Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Germanic peoples. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Genetic Legacy of Germanic Expansions Map

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif

Worth including this image in the genetics section? While it may not be perfect (there are some issues I think for example over whether the R1b-L21 in the British Isles is actually genetically Celtic, since they don't seem to cluster with Celts on PCAs), Eupedia seems to be the most detailed breakdown of the genetic history of Europe that we have yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice graphic, but what is "Germanic Y DNA"? The difference between eupedia and wikipedia concerning original and non-obvious, un-published research is an obvious problem here. On Wikipedia we summarize what has been published in the best reputation sources. We are not allowed to be original. In expert publications there is no generally accepted definition of "Germanic Y DNA". On the internet there are all kinds of speculations. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple. Germanic Y-DNA is Y-DNA believed to have belonged to those who lived in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia when the Proto-Germanic languages and culture developed and was carried by them (along with their languages) to other parts of Europe they settled when expanding outwards from there. How this is known is explained on Eupedia here: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml

I'm not particularly familiar with Eupedia which is why I posted this and asked. I don't know how reliable it is considered to be as a source because I don't know what methods Wikipedia editors use to include or exclude sources. And it honestly seems to be rather arbitrary and contradictory. For example when trying to list the English as a Germanic people you were provided with sources that are in use for Austrians, Dutch, Germans and other Germanic ethnic groups and you ignored them. I see you specifically on every single talk page related to Germanic peoples and English peoples fiercely, fiercely resisting the opinion that the English are a Germanic people, so you obviously have quite an emotional involvement in this for whatever reason. So why is Eupedia not a reliable source? And why are the sources in use for Austrians, Dutch, Germans etc. as Germanic ethnic groups not valid for the English people (because those same sources also include the English as Germanic in them)?

You've claimed before people in the British Isles weren't Germanic just because they spoke Germanic languages, right? I'm pretty sure I specifically seeing you fiercely defending attempts to list the English people as Germanic explicitly because the English had admixture with non-Germanic groups. Well how can you know those groups were non-Germanic? Isn't it rather presumptive and baseless of you to think that just because the people of the British Isles pre-Germanic settlement once spoke Celtic languages they were Celtic? If there's no Germanic Y-DNA, then there is no Celtic Y-DNA, right? So then classifying people as Germanic or Celtic comes solely down to language, since Germanic and Celtic are language families.

I don't know, man. You tell me. I really don't know what your problem is. We're all just trying to improve the Wikipedia and have objective realities included in articles, regardless of whether those objective realities offend the delicate sensibilities of certain people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

There's literally already a speculative haplogroup map in the genetics section of this page. All this map is is a further breakdown of those haplogroups into subclades. Because subclades are very important. And subclades paint a far more accurate picture of Europe's genetic story. R1b-U106 for example (which accounts for a significant amount of the R1b in England and Scotland) is very different to the R1b-L21 found in the British Isles. It comes from a different place, brought by different people, at a different time.

The current map in the genetics section paints a less accurate image as it groups all R1b, all R1a and many other large groups of haplomarkers into the one thing, when as I explained subclades matter, a LOT. There's a lot of R1b in western Africa for example, in really, really high percentages. But the people carrying R1b there are not remotely close genetically to the people carrying R1b in Enniskillen.

No eupedia is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Also the current article does not distinguish between Austrians, Dutch, Germans, and English people, or even discuss any of them very much. Nothing fierce about this. Wikipedia works in a certain way, using a policy of simply summarizing what publications with a confirmed reputation for fact checking and reliability say. Other websites work in different ways and encourage more originality, and that means that they can even invent their own ideas without needing to wait for geneticists or historians or whoever to publish something first. Do you edit on Wikipedia or not? Where is your information about Wikipedia coming from if not? Why have you never heard of the basic policy if you are an editor?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, the map of haplogroups currently used in the genetics section of this very page is sourced by Eupedia. There's dozens upon dozens of articles on Wikipedia that are currently sourcing Eupedia. Would you like me to list a dozen for you? Can you meanwhile direct me to where it states Eupedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do list them because that sourcing needs to be removed right away. See WP:RS.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Eupedia is a website edited directly by users (like Wikipedia in some ways), correct? On Wikipedia we should not cite Wikipedia or anything like Wikipedia. In the case of Eupedia, it is self-published work, and there is no peer review system or reputable committees etc. It is not a website we see scholars citing, so we can't confirm it has a reputation among experts. That is a key point. Basically the reliable sources all tend to cite each other, or at least we have to hope they do. If a genius suddenly arises from nowhere and no experts know about it, WP has to wait a bit until someone publishes something about it. The core content policy to start at would be WP:RS, but there is a mass of more detailed community norms concerning RS, which are relevant to the case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll get started on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: is there somewhere better where such a list could be posted, rather than on this article talk page? I can imagine the discussion might get bulky.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

wp:RSN?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, getting the feeling there's no real genuine enthusiasm for the list anyway. We will continue to pretend that people in the British Isles simply cannot be classified into ethnolinguistic groups like every other region of Europe apparently can. Despite all regions of continental Europe being significantly more mixed genetically, linguistically and culturally than the British Isles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Just provide a reliable source for the content you want to introduce (e.g., by using books.google.com, scholar.google.com or a similar search engine). Azerty82 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Eupedia graphics, I leave it to Ermenrich to consider what the priorities are. I am guessing it has probably been discussed before. I see absolutely no reason to believe that England and Scotland are the only nations for whom this type of topic is controversial when WP policy hits the Eupedia style obsession with categorizing everyone. That clash causes problems all over Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, Andrew, it's not Eupedia's obsession. There's, as you well know, a core band of Wikipedia editors who fiercely resist at all costs any attempts to list the English as a Germanic people, usually backed by the claims that the English have mixed with other peoples and assimilated/absorbed them historically, thus they're not 'genetically Germanic'. That's an argument made by the people opposing categorizing the English as Germanic,not those supporting that. The English are Germanic because their language is Germanic, in my view. The English identity is a Germanic identity. And Eupedia would support that not only are they Germanic by language, but a significant percentage of them are genetically descended from people who came from the Proto-Germanic homelands.

I don't know, you're now claiming tracing genes to certain historical ethnolinguistic groups is an obsession with categorizing them? So genes cannot be Germanic? So genes also cannot be Celtic? So then being Germanic or Celtic is purely down to language and almost everyone in the British Isles is today Germanic? I'm just trying to improve the genetics section of the Germanic peoples page. Because as it stands the current map doesn't really paint an accurate picture of the movements and settlements of the Germanic peoples historically. Since it doesn't split the haplogroups into subclades and therefore all R1b is clumped together giving the inaccurate impression, for example, that the people of the British Isles are genetically closer to the peoples of Spain or France than to those of Scandinavia or northern Germany or the Netherlands. Which as we both know, is nonsense.

Peoples are preferably defined and classified by their cultures, not their genes. Archeogenetics only helps us understand prehistoric human migrations and their mating networks. Azerty82 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If the IP wants this included I suggest he take it to wp:RSN like I suggested. But I don't think there's any question that Eupedia doesn't meet our wp:RS guidelines. To wit: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, content farms, and Internet forums; social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit; IMDb, Ancestry.com, Find-a-Grave, ODMP; most wikis, including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites..

I've gone ahead and started that discussion here--Ermenrich (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, and the people of the British Isles are neither culturally Celtic, nor in large part genetically Celtic. They overwhelmingly speak a Germanic language, and over half of the people in England and Scotland (and even in Wales and Ireland it's around 30% Germanic descent) are descended from Germanic peoples who settled there from the 400s onwards. So why is it controversial to call the people of the British Isles Germanic when they're culturally Germanic.

I can call myself a Slav until I'm hoarse in the throat, it doesn't make me a Slav. However if I natively spoke a Slavic language, had a Slavic name and looked vaguely like other Slavs, I'm pretty sure nobody would question whether I was a Slav. At some point we have to at least acknowledge there is SOME checklists to fulfill beyond self-identification and feeling to ethnic and ethnolinguistic identities. At least when it comes to objective classifications.

Every page I've been to on Wikipedia lists the people of Scotland as Celtic. It includes ALL people in Scotland as Celtic. I'm not Celtic. I don't identify with any Celtic culture or practice it. I don't speak a Celtic language. I don't have a Celtic name, I'm genetically closest to Medieval Swedish Vikings, apparently, according to PCA tests. How is it fair to foist upon me and the myriad people in Scotland like me a Celtic identity to which we do not belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, nobody has argued against what you say per se. You just need to use a reliable source (published book, academic paper, scientific newspaper, etc.) that supports the content you want to introduce. Azerty82 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Otherwise it is exactly like the example given of saying you are something until you are hoarse, but it making no difference to what other people think. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get hunting. Sorry for the heatedness, obviously a very emotionally charged issue. But this is what happens when you raise people on a total lie their entire lives and try and force an identity on them they objectively don't belong to, I guess. Thanks for the patience, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I should point out that based on discussions in the past on this article, there is also a more primary question of whether this article is relevant to this discussion. Because this comes up periodically I will walk through some of the different directions such discussions have gone, and how such ideas can fit or not fit with WP policy, and why it might involve other articles than this one...

This article sometimes used to contain lists of modern peoples who speak Germanic languages. People would drop by and delete and add some (Scotland, Ireland etc etc) and there would be edit wars. But the article has a good strong topic already and these lists were (at best) just a messy side issue as far as most editors and sources are concerned, so we removed them, and that fixed a problem. This is nothing to do with Scottish people specifically, because now all such lists have been removed (Germans, Austrians as well). The article currently mentions modern Germanic languages, but this is clearly not the main article for those.
There have been at least two attempts to create an article called "Germanic peoples (modern)" and they were controversial for two reasons. Reason 1 is our policy WP:NOTE. There are bits and pieces of sources you can find which mention modern Germanic peoples, as has been discussed many times on this talk page, but they really don't seem to be notable enough to make a stand-alone topic. (See archives and WP:NOTE.) It is not a common topic in scholarly publications (or every day conversation for that matter) and when such a concept is mentioned it is not defined much past just speaking a Germanic language. Clearly the Roman-era Germanic peoples are in contrast a MUCH bigger and more complex topic of published discussion, and not simply a language category. They need their article, and that article is here.
In fact, currently "Germanic peoples (modern)" redirects to this article but probably it should redirect to something closer to that topic such as Germanic-speaking Europe which logically seems to be what people interested in this topic want to really write about. Why don't they see it that way?
Reason 2 involves several other policies (POVFORK, OR, SYNTH), and the intentions people have had for such an article. From many long discussions it seems past promoters of this idea did not want to create a topic which could stand on its own, but wanted to fill the new article with material from this article, but add controversial ideas to it: This article would equate the modern and ancient peoples in a simple way, and would not simply be language based (because they do NOT want Jamaicans and Ashkenazi included). Creating such an overlap article which disagrees with other articles is not acceptable as explained at WP:POVFORK. It would also involve original research (see WP:OR), for example concerning its likely use of amateur DNA speculations, and a synthesis based on 19th century ideas that are now rejected by scholars (see WP:SYNTH).
Taking the logic further we might say there should be an article about the late 19th century and early 20th century history writing which made such simple connections, but was later rejected by modern scholars? (That would be how I think.) In fact we have Pan-Germanism and a few other articles on such topics. They could probably do with some work. But once again this does not seem to be what promoters of this modern Germanic peoples concept want. In fact my impression is that it almost seems to be something do NOT want on Wikipedia. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:81.170.40.71 is a sock of indeffed User:92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

An article to define the scope of another article?

Azerty82 you raise a point which is worth addressing on this edit: A new article Definitions of Germanic peoples should be created to reduce the size of this section. I understand you are saying this is an option we can consider if article length ever becomes a really urgent problem again. (I think we are not there just because of your edit though.) I would like to say that I doubt this will ever be a good idea, just for logical reasons. The problem is simple: it would be an article which exists only to define the core and scope of another article. Sections about Germanic languages and Germanic-speaking kings and so on are always going to be easier to split out, and most such topics already have their own articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But, BTW, some of the sections of the definitions section can probably be reduced and merged into similar sections which kind of developed in parallel. I am thinking here of bits about languages and archaeology. For the definitions section the main thing is to say that there are modern linguistic and archaeological attempts to define Germanic peoples, and point to why these have not resolved all the old questions. The practical problem is only making sure the reader can find their way between the sections when they need to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, To clarify: this section is too long. We spend half of the article defining the scope of the article (it not an exaggeration, it really takes half of the article). That said, everything in this section is valuable. So here is my proposition: let us create a new article for readers that want to go deeper into this very subject (the definitions of Germanic peoples), and let us only keep the essential information about the definitions of Germanic peoples in this section. Azerty82 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But think about the logic of what you are saying. I understand why all the baggage of this subject makes it difficult to see, so let me switch to another topic. Let's say on the article for Dogs, someone writes "I am not exaggerating, but almost half this article is about what dogs are and what they are like. That means less than half is about famous dog owners, religions with dog-headed gods, laws about pets, etc." And I would say "why is it less than half?" It should all be about dogs.

Putting logic aside there is also a big practical problem which has been demonstrated empirically. This topic is one people [on Wikipedia] all have different ways of defining. This has made it hard to edit and hard to read. Most articles begin by defining what they are about, and try to make it easy for readers and editors to understand what the scope is. My experience on this article is that some people interested in this topic WANT the scope to be confusing and fuzzy. Honestly this has gone for years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's just a side issue. Let's extend the rest of the article. Azerty82 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure; and by the way I think your willingness to propose something like this openly and early so we can all start thinking about it, is really good. We may end up convincing each other, or a third idea may arise, before it is urgent. Currently I think the medium term answer is to think of shortening the section by merging some parts into other sections. Keep it in mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said, my concern is not about the content itself–it is valuable and instructive–but rather about readability. We'll see in the near future how we can effectively shorten this section. Azerty82 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Azerty82: Your idea is interesting to me and I would support that approach so that we can dispense with some of the granular discourse in the current article, which might be better suited to the subjects of definition/classification.

PS: see Definitions of fascism, Definition of terrorism, Definition of religion, etc. Azerty82 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think any such extreme solution needs a really good justification. I am not seeing any. This topic's core should be this topic. It is not like we have a shortage of overlapping articles here, or big differences between the sources. The confusion has been artificial and WP-editor based (not like religion). Also consider WP:OSE. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Imo Azerty's proposal is a good idea lest one part of the page gets too long, but I would not have a whole page for Definitions of.... Instead we have a better model: Historiography of Germanic peoples. Definitions is far to shallow, but discussing historiography involves examining the implications and nuances of different viewpoints that existed throughout academic/political history on the matter.--Calthinus (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

... On the other hand, imagining I am a reader who knows little of the topic, I would find such a situation ... very confusing. --Calthinus (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Devil's advocate question: how many of the concerns about the Definitions section could be fixed by renaming that section? I do not have an answer, but as a general rule if criticisms of a section focus on the name, it might be a sign of something easy to fix which we are missing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to focus on modern scholarly definitions in this section and move–for instance–the romanticism part in another section. The article earth doesn't discuss creationism in the /Chronology/ section, nor does it mention obsolete theories about flat earth, ocean-surrounded earth, in /Physical characteristics/. Do you see what I mean? Azerty82

PS: Please don't link WP:OSE again, I'm just trying to use compelling examples to better communicate my concern ;-) (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL. No problem. We have discussed this type of thing before and I have been looking for ideas. It still seems there should be a solution in this direction. HOWEVER, the complication is (or might be?) that, all of the latest ideas are still based on different ideas about what to accept from Caesar, Tacitus, and Jordanes. Sorry for the length, but thinking this through again might be helpful...

In fact there is no single definition today. This is not unusual for many subjects, and the normal solution is to then is build from whatever the "common ground" is, which they all build from. But when we do that, then that common ground is Caesar et al. So we can not explain the 21st century without explaining Caesar and his friends. Caesar is still relevant, not out-dated.

(I know this is not immediately obvious because for example modern linguistics (or archaeology) is objective and separable right? But actually it is not. There is almost no study possible of Germanic-speaking peoples in the time of the Roman empire, so the linguists have to trust Tacitus for that whole period. The linguists can still study the languages, but without the classical texts they can't say who spoke them. See our current efn footnote "b". Also in the history of discussions on this article whenever people mentioned the idea of a linguistic definition of Germanic peoples, discussion showed that such editors ALSO wanted language to be seen as strongly connected to biology/ancestry.)

So classical usage is still relevant for discussion of what scholars think in the 21st century. In other words: if you asked me to write a much shorter section ONLY about what people should see the definition is today, and NOT including out-of-date ideas, it is possible, but it would include some short references to the Caesarian and Tacitean descriptions.

OTOH, the "out of date" historiography section is not the classical part, but the early modern until the mid 20th century period, when various artificial certainties developed, partly by leaning heavily on Jordanes etc.

PROBLEM in practice: at least some scholars, but more to the point a large population of people on the internet, can not accept such scepticism about late 19th and early 20th century "certainties". Some people still want such things mentioned first as the 21st century mainstream. So this has led to compromises also. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I might, as an experiment, try drafting a split between "definition now" and "historiography" sections. Not sure it will work. Could end up looking like the same discussion twice?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is not the primary Roman sources (I've never proposed to remove them), but their interpretation. And the Romantic interpretation is outdated. It's interesting for the historiography, but not really for modern definitions.

So, here's my proposition (to be improved, it's just a global framework):

1. Definitions

a. definitions given by primary sources

aa. pre-Caesar

ab. Caesar

ac. Tacitus

ab. Jordanes

b. other evidence

ba. archeology

bb. linguistics

bc. (?) genetics

b. their modern interpretations

ba. Toronto school

bb. Vienna school

bc. Historical linguistics

Azerty82 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: @Andrew Lancaster: I'm wondering if it's not better to rewrite the whole article from scratch together in a draft, and only keep what is valuable from the old article. Azerty82 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the "proposition" it is not that different from the current structure yet? What I was thinking of now was a bit different and also based on the remark of Calthinus: can we make a short definition section, mainly about the 21st century scholarly definitions, and break the other parts out? I am not sure if ANY of these ideas would really be good. (Small things: (1) Jordanes is not classical and does not directly say much new about Germani. For him the Goths are Scythians. He is important for the early modern synthesis, because he helped them connect Goths to Germania as defined by Tacitus and Ptolemy. He is also the source of the idea of Scandinavia as a womb of nations. (2) Genetics. Have not seen anything yet for the correct cultures. I see the current section as a placeholder for the future (3) You have two section "b"s.:) I guess it is your second "b" which might be seen as ambitious here, but it is logical to even make it first.)

Concerning drafting, we can always keep trying things. I am open to ideas, but it might also be better to look at specific section ideas. Or we can try ALL these, AND we can also just try tweaking sections as usual. My biggest advice on this: we can not rush on big changes, and we do need to keep trying to think about the different opinions out there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It is different. Not that different, but different anyway (I don't want to scare fellow contributors with radical changes). I've never said Jordanes was a Classical author. He is one of the main primary sources. Alternative proposition: only keep modern definitions.

a. Toronto school

b. Vienna school

c. Historical linguistics Azerty82 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's develop ideas. Even if we decide the current structure does NOT need changing it is healthy to try other approaches. I am sure I will once again be blamed for filling this talk page, so for early/playful/experimental lets use drafting pages, and reserve this page for more concrete edit discussions. I have re-purposed the same drafting page I originally made for this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Only keeping modern definitions is a dangerous thing to do for a page, because we cannot assume they are not still in flux (comparison: the conceptualization of "Slavic peoples" right now is very much in flux and inseparable from modern day geopolitics) and this is thus a recipe for POV warring. Overall, this is where I am somewhat torn. On the one hand, this page is essentially "Historiography of Germanic peoples" itself -- as, imo, it should be, and I think there is broad agreement on that. But at the same time, when we get into the weeds about the Toronto school, the Vienna school (is the Frankfurt school next???) then it is starting to get "too deep". There must be some way of partitioning the topic so that valuable material relating to those trends can be represented somewhere without cluttering this page. Many people who are interested in this topic will have their eyes glaze over once we start going into that. Perhaps the best thing to do is actually to add material on how different trends viewed Germanicness to those pages and have a few sentences with links to sections on those pages here? --Calthinus (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced. It would be like providing an entire section to the Hyperborean hypothesis in Proto-Indo-European homeland (or even to the fringe 'Out of India' theory if we don't hierarchize theories), or to the Luminiferous aether in Universe. Any modern theory on any subject could be modified by a new breakthrough discovery. But even when a debate is occurring among scholars, there are always two or three competing leading theories. In the case of Germanic studies, the two main schools are Toronto and Vienna. Azerty82 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus Sounds about right. I am also torn, but we have to try ideas. I think one thing you are saying is that we are not sure how successful the last restructuring (blame Andrew) has been in creating a stable version which will keep most people happy. Personally I like the idea, and maybe you agree, of this article being the homebase for the Germanenbegriff, and the historiography, with child articles under it, and no higher level theory articles. If not, then so be it, but then what is this article for? In theory it could become just a holding pen for lots of links and summaries: upwards to articles about the historiography or definition AND downwards to aspects like culture, law etc.

Do we need so many levels? My feeling as a WP watcher is that too many overlapping articles tires our editors, and readers, and watchers, and leads to bad articles, and murkiness where POV sharks live.

OTOH, if you see really nice areas on WP these are often ones where they can find nice short article topics, without too much overlap. That's what we all want to be. So TRYING to draft a definition or historiography article is worth thinking about at least. If it fails here then we need to put extra effort into thinking about child articles?

@Azerty82 I tend to agree that there are two main schools pushing things forward, but here on WP we have seen a strong attempt to keep mentioning an "Oxford" school. There is certainly an Oxford school mentioned in our various secondary sources, but I do not think it defines any particular unified position on something like the definition of what Germanic peoples mean. For those who see Heather as their leader, I just then see a slightly cautious and conservative approach. (But what about Ian Woods etc.) But actually Heather and Ward-Perkins respect the theoretical debate and mainly stay out of it. They are "professionally worried" about how many people were in the migrations, because that is what those two writers are into (Halsall seems to think this is a Brexit thing) but that is a debate this article only needs to mention in passing. So my take is that the third "school" for balance can be seen as "conservative" writers. Of course we then have Liebeschuetz. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If we agree on keeping only mainstream and modern theories in the /definition/ section, I would find it acceptable that we add the 'Oxford' School as the third leading 'theory'. Azerty82 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to redact the section on linguistics as I promised. I'm working 8am–8pm despite (or rather because of) the covid epidemic. I don't have as much time as I'd like to provide comprehensive contributions (hence my recurrent typos in the discussion/history of edits) as I've done before. Stay tuned, Azerty82 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No rush.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

After reading, writing and thinking about it I realize why there is no section about competing definitions from different schools: My current understanding: Although there are schools with different opinions about nearly everything to do with Germanic peoples, different ways of defining "Germanic peoples" is not one of them. The linguistic and archaeological definitions are for example not really debated to be more correct than any other definition: they are still trying to help describe the same peoples? (The advocates of avoiding the term altogether are of course associated with a school, and are mentioned. But even they are not debating about definitions as such.) For example I find no "linguistic school" who is arguing that anyone who did not speak Germanic must never be called Germanic. Am I wrong everyone? Possibly there are debates I don't know about. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

On another point discussed above, I have "boldly" edited the introduction of the Definition section, with an idea of trying to make sure the section starts with something more like a stand-alone definition. This is partly just good practice, and partly because it might help experimentally imagine the rest of the section in other terms such as "historiography" or "debates" (not that we have to make any such changes).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree—there is no debate concerning a definition of "Germanic people(s)". In fact, there is little discussion of a definition at all. People seem content to leave them undefined or leave their working definitions implicit. Presumably because unless you are dealing only with, say, Tacitus and his Germani any definition will be one you made up and can be rejected with a wave of the hand by other scholars. That is, there is no clear conventional definition of who or what a Germanic people is at any point in time. I do think that there is an implicit linguistic definition at work, because that is one thing that is objective and does not depend on contemporaries noticing it. So any discussion of whether, e.g., the Scirii who attacked Olbia and reappeared in Late Antiquity were Germanic is a discussion about what language they spoke. Srnec (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The approach I continue to take, which is similar to the more analytical works in German, like Pohl's Germanen, is to point to the several "dimensions" of the way definitions-in-practice have worked since Caesar. Language was always part of that.

Calthinus and Azerty raised the question of whether we could ever split out debates or historical theories, from a main definition. In terms of debates about definitions though, there is one big one, with several aspects: the 19th century reconstruction of a bigger Germanic language family meant the term could be applied to more peoples and periods; the expanded use that the "Germanic terminology" then had, to some extent replacing "Northern barbarians", is seen as creating a potential bias in historical narratives. (I do not see this as a purely Toronto thing at all. The way I read Heather and Liebeschuetz they actually agree that this terminology gives a potential bias towards certain narratives, but don't mind, because they see those are the narratives they agree with. But their readers won't necessarily know that. The way I saw one author explain it: the most important thing is to know about the bias any specific terminology gives. Indeed, this is an issue on many topics.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Forget the definition section. I am going to work in a draft and eventually provide a comprehensive summary based upon modern scholarly studies in a few weeks. It is better than losing time in endless discussions. Let us first renamed this article Ancient Germanic peoples to avoid any possible confusion. See you soon, Azerty82 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Now I am interested in this idea :) But anyway, the changes I made today need to sink in. I look forward to whatever you come up with. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Did not see the second sentence. I think we'd need an RFC on such a name change but I would probably vote against it, how I see it now. In the past we had some discussions, and the dialogue goes something like this:

Let's split into modern and ancient Germanic peoples
Are there modern Germanic peoples?
For modern peoples we use a linguistic definition.
So it is purely linguistic and has nothing to do with being successors of the Germani? So it will mean Jamaicans and Ashkanezi are Germanic people? Do you have any source which use such terminology for modern peoples?
Of course Jamaicans are not Germanic. Your dangerous dehumanizing racist rhetoric can lead to genocide. There are plenty of Visigoths living, breathing, and walking around today.

Please note that using sarcasm on Wikipedia is not recommended (unfortunately). I recommend the archives of this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Worth remarking: (1) of course for "non ancient" and purely linguistic Germanic topics, there are many other articles (2) for purely linguistic discussion of the Germanic language family (including ancient), proto language etc, there are also linguistic articles (3) for anything which describes real historical Germanic peoples before late antiquity, even if it uses a "linguistic definition" of Germanic peoples, linguistic sources are not enough, and I do not think we can speak of a separate "linguistic" vision of the history of these real peoples known from classical history.

This is simply logical, because there is almost no linguistic evidence except for weak evidence that can be interpreted various ways: a few runes, god names, personal names, river names etc. (River names are often seen as one of the most important.) The linguistics text books have to defer to historians, archaeologists, philologists etc. Linguists contributing to the field effectively act as historians etc, when they actually start talking about real peoples and regions in this period before linguistic evidence. Textbooks and tertiary sources normally summarize simpler older ideas rather than attempting to give a summary of any ideas which changed even in the late twentieth century.

Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Azerty82 should the template on the definitions section be changed, moved or removed? Latest thinking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The /definition/ section has been greatly improved. I have consequently removed the template. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Caesar's speculations

Regarding this subsection: (1) this is not really a 'prehistoric evidence' since Caesar's claim is attested by written material (Commentarii de Bello Gallico) and he provides no proof for his statements about past events (2) but more important: it is not a 'speculation' but rather a calculated political grouping (an 'us versus them' strategy) set up to justify the conquest of the Gauls (as a territory). The 'Cimbri raids' were often used by Roman politicians as a 'warning' of the dangers represented by the "peoples beyond the Rhine", hence the need to conquer the Gauls and militarize the border on the Rhine. (3) I would suggest another location for this part :) Azerty82 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Any proposals? What I have done as a first reaction is re-title this sub-section to "Caesar's claims" which hopefully alerts readers to the possible doubts. A potential controversy/problem with moving this away completely is that Caesar's account of the Volcae in Hercynia is sometimes treated as factual or at least having some basis in fact, and the idea of Gauls once living further north in Germania is still common and needs to be mentioned in the section about what happened before Caesar? Concerning your logical concern about this being based on written sources, my reasoning so far was that Caesar was extrapolating/speculating back in time based on written sources, but going beyond what they said. The section does also mentioned archaeological evidence, although that is perhaps duplication. Perhaps my original intentions could have been best achieved by simply mentioning Caesar's remarks about the Volcae as an aside within the archaeology section? BTW Caesar's remarks about the Cimbri are already in another section, and I think this section was intended to mainly be for his remarks about the Volcae and continental Germanic expansion southwards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment was a nitpick, that's why I didn't make changes myself. But it is perhaps WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and, as you proposed, perhaps should be moved as a side note to the archeological subsection. Azerty82 (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that. I won't rush, so if you see a good way to do it...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Tribes"

Hello, all! Between fielding the usual fringe stuff on the site, I have finally gotten around to taking a look at this. (I'll be taking a closer look at Germanic mythology soon, thanks for bringing that to my attention, too!).

One thing I think we should be very careful about here is terminology. Editors with a background in anthropology know how loaded and almost always misleading the term tribe can be for ancient systems of organization, particularly when we have no information about a group of peoples beyond, say, a name. We should be wary of using this term whenever possible (here's a little discussion on it, for example: Tribe#Controversy_and_usage_depreciation), lest we sound like we're back in the Victorian era.

Where we can maintain precision, lets do that, but I recommend that we're as careful as possible with this sort of thing and just stick to "peoples" or "group" by default. Currently the article uses the term tribe quite a lot, and, after looking at those instances, they should all be swapped out. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I was surprised to find 30 uses of the word "tribe", many of which probably come from me. A handful are direct quotes. I am not going to rush into action myself, but just register my agreement that probably many of the others can be switched to "people". I agree that "tribe" is a term with "baggage" in many contexts, implying more than we would want to imply.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My tribe of copy editors agrees, so I've changed all instances except those in quotations. Carlstak (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this and taking care of it, all. I know the subject of this article is a tough one to sort out, and I'll try my best to help. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Percentage of major Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic

This article related Proto-Germanic to the Jastorf culture, while Proto-Germanic language relates it to southern Scandinavia. How come? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha! An old source from 1965; I've added info from this article overthere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This article has some information that may make it seem more clear.--Berig (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

What people who are not trained in North European archaeology generally seem to misunderstand is that there is not really any opposition between "Jastorf culture" and "Southern Scandinavia". The material culture in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia were the same. It is mostly by convention that we talk about "Jastorf culture" when we refer to Northern Germany, and to Scandinavian iron age when we refer to Southern Scandinavia.--Berig (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly right @Berig:. --Obenritter (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!•

Not all archaeologists agree that the Jastorf culture stretched even to northern Denmark, let alone the rest of Scandinavia. Of course there are connections perceived between these areas, so it is a question of how things are split up, but please keep it in mind. Lots of articles on academia.org--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because there is no clear northern border for the Jastorf culture. The objects with the perceived Jastorf traits just become more rare as you go north. Thanks for pointing out how hard delimitations and marking borders may be in academia.--Berig (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The other point I wanted to remind of is that in many archaeological fields, there has been little movement since the pre war ideas in the 20th century but more progress in recent decades. Hence my suggestion about looking at academia.edu, where there are quite a few archaeologists who post their articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way you seem to read archaeological works, from what I have seen above. Here is an interesting quote I found in a linguistic work that you should find interesting. It is about the old and very strong Germanic influence in Finno-Ugric languages that makes the so-called Jastorf theory promoted by German linguists impossible to defend.

"In light of the evidence discussed above, the so-called Jastorf theory, which is currently largely adhered to by German historical linguists, is untenable. [...] It is, therefore, in Scandinavia and Denmark that the primary Germanic homeland must be sought, within the area of the Nordic Bronze Age culture as defined by archaeology." - Jorma Koivulehto (2002) "Contact with non-Germanic languages II: Relations to the East", in The Nordic languages, vo. I, p. 591

We also have a description of the "least controversial view" of the origin of the Germanic languages here, which has not been altered by recent studies (Koch 2020, p. 38):

As to the whereabouts of Pre-Germanic during the Nordic Bronze Age (~1700–600 BC), advances in recent years have not upset, as the least controversial view, a homeland in Southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic. Therefore, Pre-Germanic would have been approximately coterminous with the Nordic Bronze Age. Its timespan as proposed here (~1900–500/400 BC) contains all of that archaeological period’s usual date range (~1700–600 BC) extended into the final metal-using stage of the Scandinavian Neolithic and the first 150 years of the Nordic Iron Age. - John T. Koch (2020). "CELTO-GERMANIC, Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West", p. 38

It does not appear from the above source that there is what you consider to be "more progress in recent decades", whatever "progress" may mean in this case. And of course, we all agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, where we tell the readers (what we personally believe is) the direction of scholarship.--Berig (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But Berig are you saying the position of Jorma Koivulehto is a consensus position? I don't believe that's correct. FWIW I don't recall any details any more but I believe I used him in some articles and talk pages discussions when this topic was hot last. My impression is that this position was pretty far from the middle ground. That does not mean they should be excluded. On this particular article we also have the challenge of trying not to let this or about 20 other interesting topics with their own articles take over this one. If I could suggest an approach to this problem, maybe the Jastorf article itself needs work first? That would help develop a consensus and get a list of all sources etc, so that the job of making a short version here is simpler? Also relevant: I added some sources to the talk page there back when working on several connected articles, but never really got to work on that one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

See my answer further down.--Berig (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing any new mentions of Koivulehto. On this topic, which is arguably more relevant to several other articles, did you see the sources I mentioned on the Jastorf culture talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Endonym

I had not visited the article for some time, but I just edited the lead. Aside from reflecting any scholarly debate, the main problems I see are the following:

The entire third paragraph is explaining in a long-winded way that the term "Germanic" is an [[exonym\\ based on Roman sources, and that we do not know their endonym (or conversely that they had many endonyms). It did not link to the main article concerning exonyms and endonyms, and fails to mention that this is not a unique situation in ancient history. We know several groups only from brief references in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman, Persian, or Chinese sources, while the groups themselves left no legacy of written records.
The lead keeps mentioning the Late Roman Empire, with not a single reference to the Migration Period. Several tribal groups are first mentioned in relation to this Period.
The sixth paragraph implies that the Germanics lacked a single shared culture. We are talking about a grouping covering a large number of tribal groups over a period of many centuries. So why do we assume their linguistic relations would imply a unified culture in the first place? Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I agree with your third bullet as an individual, as a Wikipedia editor I have to accept that a small number of respectable historians such as Peter Heather have continued to insist upon writing as if there was a unified culture, and in practice such ideas are very popular on Wikipedia and among people likely to use it, and have had a massive effect on the history of this article. Just to make this topic even more sensitive, his argumentation for this is associated not with his research publications, but with his paperbacks, and with arguments about the dangers of modern immigration from Eastern Europe. He and his Tory historian colleagues were willing to speak in public about this on behalf of the Brexit movement. What's more, his own speciality is the Goths, and when he writes about this topic he writes more carefully about enthnicity. (So we had the strange situation that the promoters of language-ethnicity on Wikipedia like him for this topic, but not for his speciality topic.) So that's part of the background there. Concerning your edits I have a preference for plain English, and think jargon should be used when it adds meaning (eg endonym), but that's a minor point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here really. North Germanic culture is regulary discussed as a single culture both during the Viking Age and in modern times, in spite of the fact that it even during the Viking Age there was variation. Likewise the Germanic culture of the Migration age had differences between the tribes and similarities. I don't think that taking sides by insisting on a splitter approach will move this article in a direction that will warrant a removal of the POV tag.--Berig (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig I can't really follow what you saying. What precisely are you calling splitting here? (Give a quote.) Which sources are you citing? Which edits are you proposing? I am not sure if it helps clarify but I think it is important to point out this is not a linguistics article, and there is pretty much universal agreement among academics from all fields over the last 30 or so years that languages do not define peoples (ethnicities). The fact that Wikipedia has a lot of people interested in linguistics who still see that as a "fine point" (unlike the scholars, who see it as an important point) is one reason for the extra explanation needed in the lead. The was a lot of voting and debate and this is NOT primarily an article about Germanic languages. We have other articles for that (several). If we need to shorten the lead and simplify the article, then one way to do it is to reduce discussion of linguistics. That does not sound like a good idea in practice though, because it will lead to misunderstandings and we could return to an unstable article spiral. The reason the lead is long is (I fully agree with those who've said it) a sign that the article has had problems. Ignoring those problems is not a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I probably missunderstood you. It is about this: "have continued to insist upon writing as if there was a unified culture, and in practice such ideas are very popular on Wikipedia and among people likely to use it, and have had a massive effect on the history of this article." The article needs to strike a balance between lumping together the Germanic tribes as a single concept with common cultural traits, and splitting the Germanic tribes into their individual parts.--Berig (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with that of course. I'm a bit worried I've posted too many words already tonight. There is a danger indeed that we are just talking past each other and basically already agree on everything. Both of us are generalizing about broad concerns. Hopefully my other posts help for now, but I'll give you time to process them and see if you see any problems with my fears. It is probably fair to say that I'm not proposing much except a bit of care concerning the boundaries between articles on the one hand; or on the other hand simplifying this article in such a way that we invite new misunderstandings from people about what this one is currently about. The big lead is kind of doing a DAB job, if you see what I mean. This one is currently about a historical ethnic group, but secondarily it explains the concept which is impossible to separate from any discussion of that ethnic group.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we basically agree, but the lead section needs to comply to Wikipedia's manual of style and "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic".--Berig (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But sometimes it is more difficult. In any case, the current lead is there to be improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite and NPOV

I am impressed at the work that has been put in to de-construct the concept of Germanic peoples. As you can see in my edit history and on my user page, my primary interest on WP is writing about old Germanic matters. However, even having a Ph.D. in linguistics doesn't stop me from feeling confused by the intro, and Walter Goffart seems to be raised to the foremost expert on the matter. Deconstructivism is an ideology, not a representation of WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Concur wholeheartedly. Derrida would be proud. --Obenritter (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

We also have problematic paragraphs about the Jastorf culture that I have referred to further up on this talkpage. It is intended to push a single urheimat theory at the expense of another less controversial one, and it violates at least two WP policies, possibly three.--Berig (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Just took a look at this article after a long while and yikes! What is going on with this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to make clear proposals, and bring your sources. The remarks above seem to be about different issues, but in any case none of them is yet making any specific point or connecting to any source, with the arguable exception of Berig's remark that refers to another thread. Some quick notes:

Goffart is mentioned, but this is also what we find in the all the best-known sources, including those which disagree with him. This is the controversy going on in recent times and we have to report it.
Goffart is described as controversial, but the more important introduction on the topics which seem to annoy people has been Pohl who is certainly quite uncontroversially one of the most important writers in recent times on these topics. He takes Goffart quite seriously, though there is heated dispute between them and their schools. During editing of this and other articles I noticed that there were big efforts made to censor him out, including arguments that German language works should not be cited, and even efforts to re-write his article here on Wikipedia.
In terms of making the opening easier to read, we've all made efforts and personally I don't see the problem. But more importantly, we may not change what Wikipedia says based on the idea that reality (as reported by published experts) is too hard to understand. The topic is a bit complex. We have to deal with that. The fact is that in academic works the concept of Germanic peoples is something of a philosophical controversy, and not an area of solid consensus at all.
It is ridiculous to say the lead is now based on any ideology, nor indeed is it based on deconstructivism. What is apparently being described under those terms is that this is a complex topic with a history which has caused many misunderstandings and debates, even about how to use the key terms. On the other hand, it is not controversial to say that published experts all agree that this is a topic where ideologies have played a major role, and past versions of this article were horrible, and unable to settle into a stable version, precisely because of known old ideologies. Any version of this article which ignores that would be unacceptable according to Wikipedia core content policies.
Berig please name the 2 or 3 policies, perhaps in the other thread if that is more appropriate. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ADDED. I should have noted: the two tags placed now at the top of the article should not remain unless there is a clear definition of the NPOV concern, based on reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who takes a passing glance at the Frankenstein's Monster lead—whether an individual with an extensive background in ancient Germanic studies/Germanic philology or someone totally new to the subject—will immediately sense that there's a problem here. It's bloated, meandering, and makes little sense. In the vast majority of cases, in modern English Germanic just means 'speaker of Germanic language', which is much easier to define in the past and much more vague in the present. This is not nearly as complicated or controversial as the lead would lead one to believe. It's a real mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

People on this talk page have been through this many times over many years. And we've seen various efforts to get it right. For example, let's try this one again: Can you find a source where Jamaicans are referred to as Germanic peoples? As you say, in your words, the definition of this term "is vague in the present". Is that clear and easy though? Our article has to explain that this is a term which the definition of is controversial in at least some contexts, which is not simple at all. The article certainly does not hide the fact that the term is sometimes used to refer to a language group identified in modern times. That is also not simple though is it? The argument we went through was that it referred to Roman era peoples, but as academics keep rightly pointing out we have very little knowledge of Roman era languages of Germani. We only know the end result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There's really no talking out of the mess the current article is. It's a disaster: Just look at that lead, yeesh. It just needs to be shredded and rewritten from scratch. It looks like someone got ahold of some Goffart and just went wild. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I apologize, if you take it personally. I thought it was the result of many edits by different people. First of all, the article should summarize the content of the article, not read like a long essay on the problems of interpreting classical sources, and it should not highlight a controversial scholar, who belongs in a section with a discussion the problems surrounding his ideas. I think the intro is not WP:NPOV because it seems to want to make the reader doubt that the topic of the article even existed. Where are the problems surrounding the identification of the Jastorf culture? Mallory talks about it with "if". There are many problems here. Where is the discussion of the problems surrounding phonetic changes and their spread? Why is the theory that Grimm's law happened in the Jastorf culture made to look like an entirely new language suddenly appeared - language change does not work that way. It is like claiming that the vowels shifts in California have created a new language separate from Standard American. As a linguist the article makes me worried. Also that it ignores the Nordic Bronze Age as the urheimat in the form of pre-Proto-Germanic is WP:UNDUE, and it makes me worry about what else is missing. I will make a case study here and have a look at the sources you refer to in connection the Finno-Ugric loan words. However, it will take some time. Again, I am sorry if you feel personally pointed out about the problems in the article.--Berig (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, echoing Berig's comments, I don't know the edit history of this article and my comments are not directed at anyone in particular, just the state of the article. I was passing by and saw the comments here and then looked the article over. But the reality is that there's not really much controversy surrounding these terms and the identity of the ancient Germanic peoples and they are far better attested than most peoples of the era. We can say far, far more about Proto-Germanic culture than we can most Indo-European branches and much of it is on very solid footing. There are Germanic studies departments across the West, there have been for a long time, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. Those departments (or programs, where the case may be) have produced a huge amount of scholars active in Germanic philology today and interest in this topic only seems to be increasing. I myself received a degree or two from some such departments, as you can probably tell from my contributions to the project. Germanic linguistics, for example, is about as rock-solid a field as you're going to find in philology, for example, and there's nothing remotely controversial about it today, despite what this article currently implies. Goffart is very far out of step with mainstream academia here—there's really no reason to be showcasing his theories as the article currently does. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to clarify a bit.

First, yes, the lead is the result of the efforts of many people. This is true especially of the lead. The languages discussions have also been strongly influenced by User:Alcaios. I guess I feel responsible for the overall tone and structure to some extent, because of the way things went so far. But don't get me wrong. I don't own this article, and wouldn't want to. :)
Secondly, don't get me wrong about the fact that the article could be better. I just don't want us to get trapped in a loop again, so I'm suggesting a bit of forward thinking before big changes. I would count myself as someone who would prefer the lead to be shorter. It is long because it is a compromise, but that's the point I want to make. So the most important request I have for everyone is to try to make constructive proposals based on sources, and remembering to keep the article within one topic, and not to try to drag it to the discipline they are most into. Also, honestly, the current lead is well-sourced, which is also a result of the difficult history.
Thirdly, an important point. I can see the interest of both of you is the linguistics aspect. Please remember that after the various votes etc, this article is NOT the article about Germanic languages or even the one about Germanic speaking peoples, and not even the one about Early Germanic culture. This is the article about the classical-era Germani. Language-related disciplines contribute to that topic, but don't "rule" it alone, and Goffart and Pohl are not deeply in the linguistics debate. Much of our knowledge of these peoples comes from ancient texts. Many of his positions in that area are not as controversial as you might think. But I think you are misunderstanding because of your linguistics perspective. No one in academia is questioning the existence of Proto Germanic. The question is whether the people the Romans called Germani spoke a single identifiable language and considered themselves a single people. See the difference? Linguists tend to simply define the Germani as Germanic speakers, but that is NOT how everyone else thinks.
The Nordic Bronze age has been discussed and I think in previous versions. I don't think anyone is strongly against mentioning it at all. See my note to the other thread. I guess this is at least one identifiable topic we can separate out. But remember there are other articles, so we need to make compromises and summaries here sometimes.
Another separable point I can see. Berig can you perhaps explain which sentence is implying that Grimm's law created a new language? Can you see an easy way to fix it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the last point, it defines Proto-Germanic as occupying "an area corresponding to the extent of the Jastorf culture", which makes me wonder what was spoken in Southern Scandinavia where the least controversial view puts the ancestor of PG? A different language? That is what we have to infer. AFAIK, the Jastorf theory is based on suggesting it as the place where Grimm's law started. Then we have "One piece of evidence is the presence of early Germanic loanwords in the Finnic and Sámi languages". How can PG influence Finno-Ugric if it restricted to northern Germany? There was apparently an unknown language occupying Scandinavia in between. It is very confusing, and I have written a Ph.D. thesis in linguistics and Bachelor thesis in archaeology.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So you keep saying, and that is good. But this is not a linguistics article as such. OTOH Tacitus, who linguists are just as reliant on as everyone else here, implied that Suevian languages (he used a plural) were being spoken around the Baltic sea by his time. He might not have had perfect sources, but he is the only source we have. Of all the languages spoken by Germanic peoples in this period, academics are most confident that these Suevian ones in the Jastorf area were Germanic in the linguistic sense. This is based on classical authors. Grimm's law was presumably quite a lot earlier, right? One way or another, the innovations spread out from one original area, in normal circumstances, correct? So the question concerning Proto Germanic (which is not the topic of this article, being a much earlier thing than Tacitus, but is clearly your big concern here) is which area, and the concern you raise does not help you narrow this down. In any case, unless you've published something we can cite there is no point arguing your own personal position here. On Wikipedia we summarize what the published experts have said. The present article has sources, and I think almost every sentence was debated, especially on topics like this. (On Wikipedia it seems everyone is a linguist. :) ) To repeat: I am not against change of course, but I am a bit concerned to make sure we avoid quick angry edits that put us back to the death spiral versions of the past, because all editors were essentially working on different topics. Can you please try to home in on actual edit proposal, discussions of sources, and so on? Another concern I have is that your interest seems to be in topics which are not actually the primary topic of this article, but rather the topic of other articles. Whatever you think about that, it might be best to improve the other articles first to see how to best dovetail with this one, and then come back here? ...(Because everyone seems to agree this one is on the big and complex side because of how much it has to try to cover?)

Worth noting: This article is the central one in a group, so it discusses the inter-linked concept more than the siblings, and that explains the lead's complexity and thoughtful tone. It is taking the heat, with the hope that sibling articles are now easier to improve. This one is playing that role precisely because everyone with interests in different fields touching on this topic historically tended to try to make this article move towards their different disciplines of interest. It is where people tend to come first. On the other hand, now the guiding idea which was agreed is that it is primarily about an historical ethnic group known to classical authors. This is logically the home base because the other Germanic concepts evolved from that one. Does that make sense to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So, TLDR, I am still thinking that no-one has defined a clear POV balance problem, or concrete rewriting directions yet. Or at least I can't connect any comments so far to the lead we have.

I can see that the lead discusses the controversies and different approachs to definition of the term, so maybe that is being called "decontructivism" (presumably with tongue in cheek). But in reality definition controveries in leads are standard Wikipedia policy.
Comments about there being no problem, because linguists agree about Germanic languages are not really relevant to this article's lead and overall structure, and can better be handled separately?
Concerning Goffart's frequently cited argument that the Germanic-speaking peoples were not one ethnic group in Roman times, it is surely enough to see that for many people this is so obvious it does not need saying, while others see it as shocking. The fact that the small number of academics arguing strongly against Goffart in print, mainly agree with him on the actual facts, but explicitly connect to pro-Brexit, anti-immigration (from Eastern Europe), and Eurosceptic political positions, also shows us that if there is ideology involved, it is not one-way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, they were not *one* ethnic groups, and they were highly fractured being "united" by similarities of culture, traditions and language. In my eyes, the intro looks like an argumentative essay trying to deconstruct the concept to convince the reader that the very concept is very dubious. Be that as it may. Different editors burn for different things, and many burn to make things clear to the general reader and dispell perceived myths. However, this article's lead section needs to comply to Wikipedia's manual of style and "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Also, I am too busy at the moment helping antother editor build content to dive directly into fact issues right away. In due time, I will return and verify references. Too often, references says something different from what they are referenced to say, and in some cases even the opposite. Moreover, saying that language is not relevant for ethnicity is a generalization. I understand that it seems an obvious fact to English-speakers but to many people in the world language is one of the defining and uniting traits of ethnicity.--Berig (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two obvious key problems with the lead according to best practice (not really policy as such) and these are the length/complexity and the number of footnotes (too high). The situation is a typical situation for an article that has had controversies and dab problems. As far as I know, no one loves this situation. But at least this version has been stable for a while. So there is an agreement about where we are for now. It is not always possible or reasonable to demand that a difficult article achieves best practice on these points, but it is always worth looking for ideas. Also, there is no rush. What's more, don't forget everyone that if you see any simple ways of making the English easier etc, this needs no discussion on talk normally. On the other hand, don't forget this is not the article about Germanic languages, but many people hitting this article will need that explained somehow. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

One more thing. Anyone wanting to think about the big picture here should probably look at this article as part of a group. Getting this one stable was step 1, but there are a whole bunch of related articles (Germanic languages, Proto Germanic, Germanic speaking peoples, Early Germanic culture and so on). If those articles become better I think it will be easier to simplify this one by linking to others, and also easier to improve specialist sections here, by having the detailed discussions on specialized articles first, and then summarizing the results here? Hope that makes some sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Berig: I am reading this again because of all the personal attacks which this thread seems to have been a prelude to. I think I should have answered you with more explanation.

First, not counting the complaints about the lead, concerning languages, I think you are complaining about work done by Alcaios. (Please don't go spreading aspersions about him like you did with me.) It is funny really because on Goths you also attacked me, but the work was by Krakkos.
Second, "I understand that it seems an obvious fact to English-speakers but to many people in the world language is one of the defining and uniting traits of ethnicity" apart from the fact that this is erm, potentially debatable in both content and tone, in this case we are talking about language FAMILIES. Ethnic groups using languages in the same FAMILY might share similarities because of their shared prehistory, but... According to our published academic sources classical Germanic languages were probably not mutually intelligible dialects, by the time Germani and Goths were contrasted by the Persians. (The only academic source found so far who disagrees is Liebeschuetz who is not a linguist, and his wording has ifs and buts.)
I don't edit this article much but concerning the length of the lead, I'll take some responsibility. The lead is long because it is covering for obvious controveries which ruined the article in the past, by mentioning ALL positions. That was the way forward when I made big efforts to bring it out of a much worse and much less stable state. I've always promoted the idea that the article and lead should one day be shortened by removing some material such as about languages, and improving related articles. (Languages did NOT define ethnicity for Romans and Greeks by the way, and they never mentioned a Germanic language, ever.) I do not have any proposal on how to do that for now, which would not be controversial. I can only say that is the idea of one WP editor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

As an update on these two tags, the discussion we've subsequently had has not yet identified any clear NPOV concern, and concerning "quality", the main concern seems to be the length and complexity of the lead rather than the whole article? So as far as I can see the templates are not justified. I am also yet to see anyone define the 2 or 3 "policies" which are supposedly being violated by this article, and frankly I don't believe that is correct. Having a slightly longer than desirable lead, on an article where editors have historically misunderstood the dab situation, is not really against any "policy". Am I missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If I was a reader arriving to learn what the Germanic peoples are, I would surely be surprised to see an intro that looks like a problematizing article in itself, and why promote Goffart of all people? If he really belongs in the intro it must be explained with reliable sources in what way he merits such a prominent position.--Berig (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

Berig, Goffart is a highly cited reliable source, and the point he is being cited for is not super controversial. Other academics could be cited for it, but he is the most well-known. Secondly, adding a source about a source about a source would make the lead longer not shorter. I must be missing something? Indeed this type of "more justification is needed in the lead" reasoning is exactly why Goffart is in in the lead in the first place - or more generally why it is difficult to make this particular lead nice and short. If we could base the lead purely on the Toronto and Vienna schools, for example, the lead would of course be simpler and we could push all such discussion to the body (where the main discussion is). The problem is there is still some debate in academia, and in effect there are different and changing definitions about how to use the term. This is real. If we hide that, we lie.

BUT, more importantly, you are totally avoiding the issue here. WHAT is the justification for the two tags we have now? These can't be justified by the remark you just made?? They are not the right tags for saying "the lead is too long" and it is also not the right tag for "the lead needs to be longer"??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, in almost exact parallel to this discussion please consider the remark by Dimadick below concerning the "sixth paragraph" (which is what introduces the bit you say promotes Goffart) [1]. It is a fairly normal practical problem really: what might seem obvious to some is not obvious to others. If all readers and editors agreed with Dimadick that it is obvious that there is a difference between "Germanic speaking peoples" (even restricting to those in the classical period) and the classical ethnonym "Germani", then we would not need to discuss Goffart in the lead. To put it another way, the easiest way to simplify the lead is to basically take Goffart's and Pohl's approach for the definition of this article and handle the ethnic designation discussed by classical authors ONLY. (Remember that Germanic speaking peoples have their own articles, as do Goths, Suevi etc.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What we still don't have:

No definition of any POV being artificially repressed or promoted.
No definition of any major quality problem which would require the whole article to be tagged. (All articles can be improved, but they don't all get this type of tag. That's not what these tags are for.)

The lead is currently long, and has a few footnotes, in order to avoid POV and dab problems. That is not breaking any "policy". It is however shorter and has less footnotes than past unstable versions of this lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Berig, Obenritter and Bloodofox that this article has issues. This includes reliability (too many unsourced statements and too much use of primary sources), readability (poor prose and structure), weight (too little coverage of archaeology and culture) and neutrality (excessive reliance of medievalist "skeptics", particularly Goffart). It could be of interest to editors active here that the closely related article Goths may be on the brink of being rewritten in the style of Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Well you did not place the tags Krakkos, and I don't think any of those concerns would justify those specific tags either? And I do not see much of a common thread connecting any of the people posting here in this talk page section. While others think the article is too long and complex, your tendency has always been to make this article longer and more complex, and that still seems to be what you want? Looking at YOUR list of complaints:

If you have concerns about too little sourcing, you can raise those issues in numerous ways including in-line or section tagging, or starting a discussion here. Perhaps you even know a good source, you can add. But historically there has been disagreement between you and other editors about over-footnoting in leads, (whereas most of the above posters seem to want a simpler lead), and you've also frequently been controversial for citing controversial sentences try to add-up multiple problematic sources that don't say the right thing (i.e. WP:SYNTH).
I think using primary sources to help accurately and neutrally illustrate classical and medieval topics is the gold standard. It allows readers and future editors to understand what our modern scholars are talking about, and is a very common approach for these periods where discussions about phrases in old texts are often critical. Diverting attention away from them tends to be done for POV reasons, in order to obfuscate the debates between our modern scholars - trying to make some of them look stupid or more controversial than they really are.
Speaking of which, the closest thing to a unifying thread here is that it is no secret that there are lots of Wikipedians who think they know more than Goffart concerning the topic which he is well-cited for. Luckily, that's not such a big issue here because this article does NOT rely on him.
I think your misrepresentation of the discussions on Goths is incredibly unhelpful. The situation there is that you recently made a sudden wave of edits to revert a consensus version which was arrived at between you and other editors over a very long period. You are arguing AGAINST reverting, and FOR change. [ADDED. You have correctly described yourself as the main author of the article BEFORE the recent burst of controversial changes as well. I am certainly not a major editor on the article.[2]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)]

Back to the subject. Tags should be used properly. It should be clear what they are referring to, not just a vague whinge. How can anyone address them if it is not clear what situation would make the tag poster happy? Let's be reasonable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)