Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Another split off article created by Krakkos: Early Germanic culture

Can editors here please check whether they have any concerns with the split-off creation of Early Germanic culture. I have to post it here without any explanation about the reasoning, because at the moment the only way to see what is happening for this and related topics is to watch the user contributions of User:Krakkos, who can not use talk pages properly for some reason, and yet constantly moves things around making normal redirects and watchlists almost useless. At first sight I have no major issues with this particular case, but of course its creation has implications for this article also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There is also the enormously dubious Category:Early Germanic culture, which should be deleted (after checking what else he has emptied to create it, following his usual sneaky pattern). Much of the issue here is that there is no standard definition of "early", and much stuff is included that I doubt any source calls "Early Germanic" - anything Anglo-Saxon, Carolingian or Visigothic for example. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wobrey, William; Murdoch, Brian; Hardin, James N.; Read, Malcolm Kevin (2004). Early Germanic Literature and Culture. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 157113199X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |registration= and |subscription= (help)

See the above source for what falls under Early Germanic culture. 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Pages? On the google preview I'm not seeing a definition. Of course, when dealing with literature, which is the main subject of the book, one is at least on firm ground when a Germanic language is used. In art history, the use of "Early Germanic" to cover the enormous scope the category covers is unknown in English. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Article length

This article has become very long. WP:SIZESPLIT states that articles sized at more than 100kB or at more than 100,000 characters in length "almost certainly should be divided". This article is currently at 194,360kB in size and 111,533 characters in length.[1]

As a remedy, i suggest that the culture section be split into a new article. The culture of the pagan and tribal early Germanic peoples is certainly a distinct and notable subject. If this section is split, we will have room for expanding our coverage on additional aspects of early Germanic culture, such as Germanic literature and art, by using various scholarly sources.

If there is support for splitting the culture section into a new article, is suggest that such an article be titled Early Germanic culture, per WP:COMMONNAME.[2] In such a case, we must of course maintain a summary style description of the culture of Germanic peoples here. Krakkos (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• • The other obvious approach, which is much more usual on WP, is to split out the history, which must be the bulk of the article. This would also leave room for expansion. I'm not sure removing the culture would entirely solve the lengt5h problem, perhaps someone could give figures for history/culture/the rest? Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is a good suggestion, John. The history section appears to be even longer than the culture section. If one of them is split out into a separate article, the remaining section will probably be given undue weight in comparison to the one that was split. It might be a good idea to split both the history and culture section out into separate articles, while covering those topics in summary style here. Krakkos (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly I think a lot of the article should be reduced or removed. Most of it is covered in other articles. This article should focus upon the common threads which united the Germanic peoples, but is not focused. I continue to be concerned that articles and categories about "Germanic" subjects are being inflated with hot air. You would think people interested in these subjects would want good articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article is well written and based upon excellent scholarship. However it repeats itself on occasion, and some sections are longer than perhaps they should have been. Pay in mind that even if half of the content of this article is removed, its size would still generally require a split. The best way to get this article down to a proper size seems to be a split of both the history section and the culture section. This will also enable to to shorten the lead, which is too long in my opinion. Krakkos (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree about the article as a whole. It is poorly written, repetitive, and goes off subject too often into areas best covered by other articles. Also, some parts read like a 19th century praise of Germanic virtue, not scholarship in any sense of the word relevant to Wikipedia editing. Concerning the lead, I have already shortened it a bit, and it should indeed be shorter if we can manage doing that without making the article worse. I think however that this should be seen as a task connected to reducing the sections in the body, so that anything which needs to be moved out of the lead can find a new home, and will not simply be lost. One of the challenges is that editors should be using more recent mainstream scholarship instead of for example old encyclopedias.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The statement that the article as a whole is "poorly written" is patently absurd. There are a few areas where editors with an apparent agenda have resorted to employing much older scholarship (that does not dominate the article however), which reads like eugenicist drivel about Germanic superiority. Krakkos makes the best suggestions here—in my view—regarding the elimination of redundancy and perhaps splitting the article by moving the "Culture" segments into another related article.--Obenritter (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Splitting articles and making new content forks is a cancer in Wikipedia in recent years. This article surely has to have any properly sourceable Germanic culture information as a central theme. What else is it about? Problem is that we have bad sections on those subject. Moving them to a lower profile article will just protect poor material. Almost none of the article is based on sources from after WW2, and most of the article is "patently" written in ugly English, which looks like it was ugly before it was cut up and patched together by a committee. Just deal with that reality. I am not the enemy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

First off--"poorly written" means faulty syntax, poor word logic, unduly cumbersome constructions, and grammatical errors. That's not what plagues this article. Also, the VAST majority of the sources used for this article are post WW2 (by far). While I used to think you were doing the article a service by carefully monitoring the content, you've changed that perception markedly as of late. You seem revel in making sweeping statements founded on poor logic, often for what appears to be attempts to either elicit controversy or cause arguments anymore. This statement "Almost none of the article is based on sources from after WW2," being among the most asinine I've ever seen from you. Are you dealing with an illness or personal trauma? If so, you have my sympathy but you do not have my support or concurrence about the quality of the sourcing (other than the antiquated ones we've already mentioned) in the aggregate across this article. Perhaps the best way to shorten the article is to make the changes suggested by Krakkos. --Obenritter (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I was indeed being a bit sweeping and rushed. (I wrote it late before going to bed.) I could have perhaps chosen better ways of making the point. But the article is surely not good to read, and not well focused? I find it very strange to see editors feeling satisfied about it. Concerning old sources, this is a long article and lots and lots of sources are indeed named, but as one reads through it one feels very much like one is reading information based on an old encyclopedia. I wonder if the sources were added after the words were written in some cases, if you see what I mean. My biggest fear is inflation with duplicated, and I think splitting instead of focusing will make that worse. We will just create more hot air?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew--you're not wrong that the article could benefit from better organization and perhaps less granularity in some parts. It's not in terrible shape in terms of general content, but it could stand synopsis in some places and certainly the omission of dated info from old encyclopedias and the like. The unfortunate reality when dealing with the ancient Germanic tribes is that most of what has been reported comes from ancient sources like Tacitus, Cassiodorus, Jordanes, Paul the Deacon, Livy, Procopius, and the like. Scholars have since tried to fill in the proverbial gaps to the best of their ability. For my own PhD research on Roman-Germanic contact and the resultant effects on European historical consciousness, I was forced—like historians before me—to rely on these ancient accounts and the best tertiary evidence available, much of which is also medieval. It creates its own conundrums to be sure. The idea of splitting the article so as to reduce its length makes some sense, but that also risks dividing it into compartmentalized chunks where more inane and undisciplined editorial content can be added, which subsequently adds to the policing work in general. If I had more time, I would try to sift through the content and parse out what seems truly relevant against that which may be trivial and/or politicized by persons with politically-incorrect agendas. To be honest, I do not know the best way forward, but the path of least resistance is divide it as Krakkos recommended.--Obenritter (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is always worth being cautious of following a path of least resistance on Wikipedia, at least when it comes to splitting decisions. Concerning the content one of the concerns I have is not the ancient citations. I think that the best way to write neutrally requires us to know what the ancient sources were, in order to structure what we write, even though we should base what we write on secondary sources. If we work in that sequence, then we know to be careful about giving undue weight to one popularization.

If we start with secondary sources, then of course for this period nearly all of them contain at least something controversial, and at least some bits which derive from old simplifications. We have to try to have an idea about which is which. It is NOT actually hard to make lots of good looking footnotes, but following the path of least resistance tends to lead mainly to "just so" stories such as the one I recently adjusted about how the Germanic peoples simply replaced Iranian peoples, then Attila simply forced them to move, then Slavic peoples replaced them, and then the Germanic peoples "reclaimed" their lands. It is easy to see how this can be derived from reasonable quality secondary sources, but I hope you can also see why to me it still feels like I am reading something from an old school book.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Thanks for eliciting a chuckle. The reason you feel like you're reading "from an old school book" has primarily to do with the nature of this subject, which as I mentioned, relies on ancient writing. There is only so much one can do in terms of interpreting these ancient sources without editorializing the content into something that results in arbitrary speculation from a modern historian. Going as far back as J.B. Bury, and moving forward to the likes of Walter Pohl, Patrick Geary, Walter Goffart, Peter Heather, Thomas Burns, E.A. Thompson, Edward James, Guy Halsall, and Herwig Wolfram; they have all done what they could with the available information. To be totally honest, it's not clear to me—aside from synopsizing the content a little better or possibly splitting it as Krakkos already mentioned—as to what can be done. His most recent efforts to trim and reorganize left lots of places needing citations and incomplete information, which did not especially thrill me either, but hats off to him for trying to shorten the article and offer concision in other places. --Obenritter (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Well no, the problems I am talking about are not coming from the limited classical sources or the best modern secondary sources. That would be great. I am saying what Wikipedia is producing in the name of various sources is often quite different. Gaps in the record are being filled in with the most old fashioned adventure stories and racial concepts which I think are coming from our own authors and much older secondary works. For example, the Eastern Germanic tribes who entered the empire are difficult to distinguish in many areas from Attila's complex of people's which they were part of, although Wikipedia is trying to describe the two is clearly distinct; and classical writers did not make the modern distinction between Slavs, Finns and "Germanic" tribes. In fact, they did not really bother about trying to define what Germanic meant and whether any tribe was Germanic. Same goes for Iranian (or "Scythian") etc. It sometimes seems like there is a 19th century style effort being made in Wikipedia to hide all that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As an update, and for clarity, I've obviously first discussed and now started acting upon an alternative approach to shortening the article. I think it is also clear that one of my concerns is that the removal of certain types of materials can lead to a worsening of controversies this article has faced for a long time. For this reason I have reverted the sudden deletion of User:Krakkos of exactly such a section, the section which makes remarks about how there have been modern rebirths of ideas about Germanic peoples, which are obviously the same controversial ideas that Krakkos wants Wikipedia to treat as the scholarly consensus without any hint at other views. My reversion does not of course mean that such sections can't be shortened, but I think it is common sense that we hold off of complete deletions while I am working in this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And now I also notice that Krakkos has re-created a partial mirror of this article, based on an old idea which, - surprise, surprise - has been discussed and rejected before. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germani&action=history . I will start the appropriate procedure, but this is definitely tendentious editing. This action should at least have been proposed here first. It is hard to assume good faith. It seems quite clear the idea is to work out of sight and bit by bit, to make Wikipedia disagree with reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Germani is no more a mirror of Germanic peoples than Sclaveni is a mirror of Slavs, or Walhaz is a mirror of Vlachs. Those are distinct subjects which are notable in their own regard. Krakkos (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You created a short version of this article, with material from this article. How clear can it be? You might not like that this article is about the Germani, but that is another discussion, and making that article was just the latest attempt to try to get what you want by working around in the shadows, and trying over and over again. Please stop it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Germanic peoples, which is not necessarily the same as Germani. Krakkos (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As you know very well, that is the current way this article has been written, and that is based on what the best sources say. (It ALSO includes discussion of "Germanic speaking peoples" to some extent, which is also looked at in other articles.) So your attempt to create a new article was really just the latest attempt to change this one. We all know you wish it were otherwise, but after years of trying you can not find modern specialized sources which agree with you. Languages are not irrelevant to defining peoples, but they are not sufficient to define peoples either. In any case, you need to bring sources and make your proposals convincing. Please stop trying to avoid that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously this whole "article length" topic was just another attempt to use Wikipedia to define language-based ancient/continuous nations. Also see the new confusingly written RfC. I am going to try to get to the point (again) in a new section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is very "unhealthy" to make-size splits and to hold an RfC about the article topic at the same time. This creates unnecessary content forking and an imbalance between the core material (e.g. information about "Germani" is relegated to a split article) and circumstantial material (e.g. the concept of speakers of contemporary Germanic languages as "modern Germanic peoples" is pushed into the lead) which remain in this article. For the duration of the RfC, I recommend to leave the article as is, and stop moving out material to secondary articles. Some of the latest edits leave a bad aftertaste and reek of tactics, honi soit qui mal y pense... Hopefully, the community will decide with in-depth competence about the shape of this article. –Austronesier (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A first batch of new proposals for consideration

I will sign each proposal so that discussion can be started on any of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ethonym section. I believe this should be shortened into a more typical "Nomenclature" section, explaining the term Germani and related terms such as Teutons, and everything else to be moved or removed. Discussion about the first Roman authors should go with other such discussion. I am not sure we need a special discussion in this article about the term *Walhaz. Remember this article is not the main article for Germanic as a language group.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this section is overly long and duplicated in later sections. It should be shortened. Perhaps parts of it could be transferred to Germania. Krakkos (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many ways to do it, but important is to look at the whole flow of the article first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Classification section. In reality this important section spells out the fragmentary classical record of categorizations. It is perhaps better moved downwards. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be transferred downwards. This is the case in similar articles such as Slavs and Balts. As with the ethnonym section, parts of the material here is repeated in the history section. This issue should be fixed. Krakkos (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think it is better to work chronologically after the nomenclature section, and move next to the History section. I think much of the information we have under Ethonym and Classification is reduplicated in sections here, and should be integrated instead that everything is only mentioned once.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that part information from the ethnonym and classification sections could be integrated into the history section. Krakkos (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• The first sub-section of the history section is actually about Denmark, southern Scandinavia, Indo Europeans and so on. Also, when it says the Germanic peoples, it is clearly talking about the Germanic speaking peoples, and ignoring other Germanic peoples. I think we can not expect readers to follow why we suddenly change subject like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the principle subjects around which Germanic peoples has revolved been "language"; a point which you've argued on numerous occasions. So are you now saying the traditional Russian people who have some ties to the Viking Rus and the subsequent Slavic people derived therefrom should also be included? You claim to want to reduce this article's size, I would argue that such an approach would do the opposite.--Obenritter (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't see how you could draw that conclusion from what I am saying. The Rus are much later. In the classical period this eastern area's ethnography is poorly defined and there is not much we can report from the classical sources and archaeology. Certainly in earlier sections of the article the main point to make, which all our sources make, is that the boundary between Germani and Scythians, and whether there are other types of people between them who are neither, is a bit unclear. Some of the classical sources do however mention tribes who might be Finns, Estonians, and Balto-Slavic. In Poland some of the Germanic material culture groups may have been multilingual. Consider the Buri, Lugii and Vandals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That the Germanic peoples originated from an Indo-European population of Denmark and southern Scandinavia is firmly established in the sources provided by Obenritter. This content should remain. Krakkos (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No, what our sources say is that Germanic languages came from there, and of course some large chunk of population. But of course we do not want to avoid discussion of the connections between these two distinct subjects. Nevertheless we have to make the differences clear too. The origins of the Germanic languages are a prehistory "background" topic for this article, so they should not appear right at the beginning in a way which simply equates this to the article topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Early Iron Age. A lot of this information simply reduplicates what we have below in the chronological sections. I suppose theoretically it is supposed to give a archaealogical and linguistic view as opposed to the classical view but in reality both perspectives need each other and so it is full of duplicated discussion of the classical sources. It would be easier to mention modern discussions in each chronological section, together with the classical sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This section deals with some of the Germanic peoples from an archaeological perspective, as historians are not the only ones with a vested interest.--Obenritter (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Information on the archaeological history of Germanic peoples is relevant to this article. Such content should not be removed. Krakkos (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course any such material should not be removed, but we are duplicating material by having this separate discussion. I suggest combining discussion of all sorts of evidence together, with the article divided up more chronologically. In any case the article needs a simpler structure in order to help both readers and future editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I still find the sudden changeover to discussion of Scandinavian archaeology and Germanic language origins to not fit in the article properly. It leaves out discussion of most of Germania and many Germani, and it does not fit in the flow of this article. I think most of it could better be in articles about Proto Germanic origins and archaeology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Earliest contacts section. I see no evidence that Pytheas mentioned Germani or Germania?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Cunliffe, Burns, and other mention Pytheas in this regard. What evidence are you looking for specifically? Some of the careless editing by Krakkos managed to eliminate the citations associated with the original content. Also, what are you trying to accomplish here? Such reckless and ill-informed commentary from you is why I am not gong to help refashion a page that was otherwise in reasonable shape until this recent crapola. Your original policing efforts to keep the modern construal of "Germanic" off the page was commendable. This current effort is simply destructive as your last comment illustrates since you fail to understand context evidently. Using such logic, we would ignore the writings of Cassiodorus and Jordanes, who likewise mentioned the Germanic Goths without referencing the Germani or Germania. --Obenritter (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Goths are however discussed by other classical sources. It is true that I am saying we should separate Germanic languages and classical Germanic ethnicity in our minds, and in our writing. I think we all know that our specialist sources have concerns about Cassiodorus and Jordanes, but that does not mean that they all totally reject the equation of the later Goths with the older Gotones. Furthermore, in this case the Germanic language of the later Goths is sometimes cited as one of the reasons for not totally rejecting this. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The works of Pytheas are lost. His works are however cited by other classical scholars, such as Pliny the Elder, who in his Natural History includes the descriptions by Pytheas of certain peoples of Germania (Gutones and Teutones).[3] The northern travels of Pytheas are generally mentioned in scholarly works about Germanic peoples, such as those by Malcolm Todd[4] and Francis Owen.[5] If Pytheas is mentioned in the best sources on Germanic peoples, he should also be mentioned in Wikipedia's article on Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it is difficult to get this out of our current article? It could even be read as saying that Pytheas is known to have mentioned the "Germani" by that name? We should be careful to avoid implying too much.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to the Pytheas remarks. Currently we say "he was also possibly the first to distinguish the Germanoi people of northern and central Europe as distinct from the Keltoi people further west". Why would this possibility be important to mention? The sources we use are not really all that strong? To me the whole section seems not to fit. It basically repeats something several times, which could fit in one sentence: he is the earliest known European author on the topic and he influenced later writers. Why don't we shorten to something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krakkos, User:Obenritter, concerning Pytheas, do you agree this remark can be shortened and that it should avoid implying that Pytheas specifically described Germani?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Sorry -- just saw this Andrew. Yes, it certainly can be shortened.

Genetic definition?

"The Germanic peoples (Latin: Germani[a]), were a collection of ethnic groups of continental Northern European origin, identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples. "

This doesn't sound right. It should say either "The ancient Germanic peoples" or " The Germanic peoples, are". The wording makes it sound like the germanic peoples no longer exists.

--176.11.24.191 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, but to go over it again: The Germanic peoples mentioned in classical times indeed no longer exist. People confuse the idea of "Speakers of Germanic languages" which is a completely modern concept defined in a completely new way, and covered in other articles, with those classical peoples. We have found non-specialist sources which make this confusion (or charitably we might call it a shorthand), but specialist sources, and their definitions make the distinction quite clear. The two topics are certainly connected but also certainly not the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster This article does a really poor job creating a distinction between the ancient Germanic peoples and modern Germanic peoples. Germanic people are to this day referred to say a group with a shared and common ancestry, beyond functioning as a term for a linguistic group. Norwegians are for example referred to as a north-Germanic ethnic group. --84.213.153.62 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is my concern. I would say the article is inconsistent about whether there is a distinction. But the case of North Germanic certainly does not help us. North Germanic is a term which only comes from modern linguistics. If anyone speaks of a North Germanic group of peoples they are clearly extending modern linguistic terminology, but this is less confusing than the case of "Germanic" without the "North", where we have to be more careful. There was no classical "Northern Germani".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: "This has been discussed many times, but to go over it again: The Germanic peoples mentioned in classical times indeed no longer exist."

I have explained this to you, SEVERAL TIMES, now, that this is FACTUALLY FALSE. You are wrong. Provably wrong.

I will again present you with the information disproving your baseless assertions, which are are unable to be substantiated, and are quantifiable, as they do not represent the evidence, proof, and or facts, sourced through genetic testing.

This is, again, contradicted by my previously provided citations, containing scientific papers.[6][7][8]

Again, "This DNA has been processed, and, for quite some time now, has been available for public use, for comparing to living, contemporary humans, from a service such as MyTrueAncestry."[9]

I ask that you please stop pushing this dehumanizing, baseless conspiracy theory of Germans just disappearing one day.

You are wrong, and it is unacceptable, immoral, and unethical to be spreading this false information that is harmful, and can have material consequences.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c40:5e00:7e3a:e5bb:6f86:917a:96a4 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@2600:6c40:5e00:7e3a:e5bb:6f86:917a:96a4: You should first make up your mind whether you want to discuss Germanic peoples or Germans. These two are quite different things.
In any case, since this is the talk page of Germanic peoples, I will answer about the topic Germanic peoples (although IMO, Andrew Lancaster already has sufficiently explained the case). The Germanic peoples of classical times do no longer exist indeed. Many of these ancient ethnic groups contributed to the ethnogenesis of the modern Germanic-speaking peoples to various degrees, and this is certainly still visible in the genetic ancestry of many individuals belonging to the latter (again: to various degrees!). However, the ethnogenesis of the modern Germanic-speaking peoples is more complex than that, and should not be reduced to one selected genetic signature, or to linguistic affiliation alone.
There is not a single one of these ethnic groups that has an unbroken one-to-one continuity from ancient times until now. The Goths, Vandals, Cherusci, Hermunduri etc. have disappeared. No modern sane individual self-identifies as a Goth, Cheruscan etc. (except maybe in historizing role-play and by denying their actual ethnicity). This is hardly a "conspiracy theory".
In modern ethnography, "Germanic peoples" is not a meaningful entity except for being a shorthand for "Germanic-speaking peoples", even though amateur geneticists who propagate their simplistic misinterpretations of valid research results in blogs and forums, and their readers believe otherwise. –Austronesier (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A couple of attempts to distill a short answer to the anonymous writer's comment:

• No one has argued that the classical Germanic peoples just disappeared. The term/category faded out of use. (It is not even really clear how important the category was ever critical to members of these groups, or the neighbouring peoples. We have a small number of confusing references by Roman authors, and a tradition of how to read them.)
• To the extent that "Germanic peoples" can be sloppy shorthand for "Germanic language speaking peoples", then of course ethnic groups exist which strongly associate with such languages, and no one has argued otherwise. It is not the subject of this article though. We have many overlapping articles covering this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:

@Austronesier:

Extended comments

The importance, or lackthereof, is irrelevant. As this relates to genetics. It is not even really clear how important the category was ever critical to members of these groups By "Germans" I think you mean the Deutsche people, which is a nationality, nationality is not genetic. Anyone can be Deutsche, anyone can be Cuban, anyone can be Japanese. The Germanic people(s) are a distinct, identifiable genetic group, with a shared matrix. The Sami are a distinct identifiable genetic group. The Germanic people(s) of "classical times" DO, indeed, exist, today. Yet again, I must provide the evidence, disproving your (baseless) presuppositions. This is, again, contradicted by my previously provided citations, containing scientific papers.[10][11][12] Again, "This DNA has been processed, and, for quite some time now, has been available for public use, for comparing to living, contemporary humans, from a service such as MyTrueAncestry."[13] They did not disappear, they did not stop existing. Their genes did not dematerialize out of existence. The Germanic people(s) of today are the product of these ancient people(s), through genes, that have been passed down, from parent to child, over many generations. Your comments regarding language are irrelevant, as this is is a genetic matter, not a linguistic one. You have conflated established tribes, with genetics, consistently in your posting. The Ancient German tribes, indeed, no longer exist, as established tribes. The genes, of these ancient Germanic tribes, do, however. At no point did the ancient Germanic people(s) break off, sever, or separate, from the Germanic people(s) of today. Allow me to continue. The opening of the Germanic Peoples article: The Germanic peoples (Latin: Germani[a]), were a collection of ethnic groups note: ethnic "groups" doesn't apply, here, to the ancient Germans, it is an ethnic GROUP, not groupS.) Okay, now let's check the ethnic group page: An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy The first thing, in this article, as an identifier, is GENEALOGY. From Merriam-Webster Definition of genealogy: an account of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms Again, this article designates "Germanic Peoples" as an ethnic group(s). If the living Germanic peoples are an ethnic group, and the ancient Germanic peoples are their grandparents, the Germanic peoples, relative to those that which this article concerns itself with, STILL exist. Again: At no point did the ancient German peoples break off, sever, or separate, from the Germanic peoples, of today. The problem here, is that this article is about ETHNICITY, not tribes, or linguistics. If you'd like it to be about ancient Germanic tribes, or linguistic groups, consider altering the article, to reflect this. Or making another one, all together. I have since demonstrated, with the use of scientific papers, that the ancient Germanic People(s) do, as an ETHNIC group, indeed, still exist, and never STOPPED existing. I say this again out of critical importance: The continued use of "were" in this article is dehumanizing, unacceptable, inappropriate, irresponsible, immoral, and unethical, and I believe it ought to be changed, on the basis of the provided evidence. Forgive my awkward formatting, and whatnot, I am, relatively speaking, new to using Wikipedia, and am still learning my way around, I have since made an account.

-Benjamin N. Feldenstein

I have split this out as a new section, as it clearly had nothing to do with the section it was inserted into. I can't get anything worth replying to out of the above post, and don't see much point replying to it at any length. There are no citations, and there appears to be no good understanding of what this article and related ones are even saying, or what the published sources say. This article uses published sources concerning the classical Germanic peoples. There is no scientific genetic definition of any "people", ethnic group, or tribe, and in any case no evidence that these neighbours of the Gauls and Romans were seen as linguistically or genetically united. In the few sources we have they are clearly defined as a mixed group of diverse named peoples, united by geography and perceived lack of mediterranean civilization. Essentially they were the neighbours of the Gauls, and contrasted with the Gauls. To the extent that they formed a military threat this was under the leadership of various Suebian related peoples, who were clearly named as a large group of peoples who were newer to the area. On Wikipedia, we have to take our bearings from what the best published sources say about these things. Note:

• We can not use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. That would be WP:Circular.
• I have adjusted the opening sentence of ethnic group because it was poorly written and clearly not matching the sources it cites.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:

Extended contents

You didn't provide a single citation for anything you just said, or anything else you've conjectured. Where are YOUR citations? There are, however, citations, for MY assertions, of which are provided below. I, yet again, will post them. This is, again, contradicted by my previously provided citations, containing scientific papers.[14][15][16] Again, "This DNA has been processed, and, for quite some time now, has been available for public use, for comparing to living, contemporary humans, from a service such as MyTrueAncestry."[17] These citations disprove your baseless claims that the so-called "Classical Germans" are separate, and are unrelated to the Germanic peoples of today. The Germanic peoples ARE, not WERE. They did not disappear, or stop existing. Your assertions above are not substantiated by any citations, and or evidence. Further evidence disproving your claims that the Germanic peoples of today do not descend from the so-called "classical Germanic peoples" Regarding the genetic composition of England< https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/19/7/1008/1068561 Using novel population genetic models (using samples from living individuals) that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) When we compared our data with an additional 177 samples collected in Friesland and Norway, we found that the Central English and Frisian samples were statistically indistinguishable. This paper includes DNA processed, and analyzed from SEVERAL ancient Germanic peoples, showing the contemporary English, do, indeed, descend from them. This study, alone, disproves your baseless, and unsubstantiated assertions that the so-called "classical Germanic peoples" share no connections to the contemporary Germans, of today. but I will go on. Langobard genetics https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/genetic-analysis-elucidates-ancient-longobard-social-organization-movements A principal components analysis of the Szólád and Collegno samples, in conjunction with modern references, showed that the ancient samples harbored genetic ancestry that overlaps with that of modern Europeans. For the sake of the length of this "talk" page, I will withhold anymore papers on genetics, as the provided papers sufficiently, and comprehensively, debunk your baseless, unsubstantiated assertions, and conspiracy theory style conjecture. Here is an entire write up with citations detailing the matrix of the contemporary living Germanic peoples, sourced from historical documentation, genetics, and linguistics. https://haplogroupi2b1ismine.wordpress.com/the-germani-germanic-peoples-origins-and-history/#genetic Let us detail yet even more evidence, with respect to the matrix of the contemporary, living Germanic peoples. https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/18702/2016DinhC.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_low001199601_01/_low001199601_01_0023.php http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/german.html http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/frisian https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0211.xml http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/Danish1.html https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3637&context=etd http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~fkarlsso/Hist_Ling_Nord.pdf</ref> You now have historical documentation, linguistic, and genetic evidence, all which display a direct continuity of the so-called "classical Germanic peoples" that resulted in the contemporary Germanic populations, as well as uniformity, between them. I will ask, yet again. Where are YOUR citations? Where is YOUR evidence? Your dangerous, dehumanizing, borderline racist, and baseless rhetoric must stop. It is becoming increasingly clear that you've an agenda here, that you're trying to spread, thankfully, it is not supported by evidence.

-Benjamin N. Feldenstein

No one is denying links between ancient and modern peoples, so please stop pretending that, but obviously being descended from a Visigoth does not make you a Visigoth, and none of the papers you cite say anything like what you want them to say. On the other hand, you are not even making any clear editing proposals. Please either make a clear proposal or stop bombarding this talk page, which is intended for discussion about editing strategies for the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course there's no such thing as a modern ethnic group which descends directly, without admixture, from any ancient ethnic group. But that is a trivial observation, holds world-wide and is not exclusive to Germanic- and Celtic-speaking groups, and does not mean discontinuity between ancient and modern populations and ethnic groups. Modern Greeks are not pure descendants of Ancient Greeks, modern Persians are not pure descendants of ancient Persians, yet there is no discontinuity either. In the case of the Greeks, even their modern ethnic identity is not an unbroken continuation of the ancient identity, but a revival of the 19th century – at that point, they considered themselves Rhomaĩoi, that is, Romans, distinguishing themselves from the pagan Héllēnes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Early Germans by Malcolm Todd

Which version of Malcolm Todds book The Early Germans was used when writing this article? In the notelist, a 1999 version is used, while the version listed in the bibliography is from 2004. I have the 2004 version of this book, and the 1999 citations in this article are not verified in the 2004 version. Krakkos (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Evidently the 1999 book was originally used. Fortunately, I have both versions, so a simple index search and a few minutes of effort enabled me to find the cited information within the 2004 version, which I corrected within the article...so you can verify it accordingly now.--Obenritter (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter:, any chance you could check the Todd citations on my lead draft - first section here? I have been using the older online edition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Cannot speak much about citation [1] as I am unsure as to what is being communicated from the Todd book. As far as the observation, "There is no evidence that they called themselves 'Germani' or their land 'Germania'" < that is only from page 8. Here is the section titled Origins from that work into page 9.

Origins

[[last paragraph of page 8] Who, then, were the Germani; where and when did they originate? The first point to be made is that they had no collective consciousness of themselves as a separate people, nation or group of tribes. There is no evidence that they called themselves ‘Germani’ or their land ‘Germania’. These were terms applied by writers in the Mediterranean world and they can be traced with certainty no further back than the time of Poseidonius. The meaning and origin of the word ‘Germanus’ are [end page 8, start page 9] unknown, but it is certain that the term was not in general use among the early Germans themselves. By the time of Julius Caesar in the mid-first century BC, ‘Germanus’ and its derivatives were well established and Caesar himself clearly thought that no further explanation was required. The tradition which was current when Tacitus collected information for the Germania in the late first century AD held that the name was originally borne by a group of people who crossed the Rhine from the East, drove out the Gauls from a region in eastern Belgium and settled there, later becoming known as the Tungri. What had originally been the name of a single tribe became the name by which all the related peoples were known. There is no evidence which goes to support this derivation of the name ‘Germani’, though there is nothing inherently implausible in Tacitus’ account. The Roman name for the Greeks, ‘Graeci’, comes from the little tribe of the Grai, and the name applied by the French to the Germans, ‘Allemands’, from a single Germanic group, the Alamanni. The linguistic origins of ‘Germani’ are also obscure. It is not even clear which language supplied the name. Celtic, Germanic, Latin and Illyrian have all had their supporters. All that is reasonably certain is that a member of a German tribe, when asked about his or her affiliations, would have answered ‘Langobard’, ‘Vandal’, ‘Frisian’ or ‘Goth’, not ‘Germanus’. [end of first paragraph, page 9]

Hope it helps.--Obenritter (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! So the page for that citation is the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Expansion and restructuring

Hi! I came across the article today and read a few paragrahs. With regard to the "expansion tag" i think terms like Roman-era, believed to have and Roman period (all in the lede) should be replaced. The sentence: These "Visigoths" were given a large part of what is now southwestern France. is redundant (IMO) without mentioning the Visigoth Kingdom in Iberia. Is it OK to add references in German? All the best Wikirictor 18:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

German-language sources are acceptable as long as they are reliable. The current lead gives undue weight to fringe views and makes a number of unsubstantiated fantastic claims that are contradicted by reliable sources. It's definition of the topic in question reads like the intro to an ancient Roman encyclopedia rather than a modern English-language Wikipedia. The fact that the lead links to Germanic languages in scare quotes says it all. I wish you good luck in implementing your proposed changes. Krakkos (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikirictor:

• I agree that German language sources can be used.
• What would "Roman period" be replaced with? The article is currently about the Roman era Germanic peoples, and not Germanic language speakers, who are sometimes called "Germanic peoples" as a kind of shorthand in non-specialist tertiary works, but not reliable sources (even if Krakkos does not like this). This has been debated many, many times on this talk page and other in other parts of Wikipedia. (Some of the Germanic language speakers are one PART of what is covered, so it is of course an over-lapping topic.)
• Concerning the Visigoths I think the point you raise is a classic question of where to draw the line when writing a lead. Of course all these things should be discussed in the main article, but we should not try to include everything in the lead. It has probably gotten a bit to long.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Also, thanks for adding the citation to Liebeschuetz. I think it is the type of source which needs to be used more on this article and it contains a lot of material which can be useful to editors of this article, including references to older authors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

the double footnote system is not well done

We currently have both footnotes with comments (efn template) and citation notes (sfn template). However, many of the efn footnotes are extremely trivial or off-topic, and many are effectively just citations which should surely be in the other type of note. I can't help thinking that some of us have gone overboard in the use of templates more generally because for example I see cases where a clear citation is given, but it has apparently become so unclear in the editing window, that someone has come along and added a "citation needed" template.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the article there is an incredible over-loading of the bibliography, with almost constant additions of new references about Roumania, English poetry, Geography of Europe, etc etc. Anyone who wants to check it themselves will be able to confirm that these additions are being made as part of the project by user:Krakkos to find some kind of source to justify his obsessive efforts to say that there is still a "modern Germanic people" and that linguistic groups are identical to ethnic groups, which reliable sources, even the ones that have some sympathy such as Liebeshuetz, recognize to be controversial. We eventually need to remove these sources, and replace them with more appropriate ones to the subject. Also, these constant attempts to reinsert these claims, duplicating them into every section, and also in other articles, strange new categories etc, is also a bigger problem that is clearly designed to be difficult to track and repair. It may eventually require more systematic action and community discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

restructuring: further ideas

Currently the structure is:

1 Ethnonym

1.1 Germani

1.2 Teutons

2 Subdivisions

3 History

3.1 Origins

3.2 Early Iron Age

3.3 Earliest contacts

3.3.1 Pytheas

3.3.2 Migrations of the Bastarnae and Scirii

3.4 Cimbrian War

3.5 Encounter with Julius Caesar

3.6 Early Roman Empire period

3.7 Conflict and co-existence with the Roman Empire

3.8 Migration Period

3.9 Fall of the Western Roman Empire

3.10 Early Middle Ages

3.11 Post-migration ethnogeneses

Starting with the first sections, and keeping in mind to create a sctructure which does not encourage the duplication we keep seeing, here is an idea:

3.3 Earliest contacts

3.3.1 Pytheas [rework/shorten]

3.3.2 Migrations of the Bastarnae and Scirii [rework/shorten]

3.4 Cimbrian War

1 Ethnonym

1.1 Germani [rework/shorten]

1.2 Teutons

3 History

2 Subdivisions in classical sources

3.5 Encounter with Julius Caesar

3.6 Early Roman Empire period

3.7 Conflict and co-existence with the Roman Empire

3.8 Migration Period

3.9 Fall of the Western Roman Empire

3.10 Early Middle Ages

3.11 Post-migration ethnogeneses

To delete, and potentially replace with a new discussion on prehistory and/or a new discussion upon pre-imperial movements of people (but I don't see any good sourced material yet to write anything worth including).

3.1 Origins

3.2 Early Iron Age

Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need a section about the term barbarian?

Can anyone explain why this material should be in this particular article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=936219612&oldid=936213084 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krakkos please explain your insistence on this section. It is obvious that barbarian was not a synonym for Germanus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the wider section is about names given to Germanic peoples. According to the source (Thomas Burns), "barbarian" was a name frequently used for Germanic peoples in classical times. You removed a whole bunch of sourced content without explaining why.[18] It's not overly important to me whether we have a section here on the term barbarian or not, but such removals (when the content is not transferred elsewere) should not be performed without any explanation or prior discussion. Krakkos (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying "barbarians" means the same as "germani"? Clearly it is an adjective which can be applied to them, but it can also be applied to any non Roman/Greek. Indeed, if the problems with this are not clear to you then I needed to explain more. On the other hand that would seem to indicate a basic WP:COMPETENCE problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you need time to re-check this or can we delete this? If Burns or anyone else has on the other hand really said this and I am wrong, then can you please give a direct quote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The content in question was originally added by Obenritter.[19] I'll leave it up to you and him to verify it. The source used can be read here. Krakkos (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No Obenritter added a quite understandable remark about how the Romans called Germanic peoples barbarians. You have now changed the article to say that "barbarians" could be a synonym for "germani", the subject of this article. Can we just admit that is nonsense? The reason for removing Obenritter's addition is that we are trying to shorten the article and focus it, not that it is wrong. I also remove things I wrote. The reason for removing what you have now created is that it is nonsense. Clearly you have no source at all, but were just making a WP:POINT as part of several other edits and reverts. The source you link to explains exactly what I am saying on pp.19-20.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the article topic controversy

Personal comments
I invite other editors to look at the talk page including archives, but clearly User:Krakkos is going to keep disrupting this article, related articles, and various talk page, aiming to confuse "Germanic speaking peoples" with all usages of the term "Germanic peoples".

Currently, after many Rfc's etc, this article is about the Roman era "Germanic peoples". Here are some statements to work with, and to at least clear some of the smoke. I think they are consistent with modern scholarly consensus and what most WP editors involved have thought, as per discussions and sources mentioned in the past here, and on the article:

• The term "Germanic Peoples", used in the most accurate sense, are the same as the Germani. Germani is just the Latin translation. So:
  • the material currently in this article could have either of those names. But see below...
  • there should be no article about a modern version of these peoples. They no longer exist. (And no that does not mean they died out suddenly. The category just stopped being used, except in a linguistic sense.)
• In a less accurate sense, "Germanic Peoples" [or Germani] can mean "Germanic speaking peoples". [Both Halsall and Heather, who disagree with each other on many things, describe this as a secondary usage.] So:
  • in this linguistic sense, more accurately "Germanic speaking peoples" has a modern and classical meaning. But...
  • if we had an article about this, it is not clear to me what content it would include, or how it would be different to Germanic-speaking Europe, which itself is an article which is hard to justify, or Germanic languages.

So, if there were something to write about the topic Krakkos has had trouble sourcing, then there is an obvious way to name the articles using less ambiguous terms. The content currently in this one could all be moved to Germani, and "his" one could be "Germanic speaking peoples". In other words we would turn "Germanic Peoples" into a dab. The problem seems to be that Krakkos actually wants to keep the confusion, and create two article based on this one, because there is not much sourceable material for his distinct topic of interest? (If not, then why are we not going that way, and where are those sources.) The problem is that this would be a WP:POVFORK.

• It is difficult to maintain quality when there are too many over-lapping articles.
• POV pushers use such chaos to stay under the radar and create alternate reality articles. This is why POVFORKing is not allowed on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Update. There are clearly discussions in other sections which can be referred to. To help:

• Should this article title be used for a new article exclusively about "Germanic speaking peoples"? I certainly think not but you can vote/comment here.
• Should the current primary topic of this article be moved to a new article called Germani, as Krakkos has already started putting into effect without agreement? (Note that this does not in any way imply removing discussion of historical Germanic speaking peoples.) Comment/vote here.
• Other ideas? Perhaps post here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Update 2. See comment of Krakkos today. I want to remark in that context that if we are to have two articles: one about Germanic language speakers (including modern ones) and one about Roman era Germani, then I believe the present article title would have to become a dab linking to both, and the article about a language group needs a word included such as "speaking" or "language". The problem of significant overlap would also have to be clearly addressed and is still a real concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

But please no one make an RFC on this unless there is agreement about the wording that RFC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is titled "Germanic Peoples." This title does not reflect an article of which would contain only a focused, comprehensive composite of the Germans of Antiquity.

If the title is to REMAIN "Germanic Peoples" it must reflect that, thus it must encapsulate the history of the Germanic peoples from their matrix, to today.

There is absolutely no reason a Wikipedia article titled "Germanic Peoples" should be limited to Antiquity.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep it sober

The article has lots of problems. But to fix them editors will need to consider much more detailed issues than what you have been posting. Have you looked at the draft? See here. Please don't comment within that draft yet, but feel to use its own talk page under a new section. But there is no point making vague personal attacks, only constructive detailed comments which are based on the published sources, and consistent with Wikipedia policy.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread may be the most relevant proposal. Let's keep it sober, no accusations, just the question: what's the topic of this article? Either it is stricly the Germanic people from Antiquity and the early medieaval times (Germani); or it is Germanic speaking peoples, which includes both Germani and contemporary groups.

My gut sense says me that "Germanic peoples" refers to the Germani; present-day Germanic speaking peoples are descendants of those people. Yet, most "X-peoples" seem to refer to "X-speaking people, so an alternative is to make this page a broad page, with a separate page on Germani. But I don't know what that would be about, except a page with a list of Germanic-speaking countries and "peoples," and a historical background of this info. The point is, what does "Germanic" mean today? Is that still an ethnic qualifier? To speak for myself, I'm Dutch, from Frysian/Gronings/Saxian descend, but I wouldn't seriously call myself "Germanic," only in a semi-joking sense. As Andrew proposed, "Germanic language speakers" would be a better term.

So, turning this page into a redirect to "Germani," with a hatnote at that page to a Germanic peoples (disambiguation)-page may be the best idea, linking to "Germani" and "Germanic language speakers," c.q. Germanic languages.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks a lot for your attempt to bring some structure into this discussion. Unfortunately, there are a couple of other sober comments/proposals scattered all over this talk page. Maybe it would best to open a new thread (hoping it won't be spammed anymore with peripheral, incompetent or drama comments)? –Austronesier (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is currently getting a bit of a rest because discussions of Krakkos and myself continued most recently on the talk page of the lead draft, then moving to the Krakkos talk page and also the talk page of Germania. To avoid wasting space here I'd look at those first before trying to start again here on the "big picture" on this page. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Joshua Jonathan: I would not want to rush into any new RFC until we settled things enough to make sure the question itself was clear, but my understanding from the last years on this talk page is that if we have to pick a "winner" between the two topics you mention, it would be a close call. But I am not sure that is the only issue:

• Article stability. Historically, no matter what gets said, editors insert bits of BOTH topics into ALL articles around this topic, and I think it will be difficult to stop that. An article which tries to "pick a winner" will therefore be unstable. Some editors (and ALSO most published sources) do not even see the distinction being made, while some editors know the distinction but also very VERY strongly about them.
• Source and discussion overlap. As mentioned, the sources which discuss these "two" topics very often treat them as "one", and our editors and readers very often struggle to see the difference. The differences are in fact to some extent also controversial in reliable sources. Even for the advanced readers, to understand one of the "two", you need to understand the other, and to explain one of the "two", you need to explain the other. All the evidence to be discussed is the same, and there are valid different ways to split that up.

In my experience, the turning point needed in such articles can come from an effort to structure the article well, and take time to carefully balance the tricky bits. After that it will be easier to make sure new materials go to the right place, and easier to explain misunderstandings. If we have to do that in two very similar articles, it will be much more difficult both to get this done and to maintain it. If we split the articles we just have all these problems, but multiplied.

• Practical path: my proposal is to FIRST put in a big effort to TRY the one article model which many editors have argued for. If that does not work then we discuss again. Splitting will then be easier also, if splitting is decided upon. At the moment I think any attempt to split will be very messy indeed. The devils in the details are bigger than they might look at first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for your efforts Joshua Jonathan. I agree with Austronesier. Opening a new thread will make things less confusing.

Having said that, i believe we should we should determine our decisions in this matter upon what reliable sources say, rather than our gut sense. Reliable sources generally define Germanic peoples as speakers of Germanic languages (see here). This concept is quite different from the classical Roman concept of the Germani, which referred to the peoples of Germania regardless of language and culture (Some modern scholars such as Peter Heather equate Germani to Germanic-speakers). The modern concept of Germanic and the classical concept of Germani are quite different. For example, the Aesti and Vistula Veneti were classified by the Romans as Germani, but they are rarely classified as Germanic in modern scholarship. Meanwhile, the Goths, Vandals, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons were not classified as Germani by the Romans, but are usually classified a Germanic in modern scholarship. This article currently includes plenty of information about Goths, Vandals, Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen. The modern Germanic concept is notable and deserves to be the primary topic of its own article. This used to be that article until it was changed one year ago without discussion, explanation or provision of sources.[20] If the classical concept of Germani (inhabitants of Germania) are deemed notable enough to have its own article beyond Germania, then a separate such article should be created, rather than displacing the topic of this one. Krakkos (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

So in short there are source-based arguments for both of the "two" topics to be called various different things. No one is of course arguing not to use sources, but the sources use different approaches, and don't tell us any of these are wrong simply; and many don't even both to spend much time on the distinction you and Joshua Jonathan are (correctly) making here, and should of course make in any version of this article. Furthermore all the sources treat the two carefully distinguished definitions as part of the same narrative. You can not explain one without explaining the other? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Origins" and "Early Iron Age" sections in their current form

Feedback? I have made this proposal in larger discussions, but I separate it out here for people to remark any concerns. Note that I see no problem with the idea of discussing such topics in principle, but the emphasis of the current sections is material concerning Germanic language pre-history (therefore focused on Scandinavia etc without explaining why in a clear way), but using material about periods long before we can speak sensibly about even Indo-European being in western Europe. I think the focus of any eventual pre-history or archaeology sections has to focus on Iron age evidence, and continental evidence. I also think this is clearly a range of topics that can better be done in summary form in this article, deferring to various specialized articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Deleting information on the origins of Germanic peoples and their developments in the Early Iron Age would not be an improvement for this article. Krakkos (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The current material is mainly even outside that limit though? Did you look at it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The current material begins with the Nordic Bronze Age. This is in accordance with reliable sources:

• Peter Heather writes: "Clearly the people who came to speak Proto-Germanic must have been isolated from other Indo-Europeans for some time, but it is not obvious which archaeological culture might represent the period of the shift. One possibility is the so-called Northern European Bronze Age, which flourished in northern Germany and Scandinavia between about 1700 and 450 bc... Evidence from archaeological finds and place-names suggests that, while early Germanic peoples probably occupied much of northern Germany during the Bronze and early Iron ages."[21]
• The American Germanist William G. Moulton writes: "Archaeological evidence suggests that about 750 bce a relatively uniform Germanic people was located in southern Scandinavia and along the North Sea and Baltic coasts from what is now the Netherlands to the Vistula River."[22]
• Malcolm Todd writes: "The reaction against extreme nationalism had gone too far. In the 1980s the pendulum began a backward swing. Once again, arguments which trace the origin of the Germanic peoples to a remote period of European prehistory, to the later Neolithic, are heard... It is possible to accept that the ancestors of the Germans known to our earliest surviving historical accounts can be traced back to the mid-first millennium BC."[23] Krakkos (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are only addressing the modern linguistic concept of Germanic languages, which is the subject of other articles on Wikipedia. Our article is nothing like this though anyway. We have remarks going back to the Neolithic citing your Waldman and Mason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please press CTRL+F, type "Germanic people" and read through the quotes once more. Krakkos (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain your point? The proposal we should be discussing concerns the material currently in this article, and this article is about Germanic peoples, not "proto Germanic" which is a concept from modern linguistics which is only indirectly relevant to this article. (The ancestors of the people who brought language which became important to the Germanic peoples.) To handle this fully in this article would require lengthening the article and you called for it to be shortened. It is surely better handled in linguistics and archaeological articles, and done properly. Also, I noticed what your "..." is hiding in the third bullet ("the case does not carry conviction"). Also see "to what extent the progenitors of these cultures were 'Germanic' or 'proto-Germanic' is much more problematic". In the meantime, archaeological studies have been done which are relevant to the Germanic peoples, including ones who spoke actual (not proto) Germanic languages, but nothing in the sections proposed for deletion is about that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, here are some more parts from the passage by Heather (1973) which you similarly chose not to cite:

• "Clearly the people who came to speak Proto-Germanic must have been isolated from other Indo-Europeans for some time, but it is not obvious which archaeological culture might represent the period of the shift."
• "Solid historical information begins about 50 BC when Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars brought the Romans into contact with Germanic [speaking] as well as Celtic peoples."
• "Evidence from archaeological finds and place-names suggests that, while early Germanic peoples probably occupied much of northern Germany during the Bronze and early Iron ages, peoples speaking Celtic languages occupied what is now southern Germany. This region, together with neighbouring parts of France and Switzerland, was the original homeland of the Celtic La Tène culture. About the time of the Roman expansion northward, in the first centuries BC and AD, Germanic groups were expanding southward into present-day southern Germany. The evidence suggests that the existing population was gradually Germanized rather than displaced by the Germanic peoples arriving from the north."

But our current "Origins" section clearly gives a VERY different story. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The way I see it

• (a) there is nothing in the current two sections under discussion worth keeping. I am open to proposals, but there are only snippets which are even close to what reliable sources say, and there is very little which is focused on the topic of the article.
• (b) of course we could try to make a replacement section, perhaps called "Before Graeco-Roman contact" or something but then it would be shorter and completely different and as discussed earlier it would logically fit differently into the structure of the article.

So I don't see much point trying to preserve the current version. See sub-section below for just a taster of what we have now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter Heather was 13 years old in 1973. I suggest you take another look at the source. Krakkos (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Did I get the publication date wrong. As an online tertiary source it is difficult to see it, but I thought I saw that date. Why not just say when it was published? Do we need to discuss that? Not sure what your point is. It is a good reminder that it is a tertiary source being used to say something about linguistics, but not by a linguist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Example passage from the sections proposed for deletion

Currently we have the following, just for example, and it is clearly EXTREMELY misleading (compare to Heather or Todd above):

Concomitantly, during the 2nd century BCE the advent of the Celts of Halstatt and La Tene arose in nearby territories further west but the interactions between the early Germanic people and the Celts is thought to have been minimal based on the linguistic evidence.[42] Despite the absence of the Celtic influence further eastwards, there are a number of Celtic loanwords in Proto-Germanic, which at the very least indicates contact between the people of Gaul and the early Germanic cultures that resided along the Rhine river.[43] Nonetheless, material objects such as metal ornaments and pottery found near the areas east of the lower Rhine are connoted as Jastorf in nomenclature and are characteristically distinguishable from the Celtic objects found further west.[44]

• First, the Halstatt and La Tene cultures are in fact much older in Germania than we are saying. They cover the whole Iron age in this region. Furthermore they are thought to have formed there from the also local Urnfield culture taking us back to the Bronze age and the first Indo-Europeans in Europe. We are wrong by a thousand years! Why would that be?
• Second our text shows signs of "back and forth" with someone having tried to de-emphasize the material and linguistic links between Celtic and Germanic. I don't recognize this as being typical of what reliable sources say. In any case our text is not consistent and can be shortened. There is recognized evidence of links.
• Third our text is saying that Celts were only found near the Rhine - not in the south or east of Germania. This is disturbingly dishonest. They were still in those areas in the time of Tacitus, and modern scholars believes this is part of the oldest Celtic homeland. Heather as quoted above believes these peoples never left the area.
• Fourth, someone has tried to imply that the Jastorf culture was near the lower Rhine while Celts were not. Why would we describe the Jastorf culture as being "east of the lower Rhine"? Why would we be talking about Celts only "further west".

Anyone notice a pattern to these distortions? This is just an example. It is clearly not worth keeping at all and should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Update. I have edited at least this part.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Serious misrepresentation of reliable sources by Andrew Lancaster

Some days ago, Andrew Lancaster added Chapter 6 from the book East and West in Late Antiquity by Wolf Liebeschuetz (2015) as a source for his claim that "the idea that the Germanic peoples originally shared any single core culture or language before their contact with Romans is doubted by historians."[24] This claim currently figures prominently in the lead.

I have taken the time to look up the source, and has found that this is a complete misrepresentation. At pages XXV and 99, Liebeschuetz writes: "Chapter 6 reviews the debate on the nature of the Germanic tribes that established kingdoms in the provinces of the Empire. It argues that these people did indeed possess both core traditions and a sense of shared identity, and that these had evolved well before their entry into the Roman world... [C]ontinuous transformation is not incompatible with the possession of core-traditions. The various Germanic tribes possessed such traditions... Some traditions, especially language, all the tribes had in common."[25][26] Contrary to what Andrew Lancaster implies, this is not the claims of "recent historians", but controversial fringe theories promoted by Andrew Gillett, a self-styled "independent scholar". Liebeschuetz dismisses these theories as "flawed because they depend on a dogmatic and selective use of the evidence".[27]

Yesterday, Andrew Lancaster added the book Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather (2012) as an additional claim for his above-quoted claim.[28] That book doesn't even mention "Germanic peoples".[29]

How long will this editor be allowed to disrupt this article with nonsense and misrepresented sources? Krakkos (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to see that you have now taken the time to read that. Putting aside the bluster, you mention two edits that I should justify and that is of course fine if you'd avoid the other stuff. :)

• I did not add the citation to Liebeshuetz, but it is a good source, to be used with others. Krakkos cites me adding "the idea that the Germanic peoples originally shared any single core culture or language before their contact with Romans is doubted by historians."[30]. Krakkos is correct that Liebeschutz goes on to give some counter arguments to what the field is generally thinking. Note that his report of what the field is thinking is MORE important to Wikipedia. I won't bother citing our core content policies, because I am sure we all know this. I would note that my wording makes it clear that there can be differences of opinion on this matter. What I wrote is that there is increasing doubt in the field.
• Concerning Heather my version of the named book says it was published 2009. Krakkos is being a bit strange here because he could and should have mentioned that we've been discussing this, and given the URL [31].

I am thinking I've worked correctly, but feedback is called for please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You cited a 2012 version of Heather's book.[32] Since when did Andrew Gillett become representative of "what the field is thinking"? Krakkos (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have Heather's book. It says 2009. Do you have any relevant point to make?
• I have no idea why you are mentioning Andrew Gillett. Liebeshuetz names him as an example of a whole new "generation" of scholars. I suppose we can say Halsall is one also. Liebeshuetz seems like a reliable source, so if he thinks the field has gone this way... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

To the benefit for other participants in this discussion, I quote from both sources:

"We cannot of course know whether or not these people felt any sense of Germanic solidartiy, or to use modern jargon, a sense of Germanic identity. But the fact that the Latin Germani does not appear to have had a Germanic equivalent, strongly suggests that there was no sense of Germanic identity." – J.H.W.F. Liebeschuetz (2015), East and West in Late Antiquity, p.97.

The above-mentioned quote on page XXV refers to individual tribes. In chapter 6, Liebeschuetz is specifically refuting extreme views that hold that "Goths", "Franks" etc. only came into being as distinct entities upon their entry into the Roman sphere, and puts forward evidence that each of these were ethnic groups bound together by a core of traditions. But he clearly does not defend the concept of a pan-Germanic identity.

"When we talk of Germanic Europe, therefore, we are really talking about Germanic-dominated Europe, and there is no reason to suppose that the entire population of this truly vast area – some of it militarily subdued in the recent past – was culturally homogenous in terms of belief systems or social practice, or even it that it necessarily spoke the same language." – Peter Heather (2009), Empires and Barbarians, p. 6.

I cannot see that Andrew Lancaster has misquoted any sources here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster cites the sources in question for the claim that "recent historians" doubt that Germanic peoples "originally shared any single core culture or language before their contact with Romans". A statement by Wolf Liebeschuetz that Germanic peoples in Roman times probably didn't have a shared identity is not a verification of Andrew Lancaster's claim. Not having a shared identity is not equivalent to not sharing a language or a core culture (see Serbo-Croatian and Yugoslav Wars).

"Germanic-dominated Europe" is not equivalent to Germanic peoples. Many cultures and languages were spoken in German-occupied Europe. This does not mean that Germans do not share a core culture or language. Likewise, the fact that Germanic peoples dominated certain non-Germanic peoples in Roman times does not equate to Germanic peoples not having a shared culture or language. Krakkos (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to core culture and language, Liebeschuetz has this to day:

"Germanic tribes... did indeed possess both core traditions and a sense of shared identity... The various Germanic tribes possessed such traditions... Some traditions, especially language, all the tribes had in common.." – J.H.W.F. Liebeschuetz (2015), East and West in Late Antiquity, p.xxv, p.97.

These sources are completely misrepresented. Krakkos (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Throwing my hat into the ring here. Whether the Germans of Antiquity "had a sense" of a shared identity, or not, is irrelevant, given contemporary evidence, that is bound with genetics.

Andrew Lancaster your disruptive behavior here must stop. I have provided you with plenty of evidence, but you've, with prejudice, rejected ever bit of it. You cannot continue to behave this way.

Benjamin N. Feldenstein (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Benjamin N. Feldenstein

Benjamin N. Feldenstein - Please remember to distinguish between Germans and Germanic peoples. Also pay attention to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. These policies are frequently violated by Andrew Lancaster, so make sure not to violate them yourself. Krakkos (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Benjamin, you are not replying to me so I don't know what you are accusing me of. I am also not sure what you think has been proved or what you think is relevant. It is however Wikipedia here and so what is important is the opinions of these published experts. Our job here is to summarize them, not to summarize what you think, or what Krakkos thinks. This is the basic core idea of Wikipedia so clearly if you think it is wrong you should not be here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos, as already discussed, the problem for your position concerning Liebeschuetz is that he describes himself as disagreeing with the new generation about these things. So even though he does not like it, yes, he is a source for "the idea that the Germanic peoples originally shared any single core culture or language before their contact with Romans is doubted by historians." He says this clearly. But you know there are more sources too, so what is your point really? Why are you trying so hard to avoid making a proposal about the major changes you started making? The sooner you get to that the better for all of us surely? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wolf Liebeschuetz says that a certain "post-Wenskus generation" denies that Germanic peoples had a "core-traditions".[33][34] Who is this "post-Wenskus generation", and when did they become representative of the views of recent scholarship? Liebeschuetz slams the theories of the "post-Wenskus generation" as "very strongly ideological" and "flawed because they depend on a dogmatic and selective use of the evidence." Liebeschuetz himself states that all Germanic tribes spoke Germanic languages.[35] Malcolm Todd states the same.[36] Recent scholars such as Peter Heather[37][38] and Christopher R. Fee[39][40] defines Germanic peoples as speakers of Germanic languages. This is also how Germanic peoples were defined earlier by Edgar Charles Polomé,[41][42] and Edward Arthur Thompson.[43] You have removed sources from all of these scholars and replaced them with a secondary reference to the denials of the "post-Wenskus generation".[44]

Who are the "post-Wenskus generation" (apart from their apparent leader, the "independent scholar" Andrew Gillett), and since when did they become more qualified than Wolf Liebeschuetz, Malcolm Todd, Peter Heather, Christopher R. Fee, Edgar Charles Polomé and Edward Arthur Thompson to define the subject of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As explained by my edit summaries I removed some of the new notes you were adding because they were not being used to confirm the text of article, but rather as a kind of way of carrying on a talk page argument within the article. That is a no no, so please don't do that. Wolf Liebeschuetz is in any case a valid source for writing about a new generation that he disagrees with. Post Wenskus is clearly a chronological term so, not a term which restricts this new generation to a small part of the new generation by the way. Concerning all the other names you roll out you are not making any clear point. For example Thompson is from before this new generation right? How can he have commented on it? Your latest edit is verging on vandalism [45], trying to make the article incomprehensible? Please let's not worsen this pre-existing article at least just to make a WP:POINT?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Who are the "post-Wenskus generation" (apart from their apparent leader, the "independent scholar" Andrew Gillett), and since when did they become more qualified than Wolf Liebeschuetz, Malcolm Todd, Peter Heather, Christopher R. Fee, Edgar Charles Polomé and Edward Arthur Thompson to define the subject of Germanic peoples?

Ask Liebeshuetz? But why are you saying all these people would describe RECENT opinions in the field as being different than Liebeshuetz? OTOH Peter Heather, who you list as if he would be opposed, could arguably fit the bill as an example for you. He clearly says that there is no reason to believe that the Germanic speakers / Germani (same thing for him) all shared any culture or even language. He explains that the terms are shorthand at least in his 2009 book. And Halsall also fits the bill. He says (2007 pp.23-24) that even if the Germani shared a language it still doesn't mean they formed any unity, and there was nothing interchangeable between Franks and Goths, Saxons and Lombards, or Germani and modern Germans. He suggests it is sometimes worth writing out "barbarians north of the Rhine and Danube" just in order to avoid such misunderstandings coming from the confusing words. In this context, describing the field, which is important for us, he says "The problems of Germanism have long been recognized". etc etc etc. Why do you think we should prefer your opinions over those of Liebeshuetz and Halsall about what historians believe recently? And did Thompson really have a time machine?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You're the one citing the "post-Wenskus generation" to back up your claims.[46] So you're the one that has to explain who they are. Who are the "post-Wenskus generation, and which scholars are part of it?

Heather states that the peoples of Germanic-dominated Europe probably spoke different languages. Where does he "clearly" state that "Germanic speakers" didn't speak Germanic languages? This sounds like a ridiculous statement. Please provide a direct quote and link.

Halsall states that Germanic "does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani".

I'm not basing my content on my own "opinion". I'm basing them on scholarly sources, and it's not just Thompson. These include Malcolm Todd, Peter Heather and Christopher R. Fee.

Asking again for good measure: Who are the "post-Wenskus generation" and which scholars are part of it? Krakkos (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

So you don't think Liebeschuetz is RS????? I think this is just a constant changing of subjects. Compare to your original post in this section. You are just making things going in circles. We have discussed all these points before in other sections and on your secret Germani duplicate article, and it is not my job to teach you to read. Either you are completely WP:INCOMPETENT or else you must know, because you have been typing out their words and linking to them over and over, that Liebeschuetz, Halsall, Todd and others have all mentioned the trend among modern historians (even if they personally do not agree in the case of L and T) to be sceptical of "the idea that the Germanic peoples originally shared any single core culture or language before their contact with Romans is doubted by historians" (the words you are pretending to think are unsourced). But all this is trivial for now, because the real topic we should be discussing is what happens next for this article, and it seems you intend to make all these concerns irrelevant anyway. Please now stop these circles and make a clear proposal about your plans for massive change to this article which you attempted to start until I forced a discussion. Otherwise we are all stuck, and these discussions are pointless. Explain what you were starting to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's put some of these remarks about sourcing for this sentence to bed "the idea that the Germanic peoples originally shared any single core culture or language before their contact with Romans is doubted by historians". Facts:

• Despite the time spent, Krakkos has proved unable to comprehend that Liebeschuetz (2015 google books, see pp.88ff,) agrees with Wenskus and Gillett on doubting past scholars concerning a unifying core culture uniting the migration period Goths, Franks, Vandals etc "as a whole" (i.e. as Germani). (Krakkos's use of Fox News language - "Liebeschuetz slams the theories of the "post-Wenskus generation" - is highly misleading.) Liebeschuetz's disagreement with Gillett is on specifics which go beyond the weak claims of the sentence we need to source.
• Liebeschuetz is one of the scholars who still thinks that the Tacitus era Germani were united by language, and this is worth looking at. First of all he describes the field as not all agreeing on this, and that is important for our editing decisions concerning this sentence about doubts in the field. Secondly, the only source for his position, as he describes it, is Tacitus, whose use he defends, though he clearly sympathizes with criticisms of this source. L (p.95, fn4) cites 2 places in Germania 43 which speaks of a Suevian language which proves some tribes to be Germani; and 46 which says the "Peucini called by some Bastarnæ, are like Germani in their language". As we do not write WP based on one source I should note here two of the reasons many scholars are unconvinced by these Tacitus passages about language. Neither Tacitus passage strictly requires that there is a single unifying Germanic language. Furthermore concerning the Bastarnae, Tacitus disagrees with other Roman authors who call the Bastarnae Scythian, and in the case of Livy, even specifically say that their language was like the Scordisci, who were Gaulish or in any case not Germanic speakers. Halsall also points out that other Indo-European languages would likely also be described as being like Germanic. (For Halsall, see below.)
• Krakkos shrieks in bold all over this talk page that Andrew Gillett, though cited as important by Liebeschuetz, is categorized as an "independent scholar" on the academia.edu website. Of course that should not matter, because in any case we know he is cited by lots of authorities as an important writer, and his bibliography on academia.edu also shows he has been consistently asked to published in high profile editions, journals, etc. But using that rather rough-edged website's category in this way says a lot about Krakkos's competence I am afraid. The page itself describes him as "Formerly University of Toronto Centre for Medieval Studies, Macquarie University Dept Ancient History". Here is his profile at Macquarie. He is an associate professor, with an impressive record. He is a potential reliable source for this article.
• Krakkos is unable or unwilling to convert Liebeschuetz's term "post Wenskus generation" into something which is comprehensible away from the context it comes from. Reinhard Wenskus died 2002, which is the year Gillett wrote the first influential article which L cites. So L is simply referring to scholars who are prominent in the 21st century, more or less, in contrast with those prominent late last century. But as noted above, for the sentence we are sourcing, which only says there are doubts, the older generation would also have agreed (according to Liebeschuetz).
• Krakkos continues to read Peter Heather (2009 p.5) as saying that only the Germanic speakers at Teutoburger Wald are called Germani now. This is such incompetent reading that I don't know what to say. The Teutoburger Wald victory is given by Heather only as an example of why older generations writers misunderstood the importance of the Germanic-dominated Europe, and its "Germani, as these Germanic-speakers are now called". There is absolutely no way to read this as being a terminology Heather would only use for the Teutoburger Wald! Heather clearly really does equate the terms "Germani" and "Germanic speakers", despite Krakkos claiming the opposite over and over. Whether or not Heather would say these terms strictly only refer to people who spoke Germanic speakers is not necessarily important for anything we are needing to discuss for this article.
• Krakkos continues to read Halsall wrongly, saying that "Halsall states that Germanic "does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani".". The main discussion is here. Here is the passage Krakkos reads as evidence for his position (emphasis added by me):

Linguistically, we can justify a grouping on the basis that all these peoples spoke a related form of Indo-European language, whether East, West or North Germanic. Such a modern definition, however, does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani.

It is as plain as day for anyone able to read such works, that Halsall is NOT defining any "modern definition" of "Germani". He does imply an old idea/definition for that word, but he is not calling it wrong or right, and he is definitely not saying people have stopped using that definition. And in contrast he talks about the possibility of a newer way of "grouping" (a categorization, a concept) which uses languages, but he proposes no word in this passage! Indeed, one of the points he expresses in this source and others is that if we in the 21st century group peoples by language (as Halsall and others do sometimes) it can be confusing if we also use old words with too much baggage, because it won't match other ways of using the same words. He thus finds terminology such as Germani and Germanic peoples to be unclear and worth trying to avoid, so he is certainly not giving us strict rules about how to define these terms. In practice he often defines terms specifically, early in a work, like someone making making a key for a map. In one well-known book (2007 pp.23-24) he says he will use Germani only in the classical way, not a linguistic way, for example, whereas for linguistic uses he says he will risk making long constructions in order to be clear.

So obviously Krakkos's push to deliberately use the ambiguous "Germanic peoples" to only mean "Germanic speaking peoples" is in conflict with Halsall's overall philosophy and advice. In any case, the sentence under discussion has a weak wording which is easily covered by these and other reliable sources. There has not been any attempt by Krakkos to find sources describing tendencies in the field, only attempts to discover tendencies directly by googling one or two authors, for one or two words. That is a clear case of WP:OR, and a particularly unfortunate example given the problems Krakkos has to interpret academic texts and Wikipedia policy in a practical way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Krakkos (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Who are the "post-Wenskus generation"[47] and which scholars are part of it? Krakkos (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

...A significant movement of scholars prominent since 2002, according to one RS Liebeschuetz, who mentions another RS Gillett as a representative. In fact that is all we need for our sentence about doubts recently in the field. But Gillett, for your interest, was probably selected as a representative because he wrote articles that also summarized general trends, so it is convenient to cite him as someone who also lists other authors and their positions. Of course both these authors make it clear that such doubts, though perhaps a bit less, were already common among older scholarly traditions, so there is no need for this sentence to be seen as describing only the post Wenskus generation.

I note that your response to the work I did, which you pushed for, was tendentious indeed. Will you now explain what your secret plans are for this article and its current topic. Please demonstrate something which shows you can actually make positive contributions to Wikipedia and work with others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wolf Liebeschuetz describes the theories of Andrew Gillett as "very strongly ideological" and "flawed because they depend on a dogmatic and selective use of the evidence."[48] Since when did flawed and dogmatic ideological sources from a non-notable scholar become suitable to define the topic an article? Who else is part of the "post-Wenskus generation"? Krakkos (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes and read the rest of the nice things he says about him. But as far as our sentence being sourced, Liebeschuetz would also agree with it, and WP policy tells us not to use only one source when we know the field has different opinions. In this case Liebeschuetz himself tells us about trends in the field and that should guide us. And can you please stop switching your incomplete responses from article to article and section to section? [49]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Except from Andrew Gillett, who else is part of the "post-Wenskus generation"?[50] Krakkos (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? Why is this important? What is your point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is important because of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N. Clearly you're not aware of any scholars belonging to the "post-Wenskus generation" except from Andrew Gillett. This leaves us the question: What makes Andrew Gillett more qualified to the define the topic of this article than Peter Heather, Edgar Charles Polomé, Edward Arthur Thompson and Christopher R. Fee?[51] Krakkos (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:INCOMPETENCE, in so many ways...

• Stop refactoring this thread in ways I have already rejected. I want this thread, which is a deliberately deceptive accusation of me to be kept together. WP needs good transparency and traceability concerning all your edit patterns. See WP:TALKO.
• As you should know very well but apparently don't understand, the source for the post Wenskus generation description of what has been happening in the field is not Gillett himself, but Wolf Liebeschuetz who you seem to see as an RS.
• A person like Thompson (d.1994) who wrote before a certain group of scholars (from about 2002 according to our source) can not be a source for comments about them, obviously?
• The policies you cite are only relevant here if they have something to say about how we source the sentence you mentioned. Because the sentence does not go as far as Gillett, it is clear that Liebeschuetz and several other authors you've been quoting, would also agree. Example (pp.99-100):

I am not claiming that there was after all a Germanic culture, continuing without interruption from prehistory to modern times, and a fundamental national character. My point is rather that we have enough evidence to show that the tribes of the Age of Migration did have their own evolving traditions, and that it is reasonable to assume that these traditions made a significant contribution to the making of Medieval Europe.

• Andrew Gillett is also an RS. Just because one author says he disagrees with another author, the core content policies you mention do not tell us we can use the criticized one!!!! The policies you cite are very clear about this. By the way, Gillett says similar things about others of course, in the intro to the work Liebeschuetz cites [52]. Following your logic we can't use anyone who has ever been criticized!
• Quite clearly I am NOT saying I know nothing or whatever, I am saying your demands are NOT RELEVANT, and a distraction from much bigger editing concerns coming from your recent disruptive behavior, which needs to be addressed openly, urgently. Stop the distractions!!!
• If you read Liebeschuetz you'll see he refers not only to Gillett and his generation but also, as more examples, to the contributors in the Gillett volume. FWIW you can see them listed here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Does the Distant Past Impinge on the Invasion Age Germans? - Walter Goffart
• Reinhard Wenskus on ‘Ethnogenesis’, Ethnicity, and the Origin of the Franks - Alexander Callander Murray
• Nation versus Army: A Necessary Contrast? - Michael Kulikowski
• Was Ethnicity Politicized in the Earliest Medieval Kingdoms? - Andrew Gillett
• Visions of National Greatness: Medieval Images, Ethnicity, and Nationalism in Finland, 1905–1945 - Derek Fewster
• Ethnic Identities as Constructions of Archaeology: The Case of the Alamanni - Sebastian Brather
• Volkstum as Paradigm: Germanic People and Gallo-Romans in Early Medieval Archaeology since the 1930s - Hubert Fehr
• From Kossinna to Bromley: Ethnogenesis in Slavic Archaeology - Florin Curta
• Ethnicity, Theory, and Tradition: A Response - Walter Pohl
• Ethnogenesis: The Tyranny of a Concept - Charles R. Bowlus

You cite a reference to the "post-Wenskus generation" by Wolf Liebeschuetz for your definition of Germanic peoples as "a category of ethnic groups of continental Northern European origin, identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples."[53] Which member of the "post-Wenskus generation" defines Germanic peoples this way, and where has this definition been published? Krakkos (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that specific footnote in that specific edit is just a result of the chaos you create on articles, in this case by your frantic double footnote-system additions, sustractions, etc, which read like a sort of WP:POINT-making exercise connected to things on this talk page. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

So now it's my fault that you're sources are falsified? Go and fix it then! Rephrasing the question: Which scholar defines Germanic peoples as "a category of ethnic groups of continental Northern European origin, identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples?" Krakkos (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have a specific proposal, make it. Otherwise I request that we do nothing concerning this sentence until we have an agreed plan about what the topic of this article and any new offshoots are going to be. There is no point you suddenly wanting 5 footnotes on every sentence in the lead. Please stop editing and explain your proposed plans. Otherwise we are going to be editing the same articles with different understandings of what they are about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeating unanswered question: What makes Andrew Gillett more qualified to the define the topic of this article than Peter Heather, Edgar Charles Polomé, and Christopher R. Fee? Krakkos (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No one made any such claim and you are making no sense. These questions are irrational and useless. Wikipedia editors define what the topics of Wikipedia articles are. As a Wikipedia editor who has made it clear that you intend to make major changes to the topic, which means all these details are a side show for the time being, please tell us about your proposals openly, so we can then have a more useful discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

When you're removing[54] sourced definitions by Peter Heather, Edgar Charles Polomé, and Christopher R. Fee, and replacing it with a definition sourced to the "post-Wenskus generation" (as represented by Andrew Gillett), this IS the claim you're making. Rephrasing the question: If Andrew Gillett is not more qualified to the define the topic of Germanic peoples this article than Peter Heather, Edgar Charles Polomé, and Christopher R. Fee, why are you justified in replacing the definitions of Heather, Polomé and Fee with the definition of Gillett? Krakkos (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

For a sentence saying that some scholars doubt something, we only need a source saying some scholars doubt something. We are not saying Wikipedia doubts something. I should not have to be explaining these basic types of editing concepts, over and over and over. In any case it is a side show. First please put your working ideas into the open so that we do not have a continuation of the stupid situation where one editor is knowingly re-working articles so that their topic definition does not match what other editors are writing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)