Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 17 September 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic peoples article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic peoples article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. [REDACTED] Etymology [REDACTED] The etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology Template:Vital article

conflation of franks with visigoths?

I made a change (838551115) which was reverted (838551115) and which I have again reverted and this is my attempt to prevent it from being reverted again. apologies if I am not doing the bureaucracy part of this correctly, I typically just make drive-by corrections

the previous version of the line in question was "Against Germanic tradition, each of the four sons of Clovis attempted to secure power in different cities but their inability to prove themselves on the battlefield and intrigue against one another led the Visigoths back to electing their leadership." which seems to confuse two different subjects with each other. the source (bauer 178-179, https://books.google.com/books?id=1u2oP2RihIgC&q=amalaric#v=snippet&q=amalaric&f=false) briefly discusses the frankish succession and resulting civil war among clovis's four sons, then _by way of example_ tells of amalaric, who became king of the _visigoths_, some two decades later, before being killed for incompetence and replaced by an elected warleader. somehow these two different events, tribes, and individuals were merged into the one sentence, which I have removed

Do modern "germanic people" exist?

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

Before 2015 all so called "germanic" ethnic group articles said "nation and ethnic group" instead of "germanic ethnic group" which was added without greater discussion. germanic is not neutral because it is based on old obsolete racial theories, and is really more an ancient peoples, none of the modern people call themselves "germanic" This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. 83.185.82.92 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Please explain more clearly what you are talking about, and what you are proposing. I suggest posting links to the exact types of texts you think you need to be changed, and giving exact proposals for how you want to change them. If this is about other articles then probably the discussions needs to be elsewhere. (Potentially you can start here, but editors of other articles affected might want a new discussion.) Coming to the subject matter generally, I think that there has indeed not been any germanic ethnic group or nation, self-identified or identified by contemporaries, for at least about 1500 years. But before then it starts to become at least debatable. In my mind it is probably better to think of it as an ethnic designation given to people from a specific region of Europe by people who were not themselves from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

i propose all ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" to be changed back to "x are a nation and ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.82.92 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

But are you even including tribes from the classical period? Please give an example of such an article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No only modern ethnic groups, for example Swedes 83.185.80.154 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This could get complicated. In that case the term being used is "North Germanic". This is not exactly the same as Germanic although it might give similar concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is complicated (see WP:ETHNO for starters, though even that long essay doesn't cover all of this). It's actually more convoluted than this thread and that essay combined will suggest, in that "Germanic" is a language family, and we're already running into problems (e.g. at Talk:Swedish people of confusion between linguistic classifications like "Northern Germanic" and ethno-cultural ones. There's also the modern genetics evidence showing that in many places the original population in an area really didn't change much but were simply subjected to a Germanicizing cultural layer, not regional genocides, so notions of ethnicity with any specific ties to ancestry and heritable-trait concepts, is basically pseudo-science at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I only know of North Germanic being a language family though this could be a result of my ignorance. And on the other hand I suppose one could argue that the term is closely connected to "Norse" which perhaps has a better case for being an ethnic name?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• The nominator has a point (as noted above, it's actually even more complicated than this because of the use of "Germanic" as a linguistic classification, and genetics tell a different story than what was assumed even a generation ago). But the nom's exact proposal is probably not viable because of the confusing array of meanings that the word nation has – most often, in everyday English, it's used synonymously with country or more specifically with nation-state, though this is arguably a mis-usage. (A linguist wouldn't call it one, per linguistic description versus prescriptive grammar.) The more anthropological sense is uncommon in the minds of our readers. And it will vary a lot regionally; e.g., many Americans are familiar with it but only in reference to Native American groups, and with an incorrect sense that it's a legal definition established by various treaties and reservations; they aren't much going to understand it applied to European populations. In short, yes, the lead needs work, but not exactly this rewording. Trying to clear up an inclarity with an additional by different inclarity is not an actual improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Curious. Most nationalist movements in Europe have sought to create nation states, either by secession from larger countries, wars of conquest/annexation, or by the assimilation, expulsion, or pure extermination of their numerous ethnic minorities. I have never really heard the idea of a nation equated with the homogenuous nation state. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I was wrong, modern Germanic peoples do exist, not "north germanic peoples" so i many editors pointed a better way going way forward is to change from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• According to the sources used in this article, several modern populations are considered Germanic. The Encyclopedia of European Peoples, which is used extensively in this article, states explicitly that the history of the Germanic peoples stretches from the 2nd millenium BC to the present day. Other reliable sources used in this article, including Native Peoples of the World, Ethnic Groups of Europe and One Europe, Many Nations, designate several modern populations as Germanic, including Dutch people, Flemish people, English people, Frisians, Germans, Norwegians and others. Articles at Misplaced Pages should reflect what is written in reliable, published sources, rather than our own original thoughts. This is one of the core policies of the project. The proposed changes are thus not supported by either our sources nor our policies. Krakkos (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, (a) even if something is sourceable, not all sourceable things need to be in every Misplaced Pages article if they are not relevant and (b) more importantly, we have never found a reliable source as per WP policy which says these things. The one you mention is by a freelance screenwriter and I believe all use of it should be removed from this article. Anyone can publish a book these days and get it on Amazon. There are thousands of books on Amazon which are actually just Misplaced Pages articles, many of which have probably never actually been printed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned four sources in my comment above, all of whom are to be considered reliable as per WP:Source:

• Encyclopedia of European Peoples is written by freelance writer Carl Waldman and published by Infobase Publishing
• Native Peoples of the World is written by Steven L. Danver, a historian at Walden University and a recipient of the Outstanding Academic Title, and published by Routledge.
• One Europe, Many Nations is written by James B. Minahan, a writer of numerous published works on ethnicity, and published by Greenwood Publishing Group
• Ethnic Groups of Europe is edited by Jeffrey Cole, who is Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Anthropology at Connecticut College. He is considered an an expert on migration, race and ethnicity in Europe and was formerly President (2012-2014) of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe of the American Anthropological Association. His book is the result of a collaborative effort by more than 80 top scholars in the field and published by ABC-CLIO. The parts in that book on modern Germanic peoples are attributed to Jeroen Dewulf, who is Professor of German Studies and Director of the Institute of European Studies at University of California, Berkeley. Krakkos (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed the first. The second and third only seem to mention Germanic ancient tribes and Germanic languages. The fourth one mainly sticks to that, but maybe copies old versions of Misplaced Pages in a few places concerning modern Dutch and Flemish people. In general the possible sourcing remains very weak indeed, and if we had to argue about making a new article for this subject I think it would be controversial (a couple of side mentions in some unknown books) - which is apparently why it keeps trying to piggy back on this article which is in any case about another subject? And let us not forget the previous RfC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

All four were used in my initial comment to which you responded. The second source (Danver) designates Frisians, Germans and Norwegians as Germanic peoples. The third source (Minahan) designates Dutch people, Flemish people, English people, Frisians and plenty of others as Germanic peoples. These are not "ancient tribes". Please examine sources more carefully before attempting to tell us what they contain. Krakkos (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies then, but apparently google books search did not work as expected. The problem still remains though. First, these are general tertiary sources of no great standing and they do not cite their sources for the supposed research which leads to these writing decisions. I think it is obvious that they probably don't have any. These are simply using the typical simple logic of naming ethnic groups after the modern name of their language family. So these statements are tantamount to saying that they are speakers of a Germanic language. We all know some people equate ethnic group with language group and surely we all know this is not considered uncontroversial. Second, the part you have not commented on is that we have discussed this type of thing over and over and clearly keep coming to a majority position that this article is not about such supposed modern ethnic or linguistic entities. For the Germanic language family we of course have other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

For the above reasons highlighted by @Andrew Lancaster:, it has been agreed that references to modern Germanic people is a specious subject and does not constitute inclusion in this Wiki-article. There is no good reason to keep dragging that into this page.--Obenritter (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically there are two issues of concern, but only one is relevant here: this article has an agreed clear subject matter, and modern nationalisms are of only passing relevance to it. Concerning the other question, whether there is enough sourcing to make an article on modern Germanic peoples, I think there is not. Passing references in very general tertiary sources on their own are not good enough. But that could better be debated elsewhere. I think indeed it keeps coming back to affect this article because it is easier to piggyback on this article. That should however be avoided, as has been agreed several times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but in English it's only used for historical populations like we use "Romans" to mean "people of the ancient Roman Empire", not "people who live in Rome". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually you do here the word Romans being used to refer to people from Rome. Of course in normal speech if you that you need to make the context clear. But that would also be an example of two quite distinct subjects, which should not be covered by one article. In contrast I think I have never ever heard anbyone speak about a modern person being Germanic (as opposed to being a speaker of a Germanic language).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

North Germanic peoples treats the ethnolinguistic group (the group speaking North Germanic languages) throughout ancient, medieval and modern times. There's no reason for this article not to proceed analogically.

If you want to limit the scope of this article, a rename into Ancient Germanic peoples (as suggested by Trigaranus before) is necessary, and overall the best solution. The current situation is simply confusing for the reader. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. The Contemporary World Regional Geography by McGraw-Hill Education gives a clear description of the scope of the topic of this article: "Germanic peoples (3A). A broadly defined group of peoples from northern Europe who began to move south into Germany and other areas of Europe around 500 B.C. Modern Germans, Austrians, Dutch, and the Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes) are the most numerous of today's Germanic peoples." Krakkos (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos, it seems to be a high school level book? Also, it is certainly a tertiary source. We have been here before. Over and over, these lowest quality tertiary sources are the only types of sources found so far which agree with this neo-ethnic BS. No surprises here. These are the level which can be expected to copy from Misplaced Pages. But they are clearly, according to WP content policy, not good sources. Secondly, even if they were we have several RFCs here to agree that if there was such a subject it is not what this article is about. All the Neo-Germanic enthusiast editors (look at the contributions of the people who support these things!!) have a whole bunch of other fringe articles to play with, they just want to infiltrate the one serious article which has infinitely more credibility in terms of WP policy. There is no way that this should be allowed. Why should we keep calling RFCs that keep making the same decision? I am sure there are heaps of websites working on trying to prove there is a Modern Germanic Folk, but not on Misplaced Pages please. This is utter nonsense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Florian there has indeed been a decision, many times, that this article's topic is limited. But it is also true that there is no good sourcing for anything outside those limits. Just saying that in another case there is, which I am not sure about, means nothing about this case. There might today be peoples who are seen as, and see themselves as, Nordic or Scandinavian or whatever. There is no population on earth who commonly and casually walk around calling themselves Germanic. There are fringe groups who say such things, and make Youtube videos, and there also others who think the world is flat. These do not constitute ethnic groups. See the difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As a thought experiment Florian, taking your logic we could equally demand that a new article would be needed called modern Germanic peoples. I am NOT saying this should be done, but please imagine what that article would look like. It would be utter nonsense. ALL these attempts to add this material into a serious article are clearly influenced by the fact that the people proposing it know this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, as usual, you are misrepresenting my sources. Contemporary World Regional Geography is published by McGraw-Hill Higher Education, which publishes textbooks for postsecondary education, i. e., not high school students. It serves as the primary textbook for the teaching of world geography at George Mason University and was produced by Elizabeth Chacko, George W. White, Joseph Dymond and Michael Bradshaw, all scholars in the field. According to WP:TERTIARY, reliable tertiary sources, such as undergraduate-level textbooks, are useful for "providing broad summaries of topics" and "evaluating due weight". When describing Germanic peoples, Contemporary World Regional Geography gives equal weight to ancient, medieval and modern Germanic peoples. Similar assessments are made in a large amount of both secondary and tertiary sources which have been provided above. As Florian noted, your edits are tantamount to claiming that the people of this article have become extinct. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. Your own personal opinions sprinkled with WP:DISCUSSED and WP:GODWIN are not sufficient. Consensus can change. Krakkos (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos, please consider that policy concerning tertiary sources which you cite. It clearly means that we can not use these ones in these cases, because, to repeat once more, while we find a tiny number of non-specialist tertiary sources which mention this pseudo-fact, these are the ONLY sources anyone keeps finding. So you are NOT proposing using them for a broad summary of the literature, you are proposing using them for a fact which can not be sourced in any other way.

You are also not addressing the fact that, to repeat that also, this article would not be about that pseudo-fact even if there were sources for it. The Germanic peoples of classical times are extinct. Those people are dead, and they were not kept in racially pure breeding stockades. They ceased being able to talk to each other. People stopped referring to them as a single population more than 1000 years ago.

Clearly, the reason for wanting to slip this material into this article is because is blindingly obvious that an article about modern germanic peoples which could only cite a few single sentences in non specialist tertiary works will be more obviously sub-standard. This is clearly an attempt to create a new racial/ethnic terminology on Misplaced Pages in the hope that it spreads and becomes more acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, until you have reliable sources there cannot be a discussion involving you here, i mean what would the point of such a discussion be? Everyoneelse: we must follow policy and provide reliable sources!, You: i dont have any other sources other than my personal opinion "i dont like it" remember that it is you making the changes here and therefore must provide reliable sources here, not us but we still do, TONS OF SOURCES which you replace with "i dont like it" Johansweden27 (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Johan, no on Misplaced Pages you do not demand that people find sources for there being no sources for the thing you want to add. The onus for finding sources is upon the people who want to add something which editors doubt has been notably and reliably published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Where does WP:TERTIARY say that "we can not use these ones in these cases"? WP:NNC states: "Content coverage within a given article... is governed by the principle of due weight." WP:TERTIARY in turn states: "Reliable tertiary sources... may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." The tertiary sources provided are therefore, in accordance with policy, very useful to determine a dispute like this. By stating that "this article would not be about that pseudo-fact even if there were sources for it", you admit to ignoring the sources. This is a blatant violation of WP:NOR, one of the core content policies of Misplaced Pages. Your accusation of "pseudo-facts" and claims that Germanic peoples are "extinct" are extraordinary claims, which require extraordinary sources. So far you have not provided a singe source, only resorted to original theories and violations of WP:AGF. Krakkos (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Tertiary explains the limited ways in which such sources can be useful and you are accurately quoting that. But this situation is not one of those situations. We do not have any conflict between secondary and primary sources. We do not have a need to find good summaries for a big complex body of material which we got from better sources. You are trying to use these as the ONLY source. That is clearly NOT what they are to be used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Johansweden27 that we should not be saying "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x", but also with the removal of Krakkos's long sections which have all sorts of problems, beginning in the first words with "Indo-European", which is clearly the wrong link. As always Krakkos fatally assumes language=ethnicity, which is always going to be rejected by modern English-speakers. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

well yes and no, no to "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" and yes to "x are a germanic ethnic group", either the latter or omit the whole sentence completely! if you are interested in the subject i invite you to join our discussion at Talk:Swedes#Germanic_or_North_Germanic like i said there (read why there) lets remove this "north germanic" original reasearch nonsense once and for all! (and replace it simply with "germanic") Johansweden27 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

i also worked out a bold compromise solution, give me your opinion if it works for you Johansweden27 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It was just a mass revert of multiple edits back to nonsense and away from the subject of the article. Please don't edit if you are not even reading what you are reverting back to. I asked you in my previous edit summaries to go through edit by edit and explain your point, because frankly I think you do not even know what you are reverting to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What about the possibility—which has been mentioned here before—of changing this page name and the links to it from Germanic peoples to Ancient Germanic peoples. Like many, I view this constant bickering about modern Germanic peoples as nonconstructive, and potentially detrimental to the content of this page. Discussion about modern Germanic people in a post-twentieth century world risks venturing into unsavory discussions best directed elsewhere. To this end, please consider this change so this incessant squabbling can cease. --Obenritter (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems like an entirely inappropriate proposal. Who are "modern Germanic people"? Do you mean speakers of modern Germanic languages? Have you ever met a person who says they are "Germanic" and did not mean that they speak a Germanic language? What kind of person would that be?

• To repeat, we have not found sufficient sources that "Modern Germanic Peoples" are a valid notable encyclopedic topic. We have a tiny number of non-specialist citations which seem to be using the term in a very passing way to mean speakers of Germanic languages, which is lazy writing because being in the same language group does not equate to an ethnic group. But more importantly we have Wikipedians whose editing implies obsessional interest in trying to divide the modern world up into ancient ethnic groups. For them, those citations, which they went looking for, are just a tool to get their personal opinions published.
• To say the least, your proposal should be the other way around. The classical topic has to be the main one, and it does not matter if there are other classical terms which do have important modern equivalents. There is absolutely no disputing that 99.99999% of all published mentions of Germanic people are purely about a classical ethnic group which ceased to be meaningful more than 1000 years ago.
• Like I already suggested, now please imagine what that Modern Germanic Peoples article is going to look like. I think it is highly likely to be objectionable on the one hand. If you successfully avoid making an ethno-nationalistic fringe article, which should quickly be removed BTW, meaning the "bickering" will only get worse, then the only non-fringe meaning I can think of, which presumably lies behind the tiny number of generalist tertiary sources who use the term, is "Peoples speaking Germanic languages"? But we already have other articles for such topics? Every valid modern Germanic topic has an article already?
• All this is about, is a small number of people with an ethnic obsession trying to piggy back on a real topic to make their fringe material look more respectable on the platform of Misplaced Pages.
• This has all been discussed before and RFCs have been called before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster:i dont like the sources etc etc etc......., well andrew did you not listen to me at all? until you have reliable sources there cannot be a discussion involving you here, i mean what would the point of such a discussion be? Everyoneelse: we must follow policy and provide reliable sources!, You: i dont have any other sources other than my personal opinion "i dont like the sources" remember that it is you making the changes here and therefore must provide reliable sources here, not us but we still do, TONS OF SOURCES which you replace with "i dont like it" thank you for proving my point Johansweden27 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been explaining Misplaced Pages policy to you, and I think honestly I am explaining it correctly. If you think I am personally biased we can have yet another RFC and call in the community, again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Germanic peoples are defined by reliable published sources, not by "persons we have met in our personal life". A large number of specialist secondary sources and reliable tertiary sources have been provided to determine this definition, but you refuse to hear that, insisting that we cannot diverge from your personal definition "even if there were sources for it". If there is indeed "absolutely no disputing that 99.99999% of all published mentions of Germanic people are purely about a classical ethnic group which ceased to be meaningful more than 1000 years ago", then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Your accusation against other editors of having "an ethnic obsession" and using citations as a "tool to get their personal opinions published" are unsubstantiated and thus an assumption of bad faith. Your repeated argument that "this has all been discussed before" ignores WP:CCC, which states that editors may propose changes to the current consensus when "unconsidered arguments or circumstances" are encountered. A large number of previously unconsidered sources are being unearthed in this discussion, and WP:CCC thus clearly applies here. Krakkos (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right. We should find published sources. I mentioned not ever meeting anyone called a Germanic person just to appeal to common sense. It is only additional to the fact that I also never read about such people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Obenritter, i've been thinking along the same lines as well. Such a move would however not be unproblematic, but it could be viable as a last solution. A large amount of interesting sources are however in the process of being unearthed, so i still have faith that the issue can be solved at this article in an entirely peaceful and satisfactory manner. Krakkos (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, in fact there has been a slightly variable "compromise" over a long period in the sense that there is agreement that the main subject is the classical ethnic group, and there should also be discussion of how the subject has a linguistic aspect, what happened to the Germanic people, and what political etc beliefs have been influenced by them, such as Nazism of course. You are both either exaggerating or else actually saying that this past compromise is now something you are going to work against under the stimulus of the new editor. Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, keep in mind my thought experiment as a real practical possibility, and an honest good-faith challenge: Why not make an honest draft of a properly sourced article about Modern Germanic Peoples? Show how it will be properly according to WP core content policies, and show that it will not be covered by existing articles. If you say "no" then I presume this discussion is over, because the work required is only what you have to be able to do under all scenarios.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: If you Sir are insinuating that I am being unreasonable by suggesting changing the page name to Ancient Germanic peoples then you have missed my point entirely. I believe that a modern Germanic peoples page is quite feasible, although I personally would refrain from editing such a page entirely. As one of this page's principle contributors, I am convinced that the content is and has been focused on the Germanic people in a classical as well as a medieval sense and have worked diligently to edit this page to this end. However, the arguments being made by others are not entirely without merit. Some of the recent additions were properly sourced and free from any political agenda. Adding modern references about current ethnographic population groups, however, is not without its risks, so this page would need to be even more carefully monitored so racialist agendas from wackjobs and trolls doesn't detract from the content. Getting more allies to this end makes more sense than fighting tooth and nail against any and every contemporary mention and reference to modern Germanic peoples. Maybe we build a coalition of people willing to protect the page from such nonsense. If it comes down to it, we may all agree that a name change could be a necessary evil as well as the creation of a separate Post-Medieval Germanic peoples page. Hear out the discussions being presented at the very least. While I am fundamentally aligned with you in trying to maintain the page's focus as it currently exists, Misplaced Pages is a joint project.--Obenritter (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Obenritter, we simply cannot ignore that the term Germanic peoples are not obsolete to be used not just outside the antiquity, but recently to those ethnics, nations people, by origin and language who share these roots.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC))

Is that what he said? Whatever, but find a source and explain how it is relevant to this article about classical times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear I do not propose that a Modern German Peoples article is justified, but no matter what everyone's stand point is, if a draft is impossible to write then I don't know what merit anyone is seeing. Concerning the past way we have edited this article, if you agree with that then why are we discussing changing anything? The way I see it, we have a cycle of people adding things about Afrikaners or whatever and then these being removed. This new discussion, the way I understand it, seems to be saying that this should change, and the article should be more about Afrikaners and Luxemburgers? Or not? Please someone explain. I see no valid arguments. Some of the edits which triggered this discussion were for example saying that the classical Germanic peoples were Proto Indo European speakers, so not even just ethno-obsessed but also just plain low quality editing. I am guessing you did not look at the edits of the editors you say have merit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I did not involve myself deep on the edits and the discussion, I just overviewed the case, and I expressed an opinion. Take it like so, I have no problem if ancient Germanic people are treated a bit differently or separate articles would care about Post-Medieval Germanic peoples or modern Germanic peoples, or at least discuss about this issue or atleast present more viewpoints.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC))

Perhaps what many might be missing is that the general nomenclature under which this article is subsumed, is ancient Germanic history and this implies refraining from the modern context. This also provides a little impetus in my mind about changing the title. If @Andrew Lancaster: has proven that this issue was already properly vetted and is protecting the page consequent that decision, then I shall cede to that judgment. What I think his point is after reading this thread in its entirety—is that those who see this issue as so pressing should provide a solution by offering up an outline and content for a page which covers these more modern "peoples." Maybe it needs its own page, but certainly not under the umbrella of ancient Germanic history and culture.--Obenritter (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent evidence has come to light, showing that Johansweden27, who initiated this RfC, is a sock of Freeboy200. Freeboy200 was the initiator of two previous related RfCs here on this talk page. He was blocked shortly afterwards per WP:NOTHERE for "long-term fucking around". I believe it is unwise to base the scope of this article on the outcome of RfCs initiated by an illiterate troll. Krakkos (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of record, here are two useful sources concerned with the definition and scope of the topic of Germanic peoples:

• Definition by Webster's New World College Dictionary (The official dictionary of the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other leading American newspapers ): "Germanic... designating or of a group of N European peoples including the Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, English, etc., or the peoples from whom they are descended."
• The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition contains an article called Teutonic peoples, which gives us a clue of the scope and application of due weight on the topic. It treats Germanic peoples as a contemporary population, but the bulk of the article is concerned with the pre-modern history and culture of these peoples. It also neatly explains the difference between Germanic peoples and Germanic-speaking peoples.

More sources, in particular scholarly secondary sources, will be provided in the near future. Krakkos (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did mention to look at the editing patterns of editors triggering this discussion. LOL. Krakkos, concerning these types of sources, the pattern which I always see is that first they are very brief passing statements, and second they anchor the implication of a modern population to (a) languages and/or (b) classical ethnic groups. (a) and (b) correspond to what we have always tended to agree on as the most notable and published-about uses of the terms, and there are several articles covering all these things already. Without a real body of secondary sources (we don't have notability if we have one source) it is honestly difficult to imagine any Modern Germanic Peoples article (or section) which does not look very borderline in terms of Misplaced Pages policy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that the only "pattern" you permit yourself to see when inspecting sources are bogus patterns that suit your preferred definition and scope of the subject. What constitutes "very brief passing statements" is defined at the part about trivial mentions at WP:GNG, and certainly does not apply to the sources provided here. The article on Teutonic peoples in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is a detailed scholarly review of the subject, in which Germanic peoples as a modern population are introduced in the first defining sentence. The definition in the Webster's New World College Dictionary is short, but right to the point. Whether a mention is trivial or not, is not defined by the length of the source, but the by the weight the subject is given in the source. Looking forward to the creative "patterns" you will discover when inspecting the number of secondary sources which will be introduced shortly. Krakkos (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a "a detailed scholarly review of the subject" in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Here is "The skull and head of a young orang-utan, and of a negro" from the vaunted 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Incredible gall, or ignorance, or both, here. Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Teutonic peoples is attributed to Hector Munro Chadwick, professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of Cambridge and "one of the notable polymaths of Cambridge history". Although he was probably ignorant on how to measure orangutan skulls, he was certainly one the world's leading experts on the topic of Germanic peoples. Please refrain from such red herrings through the argument from fallacy. Krakkos (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a red herring; rather, your reply is an example of misdirection. Please refrain from citing antiquated, outdated scholarship to support your quixotic and doomed-to-fail campaign, or from adding such nonsense to the article. For god's sake, the 1911 edition of the EB is not a reliable source for illuminating the subject, nor is a hundred-and-eight-year-old article from it relevant to a modern understanding of the subject. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: The very first sentence of Chadwick's article is problematic to a modern understanding of the subject. He says, "...the English-speaking inhabitants of the British Isles, the German-speaking inhabitants of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, the Flemish-speaking inhabitants of Belgium, the Scandinavian-speaking inhabitants of Sweden and Norway and practically all the inhabitants of Holland and Denmark. Do I really have to explain that a modern understanding of the subject recognizes that there are now substantial populations of immigrants or their descendants in each of those countries who speak the languages of their respective countries of residence? I've yet to see them mentioned in this discussion. Do you think that the hundreds of thousands, millions of persons of Turkish origin who hold German citizenship but have no "Germanic" ancestry are inconsequential and not relevant to an informed, modern understanding of the subject? Why are they not even considered here? Carlstak (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Webster's New World College Dictionary, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2014, concurs with Chadwick, so this definition has not become outdated. Chadwick is careful to note that peoples of "Celtic nationality" who use "no language but English" (such as the Irish) and immigrant populations to Germanic countries who "have adopted the languages of their neighbours" are not to be considered Germanic. Turkish people are not considered here because they are a Turkic people. I do not believe that "persons of Turkish origin" are "relevant to an informed, modern understanding of the subject" of Germanic peoples. However, if you are aware of reliable sources indicating the contrary, feel free to provide them. Krakkos (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos your own explanation makes it clear that this is an early 20th century racial theory of being Germanic. I think it is very well-known that before WW2 there was a lot of interest in connecting races and languages and classical history as pat of a nationalist program; and that much of that romanticist discussion is now seen as invalid. A professor of Anglo Saxon, for example, would not be considered a highly qualified person in terms of population histories today. The two subjects of how ethnicities and biological populations formed have divided and changed completely, and especially the latter has also been removed from the language and classical departments, so to speak. Why do you continue to write as if we are still in the 19th century?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As you might know, the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic peoples. A distinguished professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of Cambridge is certainly a "qualified person" to provide reliable sources on the subject of Germanic peoples. In addition to this, Munro was an expert on the nationalities of Europe, as outlined in his 1945-book The Nationalities of Europe and the Growth of National Ideologies. There were certainly many early 20th century scholars who proscribed to now discredited racial theories, but Munro was not one of them. This is shown by a review of his book by Otto Wirth in the American Journal of Sociology. If stating that Turkish people are of little importance to an article on Germanic peoples is tantamount to talking like "we are still in the 19th century", then so be it. In any regard, as stated again and again, Webster's New World College Dictionary, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2014, uses the same definition as Munro. As far as i am aware, 2014 was in the 21st century. Krakkos (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not a Luddite Krakkos. I have really followed what is happening with studies of how ethnicities and biological population groups arise. These fields have moved a million miles since the 19th century. When a geneticist jumped too early to declare that there was an Anglo Saxon "Apartheid" it took no time for science to smash that. Those numbers just don't work. I am not talking about only my personal opinion here. Concerning the ethnogenesis of the Anglo Saxons I tend to think Guy Halsall is correct that it originates in the Roman army, with many Germanic soldiers, but not exclusively, and only later did they attract new waves of north German immigrants. I've looked enough at DNA research to feel very confident that the eventual ethnic group created was not in any way shape or form any kind of unmixed, transplanted continental population. In any case, calling that original Anglo Saxon kingdoms "Germanic" is still relatively uncontroversial. Calling the modern English people a Germanic people is very unusual in both casual and scientific circles, and I am quite sure you know I am saying the truth.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change ... crossed into Norticum (Austria) in 113 BCE ... to ... crossed into Noricum (Austria) in 113 BCE ...

see https://en.wikipedia.org/Noricum 83.164.153.226 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Scope of the article

The Tocharians, Illyrians, Thracians and other ancient peoples have disappeared from history, and the introduction to articles on these peoples on Misplaced Pages therefore states who these peoples were. Slavs, Balts, Iranian peoples and others are still around, so the introduction to their Misplaced Pages articles states who these peoples are. According to scholars, Germanic peoples are still around too, but this article treats them as an historical people á la Tocharians, Illyrians and Thracians. Here are some scholarly citations on the time frame of the subject of Germanic peoples:

• Edward Arthur Thompson in Encyclopædia Britannica: "The Germanic, or Teutonic, peoples are a branch of the Indo-Europeans."
• Webster's New World Dictionary: "Germanic... a group of N European peoples including the Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, English, etc., or the peoples from whom they are descended."
• Malcolm Pasley & Jethro Bithell: "In German we have the following terms at our disposal: Germanisch and Germanen ; Deutsch and Deutsche. It is not easy to find convenient equivalents in English for these terms. Deutsch and Deutsche are easily rendered as 'German' and 'Germans' and Germanisch as 'Germanic', but Germanen presents problems, since it lacks a precise single-word equivalent in English. It is a collective term referring to the peoples who speak the modern Germanic languages, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, English, Frisians, Dutch and Germans, and to the ancestors of these peoples. 'Germanic', too, is a collective term signifying the older and the modern languages of these peoples and the languages of other Germanic peoples who have vanished from history."
• Francis Owen: "Only towards the end of the main phase of the Migrations the urban life of the Roman Empire begin to exercise any marked influence on the Germanic peoples. From that time on they began to acquire a knowledge of foreign cultures, the cultures of the Mediterranean and Christianity, From that time on they ceased to be purely "Germanic" and began the long process which has not yet been completed, of becoming European."
• William Witherle Lawrence: "The usual subdivisions are: North-Germanic, comprising the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders; West- Germanic, mainly English (Anglo-Saxon), Dutch, and German; East-Germanic, Goths, Vandals, and Burgundians."]
• John Duncan Spaeth: "The main divisions of Germanic are: 1. East Germanic, including the Goths, both Ostrogoths and Visigoths. 2. North Germanic, including the Scandinavians, Danes, Icelanders, Swedes, "Norsemen." 3. West Germanic."
• Tomasz Wicherkiewicz: "The Germanic still include: Englishmen, Dutchmen, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Saxons. Therefore, as Poles, Russians, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians belong to the Slavic ."
• Ioan-Aurel Pop: "ontemporary Europe is made up of three large groups of peoples, divided on the criteria of their origin and linguistic affiliation. They are the following: the Romanic or neo-Latin peoples (Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Romanians, etc.), the Germanic peoples (Germans proper, English, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Icelanders, etc.), and the Slavic peoples (Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, etc.)."
• Nicoline van der Sijs: "Dutch quite often refers to German (because of the similarity in sound between Dutch and Deutsch) and sometimes even Scandinavians and other Germanic people."
• Jeroen Dewulf (Edited by Jeffrey Cole): "The Dutch (in Dutch: Nederlanders) are a Germanic people living in the Netherlands."
• Jeroen Dewulf (Edited by Jeffrey Cole): "The Flemish (Dutch: Vlamingen), also called Flemings, are a Germanic people living in Belgium."
• Chambers's Encyclopaedia: "The Teutonic peoples, as they exist at the present day, are divided into two principal branches: (1) Scandinavian, embracing Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders; and (2) West Germanic, which includes, besides the German-speaking inhabitants of Germany proper (see Germany) and Switzerland (q. v.), also the population of the Netherlands (the Dutch), the Flemings of Belgium, and the descendants of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in Great Britain, together with their offspring in North America, Australia, and other British colonies— the English- speaking peoples of the world."
• The New International Encyclopedia: "People of the Scandinavian group of the Teutonic stock, consisting of the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and Icelanders."
• John Paul Goode: "The Germanic peoples are the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Germans, Dutch, English and the northern Swiss and Austrians."
• Edwin A. Grosvenor: "The Scandinavians, or the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, Teutonic peoples, are so intimately related..."
• Philip van Ness Myers: "The Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes represent the Scandinavian branch of the Teutonic family."

During the last couple of years, a number of IPs have launched a series of RfCs on this talk page, arguing in favor of purging this article of references to Germanic peoples of the present day. It has later been revealed that the initiator of these RfCs was the sockpuppeteer Freeboy200. The WP:DISCUSSED argument has since been applied with references to Freeboy200's RfCs to remove quality sources on Germanic peoples from this article. No reliable sources have been provided for the WP:REDFLAG claim that Germanic peoples have disappeared. As per WP:NOR, original research is forbidden on Misplaced Pages, with or without consensus. As the claim of disappearance remains unsourced and contradicts a number of quality sources, it should be contested. Krakkos (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Carlstak - You have again reverted my insertion of Edward Arthur Thompson's definition of Germanic peoples. Your rationale in confusing:

• You dismiss a source by Edward Arthur Thompson from 1983 as "outdated" and then insert a source by Herwig Wolfram from 1988.
• You say that Germanic peoples do not exist anymore because Encyclopædia Britannica Online speaks of Germanic peoples "exclusively in past tense". This is the argument from silence. Besides, the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article has no credited author, and is therefore grossly inferior in reliability to the earlier article credited to Edward Arthur Thompson, who was a prominent scholar on the subject.
• You cite alternatively page 12 from Wolfram's History of the Goths (1988) and The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples (1997) for your claim that "Germanic peoples no longer exist". I have examined page 12 of both books, and they mention nothing of that sort.

• Page 12 of History of the Goths (1988)
• Page 12 of The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples (1997)

As it stands now, the first sentence of the lead is thorough original research, not backed by any of the two sources cited. Krakkos (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is all a bit nonsensical, surely?

• It is insulting and obviously dishonest to imply that opposition to your modern Germanic peoples insertions has come only from a few IPS!
• Concerning article scope, our sources would not need to constrict what editing decisions we make here. (If there was a big difference anyway, which there is not. They all focus on ancient peoples.)
• The sentence you pick out of Edward Arthur Thompson from 1983, is (1) a tertiary source, so not a strong source at all for this and (2) clearly twisted completely out of context because the very title of the article where this sentence comes from is "Germans, Ancient".
• The other sources you have cited previously and now on this talk page are obviously not suitable for all the various reasons which have been discussed many times: too old, tertiary, clearly intended to be mainly about languages and/or ancient peoples, passing remarks twisted out of context, etc.
• Obviously when you only have one source cited (Thompson) for the "modern" Germanic peoples, but he only mentions ancient ones, and all good sources also treat them as ancient, as does the rest of our article, then it is obviously sophistic in the extreme to say that people are using an argument from silence. WP policy says the onus is on you, as the proponent of an un-sourced assertion, to find a source which positively and clearly asserts something notable and worth an article. You keep failing to do this. You have created no new consensus.
• In any case this article is not about modern Germanic peoples so why call only the first sentence OR? I think the reason is clear: you know a separate article for supposedly real modern Germanic peoples (unless it was about language groups) could never pass WP rules, and so you are piggy backing this fringe material into a real article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Replying point by point:

• 1- The initiator of the RfCs which have resulted in the "consensus" you're referring to was Freeboy200.
• 2 - Our editing decisions must always be constricted by sources as per WP:COPO.
• 3 - Edward Arthur Thompson was a leading expert on Germanic peoples and his article is published by a reliable publisher, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. He is a WP:BESTSOURCE on the subject.
• 4 - The vast majority of the sources presented above have never been discussed on this talk page before. They are both old and new, secondary and tertiary, and attributed to both historians, linguists, anthropologists and geographers. The sources are intended to be about Germanic peoples, which is the topic of this article.
• 5 - My additions to the lead are sourced. Yours are not. You're the one making un-sourced assertions and it is rather your responsibility per WP policy to find a source "positively and clearly" stating that Germanic peoples do not exist anymore.
• 6 - Since when did Edward Arthur Thompson, Francis Owen, Jeroen Dewulf and the other sources mentioned above become "fringe material"? Krakkos (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos, this endless crusade of yours has long been tiresome, and you keep trying to weasel your viewpoint into the article without consensus. You say that the Encyclopædia Britannica Online article is not reliable, but as you very well know, it is published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., which you inconsistently say is reliable. Andrew Lancaster has said most of what I would say, but you keep citing Edward Arthur Thompson as if he were the last word on the subject and he is not. Of course you conveniently ignore my edit summary that said, "...even in 1990, most historians writing in German understood that the Germanic peoples no longer exist...". I cited Herwig Wolfram's book because I wanted to show that even thirty years ago, not so long after Edward Arthur Thompson's book was published, that authoritative German-speaking historians understood that the Germanic peoples do not exist in modern times; and I would assert that Wolfram, who writes in German (his book was translated), not English, is a superior source to Thompson. Carlstak (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I never said that the article on Germanic peoples at Encyclopædia Britannica Online was "not reliable". What i did say is that that article has no credible authors. Its only credited authors are "content analysts" Gloria Lotha and Grace Young. The 1983 article in Britannica is credited to Edward Arthur Thompson, a renowned scholar on Germanic peoples. His article is therefore more reliable, as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source. Regardless of its reliability, the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article nevertheless does not state that Germanic peoples no longer exist.
• I have not ignored your edit summary. I have examined page 12 of The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples (1997). Wolfram says that Germanic peoples and Germans are to be distinguished from each other. That does not equate to the claim that "Germanic peoples no longer exist".

Krakkos (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You are again ignoring that the onus is on you to show the existence of a continuing German-ic nationality. Where is any good strong source which clearly says that they do still exist, clearly saying that they are not a language-speaking group in modern contexts? (The language group also has other articles.) The answer is that there is none. Thompson certainly does not do this, as already pointed out. You are simply twisting a single sentence out of context. His title even says "Ancient". Concerning the first sentence, are you saying there is no such thing as the ancient Germanic peoples, or what is your point? The article is full of sourcing for their existence and notability in reliable sources. Surely this is not controversial? None of these sources describe a modern Germanic nation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have never claimed that there is a "Germanic nationality" or "Germanic nation". Germanic is a collective term for various tribes/ethnicities/nationalities that have existed from ancient times up to the present day. I have provided a large number of scholarly sources testifying to that. You have continued to ignore those sources. In his defintion of Germanic peoples, regardless of the title of his article, Edward Arthur Thompson tells us who the Germanic peoples are rather than who they were. Per WP:NOR and WP:V, Misplaced Pages must base its content on sources, rather than the personal opinions of Misplaced Pages editors such as yourself. Krakkos (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to reinforce that I agree with Krakkos, at least also that version should be mentioned he presented per weight and WP:NPOV in case there would not be and entire consensus of the two sides.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

Thompson was writing about "Germans, Ancient". So I still have not seen any reliable source mentioning a real modern version of the Germanic peoples, except in the linguistic sense. However, that there have been 19th/early 20th century ideas and popular beliefs about such things (eg among the Nazis) is touched upon in the article already and is indeed sourceable, though it is not the main topic of THIS article. Keep in mind that even if the concept of a modern Germanic folk becomes something serious scholars refer to positively again, the subject of this Misplaced Pages article is still something else. This article is about ancient peoples, who no longer exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all that. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not discussing how the topic is to the titled, but how it is to be defined. Thompson defines who Germanic peoples are rather than who they were. Anyways, i have listed a number of reliable sources below that of Thompson, and these are not just from linguists. Krakkos (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It is up to Misplaced Pages editors finally to decide what each article is about, and there is no apparent controversy about the notability of the ancient peoples which this article has always been about. What you are trying to do is add an unsourceable fringe idea... "and they still exist" ...to a solid topic. Your sources don't justify this, just as they would not be sufficient to justify a stand alone article. (We also already have articles for Germanic languages and Pan-Germanicism.) Our sources about the ancient Germanic peoples make it clear that they do not still exist. There is no source saying that a new ethnic group came into being, and there is no modern Germanic culture or ethnos or nation or folk, only the language group, and the new nations which to some extent "descend" (in a complex and mixed way) from classical ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and our decisions as Misplaced Pages editors must be guided by reliable sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V. The sourced provided above show that Germanic peoples have existed from ancient times up to the present day. Krakkos (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I and others have explained why these sources do not justify the proposal that any classical Germanic people lived on and continues to exist today. The lists of modern peoples who supposedly belong to a Germanic people are clearly just lists of groups who speak a Germanic language. Serious scholars do not equate ethnicity purely with language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It so happens that your source, which you have misrepresented, defines Germanic peoples as "any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages." The sources i have provided are lists of what it defines as Germanic peoples. It's not up you to redefine what they're saying. And they are clearly not' "just lists of groups who speak a Germanic language". Ioan-Aurel Pop states that modern Germanic peoples (like modern Slavs), are characterized by a common "origin and linguistic affiliation".

The Frisian ethnos has existed since classical antiquity. When did they cease to be Germanic? Krakkos (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In most cases we don't know the details of the splitting up of the old classical peoples. But split up they did, and the Frisians no longer belong to a single Germanic people, because there is no single Germanic people except in the linguistic sense. Concerning Pop, it seems he is an expert in medieval Roumania, but in any case he is clearly writing in a way we need to be careful of, writing "we could say that". Whatever we should make of this, for example whether it might be relevant for another WP article, I see no way to say that he is talking about a simple continuation of the classical ethnic group. He is playing with ways of splitting up the modern European people. I think we have many other articles on such subjects, and his comments might be relevant for some of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Pop is a professor of medieval history and certainly a more reliable source than you. His source was introduced to support the fact that Germanic peoples share not only common languages, but also a common origin. The fact that there is a continuation of Germanic peoples from ancient times up to today is shown by the soures from Webster's New World Dictionary, Malcolm Pasley & Jethro Bithell, Francis Owen, William Witherle Lawrence and John Duncan Spaeth. This article is not about "a single Germanic people". It's about Germanic peoples. Frisians are classified as Germanic in a number of sources. Where are your sources for the claim that Frisians are no longer Germanic? Krakkos (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You are continually pretending you do not understand the real problem. You can't give any clear relevant source for saying there is any entity at all today called the "Germanic Peoples", except in specific senses covered by other articles in Misplaced Pages. This article here is about peoples in the classical period, and it was not a linguistically defined group. They were seen as one great single cultural entity containing many smaller nations. This perception of a single entity did not survive the middle ages, when peoples were divided up in different ways.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

For the nth time, the relevant sources are given here. Your own source defines Germanic peoples primarily as a linguistically defined group. This article is not only about peoples of the classical period. It contains lots of information from the middle ages as well, when there was no conception of a Germanic "single entity". This article is not simply about the "Germani" (i. e. inhabitants of Germania) identified in Roman sources, but about the Germanic peoples of English-language sources. This is what you fail to understand. Krakkos (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, it is misleading and distracting to refer to "my" source, as I did not mention that source and indeed there is no controversy here anyway about the existence of the classical Germanic peoples as a subject worth an article. Secondly, the topic this article covers has been discussed many times and there is a pretty clear long-term consensus. You know very well that you are in a minority, and other active editors do not agree with your reading of the literature, nor about what this article should cover. This article is indeed about the Germani in Germania, though it touches related issues as well of course, such as Germanic languages and Pan-Germanicism, which have their own main articles. Attempts to add Afrikaners etc have always been controversial and stuck out like a proverbial sore thumb! FWIW both those articles (and others) discuss modern categories which do partly derive from accounts of the classical Germani.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I refer to is as "your" source because it is the source referred to for your claim that Germanic peoples are defined as the Germani of Roman-authors. This article contains plenty of information about Viking Age Scandinavians and their culture, and they are not considered part of the "Germani". The intro as it currently stands is thus not only a misrepresentation of the sources, but fails WP:MOSLEAD by a wide margin. Krakkos (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, in your previous comment you considered "you" in single or plural from? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

I am certainly open to proposals for pruning the article and making sure it has a clear focus. That has been a long-run concern on this article. Scandinavians are not outside all classical concepts of Germania though, and what's more the post Roman Scandivians are sometimes used to help study earlier cultures because they are thought to have preserved certain myths etc. Perhaps this should be discussed in a new section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article covering the "classical concept of Germania". That article is titled Germania. We should not transform this article into a duplicate of the former. Krakkos (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that there have only been two RfCs on this topic (that I can find in the archives at least), and both were initiated by Freeboy200 in 2018. That account is a sockpuppet of Ukrainetz1, which was blocked in 2017, so all of the account's edits were block evasion. Giving weight to those RfCs is rewarding the violation of policy on sockpuppetry. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, there is a good long run consensus among active editors that this article should continue to focus upon classical peoples. It gains nothing by having asides patched into it about Afrikaners and the rest. In general this is a topic which attracts OR, and the use of poor sources, not only Pan-Germanicism but also other topics, side discussions, speculations, 19th century theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it, this covers what we need:-

• In most of the sources being mentioned to justify the concept of modern Germanic peoples, it is clear that the term is being used in the sense of "speakers of Germanic languages", which of course is not an ethnic group anymore, just as there is no Indo-European ethnic group, because the languages have long ceased being mutually comprehensible or part of a single dialect continuum. The language family has it's own articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• The idea that language families represent races or biological populations is of course no longer accepted in any simple way by serious scholars and needs to be discussed in articles about the science and about the history of race theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• If the aim was to have an article which encompassed all successors (defined vaguely) of the classical Germanic peoples, then why are we not discussing Baltic and Slavic speaking populations. The answer is of course that the area was changed a lot in late antiquity. This is why this article can and should discuss what happened to the original Germanic peoples and what effects they had into post classical times. Various sub-regions are handled in other articles also already.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The idea that language families represent races or biological populations -> As I recall, none of us argued like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Arguably nothing has been argued very clearly by the proponents of the "Modern Germanic Peoples". But the way I see it, the critical area of disagreement, at least between Krakkos and several others including me, is that the classical Germanic peoples have a known modern continuation (singular) in some way which goes beyond language (although the lists proposed of modern peoples are always lists based on language). Krakkos calls it common "origins". If biological/genetic continuity is not "origins" then what are they? In all these proposals I have seen, Krakkos and others are keen to say it is not only about language, thus eliminating Indians and Nigerians for example. What's more, they consistently indicate that an Afrikaner is more "Germanic" than a Pole, Sorb or Czech. Right? And I am saying this is pseudo-science and folk wisdom, whereas the real biological ancestry of human populations needs careful articles drawing upon the latest real science. But if you can define another type of "Germanic Peoples" that I have not mentioned please do so, and then with all cards on the table we can discuss how/whether to handle on Misplaced Pages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

whereas the real biological ancestry of human populations needs careful articles drawing upon the latest real science -> this we agree however just because you argue as per admixture just a part of Germanic element would be present on Germanic speaking folks, it may not be interpreted in an exclusive way, since so-called pure Germans, Hungarians, Slavs etc. have also experienced heavy admixture in the past millenia, we could even hardly speaking this context pure specimens/people/nations, IMHO. Beyond the scholarly and genetic (?) argumentation of this debate, Germanic people should be considered who share a common ethno-linguistic Germanic ancestry, with XOR conjuction at first glance, isn't it?(KIENGIR (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Hard to be sure I follow, but I think you are somehow arguing that this supposed modern Germanic people can be defined by descent. I do not think this is a definition we can find in the specialist works. This makes sense too, because I also do not think this is a clear, logical, or useful definition. The only solid part of it is the linguistic part of it, but that is for a different article. The real modern diverse Germanic-speaking peoples are united by language, not ethnicity or descent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In case you don't undrstand anything I phrased, feel free to ask to specify. More shortly, now apart from anything else, I wanted to say we may hardly deny that there are some Germanic groups based on not just langauge affiliation, but common ancestry, shall it be in some cases distant and wanted to say in case both the linguistic and ethnic origin would hold, then we could by any means discuss about Germanic people beyond ancient Germanic groups, that shared as well these two qualifiers.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

But good sources don't support this, and we can deny it. In recent decades the understanding of scholars about "common ancestry" in European populations has completely changed, and this started before the DNA revolution. That situation has not settled down into any clear consensus which can tell us how to even identify what Germanic ancestry would look like. Only fringe scientists and amateurs enthusiasts on the internet claim to be able to identify Germanic genes. All the older cultures of classical times recombined, and also clearly had older connections. So you can't just assume that any European population who speaks a Germanic language must descend from Germanic peoples of classical times more than other populations. Similarly, the connection between Germanic languages and classical Germanic peoples is no longer assumed to be so clear, even though they share the old name due to 19th century scholarly categories. Classical authors clearly included speakers of several language families in the same large ethnic category, and people making these sorts of proposals always conveniently ignore this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So you can't just assume that any European population who speaks a Germanic language must descend from Germanic peoples of classical times more than other populations. -> it may be true at a certain degree, however given some special collateral conditons at the same time with other relevant degrees, especially regarding i.e. the admixture of the Scandinavian people that has been much less then especially on other regions of Europe. However, I understood your points cleary.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

Andrew Lancaster, as you mentioned earlier, Nigerians and Indians also speak Germanic languages. Jamaicans, Cape Coloureds and Ashkenazi Jews are even native speakers of Germanic languages. However, the sources above do not classify these as Germanic peoples. Therefore, your argument that the sources are simply referring to peoples speaking Germanic languages is flawed. If the sources intended to refer to peoples speaking Germanic languages they would be referring to Germanic-speaking peoples. Krakkos (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well yes we have discussed it, and you know the problems most of us see with this position you keep taking. The sources you refer to are either simply listing Germanic languages and their original speakers, or else implying an old-style racial theory. Both approaches are subjects for other articles, and/or covered under the "Later Germanic studies and their influence" section of this article already. Furthermore most of the sources you've found are individual sentences only, which need to be ripped out of context, whereas you want to promote a full blown theory of ethnic continuity from classical to modern times. You have no source which contain any extended proposal or discussion about such a theory. We have seen scholars sources pointing explicitly to the medieval discontinuities.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The original speakers of Germanic languages so happens to be the topic of this article. The sources used are recent. These are not "old-style racial theories". If the sources were simply "individual sentences" that had been "ripped out of context" you would have provided examples of this by now. Here is a citation from Michael J. Bradshaw, Vice President of the Royal Geographical Society, showing the continuity of Germanic peoples from ancient times up to the present:

• "During Roman times. Germanic peoples arrived from the east conquering whatever Celtic lands the Romans had not taken, namely the areas just north of the Danube and east of the Rhine. These tribes continually threatened the Roman Empire, sacking Rome itself for the first time in a.d. 410. By the end of the 400s. Gaul was taken over by the Franks, eventually to be renamed for them (France). The Burgundians lent their name to a province (Burgundy) that was eventually absorbed into France. The Visigoths and Lombards moved into the Italian peninsula. The latter name is found in the modern Italian provincial name of Lombardy. The Angles and Saxons moved into the British Isles, pushing the Celtic peoples farther into the fringes of Europe. Even today, the English are considered Anglo-Saxons. Other Germanic tribes moved north into Scandinavia. By the a.d. 800s, they developed a distinct Viking culture... Germanic culture is still prevalent today. Though the Franks, Burgundians. and Lombards adopted the Romance languages of the Roman provinces they conquered, other Germanic peoples, like the Vikings, maintained their Germanic languages through the centuries and are clearly seen on the map today (see Figure 3.4a). Germans. Austrians, Dutch, and the Scandinavians (such as Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes) are the most numerous of today's Germanic peoples. The Germanic peoples also converted to Christianity and later became the driving force behind the creation of the branch of Christianity known as Protestantism." Contemporary World Regional Geography, Michael J. Bradshaw (2007), p. 72

Krakkos (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A good example of a sentence ripped out of context, from a tertiary source not specialized in this subject and offering no sourcing or argumentation for what seem to be simple mistakes, not novel proposals. (This author thinks the Germanic peoples came from eastern Europe to Scandinavia for example.) Do you actually own copies of all these google books which you post snippets of? Showing a snippet-only quotation is not really a good way to prove you are not taking isolated sentences from google searches that suit your aims is it? In any case, in this case the snippet shows enough to show that the author is speaking of the classical Germanic peoples. Whether he knows it or not, the classical Germanic peoples are an ethnic designation for which we rely almost entirely upon classical authors, and we know for sure that for them this grouping was not based on language. We all know we should avoid tertiary sources in situations like this, and luckily we are able to because the editors of this article have long been looking at more specialized secondary sources. This has been discussed over and over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all this. Readers may be interested that Krakkos is preparing for another campaign, on the usual lines, at Talk:Scythians#Some_issues_with_this_article. He should be resisted. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The source is a summary by Michael J. Bradshaw of the history of the Germanic peoples from ancient times until the present day. As Vice President of the Royal Geographical Society he is certainly a reliable scholar. These are many sentences, and they are not "ripped out of context". Per WP:TERTIARY, tertiary are useful in cases where due weight is to be evaluated. This is one such case. Bradshaw says that the Germanic peoples lived east of the Celts. He does not say that "Germanic peoples came from eastern Europe to Scandinavia". Please stop misrepresenting the sources. Krakkos (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record: I don't see anything certain about that qualification, at least for this topic. Also note once again my comments about the type of source this is (low quality tertiary) and the way that you use snippets to find sentences. Although I can only see snippets I note above that you quote(?) "Germanic tribes moved north into Scandinavia", so unless I misunderstand you, I am not misrepresenting the source, who clearly sees the Germanic people as having originated in continental eastern Europe. So: Clearly a low quality source, and clearly being used in an opportunistic way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The source is attributed to Michael J. Bradshaw, a distinguished scholar, and published by McGraw-Hill, a prominent publisher. It is therefore a reliable source per WP:RS. WP:TERTIARY states that tertiary sources are helpful when evaluating due weight. This discussion is about how much weight this article should give to modern Germanic peoples.

Bradshaw is correct that the Germanic peoples at some point migrated into Scandinavia. The Nordic theory of a Scandinavian origin of Germanic peoples and other Indo-European peoples has been discredited long ago. Regardless, we're not discussing the origin of Germanic peoples in Scandiavia, but whether there is a continuity between Germanic peoples of ancient times and modern times. The fact you're resorting to red herrings and the argument from fallacy, rather than sources, proves the weakness of your position. Krakkos (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

But you are not using good relevant tertiary sources, and you are leaving completely on them to supply an excuse for material not discussed in ANY good secondary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And you're not using any sources at all. My sources are good and plenty of them are secondary. Krakkos (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. I am not making a proposal. You are. WP:BURDEN--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In April 2019, you made the radical change of changing this article from being about who the Germanic peoples are to who the Germanic peoples were. This change contained no justification in its edit summary and it was inserted without providing any sources. In fact, what you did was just inserting your own personal views and then attributing it to a misrepresented source. There is an even bigger burden on you, and so far you've failed to live up to it. Krakkos (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

New York

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Map

User:E-960,

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

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

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

Why I have issue with the 58 BC map — it splits Veneti and Slavs, who were not two separate groups at the time, this has been confirmed by Byzantine historian Jordanes, "although they derive from one nation, now they are known under three names, the Veneti, Antes and Sclaveni (Slav)" so the split came during the late-migration period of the 6th century AD. Also, strangely the eastern border of Germania looks a lot like the modern post WWII border of Poland, and not at all accurate in relation to other maps showing the distribution of Germanic tribes. --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also, Holy Roman Empire map in the Post-migration ethnogeneses section — shows a map of the Empire when it was a multi-ethnic entity based on political/religious realities, at least let's show a map of the Holy Roman Empire when it was called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, or better yet, a map of modern ethnic-Germanic nations which includes Scandinavia. (BTW, Prussia was never part of the Holy Roman Empire). So, given the sensitivities around this issue, can we use accurate maps for this article? --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• KIENGIR and Krakkos also just to address one of your points "if i'd remove all affected, a very little number would remain" — What is up with this obsession about maps in the Germanic Peoples article and the Holy Roman Empire article... look, you don't need a map for every section, especially if the map has issues (the 58 BC map was added rather recently, so it's not longstanding). I keep coming up on this in all sorts of German related articles, maps everywhere and even as you pointed out some are not correct. So, it won't be an issue to remove the less accurate versions. --E-960 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Germanic peoples. Possible inaccuracies regarding Veneti and Slavs are of minor importance to a map used here. The 58 BC map nicely shows the distribution of the various peoples in Europe at the dawn of the Gallic Wars, a watershed moment in European and Germanic history. The distribution of Germanic tribes in what is today Poland is similar to that of other commonly used Misplaced Pages maps.

It does not seem like the purpose of the 58 BC map is to "split" Veneti and Slavs, but rather to point out that there were additional unnamed peoples living beyond the Vistula Veneti mentioned in classical sources, who were probably Slavs. The map does something similar with the Aesti and Balts. The Spanish-language map you added illustrates the expansions, rather than distribution of Germanic tribes. The map also contains certain grave errors. For example, the Bastarnae lived close to the Black Sea in 1 AD, far to the east of the Goths. The relevance of the Holy Roman Empire to Germanic peoples is demonstrated in our sources and reflected in the article. There appears to be a current consensus on this article that modern Germanic peoples do not exist, and that such information is beyond the scope of this article. A map of the distribution of Germanic languages in modern Europe would therefore be beyond the scope of this article, unless this consensus is overturned. Krakkos (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Krakkos, I still don't understand what is the point of the Holy Roman Empire map in the Post-migration ethnogeneses section, the text does not even make mention of the Empire, why is it there?? As for the 1st century BC map, if there is no good version, we should just omit it, instead of showing a confused map. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

E-960,

Regarding your first answer, you desribed the same in the edit logs and as well more detailed about your other concern, that I expected. As I see Krakkos answered both of them (along with your HRE concern).

On the further, I don't have any "obsession", btw. I did not remove any map you added to the article. If you gain consensus for removal of any inaccurate map of really cogent reasons, I will not object it. However, I prefer to update/correct them, in some not simply evident cases it might need as well consensus. I have to admit I achieved 1 update only yet by the help of a fellow editor who we ask to correct maps usually (it was a Hungary map), as mainly majority of editors dealing with texts, but slowly maybe more could be achieved.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC))

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

Andrew Lancaster, your view is very POV-ish (why is Jordanes unreliable, and who says that?). That's not how Misplaced Pages works — if you disagree on an issue then you ignore the source as "unreliable". If you read Tacitus' account form AD 98 he clearly states "Here Suebia ends. I do not know whether to class the tribes of the Peucini (Bastarnae), Venedi, and Fenni with the Germans or with the Sarmatians... Nevertheless, they are to be classed as Germani, for they have settled houses, carry shields and are fond of travelling fast on foot; in all these respects they differ from the Sarmatians, who live in wagons or on horseback." So, he classed Veneti as Germanic based on their way of life, but clearly noticed that they were not like the other Germanic tribes or the Sarmatians. Then you move a few centuries to Jordanes (who was a Byzantine historian of Gothic extraction, no less) and his account in 551 AD which states "although they derive from one nation, now they are known under three names, the Veneti, Antes and Sclaveni (Slavs)". So, I don't agree with your off-the-cuff remark that Jordanes is not reliable, it's very irresponsible. --E-960 (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• KIENGIR, the 58 BC map is debatable, but again why do we have a map of the Holy Roman Empire in the Post-migration ethnogeneses section when the Holy Roman Empire is not even mentioned in the section's text, at least I tried to suggest a connection to modern languages with a map because that's something that's referenced in the text, but the Holy Roman Empire is not. --E-960 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:E-960, as I see it is mentioned in the text, the eight pharagraph is a complete sentence of it.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC))

@E-960 I am genuinely surprised at the accusation. Basically any scholarly publication mentions that Jordanes is a source we have to be careful with concerning his presentation of ethnic histories. You've seriously never read anything like that? Concerning the way WP works, perhaps the issue here might be that you are not using secondary sources, but trying to use only Jordanes, as a primary source? However this is clearly the type of source where WP editors normally expect recent secondary sources to be used as well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that you can never be 100% sure on ancient sources (especially that in the case of the Romans for practical reasons they we're not too concerned with peoples further east and wrote a limited amount about them, but modern scholars generally and for some time now agree that who the Romans called the Veneti were in fact the early proto-Slavs/Balts (not going too deep into the subsequest ethnogeneses and mixing). Though, for practical reasons the Romans lumped them with Germanic peoples based on their way of life, though recognizing that they were different. Later, when those people came in direct contact with the Roman world their identity was made more clear. --E-960 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In the classical period, the Romans and Greeks did not make many comments about differences in language at all. Hundreds of years later things were different, but by that time no one was speaking of the Germanic peoples as a single entity any more. Only in recent times is Germanic re-defined as a language family.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class history articles
• High-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Etymology Task Force etymologies