Talk:Germania/Archive 1

Modern use section
This section states that Several modern languages use the name "Germania" including...French (Allemagne), Spanish (Alemania) but these two are not actually based on the word Germania, they are based on the word Alamanni which was a Germanic tribe nation. You can read the details on the Alamanni article on the fifth paragraph and on Names of Germany on the Names from Alemanni section. Maybe the other languages on that statement might need to be checked too.
 * The others checks out. I have removed the two wrongly inserted names. You are welcome to remove such obvious errors yourself if you stumble upon them in future. If you remember to use the edit summary when fixing them, I highly doubt anyone would object. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna whey it is clear shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please nopt the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Also its a fact the the blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. I have supplyed many links below. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf. Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube and the Rhine and was killed in France. Stop slandering Czech people with your false history, Casurgis from Australia is watching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.235.227 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect
Do you think this should this become a redirect - or a disambiguation page, given the alternate meaning - pointing to Gaius Cornelius Tacitus? Were it not for the external links, there’d be no reason to keep a separate article on this topic (given its current length). Even the EL section, however, can be merged with that of the Tacitus article. -- Itai 02:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think not. There are lengthy books about Tacitus' Germania, some of which I have read; I've split it off into Germania (book) and will work on expanding it. &#8212;No-One Jones 03:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Germania as geographical area?
Well, how about writing an article about the geographical area 'Germania' as described by the Romans (especially Tacitus) as is being done on the Danish article on Germania e.g.? Fedor 11:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arnold Monkeynator
I'm assuming this section is some kind of joke and so should be removed?LilacPhonograph 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

is it?
Are Gepidi, venedi and others east showen regians Germans??? They are Balts :P Zordsdavini 13:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On what do you base this? The names and probable place of origin seems more Germanic to me (Gepids). Krastain 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany/Germania
In my version of Tacitus' Agricola & Germania, the latin word "Germania" is translated with "Germany". Should I use "Germania" or "Germany" for my history paper? I know that Germany obviously didn't exist at the time, but I read at dict.leo.org's discussion site that "Germany" is commonly used to translate "Germania" from latin. 66.194.72.243 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on the perspective of your paper. If you are writing about ancient times, I would use "Germania" because the use of "Germany" will instill a picture in the readers mind about modern day Germany, which is vastly different than ancient Germania in both geographic scope and inhabitants. It just helps keep the idea from becoming convoluted. Anable 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, which name you use. Germany is the anglicised form of Germania. The real name of "Germany" is "Deutschland" anyway. In "German"/Deutsch, the word German refers to any Germanic peoples. JeanLeMagne (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fault in the map
It marks Denmark with Jutland as Germania. That's a fault. I will remove tho picture if no sources for that is provided --Arigato1 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Strabo
the quote is not original or distorted.

''Neighbors of the Celts, the Germans inhabit the land to the east of the Rhine river. They differ only little from the Celtic people, are a bit wilder, a bit larger and blonder, but nevertheless resemble the Celts in appearance, nature and way of living. Therefore, I think, the Romans gave them the name (germanicus celti). They wanted to describe them as "true" Gauls (Celts). For in the Roman language "Germans" (germanicus) means "the true ones".''

I tryed some phrases the last one and google = 0.

In contrast the Tacitus is found

Is it free hand translation ? I doubt Strabo wrote about Germans :). "the Germans inhabit the land" Nasz 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

History Article
This article isnt a joke by any means. And it isnt a geographical article either, so it shouldnt be merged with the Germania article. Its about European culture afer the fall of Rome, and the Roman influence on the Germans, resulting in the Romano German culture of the Holy Roman Empire. The early parts of the article explain the long history between the Romans and Germans and the slow Romanization of the Germans mostly through Germans in the legions, and after the fall, Roman German marriages. --ProfMozart 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ProfMozart is referring to his pet article Romano German. There is a template there suggesting that it might be merged with Germania. I believe the article has no business on Wikipedia, but the input of other editors would be most welcome. -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Id appricate it if people didnt insult the article, it isnt a pet article, and it is culturally significant. Just as much as Romano British or Roman Gaul. If there is a problem with the article, its grammer errors, and you have to excuse me, English isnt my native languge. I noticed that wiki did not have this article, but it did have others on Roman influence of other peoples, so i made it. I figured it was the last piece of the "Roman-X culture" articles. --ProfMozart 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Romano German definitely should not be merged into this article as it is an inappropriate article for Wikipedia and has been through two deletions already because of it's inappropriate nature. The editor managed to get it back on by pestering one of the administrators that deleted the article. Most of the references are to poets and the other reference has yet to be found by anyone in any library. Definitely doesn't belong here and should be deleted for the final time as this article is complete nonsense. Xtreme racer 22:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Rob so your saying there needs to be a citation after "After the fall of Rome in 476 ad"? or another citation after "Pope Leo crowning charlemange as emperor"? ok, then who did?? everyone knows Pope Leo did. come on all those citations are bogus, you know the Western empire fell in 476, so why the citation? thats why I take it as a personal attack cause you are citating common knowledge, sorry to keep saying it but you know it is. And it feels personal cause thats like citating "the sky is blue". But maybe you are right about the name of the article and the grammer. you know english isnt my naitive tounge, and Romano German Culture could be a better name for it. I'm not saying im not open to change on it, im just saying it should be there.

And Extreme racer, just for the record, I referred to being a Scholar once, so please stop saying I "keep" saying that. Secondly the only comments I erased was on this page's old discussion page, which was pretty much a diffrent article, so again please stop saying I "keep" erasing your comments. I am always open for suggestions.--ProfMozart 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for comments on the Germania article. -- Rob C (Alarob) 13:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on removed maps
Arigato1 mentioned a map that marks Denmark incorrectly. When there are maps and illustrations removed from Wikipedia, where are they put? OR, are they just deleted? genealogyjohn 12:31 05 June 2010 (CST)
 * I tink the first map of Germania is relevant for this article. Only with this, every can see one of the early European cities.--88.73.177.139 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Names of Germany in English and some other languages are derived from "Germania", though the country's own inhabitants call it "Deutschland".
Why does the English speaking world refer to the country as Germany instead of Deutschland? Is Deutschland too hard for them to pronounce?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC). <!--Autosigned by SineBot-
 * In English, we borrowed the name Germania from Latin
 * If it makes the original poster happy, we English-speakers referred to anything remotely German as "Dutch" for centuries, till the term's meaning eventually was restricted to mean the Netherlands and its inhabitants. "Dutch" is derived from "deutsch".  Best regards~theBaron0530

~

Germania Magna included Brno and that is 200+Km east of the Vlatava
Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna whey it is clear shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please nopt the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Also its a fact the the blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. I have supplyed many links below. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf. Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube and the Rhine and was killed in France. Stop slandering Czech people with your false history, Casurgis from Australia is watching

Germania included many Czech towns look at links.
Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna whey it is clear shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please nopt the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Also its a fact the the blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. I have supplyed many links below. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf. Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube and the Rhine and was killed in France. Stop slandering Czech people with your false history, Casurgis from Australia is watching 110.32.235.227

Greek empire from 2nd century onwards not not exist it was Roman colony. Germania Magna was Poland and Czech Republic look at maps
Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna it's clearly shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please look at the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Even Olomouc over in the North east of the Czech Republic had two different latin names (Iuliomontium,Roman fort (Mons Iulii). Also its a fact the the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. Czech cities located in Germanina Magna taken from Ptolemy's maps 2nd century AD located in present day Czech Republic Furgisatis u České Budějovice Meliodunum in the sand Strevinta for Hříměždic to the West of Sedlčany Casurgis u Prahy Redintuinum u Loun Nomisterium in Litoměřice Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav Budorgis in Cologne Coridorgis in Jihlava Eburum u Hrádku Znojmo, East of Parienna in Breclav Eburodunum u Brno Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov Felicia u Vyškova Asanca u Kojetína Carredunum in Rýmařov I have supplyed many links below to verify. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf. Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube ( Germany, Austria) and the Rhine West Germany, France) and he was killed in France(Gaul) in 454AD. Also its a fact that the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno(Latin:Eburodunum) and was from a Germanic king. Two gold Germanic swords of the same type have been found in present day central Germany located in Pleidelsheim and Villingendorf. Look at the links above and make your own opinion. And then decide if an Americian writer(Note: Americia was and will always be a former British and English colony)who wrote a 20th century book about European history when he or she has never ever been to Europe. Note Americia did not exist in the middle ages only native Indians lived there before 15th century. Casurgis from Australia is watching  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.240.50 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Racist people look on the maps and names. Present day Czech Republic was part of Germania magna
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zQoXa-hriJUI.kR6FMEHv0kuY - Germania Magna!

http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm http://www.britannica.com/place/Lower-Saxony http://www.ggsmn.org/cpage.php?pt=35 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zQoXa-hriJUI.kR6FMEHv0kuY -See this map its based on 2nd century Ptolemy's maps with modern markers. Look at the green markers every one is in a country called "Germania Magna" there was none of your aledged Saxon stories. Atilla the Hun went up the Danube and then the Rhine in the 5th century. You know located in Austria, German and he was killed in present day France on the Rhine in 454. Casurgis 18 July 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.160.55 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Better source for size and population than Engels
Is there a better source we can use for the size and population of Germania than Engels? Not that there's anything wrong with Engels, but this source is almost 150 years old and estimates have surely been revised since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.109.62 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reorganized the lead
The article was top-heavy, and the lead had much information not contained anywhere in the body. I've reorganized the lead so that it adheres to WP:LEAD and better summarizes the article. The first step was simply to add two new section headers, #Extent and #Population and move detailed material out of the Lead, and into the two new sections without adding any new text at all. Second step was to modify the new Lead to briefly summarize the moved information, as well as to add to the lead a summary of information from the #History and Etymology sections which was previously absent.

The flow of the new Lead is still a little choppy and could use some copy-editing to smooth the rough edges, but it's both tighter as well as more representative than before, and does a better job of introducing and summarizing the article, especially for someone who might not read any further than the lead itself. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Further reorg: made a series of edits which are more about section naming and hierarchy than new content in order to tighten up the article organization and make it more coherent and clear. We now have new a H2 section container #Terminology: it holds pre-existing sections #Origins of the term (now renamed #Etymology) and #Modern use (now #Modern usage) which have become subsections of #Terminology.  Sections #Population and #Roman conquests are now subsections under existing section #History. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

History section too short
The #History section is too short. There were many military clashes going on between the Romans and the Germanic tribes for several centuries that could be discussed. See Classis Germanica as just one example. Tacitus wrote a lot about this period, and Wikisource has much of this information, for example see Annals, Book 2, Chap.9–27. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The UNRV website for example, talks about battles in the 2nd century BCE:
 * 113 BCE in Noricum: Cimbri and Teutoni vs. Gnaeus Papirius Carbo
 * 109 BCE: same vs Marcus Junius Silanus
 * 105 BCE in Arausio: King Boiorix vs. Mallius and Caepio
 * 102 BCE in Aquae Sextiae: Teutoni defeated by Gaius Marius
 * 101 BCE in Vercellae: Marius defeats Boiorix
 * and there is more, in the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * More sources for the #History section:
 * History of the Romans in Germania &mdash; in German Wikipedia
 * Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You can add and expand the history section as long as you find and provide sources.--Navops47 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow you. Can you clarify that, in the light of the content of this section, which is all about providing sources so that the history section can be expanded? See Help for help, if needed. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have given an example UNRV website which could be factually correct but we cannot use those references as the website does not state its sources unless I am blind and I cannot see them maybe you could be provide a link to the sites sources.


 * You stated that the History section in question is too short what I meant was if you feel it needs more information then you can expand the section to add the missing important information as you wish as long as its reliably sourced.


 * You can also include information from other non English wikipedia sites directly by providing a translated version and in the sources section just provide a link to e.g Sourced from:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_R%C3%B6mer_in_Germanien.


 * You will also note that the sub section on population that's in the history section has this tag


 * Meaning none of the information there has any references so if you want to add more information in the history section add it with sources if you are just expressing your opinion and do not want to expand the history section yourself then fine and apologise if I have misunderstood.--Navops47 (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the tag in the #Population sub-section that you mentioned: Yes, I noticed. That tag was added on  by this user.


 * By the way, when you want to reference a template, rather than actually include it like you did above (which marks this talk page section as "unreferenced"), you can use either the tl or tlx templates like this:  or you can include the template name in brackets, like this:   which generates this: Template:Unreferenced.  Either way will provide a link to the template you're referring to, without incorrectly categorizing the page.


 * Regarding attribution of translated content from other wikipedias: no, that's not how it works. For a guideline on how to copy material from one Wikipedia article to another (same language or not) please read WP:COPYWITHIN.  Contrary to what you suggested, one should not list the other articles from foreign Wikipedias in the Sources section because Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Instead, follow the copying guideline and add an attribution citing the other article by adding an edit summary like, Copied content from Article; see that page's history for attribution.


 * When the other article is in a foreign language, there are additional requirements: you can use an edit summary like, Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Exact name of French article; see its history for attribution. Then when the translation is completed, you add a notice to the Talk page; the template Translated page is available for this. See the translation notice at Talk:Wendy Delorme for an example.  For the complete guideline on Translation, see WP:Translation.


 * By the way, when you need to link to an article on a foreign Wikipedia or sister project, you don't need to use an external link. The standard method is described at Help:Interlanguage links; for example:  de:Geschichte der Römer in Germanien (or just Geschichte der Römer in Germanien without the project prefix, using the pipe trick).


 * You're right about the UNRV website which appears to be the work of an individual. But since it's only used in the External links section and not as a source, I don't believe it's subject to the requirements of a reliable source.


 * Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Population
Currently the article includes the following: " According to Friedrich Engels in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (first published in 1884) Germania covered an area of 500000 km2 and had a population of 5,000,000 in the 1st century BC. " I would like to excise this claim, which is unacceptable for the following reasons: Furius (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Engels was not an expert on the subject of ancient populations even at the time when he wrote, and he is thoroughly out-dated now, predating almost all archaeological work in Germania, as well as the large scholarship on methodological issues with ancient demography that has grown up in the last 140 years (which emphasises, for example, the unreliability of numbers found in ancient literary sources. In this scholarship even the population of very well attested places like Athens and Rome is heavily disputed).
 * 2) The way Engels reaches the numbers he gives is completely baseless: "Now the Germania Magna [Greater Germany] of the Romans, which reached as far as the Vistula, had an area of 500,000 square kilometres in round figures. Reckoning the average number of each people at 100,000, the total population of Germania Magna would work out at 5,000,000 - a considerable figure for a barbarian group of peoples, but, compared with our conditions ten persons to the square kilometer, or about 550 to the geographical square mile - extremely low." That is, he just plucks numbers out of the air without any justification at all.
 * 3) There is no ancient evidence for the population of ancient Germania. The inhabitants produced no literary accounts and the Romans were in no position to go around counting people. No Roman source even claims to offer the population of Germany.


 * Good call. I agree. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of citations from the lead
Sirfurboy - You just removed citations from the lead of this article. MOS:CITELEAD states that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged... should be supported by an inline citation." The information connected to the citations you removed has been contested. For this reason i would like to add the citations back again. Would that be OK with you? Krakkos (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are not citations, they are extended footnotes. Before removing them, I checked that they remained in the main body of the text, which they do, and they support the material there. It should not be necessary to cite information in the lead where it summarises a sourced claim in the main. So no, I would prefer we did not clutter the lead with two quite long efn notes. If other editors disagree with me, I will bow to consensus. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sirfurboy - The information is contested, so preserving the sources are helpful in order to establish clarity. Can i add the sources as citations, without the extended footnotes? Krakkos (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It might help to explain why you think it will be contested. There are various solutions depending on the reason, but indeed those footnotes in leads are not considered good form if they are not needed. (The classic solution is indeed to have the source in a section somewhere. This is one reason why articles with a clear structure have fewer problems. People can be confident that the lead reflects the body, and can scan down quickly to the section.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean by the challenge. Yet what you put here is straight out of the first paragraph of the population section and cited there. I have tried just re-entering the material to the lead as a summary and without a ref. If an editor challenges it again or adds a cn, then we can use the ref to support it, yes. Still, I would like to keep the lead uncluttered if we can avoid it - so are you OK to suck it and see as it is? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew Lancaster, that accords with my thoughts too. Regarding the very specific claim that the Romans called all the people of Germania "Germani", I have put that back. I think it is probably fine, but if there is a dispute with that information, perhaps we can update the population section first and then make the lead summarise it. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep that made sense to me. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sirfurboy - Andrew Lancaster contested the information by making the claim that "Its [Germania's] tribes were speakers of Germanic languages". This is in fact the opposite of what is written by Peter Heather, who writes that Germania was far from strictly Germanic-speaking, containing many indigenous non-Germanic tribes. Having the lead uncluttered is important, but what is even more important is that the lead is actually based on what is written in the sources. Krakkos (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed a tweak indeed when I did that. (Excuse: there was an edit conflict.) I will try to fix it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The source from Peter Heather is still misrepresented. In his quote, Heather does not use scare quotes to describe Germanic peoples. And he clearly distinguishes between "non-Germanic" and "Germanic" populations. This article now treats non-Germanic speakers of Germania as one type of Germanic peoples, while Heather actually writes the opposite. Krakkos (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The quotes in this position mean that we are clarifying for the reader, that within this article, speakers of Germanic languages can be called Germanic peoples. In other words the aim is simply to remove ambiguity. In contrast, the bit Sirfurboy re-added uses a different terminology, Germani. Maybe this worded could be tweaked; but to consider this, can you point to where Heather mentions "non-Germanic speakers" in Germania and states clearly that they were not Germani, (or not Germanic peoples for that matter)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that the "indigenous, non-Germanic population" are peoples not speaking Germanic languages. This means that non-Germanic-speakers are not considered Germanic by Heather. This article cites him otherwise. The citation is thus falsified. Krakkos (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I keep losing that page. Thanks. Strictly speaking it is not obvious (at least while we only look at one source on this article) given the word "Germani" is not used by Heather. But practically speaking, I presume you see Germani as meaning the same as Germanic peoples, and so I'll remove the words for now. Maybe there Sirfurboy can find another wording. I think the intention was to help the read link to later sections by saying that the Germani were the people living in Germania? I think I can fix it by placing explanations in other places.
 * ...I think it is worth noting that everything in this article has been the subject of much closer discussion in the longer article Germanic peoples, which has used more sources and had much more editorial input. This exact terminology questions is even the subject of current re-drafting discussions, as Krakkos knows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Had an edit conflict and the latest edit answers some of my questions about what is going on here, but in any case, here is what I was writing:


 * I am not really sure what is going on here - it feels as if there is something going on I am not aware of. This article has been stable for months and suddenly it isn’t. Nevertheless if we cannot agree a form of words, I suggest reverting the first paragraph to what it said yesterday, without any mention of language. This article is about Germania, so that is what the lead needs to stress, and it doesn’t really need anything about language in the very first paragraph.


 * Having said that, Heather is clearly using “Germanic” in that quote as a shorthand for “speakers of Germanic languages” as opposed to speakers of non Germanic languages in the geographical area that the Romans referred to as Germania. What he says is that the Romans did not isolate language families and carefully distinguish speakers of one language family from another. They simply lumped them all together as Germani - inhabitants of Germania. If your point is that all inhabitants (regardless of language family) were considered Germani, that is fine. If you are arguing that there is some special class of Germanic people distinct from the Germani, that goes beyond what we can derive from the source. And if this is not something that is patently obvious, let’s take it out of the lead altogether. We don’t need it there. — Sirfurboy (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is something going on besides just this discussion, see any number of topics at Talk:Germanic peoples and User talk:Doug Weller. Clearly this is spilling over into this article now too.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It might be easier to just propose the edit you are thinking of. Concerning your question about what is going on, User:Krakkos began editing here on 17 January as part of a bundle of very significant edits that day, splitting up the related article longer article, Germanic peoples, creating for a few days a new article called Germani. Krakkos has mentioned this article as relevant to those two, in some of the discussions about the ensuing controversy. The issue about whether the Germanic peoples were by definition (in our sources) Germanic speaking is a strong theme in the continuing complaints of Krakkos. (I do not think our sources define them strictly or consistently in this way, and much of the evidence Krakkos has collected is from authors who were talking as if all people in Germani spoke Germanic languages.) The discussion has got me working on a new draft of Germanic peoples and in discussion about that I mentioned to Krakkos that if this article is, as Krakkos argues, going to be covered by the other one given its current topic definition, maybe it should one day be merged. But I am not proposing that for now. For now I want to get Germanic peoples into better condition. My edits here are just because I noticed things to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather actually does appear to equate the Germani with Germanic peoples/Germanic-speakers:
 * Krakkos (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That could indeed be the way Heather uses the terms in that book: Germanic peoples = Germani, with implication of linguistic definition. (Gap in his solution: He does not suggest a term for what Germani who don't speak Germanic should be called.) Just in terms of bigger issues, this does not necessarily mean there is one official definition. As you've pointed out elsewhere, Halsall in another respected 21st century book decided to use Germani as the Roman non linguistic concept, in contrast to Germanic speakers or peoples, which were terms he explained that he more simply wanted to avoid. And I suppose this influenced your thinking - which is fine, except that also Halsall is not necessarily defining an "official" right/wrong terminology. And there are more authors. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With regards to the "Germani who don't speak Germanic", Heather calls them "non-Germanic":
 * Guy Halsall states that the modern concept of Germanic does not equate to the "classical idea of the Germani".
 * In short: There are two concepts, a a classical Roman one, and a modern one. And these concepts do not equate with each other. This article should be about the classical concept, while Germanic peoples should be about the modern concept. Krakkos (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we have discussed both these passages before but in the hopes of finding common ground, a key point is that neither author presents themselves as telling us what a "proper" terminology is, and neither gives a terminology for a dichotomy. Both present themselves as setting their own terminology with terms in flux in the field. Heather does not explain what to call Eburones, or indeed their supposed relatives east of the Rhine. Halsall's writing in this specific book does not even mention any examples of any Roman-named Germani who might not have been Germanic speaking, let alone tell us what to call them. He seems not to have realized they existed at the time. The quote above just says that linguistic definitions disagree with Roman definitions (presumably thinking of Goths). He does not say what to do about it. So neither give us even a complete and usable dichotomy terminology given what we know from more sources. And secondly, in fact most other authors we've looked at just ignore the problem and treat the two concepts as the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In short: There are two concepts, a a classical Roman one, and a modern one. And these concepts do not equate with each other. This article should be about the classical concept, while Germanic peoples should be about the modern concept. Krakkos (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we have discussed both these passages before but in the hopes of finding common ground, a key point is that neither author presents themselves as telling us what a "proper" terminology is, and neither gives a terminology for a dichotomy. Both present themselves as setting their own terminology with terms in flux in the field. Heather does not explain what to call Eburones, or indeed their supposed relatives east of the Rhine. Halsall's writing in this specific book does not even mention any examples of any Roman-named Germani who might not have been Germanic speaking, let alone tell us what to call them. He seems not to have realized they existed at the time. The quote above just says that linguistic definitions disagree with Roman definitions (presumably thinking of Goths). He does not say what to do about it. So neither give us even a complete and usable dichotomy terminology given what we know from more sources. And secondly, in fact most other authors we've looked at just ignore the problem and treat the two concepts as the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I propose to take the first paragraph back to:

Germania was the Roman term for the historical region in north-central Europe initially inhabited mainly by Germanic tribes.


 * This is as it was on 1 January. The article is about Germania and this pararaph defines what Germania is. Detail in the article talks about language and tribes, so I don’t think it is needed in the first para. Any objections? — Sirfurboy (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem at first sight from my perspective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This earlier paragraph is certainly better than the current one. Krakkos (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I have now changed it to that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Cross over with Germanic People
Okay now things have calmed down, there were a couple of points I simply ignored yesterday for reasons of information overload!

stated that the scope of this article should be Germania in the classical period. I think it self evidently is that.

mentioned the possibility (although no time soon) of proposing a merge with Germanic Peoples. Although I won't pre-empt any future discussion with a definite and final position on my part, as that discussion may posit things in a different manner, I would say that I think this article scope is not identical nor sufficiently close to that article to make such a merge, on the face of it, seem sensible.

This article is actually one of a suite of four that I watch. The four are this one (Germania, or Magna Germania), Germania Inferior, Germania Superior and Germani cisrhenani. These go together in my opinion, and any merging would make more sense between these rather than merging this article to an article about Germanic Peoples. Clearly there is much in Germanic Peoples that would have cross over with these articles, and I think we could benefit from cross working. Nevertheless Germanic Peoples is about the peoples occupying an area and these articles are about the area itself in antiquity (particularly Roman antiquity). People finding these articles probably find them as I first did, by looking up Germania with some knowledge of the Roman provinces and an interest in history.

That Germanic peoples inhabited Germania is self evidently true, and we can link to the peoples article from here, but I don't see how a merge would make sense. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sirfurboy - Thank for this very clarifying comment. It makes perfect sense. I completely agree. Another point on which things appear to be unclear is how one is to refer to the inhabitants of Germania. As far as i understand Peter Heather and the content of this article, the population of Germania was not entirely Germanic, being inhabited by Celts, Balts, Slavs etc.
 * What is your interpretation? Krakkos (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I should give my views the conceit of an interpretation, but I acknowledge (as surely everyone must) that the origin if the term Germani is somewhat uncertain. This page has ian interpretation - I did not write it and I am not sure it is correct, although have not yet been bold enough to modify it to something less strident. Perhaps the Germanic Peoples page can lead on that, and we can then modify this article to match when you have consensus there.
 * I am not sure if I should give my views the conceit of an interpretation, but I acknowledge (as surely everyone must) that the origin if the term Germani is somewhat uncertain. This page has ian interpretation - I did not write it and I am not sure it is correct, although have not yet been bold enough to modify it to something less strident. Perhaps the Germanic Peoples page can lead on that, and we can then modify this article to match when you have consensus there.


 * My own view, such as it is, is that the Germani were probably originally a single tribe or a confederation of just a small number of tribes in an area that came into contact with the Romans or the Gauls (c.f the Alemanni, for whom the etymology of their name forcefully makes that point) and my guess is that Germani is likely to be a corruption of their own name for themselves - or perhaps it was an exonym given to them. There are interesting speculations for the etymology of Germani, some of which might lend credence to this view. In any case it makes sense and fits with what happened elsewhere, if the Romans named a whole area for the names of tribes they met there first or most frequently. It is also clear that many tribes in Germania were referred to by name, just as many tribes in Britannia were referred to by name. For instance, the Chatti to name just one of very many. Yet once inhabitants of an area that came to be called Germania, all these tribes might be lumped together as Germani, just as all British tribes came to be called Britons. Clearly not all of these spoke Germanic languages, so Germani is not a precise term. It may apply to the originally tribes of that name (bearing in mind that the name in the tribe's own language may have differed). It may apply to any of the inhabitants of geographiocal Germania, or it may just apply to anyone living beyond the Rhine (broadly similiar to Magna Germania). I don't think this article needs to say much more than it already says on that. We define Germania here - we do not seek to describe a homogeneity of people in the region in antiquity, but neither do we need to overly stress what is already quite clear - that there were a lot of different tribes in the area. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for taking the time on that. As you say, there is no rush, but it is definitely a good idea on most article to periodically summarize relationships with related articles. That helps avoid the types of problems articles sometimes get into.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

comment on reverted edit
concerning this edit, sorry for the revert. There were several different changes to the lead. Some clearly bring in potential controversies and do not yet reflect what is in the article body.
 * Celtic, Gothic, Hunic and further semi-nomadic tribes of various confederations, later historicized as Germanic tribes. There are no evidence of any racial, or linguistic uniformity, nor any such polity which can be termed Germanic. Germania is not endonymic. IMHO this bit reads like an answer to something in a debate, but as a sentence in a lead it is unclear what readers should understand from it. Also I see no reason to state that Germania was also semi-nomadic, nor that the Hunnic or Gothic peoples were good examples of the typical historical inhabitants.
 * The Romans portrayed. This implies that there was some other group of people who had a more correct way of defining Germania. I don't think we know that, or that scholars think that. I think it was a Roman concept, so they could define it how they liked. (There is a question about whether they had only one clear definition, but that is another discussion, and we've broken up the topic in a certain way between several articles to try to address that.)
 * One sentence which probably could be further improved (but see extensive discussions above) is "inhabited mainly by Germanic tribes." but can I suggest proposing here first? In general also remember the lead should reflect what is sourced and in the body. By my understanding, this sentence is referring readers to the populations who likely spoke a Germanic language, such as the Suevians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A toponym
The intro mentions something called 'historical region'. I am confused about the significance of this term: it seems, or suggests, to emphasize Germania as a historical entity, and beyond that I do not really know what to make of the expression.

Personally I find the concept 'historical region' introduce a suggestive tone, simply because the term 'historical region' seems to mean much the same as the word 'toponym', but at the same time happens to be wikified, with a shortish text mentioning this and that about peoples, politics, language and whatnot, without actually leading to anything. Is there a good reason for not to replace this confusing term with the more exact term 'toponym'?

Back to basics, namely the aspects of a word:
 * signifiant - the graphic and visual pattern (in written language)
 * signifiee - the cognitive value of this pattern, nota bene an all-inclusive and a relative statement

To use 'toponym' in the intro would direct the reader's attention to the geographic aspect of the word Germania.

To use 'historical region', seems to suggest to the reader (and to editors) that there is more to say about Germania than that it is a simple placename.

In other words, the term 'toponym' is more of a categorization of what kind of noun Germania is - the signifiant - whereas the term 'historical region' suggests that this word Germania has some cultural, linguistic and political elements - the signifee.

I am not denying the complexity of what people think, and have thought, when happening upon the word Germania. My point is merely that the article text should not try to confuse the reader, by bringing up a term that does not explain or clarify this complexity.

That Germania is a toponym is quite a simple observation.

Unfortunately, I see many other details in the article that could be worthwhile looking into. Already in the same first paragraph this place-entity Germania is supposed to have been "initially inhabited by Germanic tribes" which again diverts the reader's attention away from comprehending Germania as an ordinary placename.

To make a parallel example:
 * Australia is a toponym, that names a location originally inhabited by the Australian aborigines

Obviously, there is no problem here, except for being a very clumsy sentence - this could easily be improved,
 * Australia is a continent, with its own geographic characteristics and rich in history, originally inhabited by the Australian aborigines

But then, describing Germania cannot use this model. At least, not according to the books I have on my bookshelf. What can be said, is that Germania in all likelihood was inhabited by numerous tribal peoples, and it is assumed the majority of these tribes spoke a Germanic language. It is also very notable that the term Germanic is introduced in a context that signal ethnicity - or culture, politic etc. Again, according to the books on my bookshelf, it is really misleading to suggest the existence of a Germanic ethnos, a Germanic ethnicity or identity.

I am not trying to ban the exact clause Germanic tribes from this article, or from Wikipedia. But it is more a term of convenience, it generally does not explain or clarify much, and, in all relativity, does the opposite, ie. muddles the subject theme.

I can see the article has recently been revised by, and , and I hope to draw some comments, pointing out some oversights in my reading. I'm generally interested in the subject, but far from an expert, and was only looking over the text for finding out how to merge in text from Germania Antiqua. It's been a while since I read those, now dusty books, but for now I am starting to reread Sechinsic (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I probably shouldn't try to speak for others, but I think most (all?) editors of this article would probably agree:
 * It can certainly be improved.
 * Yes "there is more to say about Germania than that it is a simple placename" so we need to work around that.
 * I think there is a good consensus on related articles to avoid "tribes", and it is just a matter of someone having the time to find nice alternatives. Please feel free?
 * Yes, just as Germania is not just a simple placename, classical era Germanic ethnicity is not a simple uncontroversial topic either. The two issues are connected, and one scholarly proposal is that the two concepts have sometimes been defined by each other in a circular way. There are several scholarly ways of defining it in a less circular way, but not a single simple consensus on what to do in practice. If the scholars disagree we have to report that. The biggest discussions about this in recent months were on Germanic peoples, and I'd suggest having a look there too.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I have to say this will be a slow proces, because I will need to read some books before starting edits. I will be sure to post concrete sketches, as soon as possible, but I also look at this, for the time being, as a stepwise and not very bold proces. First thing on the agenda is the intro, accompanied by a flock of quotations from Pohl, as I see your discussions above have included quotations from Heather. What you have asked for diff, about terminology, is quite a curious quest. From a medievalist point of view, the terminology can be extremely relaxed, with freely applying any mixture of Germani, Gentes, Tribes, People and as well Germania (as a toponym). Pohl is a good example, and I look forward to presenting the lengthy quotations - at a subpage. Actually it is very much a question of context. Just one conspicuous example from Pohl, here:
 * "The focal point of Roman interest was now shifted more and more to the Cherusker, near Weser, who then became partners for Roman politics. The regal son Arminius became, as a Roman citizen and knight [miles, army officer], a representative for a cooperative elite, and soon after the year 0, held a position of trust within the staab of the high commander of the Germanic army, Quinctilius Varus. But Varus did not understand to contain the arduously built network of barbarian loyalties.  In secret, Arminius created a broad coalition of Germanic gentes, and in 9 BC, in the difficult terrain near the upper reaches of Ems and Lippe, in the socalled Teutoburger Wald they surprised and overtook three legions, lead by Varus."
 * It is really unfortunate the proofreading seems to have gone astray here: 9 BC for the Varus-schlacht and then the Varus army actually spoken of as Germanic?!? I guess this is a lapsus, for intending 'the army stationed in Germania'. Anyhow, there are heaps of examples, and much better, for showing the varied and untroubled 'terminology'. The whole point is, it is not a terminology, or at least not exact. The term Germanic is a term of convenience, when, and exactly when you are about to retell the meandering narrative of the early medieval times. Perhaps some time in the future this will change.
 * I have to add, before Pohl launches his freestyle history of the dark centuries - ca. p.13-41 - he initiates the reader to the complexity of this quasi-term conception of Germanic, and follows up, past page 41, with the 23-page chapter "What is Germanic?".
 * Hopefully we can mimick this partitioning scheme, or compartmentalization of problema, with the help of wikilinks and such. And again, this article topic, Germania does not need to explain the intrinsics of the quasi-terminology. Moreover, there is the matter of 'reception' (the red-linked Wirkungsgeschichte) or the history of the usage of this noun-toponym Germania, which do persist, as part of the scholarly tradition, right up to modern days, even including the 20th century.
 * Original text
 * "[14] In den Brennpunkt der römischen Interessen rückten sich nun zunehmend die Cherusker an der Weser, die zunächst zu Partnern der römischen Politik wurden. Der Fürstensohn Arminius wurde als römischer Bürger und Ritter zunächst zum Repräsentanten einer kooperierenden Elite und nahm bald nach der Zeitenwende im Umkreis des Oberkommandierenden der germanischen Armee, Quintilius Varus, eine Vertrauensstellung ein. Doch Varus verstand es nicht, das sorgsam aufgebaute Netzwerk barbarischer Loyalitäten zu bewahren. Arminius gelang es, insgeheim eine breite Koalition germanischer Gentes aufzubauen, die 9 v.Chr. nahe dem Oberlauf von Ems und Lippe, im sogenannten Teutoburger Wald, in schwierigen Gelände drei Legionen unter Führung des Varus überrumpelte. [NB! lapsus: 9 v.Chr. -> 9 n.Chr.]"
 * Sechinsic (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To some extent Germanic is a common term which even experts use KNOWINGLY in a fuzzy way? Some have tried to avoid it all together and some have tried to make it a purely linguistic term, which also creates confusion, so none of these have become a consensus strong enough for us to follow without comment. I tend to think Germania is a simpler case because it appears to have been artificially ('technically') defined from the beginning? The confusions in this case are perhaps (a) some variations in the geographical definitions (b) confusion coming from the apparent and real connections to the difficult ethnic concept.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We are on the same page. I am staggering along working forwards, and have just commented out, in a beginning draft, the map shown to the right, and the quote from Waldman&Mason, both items, since they do not document the association between our article topic, Germania and this problema you mentioned. It would be nice if they did, though, as I find the quote and the map not only suggestive to this association, but also quite plausible. For example, in Danish archaeology I think (no refs) that the idea of a wider 'Germania'/Sitzungsraum for the 'Germanic' groups is kind of present, but this is alll very circumlocated. When speaking of the Bronze Iron Age, this is sometimes expressed by the emphasis of similar found groups in a socalled 'Fürstensitz' milieu. Needless to say, this is only relevant when there is the clear-cut documented association to the term Germania. ..still reading, though  –  Sechinsic (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC) - and 04:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very old map, or based on very old ideas, but similar ones have been used a lot on Wikipedia. The way I understand it, it is supposed to be based on ideas of where people were speaking Germanic languages and these were supposed to be based on archaeology. Around WW2 there seems to have been a sort of consensus on these things despite very little good data. But if anyone knows better where the data comes from they should say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As said, a long proces. Since this effort at discussion has a purpose of seeking consensus, I'll just restate:
 * Germania is a toponym. The explicit focus on Germanic ethnicity and identity is disproportionate.
 * This insight has a lot of consequence, and after these couple of days since starting the draft I can see this is going to be a thorough revision. The draft still has some empty sections, and I am still looking forward to spend much more time reading relevant material - I haven't finished Pohl yet, and I have to leave most (99%) of the article's source material unread - but in order to open up discussion it is probably as well to let everyone see the progress: the draftpage, at User:Sechinsic/sketch1 —— Sechinsic (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . Your draft looks very promising. I believe the addition of more English-language sources would be an improvement to the draft. That would encourage increased input from non-German-speaking editors. Peter Heather and John F. Drinkwater are cited in the current version of this article, and those citations could be useful additions to the draft. I would also recommend The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Roman Germany (2020), which presents lots of interesting recent research on Germania by German archaeologists. The introductory chapter, which investigates the origins and meaning of the toponym Germania, is particularly interesting. Krakkos (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * looking at the draft so far I am not seeing the significance or benefit yet, of the insight you mention. The first sentence would say Germania is a toponym, which is just a word for a geographically definable place, but then it seems to actually switch to the opposite approach and say that it is defined as "expanses inhabited by Germani", which means it is defined by ethnic groups, not fixed geographical definitions? You also suggest that the terminology has been stable for 2000 years. You'll find in your reading, I suppose, that one of the controversies about the term is that Germania was for centuries mainly used to refer to an area west of the Rhine. I also don't see the benefits of adding a paragraph into the opening which gives a wide range of foreign languages such as Maltese and Georgian. (I see it is now lower in the article. Not really sure these are needed at all.) Possibly this is all just temporary, so of course please take my remarks as an attempt to be helpful. I suppose a common theme between my remark and that of Krakkos is that we need to make sure we don't loose anything good in the current article. But nothing wrong with having a page for trying out and collecting ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just a hurried input, and lots of material awaits reading. I've looked at the first pages in the Oxford Handbook, but nearly in vain for the origins and meaning, specifically from the approach of understanding Germania as an authentic term. After all, the whole crux of the matter, in this corporeal world, would be that Germania appear in the extant text-sources. But, the Oxford Handbook seems an opportune source for adding another example to the section of "Contemporary usage". I do think the Oxford Handbook is phrased weirdly; "[xvii] A central issue here is that the modern people known in English as Germans' call themselves Deutsch." Another thing to consider is the "Germany"/"Germania" list of examples in Germania. What are the criteria? And is the Germany to be understood implicit? I think it is more sensible to change the list in the intro to the opposite. I have to say it's a small world, also in metaphysics, since there is good material in the Oxford Handbook p.xvii for this shift - and I had this in the notes minutes within checking our discussion here! (and hours before posted)
 * RE insights, it'll remain subjective. However, a toponym is not just "fixed geographical definitions", and I find especially 'toponym' to be a better choice than 'historical region'. It is a place-name  ——  Sechinsic (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, when I reflect on the implications of removing the name-list - because the identification between Germania and Germany is so widespread - then I can also see the weakness of the second sentence in the draft intro. ("The term has been used in this sense, more or less, for the past two millenia.") The Oxford Handbook locate the English language association to the 9th century, but I am not sure if this is a definite identification/appellation of the German Holy Roman Empire. The text (=Oxford Handbook) actually indicate this is not the case, since the association is found in translations of Bede and Orosius - severely predating the German Holy Roman Empire in the 9th century.  Nevertheless, an association/identification has taken place, and it could be a notable part of the revised version to explain the how's and when's.  So, the second sentence is an issue :( Sechinsic (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason to be focusing on the Oxford handbook. That is a tertiary work. We should use the best sources we can. Aiming to make it easier for editors with less skills and knowledge, to pitch in with their different opinions is not part of any Wikipedia aim. Honestly I can not see what you are getting at on most points at the moment so perhaps spend some more time on it first before writing long posts on it? :)
 * FWIW Germania, when used in English, tends to be used to refer to a Roman era concept. "Germany" or Deutschland is a concept which developed from about Carolingian times? Obviously it was influenced by the older concept. But I don't think the etymology of the English word Germany is a "central concept" for this specific article? I think it is a source of possible confusion rather, which can be mentioned as an aside?
 * Note also that this quote is talking about MODERN "popular" ideas about history: "Germania has always had special resonance in western and central Europe". In other words it is saying that there is a semi-mythical idea about Germania in modern times. In this article here we will need to make sure that the real Roman era history, as written about by real historians, is not confused with those myths.
 * Concerning " 'toponym' to be a better choice than 'historical region'. It is a place-name " I don't get what you mean. Germania is not a clearly defined place name today, and over history the definition was not stable. When a placename is a bit variable over history, but still has a sort of constant theme (e.g. Flanders, Macedonia, Luxembourg), them I guess "historical region" is not a bad term? What is your concern about that actually? Why is toponym better? I am missing something here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the draft. While I have some quibbles on the style -- if you are serious about replacing this article with it I can share them elsewhere -- I have two main points:
 * If you are going to quote primary sources (which I would endorse), don't stop with Tacitus & Julius Caesar: there are a number of other Classical writers who touched on Germania. These include Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela -- & indirectly Timaeus & Posidonius. Most, if not all of them, wrote something about Germania, & help explain what the ancients thought what the toponym meant.
 * A point that touched on is that "Germania" was a fuzzy term for the ancients. I suspect most ancients, when they used that word, used it to signify the lands beyond the Rhine & the upper Danube, & these lands extended an indefinite distance beyond those rivers. (The exceptions would be generals & traders who had to travel in Germania, & for them the word signified a better defined area.) IIRC, Tacitus included the Finns & Baltic peoples as living in "Germania"; unless there were otherwise unrecorded group migrations in the following centuries, Tacitus thought Germania extended far beyond any boundaries we would assign to this toponym. This is not unusual: for the ancients, toponyms like "Scythia" & "Ethiopia" were likewise vague in their boundaries. Germania & those lands were places at the edge of the known world, & even for learned Greeks & Latins these places were little more than names. This article needs to acknowledge that vagueness, & not try to over define it. (Thinking about it, I wonder if the ancients included Dacia in Germania...) -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Good points. I'll try to be less chatty now. :) You can see some of the following on the Germanic peoples article...
 * Walter Goffart and other scholars who agree with him have argued that Germania was MAINLY used as a term for provinces in the empire, and that the other meaning (topic of this article) was more of an intellectual term, which started with Caesar's political ideas, that lasted only a 100 years or so. Our article needs to distinguish itself and note any debates about the definition.
 * Clearly not even all intellectual or theoretical writers, especially in Greek, bothered much with this meaning, and certainly didn't write as if they saw the ethnic implications as helpful. They kept calling people west of the Rhine Gauls. Even Caesar, who seems to have invented the concept of Germania bounded by the Rhine, clearly did not really believe it was a real ethnic boundary.
 * So this article is, I think, about a concept roughly defined by rivers, even if sometimes implied to be ethnically and/or militarily meaningful (eg already for Caesar). There was literature about what the people were like there, but it is probably true to say that it was never purely defined that way. And the small number of primary sources who discussed this greater Germania did not all define it the same way either. The Vistula only became part of the definition later, and the southern boundary is a bit fuzzy. The original key boundary for Caesar was the Rhine, which he proposed as a good boundary to defend as part of his explanation for starting all his battles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Germania a politic entity, which can be described by history and geography? According to, yes. Or is it no? The "real Roman history"? Do you (Andrew) see the article just as an opportunity to write snippets of "real Roman history"? I cannot understand what point you are trying to make here, except for stating obstructive and unsourced claims. You have been evasive starting from your first post in this discussion. And please note it was not me advocating the Oxford Handbook, nor the inclusion of yet another Oxford Handbook (Drinkwater et al.). Are you discouraging the inclusion of these sources in the article (Drinkwater et al. is already present in the current article)? You fully ignore my effort at seeing your point and I can only advise you to refrain from monopolizing the discussion. You are saying (1)Germania tends to be used to refer to a Roman era concept (2)modern popular ideas has no notability in the context (3)Germania is not a clearly defined place name today. Please explain the logic? please take all the space you want to expand your oppinion. I suggest this talk-page as most suitable. RE quoting classic writers, I'll have to leave that to other contributors, as this is not my field of interest. RE Tacitus I'll have to restate my emphasis that Germania is a place-name, that the geographic outlay is described in the opening sentence of Tacitus' "Germania" and repeated with slight variation in the source from 1840, used in the current text, as well as in the draft. Whatever Tacitus has to say about the tribes, well, it could be a notable inclusion - belonging to the section "Classic literate usage and classic cartography - 1st century BC to 4th century AD". RE Dacia - are you referring to the Catholic province of the high middle ages? otherwise known as Denmark?  - round 2: Glad to see my interest in revising the article is an inspiration. I kind of suggest a dystopic scenario - from my point of view - where you can translate your very varied and comprehensive ideas into wikitext. The article has not received contributions since 23 June. Unless you are seriously seeing things my way I suggest you withhold further perspective-bombardment. For anyone else interested there is still a draft - User:Sechinsic/sketch1 - to be discussed.  Sechinsic (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ping User:Llywrch Sechinsic (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have twisted my words on several points and read too quickly.

I think the idea of reading Pohl was a good one!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say Germania was a political entity. It certainly wasn't. But it was defined by Romans with political and military matters in mind. Or do you disagree with Pohl and everyone else?
 * I have no idea what you are talking about concerning an opportunity to write Roman history, or obstruction. You called for feedback. Germania is a Roman era concept or do you disagree? How is the word used in modern geography?
 * Compare your words to mine: modern popular ideas has no notability and In this article here we will need to make sure that the real Roman era history, as written about by real historians, is not confused with those [popular modern] myths. Is the difference clear?
 * I am not of course opposed to use of the Oxford or Drinkwater, depending on the issue, but I do fear the idea of avoiding German sources even if they are newer, more complete, and cited by the English sources. Hope that makes sense.
 * "Germania is not a clearly defined place name today" because, as explained, it was a term used in several different ways over history. Also, it quite simply is not a modern geographical concept. Ancient geographical concepts were not like modern ones in terms of needing to be exactly defined. Tacitus by the way only gave one of the implied ancient geographical definitions. (Goffart argues that there is no evidence his ideas on this topic were widespread until they were picked up in the Rennaissance, and that the original idea of Germania as the area where the Germani lived continued to be a major influence of Roman word use, meaning that Romans tended to use the word for areas nearer to the Rhine. I am not saying I necessarily agree, but these are real scholarly debates.) This article can not only be about Tacitus anyway, but his book Germania has its own article though.
 * I would suggest that to avoid talking past each other or creating too much text we should try to home in on actual edit proposals. I see 2 open questions:


 * I honestly do not understand why you see "toponym" as a better term than "historical region", nor even why this is an important issue to you. If I can't follow it, I guess many others won't either.
 * I propose that we do not need the Maltese, Georgian etc words.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What can I say? It seems both and  choose to ignore my draft. I find it ridiculous that it is necessary for me to add that the draft is meant to replace the current article text - how else can the term 'draft' be  understood?  This discussion is not productive, and has turned into a dispute that does not relate to content - a personal dispute.  I regard 's continued posts to be obstructive. His first post was evasive, and his continued posting does nothing to focus the discussion on the subject theme. Again, I find it ridiculous that it is necessary for me to add that the subject theme is a concretized draft revision of the current article text. I'll keep writing on the draft, and of course hope to attract interest and attention, and a content-related discussion.  The draft under discussion is here: User:Sechinsic/sketch1. Sechinsic (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did comment on your draft, which clearly annoyed you. Anyway I just can't follow what you are talking about. Maybe get your thoughts together first? (I think you should look up toponym in a dictionary though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you asked here that we comment on your draft on this talk page. Otherwise, I would have left my comments on the talk page of your draft. (For example, are you considering adding further ancient sources besides Tacitus?) Nevertheless, I haven't commented further because I don't feel you have responded directly to my two points above. (I don't see the point of criticizing the style unless your draft is close to being finished. It would be arguing over the window trim when we haven't decided on what kind of windows the house will have.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , your argument is noted, being: "I just can't follow what you are talking about". However, the draft is fully sourced and, in my oppinion, deserve more substantial critical arguments. I'll give that the draft is early.  RE toponym I think it is you who should look in a dictionary. There's a good explanation here -> Toponomastik.
 * , please reread my answer, it is quite specific.diff
 * —— Sechinsic (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No I gave more explanation and questions, and anyway it is up to you to convince others. Also, in normal English toponym simply means place name. We don't generally refer to large geographical expanses with culturally/historically unstable definitions as simple "places", or at least that would not be the simplest and clearest way to write.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources

Looking towards a consensus
Before putting the revised text (still under construction → here) into the main article space, I am a little shy on the subject of consensus; and the revision is a solo-work, although not absolutely: the was something of a challenge, both for myself and, but did make me realise and focus on a thing or two. I apologise for my eagerness in that discussion.

Reading the current article and talk-page leaves some doubt of an actual consensus. The most definitive view comes from @Sirfurboy who says that "the scope of this article should be Germania in the classical period" (outspoken agreement from ). I disagree with this view, for being too artificial. The revised text generally reflect @Sirfurboy's view, but also contains a quantitatively shorter mentioning of both prior and later times. Especially for later times it is relevant and notable to speak of the abstract aspect of Germania - that is to say, considering Germania as a word with a history.

But there is something more amiss here. "Germania in the classical period" is not really a topic, in fact, even modern literature apply Germania as a discrete term, notoriously associated to the explication of ancient ethnicities. In this sense, just casually speaking of "Germania in the classical period" is encouraging conjecture. This is different from, for example speaking of "Raetia in the classical period", because Raetia happens to be  something . Raetia is a Roman province.

Germania is just a word, in the words of Pohl: "a territorial perception of Germani". If we are to take Pohl's view as definitive, we would end up with an article scope of "the territories inhabited by Germani in the classical period" and drawing in histories of the Balkans, Italy, Gaul, Iberia and North Africa. Clearly, this would be a huge challenge, and also WP:SYNTH, but in fact, any history of Germania - interpreted as a real or virtual political, cultural, linguistic or ethnic entity - is WP:SYNTH. The way to go is to reconsider the article topic, as describing a word, ie. an expansive dictionary entry. Even in this perspective there is arguably very few sources explicitly having Germania as the main subject.

Perhaps my argument is not reasonable. It is credible, with Pohl, to accept Julius Caesar's coinage ca. 50 BC to express only "a territorial perception of Germani". At the same time, this is bifocal, having both 'territory' and 'Germani' as constituating elements. At that time, in 50 BC and a couple of centuries ahead, it seems a fair assumption that neither this 'territory' nor these 'Germani' changed in significance. The Germania of this period is not well known at all, but the concept seems consistent and also very similar to any one of those real and numerous historical regions that we know of today, like the city of Rome, the Illyrian province, Egypt etc. I am guessing this view also harmonizes with "the scope of this article should be Germania in the classical period". As mentioned, the revised text also describe this (quasi-)history, but it is still - strictly speaking - a synthesis. I will even put a challenge to anyone reading this to cite a published source - article, chapter or book - explicitly describing the history of Germania in the manner of a real or virtual political, cultural, linguistic or ethnic entity.

This is a tough one :) Sechinsic (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * First thoughts, without yet looking at the draft. I think I agree with something like what you describe as the position of and, which is that this is about a term as it was used in the classical period. But perhaps better to say it is a term used today in discussions about the modern period. (Our Germania Superior and Inferior articles are covering another classical meaning.) Keep in mind that when we decide on article coverages we are not necessarily saying that other ideas are "wrong", but we need to pick one article topic for each term, and we also don't want two articles about the same topic. Generally this will be the way a term is commonly used today, as long as this is not too far from scholarly usage, which it is not in this case. Your interest in an article about the territorial aspect of the concept "Germani" is a topic which can not be easily separated from the Germani themselves, and they have the article Germanic peoples, and that article does have coverage of geographical aspects of that topic? Does this make sense to you? What would be the difference between the topic you are suggesting, and that article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "a challenge to anyone reading this to cite a published source - article, chapter or book - explicitly describing the history of Germania in the manner of a real or virtual political, cultural, linguistic or ethnic entity." I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but also at a loss for words. It should be possible to communicate without the help of fancy typography, but I guess this just shows how ingrained the association between Germania and Germani is.
 * I have intended this discussion to move things along towards a consensus and I see you sort of agree to @Sirfurboy's idea but also choose to rephrase @Sirfurboy's view, and - I am also sorry to say - that, just excepting your first sentence, every sentence you write seems a little ambigious. You now seem to emphasize Germania, no longer as a place or as a historical region, but as a term. And specifically "a term as it was used in the classical period". But your following sentence does not seem to make sense: "better to say it is a term used today in discussions about the modern period". Perhaps this was a typing error? You also point to "the way a term is commonly used today". How would you say the term Germania is commonly used today? In my view, it is used discretely, and that's why I put out the challenge. Academic studies does not offer a history of Germania. Instead we get many histories of the peoples, or of the Empire, or of provinces etc. I hope to understand you correctly, that the article topic "is about a term as it was used in the classical period"; then we are not so far from each other.
 * When you write that the Germania Superior- and Germania Inferior-articles "are covering another classical meaning" I take it that you are referring to these article topics as describing the well-known phenomena of a Roman province. In my understanding, describing for example the subject themes of Raetia and Germania Superior are similar. They are both Roman provinces. The same cannot be said for Germania and this is one of the difficulties that we should recognise.
 * When you refer to my interest in the territorial aspect of the concept "Germani" then you are seriously misreading what I have written. I also suggest that the idea of a "territorial aspect of the concept 'Germani'" is a bit misleading. Are you simply referring to the classic notion of a territory inhabited by Germani? If you are, then we are again not so far from each other. Sechinsic (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you need to make short clear proposals from the beginning, or move towards them now. I just can't see any clear rationale or logical proposal in your posts, and trying to answer in a casual way does not seem to lead to clarification. But yes it should have been "better to say it is a term used today in discussions about the classical period". I'd suggest clarifying this for a start: In my view, it is used discretely, and that's why I put out the challenge. Academic studies does not offer a history of Germania. Depending upon what you mean, one Wikipedia policy interpretation would be that (if it is just a term used in random different ways) we should not even have an article on Germania. It is not up to us to develop our own new definition. But I see several definitions:
 * The Roman provinces, which have two articles.
 * The rough geographical term (an area bounded basically by rivers) which Caesar apparently invented, for Germania east of the Rhine, and which was refined by Tacitus, Ptolemy and others. I believe the term is only ever used in English to refer to the classical concept. (Medieval Latin use of this term probably needs to be handled case by case, but it started as an erudite classical term.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alert, here! I am not making a proposal yet - and there is not necessarily a need for a proposal, although it could be a policy proposal that each article topic had a tab- or sub-page explaining the topic notability - but feeling the ground for consensus. We two might have communication issues, since we are both outspokenly in doubt about what each other writes, and that is not optimal for a discussion. What's so hard about understanding my challenge? Do you know of any such sources, then I am asking for a citation. If you do not know of any such sources, then we have a theoretical and interesting case; being that such kind of sources are rare or entirely lack, which is also my current presumption.
 * To hold on to some continuity in this discussion, I have to reset the progression, to remind you that I understand there is, and has been generally no clear consensus, excepting @Sirfurboy's view.
 * Your bullet points sort of present the dilemma, between what goes as
 * clearly a notable topic
 * ,and
 * we just invent this one
 * What your bullet points describe are both due aspects in the article context, and generally present this term Germania as it was used in the classical period. Comprehending Germania foremost as a word is in my view a good starting ground and perfectly notable in context of Wiki-policy - WP:WORDISSUBJECT, second paragraph. Unfortunately I am not erudite enough to formulate a sure-fire sentence on classic latin usage of the term Germania, but I guess there was very little usage, say post-dating year 300. It is, again and again, the Germani term that has the focus in academic studies, and according to Pohl, that term (Germani) was similarly peripheral and vague in classic times. Then the renaissance sees a conjuncture for both Germani- and Germania-usage, which, for Germania seems most profiled in cartography. Finally there are the word-constellations to consider, which are parenthetical but still noteworthy for inclusion, just as paragraph-level mentions. I can only encourage you to look at the draft, since that is after all the driving motive behind this quest for consensus. Sechinsic (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A first comment about your latest draft: it increasingly seems to cover the same topic as Germanic peoples. I might be wrong but I guess there is no big consensus problem on this specific article, partly because the editors including me kept it simple, and covered the more difficult ethnic topic more in another article. Concerning your talk page posts, please note the normal recommendations about how talk pages should be used: make concrete proposals about edits, and don't tell other editors that they have to accept your "challenges". They don't.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ?? Sechinsic (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Some corrections
The new text brings many changes, too many to be mentioned in a short fashion.

The topic itself is a curiosity. There has been a demand in Wikipedia for the inclusion of Germania, and not only in English Wikipedia, yet the entry is not a common encyclopaedic entry: neither Encyclopædia Brittannica nor the early Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde has it, and it is arguably not possible to find a book describing the subject. Article-length contributions are also rare and do not reflect the straightforward understanding of Germania as an accepted term for a historic-politic region. Notably this is different from the similar looking article names Germania Superior and Germania Inferior, which both were accepted terms for historic-politic regions. Instead Germania, as term, shows a similar history (Wirkungsgeschichte) as Germani, which is again yet another curious topic, but, in contrast to Germania also a very notable subject theme. In Wikipedia terms Germania confers to the description at WP:WORDISSUBJECT, second paragraph. The article name is also in accordance with WP:UCRN.

Compared to the previous text, the article contains more aspects, and the aspects are more clearly marked. The intro is intentionally kept short. The article is not finished - this would be impossible in Wikipedia. I hope to add more material, and I hope others will too. Sechinsic (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You've over-written the whole article in a way which you proposed earlier, but no one liked, for multiple reasons. One of the reasons is that it changes, or confuses, the topic of the article itself, which is a very important thing to get agreement on. I've tried to explain problems with it above, but put simply this is not an improvement. I think we should revert.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In our previous discussions I have called attention to several elements that needed some looking after.
 * Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the idea that 'Germania' is a historic-politic entity: in effect, this was the article topic - selfevidently or sub voce - forming the article sections "history", "geography" and "population".
 * Unclear consensus on the article topic - as voiced by earlier discussions there has been a concern for a subject cross-over between this article and Germanic peoples.
 * The previous article version had more issues, and to say this in a positive way, the "geography" section stand out as mostly ok. But, pertaining to the key question of what is the article topic, I'll note that the section "Etymology" described the term 'Germani', that the term 'Germania' only occurred once, within a literal quote and that the quote itself was incorrect - if corrected the section would not even have had this one (1) occurrence of the term 'Germania'. Really the revision is an overall improvement. Sechinsic (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before to you, I don't think there was any big consensus problem on this specific article, except for the case of your own disagreement. Regarding your new version, just to start, I think the first sentence is wrong (scholars do not believe the region was not strictly defined by the ethnicity that lived there, even if that is the implication of the etymology), the rest of the lead is incoherent and contains basic English mistakes, and it gets worse from there. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster, thanks for restoring the page. I admit that I only read the lede, as edited by Sechinsic, but it was very confusing. The first sentence should define the subject.


 * "Germania... originally in Ancient Rome a coinage for the wide expanses inhabited by Germani." appears to missing a verb. I am left to wonder if Germania was IN Ancient Rome. Plus, per my dictionary, the first definition of "coinage" is the making of coins, although I am aware of the other meanings, it is entirely confusing in this context/phraseology. The second sentence contained the phrase "whereas even today rests a dispute on what exactly defines the ethnography of Germania." Confusing, etc.


 * The last sentence of the lede read: "The place-name Germania became obsoleted after a centuries long history as a 'historical region' in classical antiquity." I don't believe that "obsoleted" is proper English. If the lede is a sample of what you reverted, then I agree with you, wholeheartedly. I don't wish to offend anyone, but I must support your reversion to the old/current article. Thank you. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  04:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tribe of Tiger. The lede of the former version was atrocious, and scanning the rest of that iteration, I see much that was horribly written, and the whole layout was ruined as well. It's hard to believe someone really thinks that was an improvement. Carlstak (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made various small syntax and spellchecks. To the two new participants in the discussion I must emphasize that the revised text is exemplary and the old text is a mess. In any regards - policies or guidelines. Sechinsic (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You apparently mean this edit? To me this seems to have a misleading edsum, and also the description here is misleading? To me it appears it appears to be another attempt to insert an entirely new version of the article? Please explain what I am missing. If you are saying that this time the spelling etc is less bad, then I think this clearly isn't taking notice of the bigger set of concerns about this approach you are taking. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, be honest in your edit summaries. You replaced/removed various sections of text. The edit did not consist of merely syntax and spellchecks.
 * Although you might have made syntax/spellchecks to the information you inserted once before, the "edit summary" applies to the new edit/any edit that you are making to the article, whether or not you made syntax, spellchecks to your previously inserted information. The edit summary must refer to any changes being made to the article itself. Once again, just reading the lede only, there are English errors. Also, above, you wrote: "In any regards - policies or guidelines." I am not sure what you mean by this sentence. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  04:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * @Carlstak, I am put off by your tone. I also disagree with your 'language' evaluation. The first example you use is incomplete, and the second example is, to my eyes, not terribly written. You are welcome to suggest a rephrasing for that sentence.
 * @Andrew Lancaster & @Tribe of Tiger - I admit entirely that you are correct in saying my edit summary was misleading. But I think @Andrew Lancaster is showing some pretense, by implying that my edit summary describes syntax and spellchecks vis-a-vis the old text? What the edit summary describes is actually syntax and spellchecks vis-a-vis the last version of the revised text, and it seems very cumbersome that I have to write that out, in the full. But, as said, you are technically correct in describing my edit summary as misleading. It was a revert, or kind of.
 * @Tribe of Tiger, yes, my mentioning policies and guidelines in that way was a little out of place, and I am not going to try and save that. However, there are many issues in the old text. Only some of these have been mentioned in the previous discussion. I'll especially refer to my example above on the "Etymology" section. That example would relate to WP:IINFO, which is a particular instance of wikipolicy WP:NOT. Sechinsic (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK then, but to repeat, I do not think the concern with your entirely new version of the article was only because of the English problems. To remind, you started proposing ideas for change and these did not create any consensus (they were also very confusing) it's not really the right way forward to then go ahead with inserting a whole new article despite that. The new text is still quite questionable in many places, and it involves a change of topic definition. Please note that I don't have any special attachment to the version you replaced, but it's topic definition as a geographical expanse (which is what you are against) has the merit of being simple, and inter-locking logically with our other articles which we link to. Some of the more complicated ethnicity topics connected to this one, which seem to be the ones which interest you, are handled on Germanic peoples. Most articles are best improved in small steps. If the whole topic definition needs changing though, then you should get clarity on the talk page first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Page break, for ease of discussion

 * It is correct that I some 30 days ago started discussion on the subject. As concerns consensus I think you are being very immodest, but I concede that you do not seem ready to accept new inspirations. I note that you consider the article topic to be "geographical expanse", which is different from what you have voiced in previous discussions. This simplicity in topic is addressed as an issue at the very beginning of this discussion, phrased as "accepted term for a historic-political region", and I miss your response to the problem.
 * You also suggest I am interested in complicated ethnicity topics, but I am left in doubt as to whether you suppose this a general statement, or an emphasis on what I write on the talk-page or the actual revised text. The revised text adds complexity, in a positive sense, by reflecting how 'Germania' is treated topically in current academic literature. The complicated ethnicity topics are, tentatively speaking, a defining context, and examples of notable literature specifically addressing 'Germania' as a subject theme are very rare. Sechinsic (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep calling your texts good, but other people have not agreed with you. So there is homework to do there, and I suggest working with smaller bits. Secondly, concerning the article topic, you have to remember that to a large extent Wikipedians have to agree on how the different articles break up a topic, and sources only guide us. There has been a simple approach on this article, which is not necessarily the one I would have chosen, but I think it works. It is basically being treated as the area between Rhine and Vistula, which is of course a very common usage in scholarly literature. As a classical term several specialist scholars believe this area was given a name based on the Germani, who lived near the Rhine, only by Caesar, and this was originally largely for political reasons, not any careful ethnic analysis. Only a few classical authors used the term that way, but it is now the most common usage of the unqualified latinate term (this article's title) in modern English, and the connections (or lack thereof) to things like ethnicity and language tend to confuse people. Currently such complications are being handled on the Germanic Peoples article, which cites Pohl heavily. Other aspects are being handled in the articles about the Roman provinces. You have to at least show some understand of all that and address it, if you want to totally change it. So concerning the article topic definition you really haven't even begun to make any sort of convincing case. But it might be easier to tweak this article and add links etc to it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor Sechinsic re-added his bizarrely substandard text with a deceptive edit summary; this suggests that he is not making these changes in a collegial spirit. Summarizing his rewrite with the words "syntax and spellchecks" comes off as a bad joke; someone who writes so poorly in English has no business making edits to address "syntax" in the first place. His preferred layout is awful: it's displeasing to the eye, with a haphazard arrangement that shows he has little sense of how a WP page should be laid out. It has a rather ugly uncaptioned photo in the very lede, with no context at all. This gets the whole article off to a bad start, and it only gets worse as one scrolls down the page. He's stuffed three maps at the top of the "Late modern period" section so that the reader has to scroll horizontally (at least I do), and he hasn't adhered to the Wikipedia Manual of Style with his wikilinking of headings. And what the hell is "The very long duree - literate usage"? His words "The literate preoccupation, to represent the enigma of an ancient past, mostly took use of the personified, or existentially directed form" are some of the most fatuous, meaningless "jargonese" I've ever encountered. Carlstak (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have similar concerns, but upon reflection I decided I could assume good faith concerning the edsums, which are apparently intended to mean "now here it is again with the spelling mistakes fixed". Secondly I think experience is playing a role. From what I can tell Sechinsic has watched WP a long time but not often edited heavily. Our reading of the edsum is probably conditioned by the quasi-standard wordings we tend to use. This also must be playing a role concerning the non-standard style, but that is yet another reason to work in smaller steps on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I, too, am assuming good faith with the edit summary. Merely a mistake, not an intent to deceive.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  21:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I take the point about the edsum, and thank both you guys for your input. Upon reflection, I think Andrew Lancaster probably is right about what's going on with this editor. All my other points still stand, though, and I could certainly add many more about the faults of that revision. Carlstak (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There was some discussion in the beginning of the year, 23-24 January, and some concern about article topic and overlap of article content with Germanic peoples. The article has come through these discussions as substantially unchanged . As shown by the diff, paragraphs and sentences have been shifted around, and a handfull of sources have been added. My intention is clearly not the same.


 * In response to the comments from @Andrew Lancaster, @Tribe of Tiger and @Carlstak, for the record, what you write is very impolite. You also critize the revised text but does not open up for discussion.


 * I'll set the focus on the current article. What is your response to my description of the section "Etymology"? Sechinsic (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To me that section could be covered by saying that Germania was named after the Germanic peoples by Julius Caesar (and they have their own article). I'd say both the current article and your version tend to get a bit stuck on side issues and could more easily just make such a simple statement. It is not that Germania itself does not have complications we need to cover here.
 * Related ideas, going further (but which are not etymological): You want to use Pohl and I am fine with that. According to him and other scholars, Caesar made a political decision to name a relatively unknown region after a smaller group of peoples who lived near the Rhine. This lead to the double meaning of both Germani and Germania. Small Germania near the Rhine leads to the names of Roman provinces, which have their own articles. The larger more generalized Germania can be defined by looking at the works of Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, and Ptolemy who all used Caesar's definition. Someone after Caesar defined the eastern boundary as the Vistula. This concept only appears in a small number of classical works, but it is the one which was picked up in the medieval renaissance.
 * Put simply though, I think the writing challenge we face is one of getting this across the main points without too many diversions. Trying to define what these are in terms of single sentences might be important.
 * BTW, one good reason to work with what we have is that, your new version of the article is not structured in the normal Wikipedia style which other editors can easily accept and work with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sechinsic, your calling us impolite is weird, to say the least, considering that you want to ignore the imperative to seek consensus and impose your desired version of the article on everyone else, consensus be damned. English is obviously not your first language, as your statement above, "You also critize the revised text but does not open up for discussion" indicates, yet you have the temerity to tell native speakers of the language that your writing in it is fine. It is not. I would suggest that you are incompetent to write an article in English; you seem to have definite ideas that you want to develop, but your skill set isn't up to the task. The plan proposed by Andrew Lancaster is a viable way to make progress towards improving the article, and your thoughts should be given due consideration, but someone else should definitely do the writing. Your English is not nearly as good as you think it is, to the point that much of what you write is incomprehensible. Carlstak (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sechinsic that the current version of the article has many issues. Large parts of it are unsourced, and many of the sources used are either outdated or of questionable relevance. Germania as topic has not received much independent coverage, and i do not believe that this article should be long. I think a cleanup is warranted, and Sechinsic is to be commended for his efforts to do it. Meanwhile, i believe that the proposed new version reads more like a scholarly paper than a encyclopedic article, and its prose is a little too complicated for my taste. Krakkos (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like we agree, because I also think this article can be improved, and I am not opposed to the discussion Sechinsic started. I just think the approach was not the right one, probably due to experience. As far as I can see, probably also agrees. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree, Andrew, then and now. Carlstak (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now made an attempt at fixing the issues addressed above. The article is mostly rewritten, and entirely based upon modern scholarly sources that are directly about the concept of Germania. There is room for expansion, but that might make the article too overlapping with other articles. The cited article in the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde by Barbara Scardigli contains plenty of additional information, and so does the book The Fall of the Roman Empire (2007) by Peter Heather. Krakkos (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kudos to Krakkos. Well done; the article is looking much better. Your work is well-written, concise, and to the point, all in encyclopedic manner. I feel heartened. Carlstak (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the layout looks good, too.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your copy-editing and kind words. I've always appreciated your willingness to contribute at Germanic-related articles. Krakkos (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning structure can you make sure that everything in the lead is in the body somewhere? Maybe in some cases this can allow the lead to be shortened a bit in places. This is especially important if you plan further expansions because there will always be a temptation to add all the sourcing and discussions into the lead, which is something to avoid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

notes on today's edits
I suggest that this sentence by you is clearly correct:In Latin, the name Germania means "lands where people called Germani live". Therefore this one is not: The etymology of the name Germania is uncertain. I think the second one is about another word, Germani? Did Tacitus use the term "self-invented"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure Germania Libera is really a classical term?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The translation of Germania by Alfred John Church says that it was a "self-invented name". Given the uncertainty of whether Germania Libera is a classical term, i have now mostly replaced it with Magna Germania. Krakkos (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Hmmm. I do not call myself a Latin expert, but I don't see that in the Latin and here is the newer online Loeb translation https://www.loebclassics.com/view/tacitus-germania/1914/pb_LCL035.133.xml . Tacitus can be read as saying that the name was invented by the Tungri, but not by the Germani more generally as later understood. (I believe this little passage is one of the most written about of all short passages in Latin texts. I think there are other respectable interpretations. I wonder if he meant that the application of the name to non-Tungri was what was artificial/invented, and done in order to scare Gauls. This is what I see in Dutch translations and commentaries.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes much of a difference whether we use an 1876 translation or a 1914 translation. Alfred John Church, the maker of the 1876 translation hosted at Wikisource, was Professor of Latin at University College London. Maurice Hutton, the apparent maker of the 1914 translation hosted at the Loeb Classical Library, was Professor of Greek at the University of Toronto. Germania was written by Tacitus in Latin. Wikisource is more accessible and easier to use than the Loeb Classical Library version. For these reasons, i prefer the Alfred John Church translation. Krakkos (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is [sometimes] a good reason not to use translations from that period, and that is because translators of that period deliberately didn't translate literally. I am not so concerned about the use of old translations normally of course, but you have specifically chosen to emphasize specific words that don't come from the Latin, and don't match most translations or commentaries. Does that not make sense? In practice I am not asking you to change translation citation, but I feel pretty strongly that we can't use those words from the translation to make a statement of fact. Better to use secondary sources for non-obvious interpretational points. [EDITED]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have made minor tweaks that I think resolve this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)