of context, and created an editorial conundrum. Not sure what to do about all of this and so frustrated with the incessant bickering that I decided to just step away from this one. Other high-caliber editors like @Florian Blaschke:,@Austronesier:,@Joshua Jonathan:,@Ermenrich:,@Carlstak:, or @Johnbod: may be able to untangle this, but I don't have the sufficient bandwidth right now and my this has gotten on my nerves–meter is pegged.--Obenritter (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Obenritter, I think your caution was very helpful to me for showing a potential area I had left out too much, so thanks for making those critical remarks. I think the article can link up a lot of the interesting topics in a logical structured way. Drafting now seems a good way to test how many. After that we can potentially decide more articles are needed, for example. Using a draft page is not always a good idea but I think when the editing has been unstructured and untrusting it can help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Obenritter, that's a bloody shame—the article needs your expertise. Unfortunately, I feel the same way. I'm not sure I would function well in what often feels to me like a toxic editing atmosphere; I'm too highly strung. I do think Andrew Lancaster is doing the best he can under difficult circumstances, and he at least acknowledges his mistakes. Carlstak (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: You're making a very good point about Ashkenazi Jews and Jamaicans, but it only demonstrates the whole problem that this article is beset by, namely the delineation of the topic of the article. Having the topic end somewhere in Late Antiquity or the early medieval period is just as arbitrary as excluding Ashkenazi Jews and Jamaicans. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Florian Blaschke: while it is not really "arbitrary" at all, see the comments at the start of this section: Obenritter said the article looks like I've been deleting efforts to add materials about linguistically Germanic peoples, whereas I fear this is a result of the article having poor structure, or a lot of editing which ruins structure, duplicates material and constantly tries to insert too much in the lead. Therefore I started the drafting trial. Have you looked at that? By starting with the lead I am trying to develop a way in which we can get a balance and a structure to cover topics better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean – I've never seen any evidence suggesting discontinuity between ancient and medieval Germanic-speaking people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. It is a big topic. Vienna School: Wenskus, Wolfram, etc, argued against big continuity, replaced it with an elite "Kerntradition" concept. Then Walter Goffart and Toronto folk criticize that this does not go far enough. Bystanders like Liebeschuetz, Halsall, Heather etc comment with different degrees of sympathy for both sides. Hardly anyone argues for really strong continuity anymore it seems. I think I can say we have several editors who agree this should be better explained in the eventual article. Of course it makes most sense in an article like this one still is, which combines discussion of the Roman-defined Germani and the sometimes linguistically defined Germanic speaking peoples. Krakkos is aware of it also but for some reason still pushing for a split article which would make it hard to ever explain all this. I will keep working on that draft anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The "split article" about the "Roman-defined Germani" already exists. It's called Germania. As long as that article exist, there's no reason to push for the duplication of the topic of Germania here. Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
In effect what this post and previous ones like it mean is that you have a new variant of your split proposal. But you are still not giving any real reasoning about why it would be a good idea. What improvements would this bring? How do we avoid high levels of duplication? Currently Germania is a very short article which has I think got nothing which is not in this article. So effectively you are once again talking about copying most of this article into that one, and the result is two articles which are 90% the same? If not, then please explain.
Keep in mind that the current state of the articles should not be limiting us. As I try to envision a better version of this article a lot of what it needs touches upon the overlap of the "two" topics itself, because this is a very important topic in itself. Also the continuity question touches upon both, because it is partly a debate about the unity of the Roman era Germanics, and everything to do with that era touches upon both topics.
A non-overlapping logic would be to divide Roman era (Roman definition and linguistic handled together) and post Roman (mainly linguistic), but we can see on this talk page how editors and readers are going to not understand why we have done that. That will not be a stable solution. One of the main things both articles would need to be explaining, is what the difference is with the other article.
In any case practically it makes sense to trying structure everything into one article first, even if our aim is to discuss a split. We should not be rushing into splits, or even RFCs about splits until there is some reasoning on the table.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
What i am effectively saying is that we already have an article titled Germania, covering the Roman concept, and this article, which covers the modern ethnolinguistic concept. These concepts are both notable, but different. As long as Germania exists, there is no need to duplicate the topic of Germania here. Krakkos (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Not really true though is it? Germania is just one more over-lapping concept, not the "same concept", so this is simply a split proposal with the same problems as the previous split proposals. You would just overwhelm the existing article and turn it into the Germani article you were trying to make. What is the benefit of that? Concerning Roman era Germanic peoples both the linguistic definition and the geographical definition have problems, and both need to be discussed fully in order to have a real coverage of the topic. And the Roman era is something that would not be missable in either a Germani article or Germanic speaking peoples article. Again, you could make less overlapping articles by splitting into Roman and post Roman, but that would be like a part 1 and part 2 for readers. What I am not seeing is any argument about why any such splits and overlaps make Wikipedia better in any way. You seem to have splitting as your main goal? (You've been trying literally for at least a year now?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The article are already split. See Germania#Population and Germanic peoples. If you want to merge them. Feel free to propose that. But don't edit this article like it has been merged already. Krakkos (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Back to unconstructive again. Just so everyone realizes, you are now saying that the Germani article you wanted to create already exists, and it is a few paragraphs that do not even fill one screen. Everything in that whole short article is in this article, but you are saying that one small section of it is actually where Wikipedia is already covering the Roman era Germanic peoples? So that section is the main article, and this article is what?? How many times are you going to go through this cycle of pretending you didn't know this article is currently about the Germani? Don't you remember blaming me for it having the wrong topic, and keeping the post Roman stuff too limited? Where are you going with this? Please explain why you're putting so much surreal effort, over such much time, into creating a walled garden of fork articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Several problems in this discussion need to be distinguished:

  • Why the drive over years to find a reason to split? The biggest elephant in the room is that Krakkos has not explained why we need to split the article. Everything User:Krakkos has been doing for a very long time is based on this aim. Recently Krakkos has unconvincingly argued that there is an urgent length concern, but until a few months ago the real reason Krakkos mentioned was that there should be an article which can include lists of modern Germanic peoples by descent. This is not only controversially and unsourceable, but also apparently connected to the mass of inter-connected and hierarchical Germanic articles and categories Krakkos has historically created all over Wikipedia, which are also controversial. The historical concept of modern racially Germanic people can only be handled within articles that can explain the whole history and controversy. They clearly can not simply be stated to exist in Wikipedia's voice, and listed out, as Krakkos has wanted in the past.
  • How would we split? The biggest part of any article about Germanic peoples, using any definition, is going to be about the Roman era, and connections of the Roman era into later eras such as the migration period into the middle ages. An article which only starts after the Roman era would be strange and "headless". The sources show that all the different definitions compete with each other in many variants, and none of them are perfect. To understand any of them, there needs to be discussion of the others.
  • Twisting of the Roman/non-linguistic definition(s) in sources. In this latest twist, Krakkos is writing as if it is clear that the Roman-style definition was purely geographical and all our secondary sources agree, meaning we can simply split it out into a section of a geographical article. This proposal has many problems, but it also clearly twists the sources. Liebeschuetz even makes the case that Tacitus had a linguistic definition in mind. Indeed this is something I need to improve in my drafting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The ancient Roman ethno-geographic concept and the modern ethno-linguistic concept have always been split into Germanic peoples and Germania. If you consider those the same topics, then you should propose a merger between those two topics before editing this article as if they had already been merged. Krakkos (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This article isn't "currently about the Germani". The Goths, Vandals, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons weren't "Germani". Their ancestors in the Pre-Roman Iron Age weren't "Germani" either. These peoples are given plenty of coverage in this article. In fact, the Roman ethno-geographic concept of "Germani" covers only a fraction of this article. Krakkos (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
You know that this is the main article about both these inter-twined (many sources say same) concepts, Roman-defined Germani and linguistic defined Germanic speaking peoples. We know you know, because (just for example) you proposed to split it out. As far as I know this has always been the case, and I have been editing it much longer than you.
Germania is a short article about a geographical topic and an even smaller section called Population. It is not particularly relevant to this discussion, except for the fact that you are apparently planning to turn it, effectively, into a much larger split-off from this article?
But as requested above, first please explain WHY you have been seeking different reasons to SPLIT THIS article for at least a year. Please also definitely DO NOT start any of your disruptive RFCs again without discussion first. This type of behavior by you is the biggest problem this article really faces. Please learn to work with others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC) [BTW, A, B and C were not part of D, and therefore E can not contain D does not parse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)]
Wow, you seem to be absolutely desperate to avoid any discussion about your "need" to split this article. [19],[20]. Responses clear and quick: [21],[22].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sub-plot: accusations of major recent changes to article topic

Another confusion is being created by the accusation that I made major changes to this article's fundamental topic in April 2019. The accusation was first made by Krakkkos 20:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[23], and relate to a very minor edit made many months earlier [24]. The change was that the word "are" was converted to "were". As pointed out many times since then, it was ridiculous to call this an article topic change. The sentence as it stood was already about Roman era peoples, so the tense was simply logical, and there was nothing new about that topic being central in the article. OTOH, the whole article needs work to get balancing of such things correct, and such careful editing is being blocked not by me, but by Krakkos. I want to point out that this accusation about this edit only came months afterwards, and as a sort of add-on to a long discussion about .... the removal of the "modern Germanic peoples by descent" (not by language) from the article including the lead. But that removal was done after a lot of discussion. That material had been debated for years and deleted many times before it was more definitively removed. Again, it seems that many issues on the surface are actually proxies for the old dispute about the racial Germanism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You think denying an entire people's existence is a "very minor edit?" This dehumanizing rhetoric, again, is what leads to genocide, and human rights abuses, and it must not continue.
I have disproven your conspiracy theory style suppositions many times, within this talk page. You have absolutely no reason to continue to deny the existence of these people, if you are here in good faith.
You've not only displayed a lack of knowledge about this subject, but also have refused to stop spreading false information, and misinformation after you've been corrected, and or informed. You cannot continue to behave this way.
Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was a very minor edit. The sentence as it stood was already about Roman era peoples, so the tense was simply logical. No one has been stopping this article from discussing modern Germanic language speaking peoples, and if it looked that way it was a misunderstanding. Concerning claims of a modern Germanic peoples by descent, or genetically defined modern Germanic peoples, none of the sources you brought before mentioned any such concept, or even anything remotely similar. I think if that is the topic you want included then you need to show that such a concept is actually discussed in serious publications. On Wikipedia we summarize what published experts have written.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it was not a very minor edit. Saying an entire people do not exist anymore is a major edit, with very serious implications, that you seem not to care about. Yes, my citations DID, in fact, show descent from the ancient Germanic peoples, of contemporary Germans, this study alone does just that. There were plenty more, but you keep ignoring them, for some strange reason.

Regarding the genetic composition of England[1]
Using novel population genetic models (using samples from living individuals) that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) When we compared our data with an additional 177 samples collected in Friesland and Norway, we found that the Central English and Frisian samples were statistically indistinguishable.

Please provide evidence for your claims that the contemporary Germans do not descend from the ancient Germans.

The above study certainly isn't supporting your case.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/19/7/1008/1068561

@Benjamin N. Feldenstein: For the benefit of readers who still care to read your repetetive comments: could you please stop misquoting academic sources by calling the inhabitants of Central England "contemporary Germans"? –Austronesier (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier What exactly have I misquoted?

Regarding the genetic composition of England[1]
Using novel population genetic models (using samples from living individuals) that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) When we compared our data with an additional 177 samples collected in Friesland and Norway, we found that the Central English and Frisian samples were statistically indistinguishable.

The English are the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, among other Germanic peoples.

Your racism does not, and will not change this.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/19/7/1008/1068561

@Benjamin N. Feldenstein: The article that you cite does not call the inhabitants of Central England "contemporary Germans". It speaks of "Germanic immigrants (and their descendants). So that's a blatant misquote. Why is it racist to say that you misquote a source? –Austronesier (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I misquoted nothing.
Are the direct descendants of Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen, among other German tribes living today NOT contemporary Germans?
Are they Chinese? African? Mexican?
I don't think so.
If they are not Germans, what are they? Hmm? As already established, "German" is genetic group with a mutual matrix. Not simply a linguistic, or cultural group, as you'd like everyone here to believe.
You are playing word games, which will not work, and I, quite frankly, do not appreciate you doing so.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed only a question of which words you use, a "word game". Normally, people do not say that modern descendants of Hittites, like I suppose most people of European descent are, actually should be called Hittites. No one can stop you using words in an unusual way, but on Wikipedia we use normal terminology. The genetics articles also use normal words, not your definitions. The normal term for an English person is an English person for example. One of the practical problems with your innovative use of words is that you have to pick one set of ancestors out of thousands of likely ones, so how do you choose one? In other words, why not call an English person a "Roman", a "Gaul" or a "Viking" or a "Frisian"? That would be confusing. Most English speakers would understand that "the Hittites no longer exist" does not mean they were all suddenly killed, but that for whatever reason, over a long period, the term Hittite is no longer being used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please define "Normal Terminology"
Are you using "English" as a nationality, or as a genetic group, an ethnic group, or a cultural group?? "English" etymology - "English (n.1)

"the people of England; the speech of England," noun use of Old English adjective Englisc (contrasted to Denisc, Frencisce, etc.), "of or pertaining to the Angles," from Engle (plural) "the Angles," the name of one of the Germanic groups that overran the island"[1]

This, also, demarcates the English as German. So that won't work.
Roman, Gaul, and Viking, are not genetic groups. Frisians are Germans, Frisian also refers to their tribe of origin, of which is German.
Thus, this attempt of your is, unfortunately, fallacious.
"German" is a genetic, linguistic, cultural, and historical group of peoples, with a mutual matrix, or, in other words, an ethnic group, the English are part of this group.
Are you really going to attempt to deny that the English are, at least, largely Germanic, even after you've been given genetic evidence disproving your baseless assertions that they are not?
Is a person who is 100% descended from Suebians NOT Germanic?
Are the Danes not Germanic? What about the Norwegian people? Are the Swedish not Germanic? How about the Dutch?
They all speak German languages, and are genetically Germanic.
I am not interested in debating the identity of the English, in all honesty. The point was to show that the English are, in fact, a Germanic people, which I did.
The fact of the matter is the Germanic peoples never disappeared like you've tried so hard to make everyone believe.
What are your requirements for being considered Germanic?
Yet again, you are utilizing dehumanizing rhetoric, and are denying people their identity, and existence.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.etymonline.com/word/english
@Benjamin N. Feldenstein: Most if not all English people, Danes etc. would object to being called Germans. Pointing out that apples aren't pears is not a word game. –Austronesier (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Citation please. Fortunately, a person's objections do not change reality.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Normal terminology, is what you find in published books, journal articles, dictionaries, and so on - including the ones you cited. You are clearly able to read that normal terminology? I believe you know quite well that English people are not described as "Germans" by anyone - not "genetic Germans", not "linguistic Germans", not "cultural Germans" etc. Germanic is a different word than German. As this methodology concerning how to use language is a Wikipedia policy matter, I do not think you should be writing long posts about it here. This is already a very busy talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions.

Is a person who is 100% descended from Suebians NOT Germanic?
Are the Danes not Germanic? What about the Norwegian people? Are the Swedish not Germanic? How about the Dutch?
They all speak German languages, and are genetically Germanic.
What are your requirements for being considered Germanic?

The name of the English alone denotes them as being Germanic. They speak a Germanic language. The majority of their genetic makeup is Germanic.

I will ask again, what are your requirements for being considered Germanic? Because it appears that the English do not fit your nebulous bill.

If a living English person is 100% descended from Saxons, are they not Germanic?

Again, the point is not to argue over the identity of the English, the point is to disprove your baseless assertions that the Germanic peoples stopped existing.

So I would prefer if you'd stay on topic, instead of derailing this conversation to divert attention.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, by switching to normal terminology your questions can be answered a bit more meaningfully. The term "Germanic", or more carefully "Germanic [language] speaking" can indeed be used to describe the English, Danes, etc etc. This article also does this, but the article is also covering Roman era peoples (Chatti etc) who no longer exist. But NOTE most published authors are careful not to use the word "German" to mean the same as "Germanic", because that is normally going to be understand as meaning Deutsch-. Of course we have to explain all this better in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright. So you've finally decided on fessing up to the fact that the Germanic people still exist.

So why does the article NOT reflect this?

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, parts of it do already, and the question of how to avoid confusion in the other parts is something several of us have been trying to find a common vision about. The article will certainly evolve in this respect one way or another. Terminology, one issue in your posts, is one issue we are struggling to get right. It will probably always annoy someone, but I think everyone agrees we can improve. Have you looked at my drafting ideas for a new lead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?

There is a clear consensus that information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture are within the scope of this article. How much weight to give this material is a matter of editorial judgment that should be the subject of further discussion. If there is disagreement about whether any future changes are due weight or relevant to this article, then a new RfC will be needed to solicit editors' opinions on those changes.

Cunard (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article? Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Close to a year ago, the topic of this article was subtly transformed from being about peoples "identified by their use of the Germanic languages" to being about peoples "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples".[25][26][27] This major change of scope was only partially discussed in beforehand at the talk page, in a RfC initiated by a trolling IP sock[28][29] of Freeboy200.[30] As a response to the change of scope, an article titled Germanic peoples (modern) was created. In a subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) (2nd nomination), the majority of participating editors were in favor of merging that article into this, and the result was a redirect. More recently, i have attempted to merge content, such as citations from Francis Owen and Edward Arthur Thompson and plenty of other scholars, into this article. Owen and Thompson were both university professors who wrote books on the subject of Germanic peoples.[31][32] With the current scope used as justification, these sources have been removed[33][34] as "inappropriate sources" that are "about another topic (speakers of Germanic languages)".[35][36] This leads to the question of this RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article? Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I want to put on record that this summary, not only the RFC, is not accurate or helpful. The real concerns editors have with this article, even those of Krakkos, are so hard to resolve partly because of this way in which Krakkos works on it without coordinating with others. No one has argued that we can't discuss Germanic language speakers in this article, but we do need to distinguish different uses of terms in our sources and make those distinctions clear here. Such balancing is very difficult when there is a bull in the china shop.
The Thompson source which continues to be used here is problematic because it is a tertiary source and out of date. Owen's work is essay like and based on a theme that the "Germans" are still in the process of becoming "European". Both Thompson and Owen are not from the most recent generations of authors and this is a complex and moving field, and also Krakkos uses them in concerning ways. Krakkos has tended to push the use worse sources even more, such as books about Europe generally or about specific regions such as Roumania, or Spanish grammar.
It is also clearly hard to see this RFC as good faith when it is quite clearly connected to a sudden massive effort to create another new article out of this one, as rejected in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In reliable sources, Germanic peoples are generally treated as peoples characterized primarily as speakers of Germanic languages (and followers of Germanic paganism, Germanic law, Germanic warfare etc). Explicit definitions can be found from Edward Arthur Thompson,[37] Malcolm Pasley,[38] Encyclopædia Britannica,[39] and the Webster's New World College Dictionary.[40] The body of this article, and the sources most frequently used, are clearly using this definition. They include plenty of information about peoples such as Norsemen. Norsemen were not "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples". Norsemen lived outside of Germania after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and had no Celtic neighbors. They are considered Germanic because they spoke Germanic languages. This is the primary concept for the term Germanic peoples.
If information about the primary concept is considered beyond the scope of this article, a separate article could be created. Articles for speakers of every other major Indo-European language family currently exist, so it would be strange not to have one on Germanic peoples. Creating multiple articles like this is however discouraged per WP:BROADCONCEPT. The best solution is therefore to include information and sources about peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of early Germanic culture, into this article. Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    • See now also my remarks in the section below entitled Revisiting the article topic controversy. This addresses what the real problem being hidden under this misleading RFC, and also the pseudo concern about article length which has suddenly become urgent for Krakkos today only after I started shortening the article based on previous discussions and consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources of Krakkos. [Moved to sub-section below]
Misleading explanations about the history of this article [New sub-section below]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Presumably you think this article is about Germanic speaking peoples then? If it is, then it should not be about all the Germanic peoples. There are obvious ways to do this, but, as Krakkos has hopefully considered, it will lead to new problems. See my new section below. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes is is within the scope of the article, and no one has ever said otherwise, but it is not the topic of the article. This Rfc is just the latest attempt to confuse everyone. It is irrelevant to any editing discussion, but the explanation of Krakkos shows that the question posted is not the question he wants to ask (which is a question he has already asked many times). I propose this Rfc should be closed, at least as currently worded. Referring to the IMPLIED question, (1) Norse peoples were "Germanic language speaking peoples" and (2) "Germanic peoples" is a term sometimes used as a shorthand for Germanic language speaking peoples. It is a topic handled in other articles and also relevant to this article. (3) But being exact with our terminology, like we have to be, there are TWO concepts with an overlap, not one. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC) I should also say that the Norse peoples were also at least sometimes listed as "Germanic peoples" in the classical sense, at least on the edge of that concept, and they are discussed in this article. They were not only speakers of Germanic languages. So also the implied question is misleading and does not easily connected to any real editing discussion. People should bring real sources and real editing decisions to this talk page, and stop trying to re-play the same RFC over and over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Uh, what? The Norse peoples were not speakers of Germanic languages? No wonder this absurd debate goes nowhere ... ---Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please read it again more slowly. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
To get everything out from between the lines: Norse people were and are Germanic speaking peoples. They were also sometimes considered to be Germani in Roman times. These are the two sourceable meanings of Germanic peoples. To avoid the ambiguity which is the real problem we can re-title and shift and split articles like Krakkos keeps doing, but the REAL question here is what sourced material we would have for yet another article about Germanic speaking peoples. There are too many over-lapping articles, and Krakkos has a history of massive restructuring of groups of topics without discussion and agreement, and without good judgement and logical forethought.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. The whole debate is completely bizarre. There is no definable point at which the ancient Germanic peoples stopped being Germanic peoples. We have articles about Iranian peoples, Turkic peoples, Balts, Slavs, etc., without some arbitrary temporal cut-off; it's impossible for me to see why there should be one here. What some people are doing here can only be described as waging a holy war based on an irrational dogma and completely divorced from sources, facts, and reason. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
So we are all agreeing, but not. You are going beyond the RFC, and the fact that everything in this RFC is between the lines makes it effectively useless. But anyway, based on this logic of having articles for all peoples into modern times independent of sourcing etc, we should have articles on modern Goths, modern Vandals, etc? If not, why not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that the article's scope should continue to the present day, in line with other language/ethnic groups. It should also be made clear that modern scholarship has cast a lot of doubt on there being any sort of "Germanic" identity (and in same cases eschews the term entirely).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
See my response to Blaschke above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, the scope of this article should include Germanic peoples from antiquity until the present day. The article did this previously, while mentioning how the modern manifestation of ethnic and racial identity was misused and abused for nationalistic political purposes (and the associated dangers)—so to this end, I am in favor of primarily focused attention on ancient and medieval peoples with a brief transition into modern ethnic identity. --Obenritter (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The article changed when discussions like this lead us, the editors, to define whether we were talking about Germanic-speaking peoples, or the original Germanic peoples, the Germani. We got strict and we looked at the sources. The problem we found was that these are clearly two over-lapping subjects, not one, and that the best sources, written most carefully, tend to reserve the term for the Germani. The article must discuss both either way, but it has to be primarily about one. So which one? (Germanic-speakers, or classical Germani?) Currently it is the Germani, and so it includes non Germanic language speakers in classical times, and it is a set of peoples who no longer exist, but who clearly set the scene for medieval and modern Germanic language speakers.
Another approach is to split into two articles, but then based on our previous study of the sources the current name of this article can not be used for Germanic speakers. So if we split, "Germanic peoples" should become a dab, and the other two might be "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Germani" for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear though, I have NO PROBLEM with your vision for this article. It can be primarily about the classical peoples and have later sections that link to the "legacy" including Germanic speaking peoples. That has been the basic model most of us have agreed I think, except Krakkos who keeps adding and deleting things in ways which make no sense to me. This RFC comes out of a chaotic period however where Krakkos is making massive changes. Krakkos is apparently very dissatisfied, and in action. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is in the scope of the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC))
  • @Krakkos: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 5,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    My apologies. This can be used as the statement: "Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?" Krakkos (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    But it is clearly not the real question! In any case you already started acting, and creating mirror article to this one, as you've tried to do in the past. But as the feedback to your RFC shows, there is no call for splitting this article in two. (See Germani which you are building from material from here and deleting as you go.) And you have never given a clear explanation about why this is needed. You have to explain what you are really doing and why. Wikipedia requires people to work together. You've been warned many times by people trying to help you (including me) that you need to stop making massive undiscussed actions like you have been doing again. I would say there is a broad consensus that this article needs work, but there is no consensus at all that splitting this article or making these types of edits is improving Wikipedia in any way. Why don't you let this article try to stand on its feet and stopping adding and deleting things so inexplicably the whole time? Let other editors try? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Krakkos: then it needs to be the first item after the {{rfc}}, and be given its own timestamp, in accordance with WP:RFCST. Legobot is incapable of wading through the replies to find the intended statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: Thanks for the correction. I will remember this if initiating further RfC's in the future. I hope everything is OK now. Krakkos (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer - There appears to be universal agreement that information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture is within the scope of this article. A majority of the respondents have also stated that information on modern peoples speaking Germanic languages is within this article's scope, although such information should not be given much space. I want to note that i agree with the majority on this question too. Previous ambiguity on these questions have led to a lot of controversy at this article in recent times. A clearly worded statement from the closer on these questions would therefore be of great help in ending the ambiguity, and thus mediate controversy. Krakkos (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
No there was no previous ambiguity about this, and it was not the cause of the problems. This RFC was called too late, in an attempt to justify actions that this RFC does not justify, because the wording is deliberately uncontroversial. See the what the RFC should have said in the sub-section below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
That the RfC is appropriate and its wording is sufficiently "controversial" can easily be determined by examining the edit summary of these two edits by you.[41][42] Krakkos (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Please make your point more clearly in the appropriate place. Anyone watching this article knows you have a secret plan to change this article; and the RFC and the new article are clearly meant to back that up. You are already editing as if everyone has agreed to major changes which you have never even explained, let alone got agreement for. You also clearly believe they are going to be controversial to other editors, so you know you have a responsibility. You also have no choice: Make an honest proposal first, before trying to move ahead with your secret plans. You need to propose what each new version of the changed set of articles you envision will look, and what they will be titled, etc. This needs to be consistent with WP policy and not just a POVFORK. Do that first, and stop working as if you already did it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krakkos who proposed the RFC should really be explaining why he has created another new article

Everyone will say yes to the RFC. It is pointless. See Germani which is a WP:POVFORK as clear as day. User:Krakkos please convince other editors about why you are once again attempting to make a new version of this article under another name. It is clearly somehow connected to this RFC as shown by the original subtext you gave it which mentioned your past attempts to make a new article. Why have you done this with no warning or agreed plan about how it would be done?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Watching the edits of Krakkos on his secret new article done with this RFC shows that what he really should have been asking opinions about was whether the term "Germanic Peoples" should be used exclusively for "Germanic (language) speaking peoples", which is a MUCH more controversial proposal. Anyone care to vote on that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I definitely disagree with this proposal. This would put Wikipedia in strong conflict with almost all reliable sources, and it requires the complete re-writing of this article to the point where it is not clear what it could even be about. It is really a hidden article move and POVFORK. It is much more problematic than the proposal first made above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources discussion moved out of RFC

As noted above I take the liberty of moving this out of the RFC discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources of Krakkos. Owen wrote an essay-like book partly concerned with WW2 arguing that the Germans are still becoming European, trying to track that all the way back. Consider WP:DUE. The only work of Thompson being cited is the Encyclopedia Britannica. See WP:TERTIARY. Pasley wrote about literature and the citation seems to say that the adjective "Germanic" can be used in a linguistic sense. It is in the context of German usage. So, like Halsall and Heather, the writer is being careful to explain a potentially confusing secondary meaning of "Germanic". As we are writing a tertiary source for a non-specialist audience we should be even more careful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Francis Owen was for decades Professor of German and Chairman of the Department of Modern Languages at the University of Alberta. Fluent in Old English, Old Norse, German, Russian and a host of other Indo-European languages, Owen specialized in the study of Early Germanic literature, which is our most important source on the subject of Germanic peoples. Well versed in archaeology, anthropology and history, Owen spent thirty years collecting data throughout Europe for the writing of his book The Germanic People (1960), which was his magnum opus. This is a rigorous scholarly work from one of the world's most foremost experts in the field. It's not an essay.
Edward Arthur Thompson was for decades Professor of History at the University of Nottingham. He was the author of the book The Early Germans (1965), which is a scholarly work on the subject of this article. When Malcolm Todd, Professor of Archaeology at Durham University, published his book The Early Germans, he dedicated that book to Thompson. Thompson was clearly one of the leading experts on the subject of Germanic peoples. That's why he was commissioned by Encyclopædia Britannica to write their article on Germanic peoples. An encyclopedic article, written by one of the world's foremost experts on a subject, is an excellent source when writing an encyclopedic article on such a subject, particularly with regards to defining the subject. Krakkos (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Obviously there is no need to defend the character and life of people who wrote 2 or 3 generations ago. That is missing the point entirely. The point is that you use them in questionable ways and these works do not represent the latest consensus in the field. They can't.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC) And after double checking, I confirm my description of Owen's book as essay like. There are not footnotes or endnotes and his preface states that the book relies on trusting the research of others. I find no discussions about the kinds of debates which we have been concerned with. That does not mean it is a bad book and of course Thompson and Owen are potentially useful for this article - just NOT for discussion of what the latest consensus is on a particular point of recent controversy we have all been concerned with getting right on this article. But honestly why is this even being disputed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Edward Arthur Thompson and Francis Owen are more representative of the consensus in the field than yourself. Owen's book is only one of a dozen sources that have been used, and Thompson's book in the Encyclopedia Britannica article cites all the major works that had been published in the field. Almost a year has passed since you, without any prior discussion or reasoning, entirely changed the scope of this article.[43][44][45] So far you have failed to provide a single source for this change of scope. Meanwhile, you are demanding perfect sources from others. Your double standard is staggering. Krakkos (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
What an extraordinarily misleading remark! Interesting that you say there has been no discussion or sources given for the changes! Also interesting that above you say the changes were made by a sock puppet. Fact is that anyone can check the record and see years of discussion involving both of us over a long period, often looked at sources you have trouble with like Heather and Halsall etc. But for the issues most important to you, you can only find out-dated and off-topic sources about Roumania, Spanish Grammar, European geography, German literature, and the like. Why would that be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
What a load nonsense. The sources i have recently provided are all of high quality. If you have such high regard for Peter Heather, let's look at how he defines the subject. Here is an excerpt from his article on the ancient history of Germany in Encyclopædia Britannica: "Germanic peoples occupied much of the present-day territory of Germany in ancient times. The Germanic peoples are those who spoke one of the Germanic languages... Clearly the people who came to speak Proto-Germanic must have been isolated from other Indo-Europeans for some time, but it is not obvious which archaeological culture might represent the period of the shift. One possibility is the so-called Northern European Bronze Age, which flourished in northern Germany and Scandinavia between about 1700 and 450 bc... Germanic peoples such as the eastern Franks, Frisians, Saxons, Thuringians, Alemanni, and Bavarians—all speaking West Germanic dialects—had merged Germanic and borrowed Roman cultural features. It was among these groups that a German language and ethnic identity would gradually develop during the Middle Ages."[46] Krakkos (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Now you are cherry picking new sources which you never want to use! Why not discuss these sources in the sections where I am trying to get such discussion???? The point is that your editing behavior is very problematic. Other editors might want to look at the discussion I managed to now get going on your new mirror article Germani which show how you badly you use the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As editors will see at the Germani talk page, Heather is one of the sources Krakkos has problems with. When we look at the context of cherry-picked words both Heather and Halsall, who disagree on many things, make sure to mention here and there whether they are talking about Germanic speakers or Germanic peoples in the other less controversial sense. Both authors point out that recent (understandable, reasonable) tendencies to equate the two cause confusion. We all know such comments are common in the generations AFTER Owen and Thompson. And yet on Wikipedia we are ignoring exactly those warnings. Why would we do that? I would say it fits perfectly with the fact that Krakkos actually does not use such sources for this subject, but instead uses WW2 authors and books about Roumania, Spanish grammar etc. Anyway, I would be interested to know when Heather wrote the Encyclopedia article which is now being mentioned, and also to see more of the context around the words chosen by Krakkos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krakkos you have now added the cherry picked quote to make your WP:POINT [47] so this makes it more urgent that you give us the words before and after especially the first sentence of this Heather quote. I also note that it is from decades before his better known work which is quite clear about these matters and which we have been discussing at Germani. So you are perhaps knowingly choosing to side with the earlier Heather despite his later clarity. That seems pretty hard to justify?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It was you who brought up Peter Heather as a quality source. How can it be cherry picking to introduce a relevant citation from a scholar you mention as reliable?
Heather's article in Encyclopedia Britannica can be read here. The best way to understand the context is to read the source yourself.
When referring to Heather's "better known work", i assume you're referring to his book Empires and Barbarians (2009).[48] As a matter of fact, that book makes no mention of "Germanic peoples".[49] A book which doesn't mention Germanic peoples is not useful for defining Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It is clearly NOT cherry picking to note that your supposed authority (actually I do not believe you have been using Heather in the past) has changed his own approach concerning the words and definitions he uses in this topic! Choosing to use the approach your authority REJECTED is certainly cherry picking. You are also right that in 2009 Heather's language is more careful, so he uses terms like Germani and Germanic speakers. That is indeed my point. But it is clearly nonsense to say that because of this change in terminology, to be more exact and less ambiguous, that his newer works are now irrelevant as if they are about a different subject! Changing the words you use does not change the reality being referred to! If we are really taking Heather seriously then we should try to understand what he means, not google his books looking for bits to pick out of context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Put it this way. You are now claiming that Empires and Barbarians has nothing in it about the topic of this article. That is an incredible claim. Can you see that problem? Both Heather and Halsall, along with other recent authors make it clear that definitions are being refined and that terminology is being used more carefully as a result. That is exactly what WP therefore needs to do, according to core content policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Practical. I've shown that Heather's changed his approach on terminology and is being more precise in more recent works, where he deliberately uses terms in a way to emphasize that the Germanic dominated part of Europe was not all Germanic speaking. We therefore should not be using his 1973 source to effectively make WP disagree with him, as in this recent edit. It should be fixed. It is clear that the consensus has shifted around in recent decades on these issues, and it is our job to report that in a balanced way. All our recent specialist sources mention this evolving situation. (Halsall, Heather, Liebeshuetz, Wolfram, Todd, etc.) Why is there so much resistance to allowing WP to report this? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC) And of course Owen and Thompson can not help us because they had no time machine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What i claim is that since Empires and Barbarians does not mention the term "Germanic peoples", it is not an appropriate book to define the term "Germanic peoples". This is not the same as claiming that the book is irrelevant to the topic. The topic of this article is not "the Germanic dominated part of Europe". It is about Germanic peoples. For inhabitants of "the Germanic dominated part of Europe", an interesting subject indeed, we now have the article Germani. Krakkos (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
So, incredibly, you are really going to claim that when writers in a field explain they are using new more careful wording and definitions, actually it actually means they are no longer talking about the same subject? You are going to insist the 1973 wording must be referring to something else. You're saying Peter Heather has for some reason decided not to mention the Germanic Peoples in the 2005 or 2009 books, because those exact words don't appear? On the other hand, you have no problem assuming that he means the same thing as you when he uses the word Germani, and asserting that it can not mean the same as Germanic Peoples. This is amazing. Frankly you seem to be unable to parse books logically and see the connections properly between them. I honestly don't know how else to put it.
Trying to find some other way to communicate with you, I have not seen any published source which distinguishes the Germani from the Germanic Peoples. Have you found one Krakkos? Same question as we discussed here. Both terms can clearly be used two overlapping ways, but I've seen no author who contrasts them. Have you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Effectively it is the same issue we are discussing here--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The difference between Germanic peoples and the classical concept of Germani is explained at Germani through the use of numerous reliable sources. I doubt Peter Heather wrote his article in the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1973. He was only 13 years old at the time. I have replied in detail at Talk:Germani#Falsified citation from Peter Heather. Krakkos (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors can check to confirm that the arguments you are using are still incompetent, also on your secret duplicate article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Open question about Clovis/Visigoths should be handled

@Krakkos: you now archived a section which noted a problem which has not been fixed yet [50]. I am guessing you have no intention of fixing it though, as getting such things right is not really your thing? So I propose for now the simplest action is to delete all of this: "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.[165]". I think the original poster was correct. This looks like SYNTH, and/or a misunderstanding of the sources. Do you see any problem with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem has now been fixed.[51] Krakkos (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sections to be merged-out/deleted or moved

Some proposals:

  • Language/Linguistics, which now has a new section by @Krakkos:, should IMHO move higher. Unless the plan is to lengthen it, it could be merged into the relevant parts of the new definitions section.
  • The current third section which discusses Subdivisions in classical sources, could become one part of a section about the Germanic peoples in Roman era sources? (Apart from concerning definitions of the Germanic peoples, already handled in the new definitions section.) What else could go into this section as sub-sections? This is where I propose to put "Roman tropes" and something about Roman descriptions of religion and culture? (Short versions, linking to main articles.)
  • Delete the separate Pytheas section. Again, unless there is a good reason to length and/or improve it, we can merge into the new definitions section, which gives the most important information.
  • Origins and Germania before Roman contact, should be made to complement what is now said above them, in the new definitions section.
  • I think the current Demographics section (one sentence from a quite old source) is not worth keeping unless there are lots of sources which could add to it, but I doubt that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Despite complaints from numerous editors over your previous rewrite of the lead, you have once again made another drastic edit to this article by replacing the Ethnonym seciton with a "Definitions" section.[52] Like the rewrite of the lead, this rewrite of the Ethnonym section is far from an improvement to the article. It is overly long and detailed, and lacks coherence. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic section. It reeks of original research. Your new suggestions will not be an improvement either. Merging the sections on Germanic origins, history and languages into this "Definitions" section is a terrible idea. I agree with Obenritter that the Pytheas section can be shortened. Except from that, these proposals are poor. You must get a consensus before completely rewriting a high-quality established and important article like this. Krakkos (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
That's astonishing nerve coming from you, Krakkos! When did you ever do that? Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I am going to go out on a limb and say the amount of effort I made to get pre-discussion was "better than average" :). {{re|Krakkos)) your remarks are pretty vague but concerning the new definitions sections "long and detailed, and lacks coherence" is exactly what you'd expect given (1) my vision as explained that this is the start of the missing core of the future article, (2) you are judging the initial pasting in of draft materials, into an article which is itself un-structured. Please watch how it develops. One way or another we will be incorporating more recent scholarly material and reducing the use of tertiary sources, old sources, and sources written about different topics such as German literature or Rumania. As we do that, re-structuring will be needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Andrew Lancaster's proposal.--Calthinus (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As an update:

  • Language ("Linguistics") as a section (or sub-section) is already being discussed in a more constructive way in another section. Krakkos is involved in that discussion. I see no enormous controversy.
  • Subdivisions, classical sources etc, is something not to rush to yet, at least in my vision so far. I don't see any extreme controversy about likely. This is basically a proposal about moving similar bits together.
  • Archaeology is clearly part of the Language discussion already, involving Krakkos. See: Origins and Germania before Roman contact. I think the proposal I made about this almost by definition can't be controversial so far.
  • I think for demographics it is more or less a formal "devil's advocate" question. Are there really sources about this topic? If not, then we shouldn't be scraping around looking for something-anything to say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone come up with a reason to keep the Demographics section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: you have now added a sentence from Heather and a sentence from Wolfram. Two concerns:
  • Are you sure you have the page numbers correct? I own both books, and do not immediately find these remarks.
  • The section is apparently based three separate comments from 3 separate authors. They are not really about exactly the same thing, but just generally about similar themes. I don't know of any notable consensus on this topic and these quotes aren't really indicating any?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: now you've added footnotes [53], but done the same thing which you did to the Languages section: the efn notes now appear in the sfn section. PLEASE take note of the concerns I have been raising and do not just keep doing this?
Secondly, the Heather quote is (I find) from page 64, not 87, and you have removed the words "will have" which indicate that it is a rough speculation.
Thirdly, Heather is clearly NOT talking about "late antiquity".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
And checking the Owen citation which started this section: Owen wrote "could scarcely have have been more than about 4,000,000" again a wording which indicates hand-waving speculation and not emphasis on the estimate itself, but Wikipedia has converted this to "around 4,000,000".
In summary there is still no evidence of notability, nor that we are reporting any real serious consensus. So far I think the section should still be deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need two discussions of Pytheas (internal POV forking?)

Having previously moved discussion of Pytheas into a new section which is specifically about sourced who might have mentioned the Germani before Julius Caesar, I find that a new discussion of this same historiographical point about the terminology has been inserted into the "History" section. Strikingly, this new discussion disagrees with the one I wrote, and specifically says Pytheas is known to have distinguished the Celts and Germani, which is not known. To do this, generalist sources are used rather than the specialist sources I used. And it is not about historical events, but about history writing. This seems to be a POV Fork within the article, and the same could be said about some other new insertions. Can anyone give a reasoning for keeping this duplicate section, which argues against another part of the article? @Krakkos:?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: it is not history, it is dubious, and it is a duplicate. I suppose it can be removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanic_peoples/Archive_10&oldid=944972785"