Talk:Germani

Re-creation of this article but what is the topic and is it not a POVFORK?
In knowingly starting this article despite it being controversial, User:Krakkos has written that "Germani is not necessarily the same as Germanic peoples. Not all Germani were Germanic." As discussed on the original article where the starting material for this one came from, there is a problem with this statement - not so much because people disagree, but because the terms just beg the question. We need to agree first what "Germanic" means. For Krakkos it means "Germanic speaking" but this is not the precise meaning in reliable sources. It is only a short hand term in less exact usage. In reliable sources "Germani" is just the Latin term for Germanic peoples. See WP:POVFORK and here. Krakkos could easily choose to write "Germanic speaking" for clarity in all cases (including article titles), and this would remove the problem. Krakkos appears not to want clarity?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Germanic peoples are referred to by many names in reliable sources. In addition to "Germanic peoples", they are also occasionally referred to as "Teutons", "Germans" and "Germani". The terms "Teutons" and "Germans" however, may also refer to other subjects that are notable in their own regard. These are distinct subjects that should not be merged into the Germanic peoples article. The same principle applies to "Germani". "Germani" may refer to the Roman exonym for the multi-ethnic population of the region the Romans called Germania. This exonym is the origin of the name of Germany, Germans, the German language, Germanic peoples, the Germanic languages and many other important subjects. It is a distinct and notable subject from both a historical and linguistic viewpoint, and deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Germani, in other words, always and only has the same group of meanings as Germanic peoples. Germani is even used for the linguistic meaning (Heather 2009 p.5). They are never used together in contrast. So your own attempt to explain your actions fails.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have continued to ignore what Heather says about this point, and even go to the extreme of using a Halsall quote to imply that scholars would never use the word Germani this way, which you know to be wrong. We need to report disagreements between such authorities of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion of Heather has continued below in a new section started by Krakkos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

In this section let's get back to the original question of this POVFORK and how you could justify it. In the end, your attempt to pretend that the new article is needed because of terminology distinctions in the sources is wrong, but it is also not necessarily relevant. We don't have to use the exact same terminology as our sources anyway, because they never all use the same terminology. But when we have two articles we do have to be sure they are not covering basically the same information. However in this case we have surely seen that Germanic speaking peoples and Peoples living in areas dominated by them are always covered together and no one can really separate the evidence and commentary much. I can only see two possibilities: one of the articles is about historical linguistics, urheimats etc (but we have such articles already) OR one of the articles is about "Modern germanic peoples" (but you proposed that before). If it is not one of these two options, what then?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting aside all other concerns, please explain the difference between the two article you envision.
 * I suggest you comment on the real article, at the section created for discussion about what you really aim to do. Stop the secret work and ask if others agree with you secret plans. You've been posting all kinds of remarks about side issues. How do we turn these into Wikipedia articles that are consistent with WP policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Opening line is not good style
For what it is worth (I am studying the adaptations you are making in this mirror article while it still exists):
 * See MOS:FIRST: "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject".
 * The reference to the term or concept being Roman is also inappropriate because the etymology of the term is unknown. Tacitus says people starting calling themselves Germani because it scared people. Some modern authors think the term is Gaulish. Modern commentators also point out often that Romans tended to use tribal/national names in most discussions, reserving "Germani" for high falutin discussions about geography and geopolitics (except when Caesar was writing about the Gaulish Germani cisrhenani). To the extent that the term MIGHT be Roman in origin this is for a detailed discussion somewhere, if anything.
 * Introducing a highly unusual word with complex background implications like exonym in the first sentence, which should aim to set up a clear and simple starting point, is also obviously bad style.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is the term Germani. In such cases the opening line used in this article is in line with MOS:FIRST.
 * The possible Celtic origin of the term Germani is mentioned in the lead.
 * It is usage of the term Germani by the Romans which makes it notable.
 * Germani is not an "unusual word".
 * An exonym is defined as "an external name for a geographical place, a group of people, an individual person, or a language or dialect". Germani was such an external name used by the Gauls and Romans for peoples of Germania. It is not bad style to introduce subjects as they are, even if the subject belongs to a "complex" category. Krakkos (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding MOS. The opening now is effectively saying the subject is a word for something. We have in any case avoided that in the real article.
 * I know what exonym means and between the lines it implies that it was a category which only the Romans used. We do not know that, and there is also no reason to see this as one of the most basic attributes of the subject of the article. Your implied claim here that only this makes the term notable is WP:OR and in any case something for later more detailed discussion. Nor is impossible to find a simpler word. Germani clearly is an unusual word, but I was referring to exonym as an unusual word.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way you should be careful about saying that the Romans POSSIBLY had the term from Gauls like you say above. In some cases on this and the parent article you seem to have a tendency to write as if this were certain. There appears to be no consensus in the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is no consensus in the field makes it all the more necessary to have an article like this one in which the various viewpoints can be presented. Krakkos (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And the mirror article should not? We only need ONE such article. Not two.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice you've continued to insist on "The term Germani was taken over by the Romans from the Gauls". You know this to be uncertain, so why do this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mis-reading Guy Halsall
You continue to revert me, but you misread Halsall, as I also mentioned on the real article talk page. Halsall's context: "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...". This wording, just like Heather's (p.5) is very carefully making it clear that though people might understandably use the term in a "linguistic" way, for example when they call Goths Germanic, this is debatable. You certainly can't just cherry pick words and say Halsall is calling this "the modern definition", when he says "Linguistically, we can justify" and "such a". That would be twisting him quite far from his intentions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article by Guy Halsall is cryptic in many respects, but what is clear beyond doubt is that he does not consider "Germanic" (the "modern definition") to "equate with the classical idea of the "Germani". In other words, "Germanic" and "Germani" are different subjects. This is what matters. Krakkos (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are reading it wrongly.
 * He uses words which make it quite clear that there is no single "the" modern meaning. He speaks of "such a" modern meaning which is linguistic, and says it is justifiable, meaning that the meaning is also questionable, or else it would not need justifying.
 * Furthermore he is deliberately using a wording which says that people who use this linguistic meaning would be less justified if they were trying to imply that these Germanic peoples were unified by "Germanic languages" as defined by modern linguistics. Instead they can only justify their wording by saying they probably shared related forms of Indo-European. This means that his linguistic definition is NOT the same as the one you are talking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate reversions to more ambiguous language
Among your continuing reverts, you insist upon writing "Germanic peoples" when you clearly mean "Germanic speaking peoples". This does not look justifiable...
 * Obviously adding a simple word would remove ambiguity. Why would you choose ambiguity when it is so avoidable, and even insist on it by reverting me that way?
 * It is obviously a bad idea to insist on linking these to the parent article which is certainly not written as an article about Germanic speaking peoples except as a part of what is covered. You have never even proposed changing that article's topic. Despite having made an RFC and everything when you started this article, you did not even mention you were doing that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Just referring to your supposed source, Heather is careful to using the "speaking" at the tops of paragraphs and other places, which you are not doing. So Heather gives no justification for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Tagged as disputed
Have tagged this new article as disputed...was going to comment but see others have already voiced concerns. Think more need to be involved so we don't have the same problem as a few years ago that caused lots of clean up do the Norse Viking articles.-- Moxy 🍁 16:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that is one of the problems. Really we should have discussion on the "real article" and get rid of this one. One result would be better participation, and more openness.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree ....article locked up.-- Moxy 🍁 19:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Falsified citation from Peter Heather
This article cites Peter Heather when stating that "Germanic speaking peoples are "often now called" Germani." The reference is made in clumsy wiki-language, and the wrong version of the source is cited. Heather does not state that the "Germanic speaking peoples" are "often now called" "Germani". What Heather states is that the "Germanic-speakers" who won the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest are "now often called" "Germani". This falsified citation should be fixed. Krakkos (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are reading it incorrectly. Can you see the whole page? I own a copy and it only uses Teutoburg as an example emphasized by "traditional accounts". The people being referred to by both Heather and the traditional accounts are described by Heather as "Germanic speakers" or "Germani" and the people in "Germanic-dominated areas" or "Germanic dominated Europe". He mentions that there is "no reason to suppose" that this population was homogeneous in language etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have previously claimed that the "Germani in Germania" and "speakers of Germanic languages" are different subjects. Heather treats, according to you, "Germani" and "Germanic-speakers" as equal subjects. Do you now agree with Heather or with yesterday's version of yourself? Krakkos (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW the 2005 book, Fall of the Roman Empire, is similar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In Fall of the Roman Empire (2005, Heather uses the terms "Germanic-speaking", "Germanic" and "Germani" interchangeably. The importance of this is that he considers Germanic peoples and Germanic-speaking peoples equivalent. Being Germanic-speaking is clearly the primary characteristic of Germanic peoples. Even if he also uses the term "Germani" for Germanic peoples, this article should be kept. Similarly, the articles Germans and Teutons should be kept although the terms "Germans" and "Teutons" are sometimes also used for Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are reading right past even the words you've reproduced. In both 2005 (eg p.53) and 2009 (pp.5-6) Heather is careful to say that what he calls the Germani or Germanic speakers should be understood as peoples living in a part of Europe dominated by Germanic speakers, which he also calls Germania. As you say, also in practice he uses the term Germani to mean the exact same thing as "Germanic speakers" (2009 p.5: he states this outright). So, despite the implication of the word "speaking", he is clearly stating that we should NOT assume they are all really speakers of the same language. So he is deliberately NOT defining ANY of these terms based purely on language anymore as he perhaps did decades earlier in 1973. Can you find any place at all where he contrasts the meanings of Germani and Germanic peoples in any way showing that they mean different things? I think not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather states (2009 pp. 5-6) that Germanic-speakers in modern times are often called Germani. He distinguishes these people from non-Germanic-speakers in Germania. Guy Halsall states that Germanic-speakers "does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani" (All inhabitants of Germania). This article is about the classical idea of the Germani, which is a different subject than Germanic peoples (Called Germanic-speakers by Heather). Krakkos (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed neither author says all Germanic peoples spoke Germanic languages, but that is not the question here. In terms of the terminology they use, please find a passage anywhere which contrasts the term "Germani" to mean something distinct than "Germanic peoples" or "Germanic speaking peoples". In fact they both make it clear that they thought about it and decided not to create such contrasting terminology. When they want to be clear about the distinction they put the word "speaking" in somewhere (sometimes in an explanatory note early in a book). Right? The reason is clearly that for many topics it is not possible or relevant to try to distinguish who was a Germanic speaker. The evidence and the commentaries have to handle Germanic language speakers and other Germanic peoples together. Cases where they can be distinguished are the exceptions, which can be specially noted, rather than the rule. There is nothing between the lines or unclear, because both authors actually make efforts to explain this, as do other contemporary authors. The elephant in the room is that academics in our lifetime consider the concept "Germanic" a useless one, but some Wikipedia authors are trying to sweep this under the carpet. Halsall and many others cite for example the 2004 article by Jarnut as being relevant: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather doesn't use the term "Germanic peoples" in his book. Instead he uses the term "Germanic-speakers". In other words, Germanic-speakers=Germanic peoples.
 * Guy Halsall writes that Germanic-speakers are not to be equated with the "classical idea of the Germani": "Roman ethno-geography, most notably Tacitus’ Germania... bracketed together all those ‘fair-haired races’ who could not be included under the heading of ‘Gauls’ or ‘Celts’. That definition proved tricky even then; Graeco-Roman writers readily admitted that Gauls and Germani were closely related. 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."
 * This article is about the "classical idea of the Germani", which as Halsall states, is not the same as Germanic-speakers/Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The same topic is also covered, as you know, by another article. Peter Heather actually states that he is not making the equation that he seems to imply. We have discussed that, and also your misreading of Halsall. In terms of the terminology they use, please find a passage anywhere which contrasts the term "Germani" to mean something distinct than "Germanic peoples" or "Germanic speaking peoples". But also see here. We need an agreed plan and we need to work in the same direction together please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What Peter Heather "actually states" may be a subject of interpretation. My interpretation is that he uses the term "Germanic-speakers" for "Germanic peoples". In his article on the early history of Germany at Encyclopedia Britannica, Heather defines Germanic peoples in a way which is easily interpreted: "The Germanic peoples are those who spoke one of the Germanic languages".
 * I have already shown twice how Halsall distinguishes between Germanic-speakers and the "classical idea of the Germani", which he says "does not equate". He also notes that the Goths were not classified as "Germani" by the Romans. By modern scholars Goths are always classified as a Germanic people. This means that Germanic peoples and "Germani" does not necessarily equate.
 * It is impossible to find "an agreed plan" and "work in the same direction together" when you're consistently ignoring the information i am providing. Krakkos (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with these readings of these texts is simply that they are wrong. Halsall says "such a". With Heather you are choosing to mix in wording from something decades earlier which uses another terminology. Of course Wikipedia can't work with people who make such demands on others. I simply see clear words which say something clear and you say "I want something else". It is up to you but Wikipedia is a community effort, not a place for individual creativity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from Wolf Liebeschuetz, a source you have previously highlighted as reliable.
 * "Germanic tribes... did indeed possess both core traditions and a sense of shared identity... Some traditions, especially language, all the tribes had in common."
 * Wolf Liebeschuetz agrees with Peter Heather and Edward Arthur Thompson in identifying Germanic peoples as Germanic-speakers. This is clearly the mainstream view. Krakkos (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are changing subject. I repeat: In terms of the terminology they use, please find a passage anywhere which contrasts the term "Germani" to mean something distinct than "Germanic peoples" or "Germanic speaking peoples". I'd be interested in any such example from a contemporary author: Halsall, Heather, or Liebeschuetz. Liebeschuetz is interesting. He presents himself as arguing against the field. On WP we report what the field says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Liebeschuetz is arguing against Andrew Gillett, a self-styled "independent scholar". It is doubtful that Gillett is a representative of "the field". Peter Heather is more representative of the field. He agrees with Liebeschuetz that Germanic peoples=Germanic-speakers. Guy Halsall in turn writes that Germanic-speakers and Germani are not to be equared with each other. This means that Germanic peoples, as defined by Liebeschuetz and Heather, are not to be equated with Germani. Plain and simple. Krakkos (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you seem unable to read books properly, or understand how to apply them in Wikipedia. Liebeshuetz discussed here. Please answer there. Halsall discussed here. Please answer there. Please try to get to a point eventually on something, and stick to one discussion thread, instead of moving your comments back and forth between the two articles to avoid questions you do not want to answer. It looks very bad.
 * I repeat: In terms of the terminology they use, please find a passage anywhere which contrasts the term "Germani" to mean something distinct than "Germanic peoples" or "Germanic speaking peoples".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained many times how Guy Halsall contrasts "Germanic" with "Germani". There is no need for me to do it again. Krakkos (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Halsall discussed here. Please discuss there if necessary. This section here is/was an accusation about Peter Heather which I take it you are giving up on trying to defend. Both writers make it clear that see problems in the terminology but neither says that "Germanic-speakers and Germani are not to be equated with each other." The author of that statement seems to be you. So far, I do not think this statement, found twice in this POVFORK, should be used in any eventual articles on Wikipedia unless you can find a real justification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You aksed about "the terminology they use", not just the terminology of Heather. Halsall states clearly that Germanic "does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani".
 * Heather does not state, as you claim, that "the Germanic speaking peoples are "often now called" Germani". He states that "these Germanic-speakers" (whom Rome failed to conquer) "are now often called Germani". The Germanic-speakers and these Germanic-speakers do not equate with each other. Your citation of Peter Heather is falsified.
 * The big question here is not whether the names "Germanic"," Germanic-speakers" of "Germani" should be used. The question is the amount of concepts. Halsall differentiates between two concepts (Germanic and Germanic). Heather also differentiates between two concepts (Germanic-speakers and inhabitants of the region dominated by Germanic-speakers). As there are two very different concepts, an article is clearly needed for each concept. Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Do you believe that Germanic-speakers and Germani are equivalent subjects? Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop switching your replies between different discussions on the same subject? I believe words like these can be used different ways, and I think both Halsall and Heather would agree, and therefore base themselves on what works for clear communication, minimum ambiguity. You know one of the factors which led to the current article situation that you fight against was trying to avoid ambiguity, and I do disagree with your deliberate creations of ambiguity. But more to the point I keep asking you to make your real proposal in public also and you don't want to do that either. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Teutons and Germans can be "used in different ways" too, in some cases meaning the same thing as both Germanic and Germani. By your reasoning we would then have to merge all four into one article. Krakkos (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think you are cleverly twisting my words, or are you honestly so incompetent that you can not understand how bad the logic of this accusation is? I am open to any proposed solutions so make a proposal. (At the older article please, which more people watch.) Then we have to judge such ideas based on the normal criteria demanded by policy and common sense such as...


 * minimalizing ambiguity,
 * helping readers get to the right article, and understand which they probably want
 * avoiding POV forks or any kind of article with substantial overlap,
 * making sure each article is about one subject,
 * making sure the distinctions we make or imply by our article definitions correspond to accepted understandings in reliable sources etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My proposal is to work to reduce ambiguity, make sure that every article is about one subject, and base our definitions of subjects on reliable sources. Agree? Krakkos (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know unless you please propose HOW: article titles, contents, redirects, how to avoid the big overlap concern. Please propose it on the older article which more people watch.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)