Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11

Misleading myth making about the history of this article
In this RFC we have for not for the first time seen angry references to the history of this article which was supposedly changed without warning by me only recently, after no discussion, and at the behest of a sock puppet user. This is very dishonest. I would like to call out this dishonest accusation against me, and ask Krakkos to justify this. What has been presented so far are only a couple of diffs showing that I changed a couple of sentences at the top of the article in 2019, but the accusation is that there was no discussion before this. Editors are invited to type "Lancaster" into the archives search. My first post on this talk page was in 2011 and involved the misuse of genetics sources. That fact that different parts of the article implied completely different definitions of what the article was about was already an old topic then, as were controversies where people tried to rewrite the lead. I was certainly involved in such discussions by 2012. Funnily enough the first post of Krakkos on this talk page, which was only in 2018, meaning he has no right to talk about the past of this article before my 2019 edit, but was also a complaint about these exact same problems which Krakkos says were never discussed. See Archive 6 ("The lead does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. Undue weight is given to etymology and the relationship between Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire. It would be better to make these parts shorter so that one can include other important information addressed in the article." ). The exact same archive, just above, shows that Freeboy200 arguing against me for the same position as Krakkos, and then it is not far before we get to these discussions repeating in the lead up to the edits where the changes were, according Krakkos, made without pre discussion. At least by March 2019 (Archive 7), Krakkos was also involved in those. But look at the history for yourselves. What we should all be embarrassed by is how long it is taking us to make a minimally acceptable article. Shame on User:Krakkos for such blatant and personalized dishonesty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't merely change "a couple of sentences". Your edits entirely changed the scope of the article, from being about a peoples primarily defined by speaking Germanic languages to being about peoples defined by the Romans as being "distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples". To make matters worse, your change of scope was in contradiction of the source used.
 * Let's have a look at "the past of this article before" 2019. Prior to your edits, the previous scope of the article had been in place since 2006 (more than 13 years). Freeboy200, a barely literate trolling sockmaster, initiated three clumsily phrased RfC's in 2018 and 2019. It was during the third RfC, initiated by an IP sock of Freeboy200, that you drastically changed the scope of this article. As can be seen from the RfC's of Freeboy200, or any other discussion ever carried out on this talk page for that matter, you never received a mandate to change the scope of this article. Krakkos (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your obsession is with Freeboy200, but you have to admit you are focusing on one bit of text at the top of the article, not even in the actual article, as if it was magic, and ignoring all other context in the article and on the talk page right? The article has a long history of being very bad, and everyone including you noticed that different parts of the article were using different concepts of what the article was about. Freeboy was not the only person noticing the problems. There is no getting around that. There was no good happy period in the history of this article. If you can't even admit that then you are out of touch with reality, and that makes it very difficult for anyone to work with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You ask for scrutiny, but have requested to close the RfC within three days? I wonder what kind of comments you expect to elicit except for ready-at-hand POVs? It takes more than that time to inspect the heap of information and meta-information piled up in diffs and quotes provided by and you in a discourse that is increasingly held to the exclusion of other editors. –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost every posting by Krakkos on this talk page and the Germani one is a "leading question" with the aim of getting useful "admissions" for ... whatever. Also...


 * Krakkos has cited the RFC once now already to justify a bad edit. 1:29, 20 January 2020‎ Krakkos added a new section under "Ethnonyms", which already includes Germani and Teutons, called "Germanic": "includes information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages, per unanimous consensus at Talk:Germanic peoples#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?" Concerning this, I registered concerns and have been discussing on the talkpage of Krakkos.
 * You can also get some insight into "whatever" by looking at the original subtext of the RFC.
 * Normally by now most of us would have come to a point and actually made a clear proposal. We might all be happy by now. Krakkos has some kind of issue with doing this, and it is making the article worse, just like he refuses to discuss his sweeping category innovations which also cause problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Austronesier - Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure states: "The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days... if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion." The outcome of this RfC has become obvious, and discussion has slowed. Everyone agrees. Even Andrew Lancaster agrees, and he has suggested that the RfC be closed. Requesting an early closure of this RfC is in full accordance with policy. Krakkos (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have pinged me, and I haven't come up with a comment yet, and so it is a bit quick to say that "Everyone agrees". I can assure you that it is not a sign of lack of interest in your RfC that I have not answered yet. And I have explained above why. –Austronesier (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: But what is that relevance? What is your message here? There is no obvious reason it needs to be here, or that it is part of any on-going discussion. The archives are full of relevant (and accessible) information anyway, but we should not be pulling any of it back out to this page, especially when it is in heavy use? This seems very disruptive and pointy? This reinsertion is certainly not any sort of clear communication? (Purpose of a talk page.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This controversial and closed RFC was archived with many other inactive sections, 9 Feb by Andrew Lancaster "creating archive 9 ahead of schedule because of heavy talk page use, and new phase of discussion".
 * Returned to talk page some hours later by User:Krakkos . "Reinserted discussion from archive which is still of relevance"

Drafting: easier to show
To take pressure of this talk page, and try something else, I have created a drafting page in my user space. Please feel free to post comments on my talk page. I think eventually that the short article Germania should also be merged into this, but let's see if I can get a balance which proves it is possible to handle all the concerns of everyone - with the exception of the demand for a list of modern racial Germanic peoples, given in Wikipedia's voice. As usual in such cases the challenge is to get everything near the top of the lead, without creating a mess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a comment on the draft - I encourage everyone to just make constructed suggestions/add supported text over there.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear to everyone, the draft page has its own talk page: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of Germani
I've noted before that despite some authorities having strong opinions about particular guesses, the etymology should be considered speculative. In case we need a source for an actual statement of this, here is a recent, language-oriented one: https://books.google.be/books?id=GO1oDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA10 A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages By R.D. Fulk --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good as source for the statement that the etymology is uncertain (or per source: "unknown"; or per source of the source (Schmidt 1991): "disputed").
 * While we're at it: I will look for more sources about Gēr-manni generally being rejected as obsolete folk etymology (right now I only have Partridge 1966, cf. note [17]). Currently there is only the unsourced statement "Others have proposed" with a pseudo-source (of course Mallory & Adams don't claim such nonsense, they're just the source for the OR-etymologizing); and the know-it-all-ish OR explanation why it can't be true. Isn't it funny that such kind of OR always starts with "However"... However, this might be a generalization. –Austronesier (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But is there any really "strong" proposal? If there is NOT, then a possible solution is simply to say something like "The etymology is unknown but historical proposals include [short list only, no details].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no strong proposals; some are weak within normal parameters, others are just plain nonsense. So yes, the most valid information is that it is unknown. And yes, the current bullet list creates undue weight over the primary statement. But I think Gēr-manni should receive special mention as the bullshittiest of all proposals, since it is still widely circulated (at least in German-speaking countries). –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if we already have a source for the criticism of that theory? In any case my basic idea is that the section should be shorter. (I think I ended up making that bullet list to be honest, but only because the material kept getting added to, and was very messy. That type of history is typical of many sections on this article.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Partridge 1966, cf. note [17]: "The 'Spear Man' theory (OHG gēr, cf. OE gār, a spear) is obs.", and I have dug up some stronger-worded refutals from 19th and 20th century sources. Will add them later here. –Austronesier (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would be great.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that in Caesar's day, the "spear-man" would still have been *gaiza-mann-, so you'd expect something like **Gaisamanni instead. Most scholars these days seem to suspect that the name is actually of Celtic origin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know a source that goes into these details? It's self-evident, but so far I have only found sources which dismiss the etymology right away, but without presenting the arguments (mismatch of vowel + medial consonant). –Austronesier (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Germani near the Rhine really did speak another Indoeuropean language then all bets are off. I also sometimes wonder why the old Latin derived ideas are rejected by some modern authors. I think Isidore of Seville gave the most obvious Latin proposal and Strabo thought it was Latin for "genuine"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the etymology of the name doesn't say anything definitive about the native language(s) of the tribes labelled with the name. It might have been a name given to them by neighbouring Celtic tribes. It's quite likely that names like Cimbri and Teutoni and certain river names (Vacalus is an example often named, IIRC) which do not show the expected effects of Grimm's law were mediated through Celtic-speakers. In any case, the original Germani, even if they primarily spoke Germanic dialects, were quite likely not the entirety of Germanic-speaking people.
 * Yes, and I suppose those add to the reasons that all options seem very speculative?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I'm not sure, however, how the language of the original Germani is relevant in context. The Suebi, whose linguistic Germanicity is not in doubt, may have a name whose derivation is Celtic, too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Surprises me if no one has ever doubted even the linguistic Germanicity of the (early) Suebi :) . Overall my impression is that any stable version of this article is going to open with more careful language and admission of doubts and uncertainty. I am thinking the second section which has lately been about Ethonyms really needs to be about the whole "definitions" subject, to set the scene properly at the beginning (and make the article possible to read). I also think the etymology of Germani should not be a major topic as it has sometimes tended to be in past versions. These are just current ideas, so feedback welcome!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a single mainstream scholar who has doubted it. If you can find one, it's easy enough to falsify my assertion that their linguistic Germanicity is not in doubt. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No: see the smiley. My point is that many things relevant to this WP article are debated by scholars in one way or another. Actually I have not found much argument FOR this position, let alone against. It seems Wenskus might be the the most common source of more recent statements, but if anyone knows better sources I would be interested to see how the argumentation and evidence is laid out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you already checked this article? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen Much mentioned but not read him yet given that he is further back. Will have a look. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually intended to address you, not Andrew, primarily, with Much's article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard reading matter (stylistically). I'll try to digest it this weekend, Probably we should also have a look at Feist's book which Much so strongly criticizes. Do you have access to this article by Feist? –Austronesier (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look at that article, didn’t find anything about why the Germanic etymology is bad, unfortunately. He mentions gaiza, but only in the context of names like Gaiseric. I didn't "read" it per se, so it's possible I missed something, but I'd say that it's unlikely I missed a mention of the Germanic theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not without an account, anyway, and it seems it's not worth creating one ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning "gaiza" I notice that a common position in recent generations is that the "de Galleis Insvbribvs et Germ(aneis)" inscription already mentioned in our article (with only very old secondary sources so far) originally referred to the Gaesatae, citing mainly Polverini, https://www.academia.edu/40220094/Germani_in_Italia_prima_dei_Cimbri. See for example Goffart https://books.google.be/books?id=dM3kdRzztiIC&pg=PA282 and Walter Pohl's Die Germanen. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a book that discusses why Spear-Men doesn't work (Hermann Paul, Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, 1900 p. 739: Die frühere Herleitung aus dem Deutschen als "Ger-Männer" ist sprachlich unmöglich; denn wir wissen, dass in diesem Falle die Römer ihn uns als Gaisoman(n)i überliefert haben würden. It's an old book, but it's an old theory that is summarily dismissed elsewhere, so it should be fine as a source.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I also still tend to think that if we find sources which show people saying the etymology is unknown, then that is enough? Here is a more recent discussion though, though it only explains it briefly: https://books.google.be/books?id=0YwgAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PR2&pg=PA80 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That does look like a good source. However, I think that a brief section on the etymology with the main proposals (the chief one being Celtic) is warranted. Obviously there are more than we can cover and we can just deal with most of them summarily.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is a bit of a matter of taste, but in practice people will keep inserting stuff if we don't. I am tempted to argue it should be in a footnote, but in any case my main real concern is that it does not become a long section jammed into the middle of something more important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My own suggestion would be having an etymology section. If we deal with lesser-discussed proposals quickly enough we can remove whatever long thing someone adds as undue.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In my drafting of new sections after the lead, I've put a bit there now, but I do feel concerned that it is a distraction. I see the second section as having a major function in the future of this article, because the article clearly needs a very solid topic definition. The Germanische Altertumskunde source which I mentioned above has pages of theories, and I am not seeing any of them as particularly "leading"? If we have several strong sources saying that the etymology is unknown do we really need to explain every historical proposal and why it is not conclusive?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Roman definition of Germani was not all "inhabitants of Germania"
While drafting I am also looking at current and past versions and also the talk page. I notice since the recent Split attempt has inserted remarks in the articles and talk pages to the effect of this sentence which currently comes immediately after the lead. "The term Germani was applied by the Romans too all inhabitants of the region they alled Germania, including Celts, Finnic peoples, Balts and the Germanic peoples themselves.[c][d]" One source given is Waldmann and Mason, a weak non-specialist source which Krakkos uses a lot, apparently also using it for the positions which he ascribes to the more respectable sources which both he and Waldmann and Mason cite. Tacitus is also cited in a way which disagrees with the modern consensus apparently by citing a pre WW2 source (Schütte) under the date of a 2014 printing. Some remarks about why this is quite wrong: Indeed this shows how the linguistic definition is not agreed by all the experts to be only a modern definition which disagrees with the Romans. I am realizing now that the mistaken interpretations being inserted are supporting positions on the talk page about the clarity and distinctness of supposed ancient and modern definitions. As this assumption is wrong, and both ancient and modern definitions involve debate and disagreement, all those explanations about the topics being clearly distinct are invalid. In fact, to explain any of these definitions we are compelled to discuss them all, because the field is not in agreement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Roman authors, as noted by our sources, always contrasted Germani with Gauls and Sarmatians/Scythians, including within Germania. (I picked a nice Wolfram quote in my draft.)
 * One Roman author, Tacitus, is sometimes interpreted as having mentioned Baltic (Aestii) and Slavic speakers (Veneti) but actually he makes it clear that although they share some Germanic traits he is not sure if they are fully Germanic. He treats the east like a transitional zone so to speak. He specifies that the Aestii do not speak like the Germani.
 * In contrast, historians like Liebeschuetz see Tacitus as the Roman author who, a bit like modern authors, seems to use language to define the ethnicity of Germanic tribes. This is an area of some disagreement which we have to handle better in future versions. I am working on that in my drafting.
 * According to Walter Goffart, the Roman definition of Germani "never applied" to the Goths. E. A. Thompson, Peter Heather and Omeljan Pritsak classify the Goths as a Germanic people. This means, as Guy Halsall has asserted, that the modern concept of Germanic "does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani". As these concepts are different, we must determine whether the primary topic of this article is the modern concept of Germanic or the classical concept of Germani. This is what i have tried to determine by an RfC, but you have removed it without a valid reason. I intend to restore the RfC. If you revert it again, i will follow the suggestion of Bbb23 and take it to WP:ANI. Krakkos (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, please don't let me stop you taking this to ANI. Second, you are not addressing what I wrote. The sentence in the currently frozen article remains quite wrong. Concerning the Goths etc, you made the same logical mistake above. See my response there. There is more that could be said, but for example that actually many authors today point out that hardly anyone or anything was really called Germanic by Romans after Tacitus, and also that according to Liebeschuetz and others Tacitus might well have called the Goths Germani, on a linguistic basis. But where is this all going? The sentence remains wrong and your logic is broken, and conclusions based on these remain wrong. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So what was the Roman notion of Germani, then? I thought it was primarily a geographical concept: people who dwelt in a certain region to the north of Italia and the east of Gaul. And presumably, the concept was generalised from a single tribe or group of tribes, or named after this tribe or group, but I'm even less sure of that. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My drafting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting#Roman_era Feedback welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: Is this article primarily about people called Germani in Latin-language ancient Roman sources, or is it primarily about people called Germanic in English-language modern sources? == RfC: Is this article primarily about people called Germani in Latin-language ancient Roman sources, or is it primarily about people called Germanic in English-language modern sources? Krakkos (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be some uncertainty on this question, although the answer to this question may seem obvious to most of the community. Krakkos (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * People called Germanic in English-language modern sources - This article is titled "Germanic peoples", not "Germani peoples". This is a modern English-language encyclopedia, and we should therefore primarily define subjects based upon how they are defined in modern English-language sources. Krakkos (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is currently called Germanic peoples and Germani is given immediately as the Latin term. Moves (name changes), splits, merges etc are not what RFC's are for. See WP:RFCNOT. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The title is Germanic peoples. That's what matters. I suggest you read the RfC again. There is no move, split or merge proposal involved here. Krakkos (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the editing relevance of the RFC then? Which decisions will it be used for? This is not social media where we do quizzes for fun. Of course the editing relevance is what matters here, and it is obvious that you've been trying this type of things for a very long time, and you never explain why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is relevant to the article's content. Wikipedia editing is not only about moving, splitting and merging, it's primarily about creating content. Krakkos (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So it is relevant to the content because it is relevant to the content? Gee thanks for that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither and both. This is a false distinction which is being inserted here to try to avoid discussion by inserting your preferred conclusion as an assumption, and not to clarify anything. You want people to imply with their answers that they agree there are two distinct topics. The strategy is known as a leading question, and the famous example is "when did you start beating your wife?". What you disagree with, and want to block using this RFC, is that neither the Roman definitions nor the modern definitions are all the same, and there is no simple "official" correct version. All good sources are talking about the same general range of topics under this type of heading though, as they all make clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to note the edsum made when pseudo-answered a point in a discussion thread after reposting this RFC: "Will you refrain from my attempt to create an RfC on the topic of this article, or will i have to go to WP:ANI?" As I understand it, Krakkos wants other talk page discussion to cease while the RFC is now going????? Don't think so. The questions to Krakkos are still needing answers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Goths were never referred to as Germani by the Romans, but are always referred to as Germanic in modern sources. According to Guy Halsall, the modern definition of Germanic "does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani". There is a distinction, whether you like it or not. Krakkos (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, he did not say that as we have discussed ad nauseum. But in any case we can not based Wikipedia off one author if we know there are disagreements. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that this citation shows that what your RFC is really about is a proposal to make this article EXCLUSIVELY about Germanic peoples defined by language (which you twist Halsall to call a modern definition, but not all other editors will get that), though of course you do not say that in the RFC definition. That would be an article topic change requiring a SPLITTING out of Germanic peoples defined any other way, EXACTLY like in the previous split you attempted, when you also made an RFC to try to back it up. This is not an appropriate RFC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never advocated making this article "EXCLUSIVELY about Germanic peoples defined by language". I've just pointed out that in reliable sources, Germanic peoples are primarily identified by language. This article should reflect what reliable sources say. Krakkos (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with who you are going to work here: First yes you never explain what you are trying to get to, but everyone can see you have other ideas which are not mentioned in your RFCs and other actions. Apparently you see that as a good thing that we should see as a good thing, but it is the opposite. Second, and more into a detail, I think your whole approach here to distinguishing primary and secondary is unclearly defined. What would it mean in editing practice to say Germanic speaking peoples are more primary than the original various concepts from which this neologism developed? Well, you've stated in these threads that you see the Germania article as being the place for discussing Germanic peoples who are not Germanic speaking. That seems to say a lot, or can you honestly say that is not relevant? It is a kind of split, but just less apparent. If that is not the agenda though, then I would suggest that it is MUCH easier to try drafting. Have you looked at my draft and how it handles whatever concerns you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Agree with Andrew Lancaster that the formulation is not correct. Or should I say: "Germanic people (broadly defined) as they existed from Roman times until the early medieaval age. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I might as well note here that the post migration period Germanic [speaking] peoples are a topic where I am think we can and should compromise and add a bit of add-on information about the sequel [in terms of languages, but also in terms of the various debates]. I think there are enough sources. Two reasons 1. The scholarly debates including about Germanism etc, the more I look, are a key to making real definition discussions at the head of the article, so the debate is known to readers from the beginning 2. A correct handling of what little can be said about later peoples will make the article more stable. Otherwise we risk drive by edits which add nonsense based on amateur webpages etc. Of course language branching etc can all be done in short form with emphasis on giving readers linking to the other topics. I think my lead draft helps explain my current thinking. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Add + comment We should primarily define subjects based upon how they are defined and treated in modern English-language sources. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. A source which only provides a definition of "Germanic peoples" in a circumstantial context, but does not discuss them as topic at length, is less relevant for this discussion. More important are sources which deal with "Germanic peoples" as primary topic (e.g. the article in  Encyclopædia Britannica or Herwig Wolfram's The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples). So I have two interrelated questions:


 * Among the sources which define "Germanic peoples" as to include "Germanic-speaking peoples" of all ages, which of them actually treat "Germanic peoples" and especially the "modern Germanic peoples" at length ?
 * In all sources which have "Germanic peoples" as primary topic, how much space is devoted to the ancient Germanic peoples (≈ Germani + X), and how much to the modern Germanic peoples (if the latter are included by the author)?


 * Reliable sources do not only provide definitions, but they also should serve us as template for what to include here, with all due weight.–Austronesier (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Richard Corradini, Maximilian Diesenberger, Helmut Reimitz (editors)(2003), The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources and Artefacts, BRILL. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These are interesting perspectives and questions Austronesier. Among the sources i have found dealing with Germanic peoples at length, modern populations are given barely any space. This means that modern populations should be given minimal space here too. I'd say Herwig Wolfram is a quite problematic source in several respects. First of all, he's a German-language scholar, and the translations of his works into English have been done quite clumsily (the translator confuses Germans with Germanic peoples). The theories of the Vienna School of History, with which he is closely associated, are quite controversial. His book is more about the relationship between the Roman Empire and the Germanic peoples than about the Germanic peoples themselves (Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen aren't covered in his book). There are English-language scholars who have written at length about this subject, and i think we should rely primarily on their works rather than German ones. Krakkos (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that few good sources treat modern peoples at any length, and then only as an add-on. That means most of all the sources are talking about Roman era and early medieval peoples. But concerning the medieval subject there is a long term debate about the question of whether there is a connection. In other words: the medieval and modern people are seen as Germanic only in a sense of being "continuations" from those Roman era Germanic peoples. This is why from an editing stand-point all discussion has to start from the Roman era, just as in all serious sources.
 * But I think you missed a question: which sources argue that we should see Germanic speaking peoples and Germani as 2 different topics with 2 different names? None. If you look at this talk page and that of Krakkos I have asked him many times to name one so Krakkos also should admit there is none. Relevant? The RFC is written as if such discussions will normally be found throughout the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would object to the characterization of the Vienna school as controversial - there are two basic positions in modern scholarship, the Vienna school and the Toronto/Goffart school, and both disagree with each other vehemently. Many scholars are somewhere in the middle, particularly nowadays. Obviously we need to use sources written from both perspectives to balance at the article. It's odd for you, Krakkos, to denigrate the Vienna school - they are much more traditional and clearly allign with your position on Germanic peoples much better. Goffart says there is no such thing as Germanic peoples.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with entirely here, while concomitantly disagree wholeheartedly with Krakkos that we should outright dismiss German language scholarship on Germanic peoples—and as a student of Wolfram am actually a bit offended. Meanwhile, I respect the position taken by the likes of Goffart on several fronts (especially with regard to Jordanes). Ermenrich has made clear an important distinction between the two schools of thought. Both sides are very much in disagreement on certain points and they should be correspondingly represented in any future reconstruction of this article.--Obenritter (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obenritter, I'm sorry that i offended you. I'm of course not advocating the dismissal of German language scholarship, but when it comes to defining topics on an English-language encyclopedia, i think English-language sources are more suitable than non-English-language sources.
 * Ermenrich, it seems to me that the Vienna School and the Toronto School are strictly composed of historians/archaeologists working on ethnogenesis in late antiquity. Even within this field, there are scholars who belong to neither camps, such as Peter Heather. I'm more in line with the ideas of Heather than the Toronto and Vienna schools. This topic is not just part of late antiquity, it also encompasses subjects like religion, linguistics, philology, etc, which are outside the expertise of the Toronto and Vienna schools. Religion, linguistics and philology must also be taken into account. Krakkos (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP policy is clear: we should follow no camp, and report all the well-known ones. So let's just do that. Concerning the Germanen/Deutsch problem with the translation I looked at that problem also in recent days, as I guess you know from my remarks. It is clear from the translations and the language that Germanen is the considered translation of what we are calling Germani, for example in the titles, and WP policy also allows us to use our languages. That is also exactly what we would expect. I'd add that in context it is clear that Wolfram and many others like him, some writing in English, are simply not making a distinction between what you call ancient and modern definitions. The only source you have for there being two such definitions is Halsall, but you are definitely misreading him. I've shown you how according to your definitions Tacitus has been argued to be following a partly "modern" definition by authors like Liebeschuetz. What we have is a field with as many definitions as there are writers, but still enough clarity to work with if we use some common sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier I will try to put it in terms of your questions, but as they are based on the misleading RFC this is awkward:
 * 1. For the Roman era, all sources define "Germanic peoples" so as to equate what Krakkos distinguishes as "Germani" and "Germanic-speaking peoples" as one topic. From late antiquity, the time of Goths and Franks, Germani is already a concept which Romans were not using much anymore except, so there is no point speaking of a distinction between two concepts in any answer to your "basics" question. Linguistic evidence is almost the only evidence. But as mentioned already I know of no sources which say one is called A and the other is called B. Language-defined and otherwise defined are always one topic in the sources. They are all imperfect ways of defining. If people want to distinguish the peoples by the categorizing criterion they simply use clear language, such as "German speaking".
 * 2. As per 1, there is no such thing as sources which divide these into two topics, so they don't have primary and secondary importances. There are discussions where languages are important and where they are less important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ermenrich, I agree. The Vienna school (and their critics in Toronto) are both important schools of thought. We should be trying to write an article which explains the different positions in areas where there is disagreement between experts. Hence my drafting work which I hope is now covering exactly this much better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, this was not about the RfC, but simply about the "scope of this article" (as correctly noted). I don't care about the wording of RfC's and stuff, I just try to place my irrelavent comments and thoughts somewhere here before they get drowned in obnoxious drama and useless finger-pointing.
 * The point is that definitions don't suffice. There are many sources that define "Germanic peoples" in some way or the other, but do not cover them. So my challenge actually went to Krakkos to show us any source that uses the linguistic definition "Germanic peoples", but which at the same time covers any modern ethnic groups at length. I think he gave a clear answer: "Among the sources i have found dealing with Germanic peoples at length, modern populations are given barely any space. This means that modern populations should be given minimal space here too." That's a word. –Austronesier (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that minimal space does not equal zero space. Krakkos (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier - Now that i've given "a clear answer" to your "challenge". I'd like to give you an interrelated challenge:
 * In all sources which have "Germanic peoples" as primary topic, how much space is devoted to Germanic-speaking peoples not considered Germani by the Romans (Goths, Vandals, Norsemen, Anglo-Saxons), and how much to non-Germanic-speaking peoples called Germani by the Romans, (Aesti, Vistula Veneti, Treveri), if the latter are included by the author? Krakkos (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question. I pass it on to all. My earlier question was related to the fact that practically all post-WWII sources (which have Germanic peoples as primary topic) make a "temporal" cut-off somewhere with the end of the Migrations. Some authors make a soft cut-off (e.g. Owen), some make a hard cut-off (many late 20th century scholars). And yes, it is equally well justified to ask if modern scholarschip makes non-temporal cut-offs with regards the tribes/peoples you have mentioned, and if some of them do, we need to know why they do so. I know it sounds boring and tedious, but a source matrix could be helpful here. It doesn't have to be a "matrix" in the literal sense (like a yes/no checklist for significant features, that's too simplistic), but we badly need an overview here about which source covers what. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not agree that this is a good question>
 * 1. It is still a leading question, trying to make people believe that there is a standard way of dividing up ancient and modern "definitions" into two. There is not.
 * 2. The question has no obvious editing relevance because the Aesti, Vistula Veneti, Treveri are not a "primary" topic under anyone's proposals. It is always important to notice when a talk page discussion is always being diverted away from anything with editing relevance. We have to ask why this is happening and where is this leading to? What is the real point Krakkos is making? And once again we notice this is one those "typical Krakkos" demands where everyone has to answer a mysterious question which will be explained when the numbers are in. Not good.
 * 3. Krakkos is trying to give the impression that apart from there being exactly two well-defined definitions, the is also clarity about the sub-set which fits in one category and not both: the Aesti, Vistula Veneti, Treveri. This is very misleading indeed. Actually these 3 are all peoples that Tacitus said were probably not real or full, "ancient" Germani. That is why no one says much about them, and also why we don't and no one is proposing to. They are significant as cases literally on the edge, so they are often discussed in terms of describing the limits what Germani/Germanic peoples were.
 * 4. Better examples of real, full, original Germani, from their earliest times the first peoples to be called Germani according to Tacitus, but probably not Germanic speaking by modern definitions according to many, would be the Istvaeones on the Lower Rhine, and these are definitely some of the bigger names in our sources whenever the meaning of Germanic peoples is being discussed. See also Germani cisrhenani, Eburones, Sigambri, Ubii. This is the area where the Franks last appear who Walter Goffart says were the only people still being called Germani in later Roman times after Tacitus. He wondered if this was because they lived in and near the Roman provinces named Germania, which, as he noted, were the best defined Germania. In any case discussion of these Germani is actually necessary even if we would say the article has to be only about Germanic speakers. So again, where is this leading?
 * Again I would suggest looking at my drafting of a new article opening which has been trying to take such things into account and PROPOSE the right balance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

- It's hard to progress in this discussion when good questions are simply passed on. You've previously referred to "the article in  Encyclopædia Britannica" as one of the "sources which deal with "Germanic peoples" as primary topic". That article is quite short and simple, so making an evaluation of it is not a difficult task. I want to challenge you once more: How much space is devoted in the Britannica article to Germanic-speaking peoples not considered Germani by the Romans (Goths, Vandals, Norsemen, Anglo-Saxons), as compared to the space devoted to non-Germanic-speaking peoples called Germani by the Romans, (Aesti, Vistula Veneti, Treveri)? Krakkos (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos talk pages are not meant to be run as game-show quizzes where you demand people have to ask questions without explaining why. We all know the answer, because you picked examples of well known and not well known Germanic peoples. If you have a point to make, what is it? That well known Germanic peoples should get more space?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you can handle the further discussion with an equal degreee of expertise and listening compentence by your own. Good luck. –Austronesier (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither - agree with Andrew Lancaster and Joshua Jonathan. In particular, Krakkos, as is his usual practice, trying to present linguistic or ethno-linguistic groups into ethnic groups. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Side note: A collection of ethnic groups speaking languages of the same language family is not called an "ethno-linguistic group". The widespread misuse of this term here in WP is bunk. An ethno-linguistic group is a group of people who speak the same language and self-identify as a single ethnic group. Lumping together ethnic groups under a single header just based on the languages they speak is common practice in tertiary sources, but there is not even a proper term for such a thing in Ethnology. I like 's ironic term "ethnoclubs" when modern ethnic groups artificially self-identify as larger groups based on criteria such as language family. –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me, tell Krakkos! Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, see my post to Joshua Jonathan then, and my drafting. Taking a lead from you I will write a bulleted response about saying "I think the scope of the article is...". Maybe everyone should, including .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion of Romance peoples? Srnec (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hit the spot. I will place my comments there later, not here. –Austronesier (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Scope. I think the scope of the article is and/or should be the peoples referred to in the best sources as Germanic Peoples or Germani, defined in the various imperfect ways the sources do today, and did in Roman times, and that included language in both cases. I do not feel that we need to exclude late medieval and modern Germanic speaking peoples especially with regards to explaining to readers how the topics all fit together, the controversies involved, and links to other articles. This is partly because those exact controversies are critical to explaining the current consensus about the Germanic peoples generally. And partly because we have to aim at a stable article which drive by editors won't be tempted to chop and change because they think something is missing. But the modern Germanic SPEAKING peoples can only be understood as a secondary and relatively small topic, which can only be explained in the context of the older peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Otherwise look at my drafting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that there is much disagreement anymore over the scope of the article. The disagreement is over the primary characteristic of Germanic peoples. Are they characterized by how the Romans defined them, or are they, like Slavs, Celts, Balts, Thracians, Illyrians, Dacians etc., characterized by the unique characteristics (primarily language) they shared among themselves. That's the question. Krakkos (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good comment. Thanks. I did not notice it when I posted a similar comment above. But then we move to the question of what this primary/secondary distinction means in THIS article. I understand what it would most articles, but in this one I think we need to write an article in an almost Aristotelian way, starting with what all experts would agree with and then leading towards what they don't. So that might be different from a classic approach to primary/secondary on simple Wikipedia articles, and it is different to the primary/secondary break you are saying we should use in our thinking, but it is also not hard to understand or uncommon on more complex ones. Again, I'd suggest looking at my draft as a quick way of explaining what I am thinking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither to be honest I can't read all that's said above (thanks for the shout-out Austronesier) but I think the most policy-adherent way to handle this page is to discuss the concept of Germanic peoples as it is discussed in RS, while remaining agnostic on what its definition is. Instead we present rival definitions with the weight they deserve according to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Of course there are differences between what Romans called Germani and what people in the 19th century did, and then the definitions in the early 20th, late 20th, and 21st centuries have changed with different trends of romanticism, nationalism, anti-nationalism, primordialism, et cetera. Within these eras and even to an extent among the Roman authors, you can find disagreement. I don't think it's our our job to take sides.--Calthinus (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well put in my opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Germanic peoples" is a modern construct and should be treated as such. Beyond that I can't much follow these debates. I have no problem with splitting off Germani into a separate article on ancient and medieval terminology. Srnec (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While I would do my best if everyone wanted that I fear that both topics need to explain the other one to make sense to a reader. For example, not all the sources agree that it is a modern construct (to say the least) so in the article about the modern construct we'd have to say half the field or more actually think this article is about the same concept Tacitus and Pliny were writing about. So I don't see a logical split. My proposal is to write an article explains the debate about whether it is a modern construct, and also the "raw material" of that debate, including the ancient authors and the linguistics, archaeology etc. I think that would work better because these different factions don't see themselves discussing a different subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Krakkos on this. There is even a source (Herwig Wolfram) that said equating Germanic peoples with the modern Germans as naive. The title denotes a broad conceptualization and therefore the scope of the article must adhere to it. Germani is very specific: a people who lived in Germania, which the Romans used to refer to the area between the Rhine and Vistula. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Wolfram. I don't see how that remark from Wolfram would imply a need for two articles. Both articles need to explain that naivité, which is widepsread even in published sources. In all proposals so far, both articles would be mainly about the Roman era, and would require the explanation of what Wolfram is saying, and some discussion of oft-proposed connections to post Roman peoples, and the Gothic peoples.
 * 2. Yes, this article has historically attempted to cover a broad conceptualization and I agree with that. Attempts to narrow it hit problems, and we still have not achieved this aim. If/when we have one broad article, the question arises of what a split-off article would add, and where the line would be drawn. I personally don't see how it helps with the most urgent editing challenges in any way, but I can see that every nascient idea about splitting would be messy unless we first have a structured article about the broad topic before us.
 * 3. I don't think Germani is extremely specific in Roman or modern terms, and I see no evidence of there being two definitions which refer to different things. Our modern sources and ancient sources are clearly working with a concept that was inconsistent from day one. In contrast to what you say, Tacitus expresses doubts about who is Germanic in the east and apparently thinks it went beyond the Vistula. Caesar describes Germani living west of the Rhine had been there since before the Cimbric Wars, who he also calls Gauls. Strabo thinks Germani are the "genuine Gauls". Jordanes, not exactly a modern person, was probably not the first person to connected the "Gothic peoples" with the ones Tacitus had once described, even if he does not call them Germani. (But he certainly speculated and made mistakes.) All factions of recent scholars write words to the effect of the concept Germani being vaguely and inconsistently defined already by Caesar and Tacitus, not just in modern times. Even the modern use of languages to try to define them is already attempted by Tacitus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. I don't think Germani is extremely specific in Roman or modern terms, and I see no evidence of there being two definitions which refer to different things. Our modern sources and ancient sources are clearly working with a concept that was inconsistent from day one. In contrast to what you say, Tacitus expresses doubts about who is Germanic in the east and apparently thinks it went beyond the Vistula. Caesar describes Germani living west of the Rhine had been there since before the Cimbric Wars, who he also calls Gauls. Strabo thinks Germani are the "genuine Gauls". Jordanes, not exactly a modern person, was probably not the first person to connected the "Gothic peoples" with the ones Tacitus had once described, even if he does not call them Germani. (But he certainly speculated and made mistakes.) All factions of recent scholars write words to the effect of the concept Germani being vaguely and inconsistently defined already by Caesar and Tacitus, not just in modern times. Even the modern use of languages to try to define them is already attempted by Tacitus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Genetics synth
In the genetics section we have I1 discussed. Okay, this is plausible though disputable: many peoples in Europe who speak Germanic languages have elevated frequencies of I1 -- although so do some Romance, Finnic, Hungarian etc speakers who may or may not have it because of some supposed "Germanic" ancestry (in Albania, I1 has huge spikes in some northern mountainous areas such as Puka that tbf may have some obscure Norman connection). However, one of the (only three) sources the section uses, McDonald 2005, does not have the string "Germanic" occurring even once []. The other two, Manco 2013, and Mellars Boyle et al, are not accessible, and do not give a page let alone a quote, leaving me... suspicious. Curiously also our page Haplogroup I-M253 (the new name of I1) mysteriously does not have a single sentence asserting a "Germanic" origin for the clade -- whose emergence seems to predate the emergence of Germanic language -- yet there is a humongous box at the bottom navigating users to "ancient Germanic history"... thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * According to wp:SCIRS, we should only use genetics review articles to create content. This remains my position on the matter. Genetics sections on Wikipedia are hotbeds of OR and SYNTH.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SCIRS is not policy. And would make little difference as these sources are secondary. And is not the topic anyways. The topic is SYNTH and verification. --Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * these sources are secondary. That's exactly the point. It's much harder to use a review article to pretend that it mentions "Germanic peoples" (though I suppose it's theoretically possible...). Anyway, that's my two cents: delete it all, most of it probably doesn't have anything to do with Germanic peoples except that whoever added it thought "Germanics" had some haplogroup that is mentioned in the study.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I used to work a lot on genetics articles, but I want to take a deep breath before diving back into this one. The need to often use secondary sources because the field moves so fast and has almost no reviewing tradition, or strong connections to the disciplines they often make conclusions about (history, linguistics etc) creates constant concern (for editors who care about avoiding SYNTH), but Wikipedia has armies of people who will add stuff if you put nothing, so putting at least some structured remarks can be important. Manco is not a secondary source but a bigger review, and I have a copy. It is not by a geneticist but it seems to have gained a reputation and citations. I'll eventually look into this. Another concern is the use of Y DNA at all. This is really a difficult type of DNA to associate with this type of people, and I think this just comes from out-dated studies when these tests were all anyone could afford or do. I think the strongest sourcing will be for the time depth of the Indoeuropeans to the Proto Germanic speakers which is basically outside our scope here. Studies of the Roman and post Roman mixing up of people are still few and far between, and I can't think of any which really mention Germanic peoples. The Peoples of Britain project in Leicester makes some very simple suggestions about possible traces of later north German immigration to NE England. I think one of the first steps will be looking for all potentially relevant ancient DNA tests in the correct timeframe. All these are just notes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I feel your pain. I am not against having a genetics section so long as it is well sourced and balances whatever major views there are in the literature. A quick scroll through Google Scholar reveals another analysis where I1 is considered a pre-Indo-European marker that survived in remote northerly regions (and I presume coincidentally spread later with Germanic languages after this substrate was assimilated). Another thing that may be important for balance is one of those analyses saying genetic distns are clinal blablabla, people marry, genes dont equal language or identity etc but they can tell us some limited hints about the past -- so we are not subtly endorsing a "genetic" conception of "Germanicness".--Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I would recheck but last I read most/all I haplogroups are seen as very old in Europe. I think for this article even the dispersal of R1b and R1a are too early. But autosomal studies and ancient DNA have made some of those tenuous old debates a bit irrelevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Y-DNA is useful as it provides evidence for or against theories of specifically male-mediated historical events. Of course everything else matters too, and we must observe due weight, and basics of citation/SYNTH. The question is  what should we do now? If you want to pull the section into sandbox for a time, I'd trust you and others to fix it up. Me putting unsightly tags all over it could be a less visually pleasing solution that could nevertheless possibly motivate outside help. I would also like to delete that box at the bottom of the Haplogroup I-M253 page. Objections?--Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is currently frozen so we have time. But if anyone has time to look into it that sounds great to me. The above were just notes. Concerning Y DNA, I get what you mean, but as far as I know the most recent candidate for such a male-mediated wave of Y DNA relevant to this case, by which I mean one which has been well studied, was R1b and R1a and various branches. I think the branching that has been well studied won't bring us past proto Germanic? I'd have to recheck but that is my fear. (I guess there will be R1b branching relevant to Western Indoeuropean branching.) A typical difficulty is also that these dominant Y lines just write over all the others, erasing a lot of information we will probably never know. That's why R1b and R1a are useful: you can look at a whole phylogeny. Reason for saying all this is that older and weaker secondary sources don't worry about all that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair (yeah I was kind of thinking Gimbutas PIE horse warrior patriarchy stuff --- but, "Viking rape" also has limited discussion for some coastal areas of Ireland and Scotland). Agree with removing the box from the I-M253 page? --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You really should post there first. If you mean the phylogenetic tree right at the bottom I guess that would be seen as controversial, as it is a standard thing on a lot of articles, which gives a big picture to readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Calthinus, if this article contains original research, it should be removed per WP:NOR. There appears to be some additional OR in the lead. It would benefit from examination by an OR-hunter. Krakkos (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds correct, but of course the article is frozen and I would therefore say: post here first and don't rush (once the freeze is over). In the mean time we can use the opportunity to trying to all get in the same line. My advice on the lead is to look at my drafting, and of course get involved in the discussions already going. My advice on the genetics section is that eventually someone will need to dive in. I am not opposed to removing OR but editors should keep in mind the project of trying to bring this article up to a better standard while we have so many watchers activated. With that in mind it can be handy to leave in any sources which might be worth looking further into later when someone has time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This article being discussed elsewhere by Krakkos and Andrew Lancaster
For reference, this discussion should have been here (if anywhere) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heruli#Un-discussed_name_change --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Verification check: Liebeschuetz re. Gillett etc
We currently have, citing Liebeschuetz p.87 https://books.google.be/books?id=6QV2CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA87 :
 * Scholars of the what Liebeschuetz refers to as the "post-Wenskus generation", deny that early Germanic peoples spoke related languages.[27] Andrew Gillett has emerged as a leading figure among these scholars, whom Liebeschuetz considers revisionists.[27]

I don't find this claim, at least not on that page, and it seems quite a strong claim to be making which does not match my readings of Goffart, Gillett or their critics. Liebeschuetz actually says p.94 that the critics of the Traditionskern approach are skeptical of the important of shared language, implying that they do not strongly doubt the possibility of shared language. I also think the wording has other issues: "post Wenskus" is not suitable for using out of the context of Liebeschuetz's exact narrative, and "revisionist" is not helping explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wolf Liebeschuetz (pp. 87-90, 94, 99-100) refers to the theories of both Reinhard Wenskus (Vienna School) and Andrew Gillett (Toronto School) as forms of "revisionism". He refers to the circle around Gillett as the "post-Wenskus generation". He writes that the "post-Wenkus generation" considers "arguments from language and etymology" as "irrelevant", and that they are "extremely critical of the use of arguments from language in discussion of the nature of these peoples." Liebeschuetz writes that the theories of the "post-Wenskus generation" are "flawed because they depend on a dogmatic and selective use of the evidence" and "very strongly ideological, deriving from the rejection of nationalism and the acceptance of multiculturalism". The theories of the "post-Wenskus generation" seems rather fringe, politically motivated and outdated, so i'm not particularly in favor of giving to much weight to their theories in this article. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies that, e.g., Gothic and Frankish were related languages. Nor does Liebeschuetz say that they do. What is denied is the extent to which language was a marker of ethnic identity. Did you have to speak Gothic to be a Goth? Were all native speakers of Gothic Goths? Did speakers of related but distinct Germanic languages regard themselves as having more in common on that basis than they had with other non-Germanic-speaking peoples? Was there any material or nonmaterial culture which connect all or most Germanic-speaking peoples? If I deny, say, that the Visigoths in Aquitaine and the Franks in Belgica spoke related languages it is because I think the Visigoths were Latinized by then and not because I think the Gothic language was unrelated to Frankish. The theories of the post-Wenskus generation are not at all fringe. Srnec (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for checking the use of the words. The use of terms like revisionism and "post Wenskus" is of course an editing decision, but still good to check. However on the point of fact it seems that Liebeschuetz does not claim that those authors "deny that early Germanic peoples spoke related languages". (Let me know if I misunderstand.) Concerning whether the Goffart, Gillett, Callendar Murray and so on are important (I think the term post Wenskus is not one we should be using) I think we can not avoid reporting them because even their critics agree with some of their most important conclusions. In any case we have to get due balance on each controversial issue. I think this is very doable, and I continue to draft a new lead for eventual proposal/discussion. I hope you can see that I am trying hard to consider all valid concerns including yours.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Future of the article
Inevitably we need to get back to this topic. My attempt to define what I think should happen:
 * Article topic: broad concept of "Germanic people". The "home base" article which focuses upon all variants of the concept AND controversies.
 * Re. Splitting, merging etc: I propose we first try to get the broad article made, and think about such ideas but don't yet push them through. I don't think any past version of the article showed a clear single vision or structure and many related articles are also imperfect, so without this first step we are talking past each other.
 * First editing job: Lead and Ethnonyms sections just after the Lead. See my drafting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting
 * What I am proposing to move out of the lead: the discussions about specific historic incidents and individuals can be better be handled in the body. (Arguably our lead is currently better on some details than the body!) Because this is an article with a lot to cover, some historical details might even eventually be redirected to discussions in other articles.
 * Ethnonyms: proposed to change to a discussion of Definitions, which will cover details to be moved out of the lead in some cases. This becomes a crucial section of the article. See my drafting. I think the ethnonyms approach has never worked to create a clear editing focus, with editors (including me) feeling the need to insert too much there, creating duplications, similar to what has happened in the lead.
 * The rest of the article should in my opinion then later be looked at to make sure it has a good structure and lots of easy linking into more detailed articles. Probably it should still be all/mostly chronologically structured, beginning with archaeology/language considerations (pre Caesar).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice no feedback so far here, but positive feedback in other discussions, so I will move ahead by replacing the lead first based on the draft. The draft page is not really perfect yet for the first sections after the lead, but at some point it will be good enough to start working directly into the article. The current lead contains a lot of details which should be in the body, and possibly others will want to check that for moving it etc. For now I will try to preserve a link on the talk page to edits where I remove large chunks, to any other type of recovery or partial recovery easier to discuss or perform. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead editing started here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous opening paragraph was better. It had only one bolded and one italicized term. And nobody says "Gothonic". Its definition of Germanic peoples as "a category of ethnic groups" seems to me to be about the best possible. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the feedback.

anyone opposed to doing the following with the opening (which now mentions languages again)?
 * I personally don't have a strong opinion about Gothonic. I included it for the purely formal reason that we currently have a source (Schütte) which uses it. I won't rush, but now that the footnote to that first sentence has exploded, we could consider removing it and also the "Early Germans" bit.
 * I personally also thought "a category of ethnic groups" was ok. (I think it was my wording.) It just made the sentence longer, and I was trying hard to please other editors who wanted the opening sentence to mention languages. Again, I'll see if anyone else says anything, but as per the above point maybe we can shorten the first sentence in other ways.
 * Did you see any other problems beyond that opening? I have for example aimed to make the lead as a whole shorter, and more about getting the big issues on the table (which implies changes to the body) rather than already talking about individual examples of Germanic people or countries etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW basic comparison of old and new opening can be made here. Feedback welcome of course, but try to see this as step 1 and consider how to fit everything together. (If everyone would demand to move different things to the top it won't work.) In particular, some of the definitions/conceptual debates will, I hope get a new home immediately after the lead, as per my drafting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC) above make sense to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The PROPOSAL revision looks fine to me, as it takes into consideration many of the widely debated concerns. Let's see what the others have to say.--Obenritter (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Out the three, the PROPOSAL is the best option. However, i think it's redundant to single out the "Suebian peoples" as more Germnanic-speaking than other Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel super strong about it, but I suggest leaving it there for now, because in the back of my mind I feel we need to explain the the Suebians and their possible connection to the core of the topic in a careful way fairly early in the article. I have placed a few little leads, but I am not sure any of them do it properly. So for now this is a bit of a reminder? I will already make the change as proposed so far though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No reader is going to have a clue why the Suebi are mentioned there and the link will not help them. The clause "many of them ... are believed to have spoken similar Germanic languages" is weird, since modern scholars generally classify peoples as Germanic based on language. (Were the Taifals Germanic? Nobody pretends to know because we don't know their language.) That is the modern concept of Germanic peoples as opposed to the Roman concept of Germani! It is also why Goffart et al. object: all the Germanic-speaking groups cannot be lumped together on any other basis, i.e., they didn't share a single culture, identity or origin. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Krakkos, yes, the single out should be treated somehow.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Not sure what you mean by the "single out"?
 * Short answer first: yes I also think they don't fit well, so I will try to find a better way to show what I mean. Ideas welcome but keep in mind there is a lot of balancing going on. Very quick review of problems in the background: After trying hard all attempts to neatly split this article topic into several topics, (and your position is a known one) end-up twisting the topic, partly because even the best sources disagree quite a lot on even the basic definitions. (Tacitus defined Germanic peoples by language, as far as he could anyway, and is clearly the origin of modern approaches. So ancient/modern is not a "real" split. And no editor really wants this article to be purely about a language family with no connection to the Roman era anyway.) This can of worms is Caesar's fault for adding the Suevi into the category, and the fault of Tacitus for taking this further and trying to connect it to their language. And so I/we've been trying to write something which helps the readers see different ways that good sources can divide it up, right from the start. Once we take this approach there is suddenly a lot which sources have to say, which is very helpful - unlike some other Wikipedia articles about language-based peoples. Not sure if that makes sense? I have just tried another tweak. Your continuing feedback on my edits, and here on the talk page would be really great BTW .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * i think it's redundant to single out the "Suebian peoples" as more Germnanic-speaking than other Germanic peoples.
 * OK, it's out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2020
Change “The term Germani was applied by the Romans too all inhabitants of the region they alled Germania” to “The term Germani was applied by the Romans to all inhabitants of the region they called Germania”

(Changing “too” to “to” and “alled” to “called”) Aughtandzero (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Drastic and highly problematic edit to the lead
Now that the two-week long protection for this article has ended, Andrew Lancaster has once again made a drastic edit to the lead of this article. This edit is problematic on many levels This drastic and problematic edit should not have been made until there was a consensus for it. Krakkos (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It defines Germanic peoples as people who "came from the north European region of Germania during the era of the Roman empire". This narrow definition excludes peoples who lived before the era of the Roman Empire, such as the Cimbri, Teutons and the Suebi of Ariovistus; peoples who lived outside of Germania such as the Norsemen, Goths, Vandals and Gepids; and peoples who lived after the collapse of the Roman Empire, such as the Anglo-Saxons. The Cimbri, Teutons, Norsemen, Goths, Vandals, Gepids and Anglo-Saxons are almost always classified as Germanic in reliable sources. This article is supposed to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, and should therefore be presented as "an article on the broadest understanding of the term".
 * 2) It uses Walter Goffart as the primary source to define the topic of the article. Goffart believes that Germanic peoples didin't even exist until the 8th century AD. His views on this subject are fare outside of the mainstream, and should not be given undue weight. Using Goffart to define Germanic peoples is kind of like having Karl Marx define capitalism, Milton Friedman define communism, or Richard Dawkins define Christianity.
 * 3) Per MOS:LEAD, the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the body. The new lead doesn't reflect the body of the article at all, but represents a completely different approach to the subject. It revolves almost entirely around terminology and ideology, to the exclusion of subjects such as Germanic history and culture, which constitutes the core of the body of the article.
 * 4) The lead is largely composed of original research. For example the source from Goffart used for the definition of "Germanic peoples" doesn't mention "Germanic peoples" at all, but is instead on the origins of the term "German". Further down, the lead claims that the "Roman-era Germanic peoples" were possibly not "all unified by any single unique shared culture, collective consciousness, or even language." The source for this claim is Peter Heather, who does not mention Germanic peoples either. He says that it was the region of Germania (Germanic-dominated Europe as he calls it) which wasn't culturally and linguistically homogenous. The region Germania and Germanic peoples are not the same thing.
 * Krakkos, why did you wait until now to comment? And why use such dramatic language now? The draft has been prepared over the course of two weeks and there have been lots of positive remarks from editors about it, and none negative. You clearly knew about, and thanks me at least once. I will go through your points, but as a general issue I will start by saying the opening is better than the old one.
 * 1. We can look at tweaking the wording, but we should not make another monster sentence. Technically, the opening line does not exclude events before or after but merely connects them to something they were present for during one era. In context, i.e. reading beyond the first line, this is made more clear. Part of the problem here is that we can't put everything into the first line, and so we have to try to distill the common ground for that opening.
 * 2. We can look at adding more sources, but I already feel this lead has more than would be considered normal. I think your comments about Goffart are a bit over-the-top. He is nowhere near as controversial as you say, and you exaggerate his position. In reading around I see that all schools have changed their positions towards his to some extent. Anyway, this particular sentence was one which got to the core quickly. (See point 1.) It is not, I think, controversial or very different to other recent authors confronting the same topic?
 * 3. Can you be more specific? Just adding everything back seems a very bad idea to me. I have indeed tried to keep the lead shorter, some historical trends are mentioned though. I think past versions also did not include all the things you mention, though they all picked bits and pieces. Furthermore, I am thinking we have some level of broad agreement between us all that that the article should become a broad concept article and some discussions, such as the dodgy culture section, will continue to be shortened and they were in the process of being moved to other articles. This can not be the main article for everything, of course.
 * 4. As you point out yourself, Heather does not say "Germania", but does indeed refer to Germanic peoples or "Germani" in a broad sense, and anywhere that they "dominated". If you look at the context he is clearly not restricting himself to "Germania", using the Bastarnae as an example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update. I have tweaked the opening sentence. I believe this directly resolves concern number 1? Given that concern number 2 is about the sourcing for the same sentence, even though nothing controversial about the sentence has been explained, it also should indirectly help regarding concern number 2. In reality the main sourcing should not all be loaded into the lead though, and as already advised, I am preparing a more detailed section to replace the current ethnonyms sections immediately after the lead, which will bring readers directly to the required explanations and more sourcing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing the amount of sources, I'm pointing out the fact that the used sources are falsified, and represent fringe views (Walter Goffart in particular). This lead neither presents the article as a broad concept, nor does it properly summarize the body of the article. To be honest, it is also poorly written. It leaves the average reader utterly confused on what the article is about. This wasn't a good edit. Krakkos (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Krakkos on this one specific issue. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now the sources are "falsified"? All of them? A specific one? Given the use of the words "drastic and problematic" and "falsified", this all seems surprisingly vague and uncertain? Can either of you explain exactly what further improvements you have just proposed, and on what basis? Please note that I already made quite some changes to attempt to cover what I could make sense of so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's also address the accusation that Goffart is "fringe". Every serious scholar I have been reading, which seems to include everyone Krakkos has been citing plus more, seems to be very respectful of him, and to take over some of his innovations, even if they disagree on other details. His papers and those of his "school" appear in all the big collections which include all the big names in this area. you know that is true so the onus is on you to show any sort of evidence at all that he is a "fringe" writer. Honestly I find this a spectacular claim? Can you name any scholar at all who writes about him in your way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Goffart is absolutely not fringe. This is an especially strange accusation since Krakkos also argues against using Herwig Wolfram of the Vienna school, Goffart's chief adversaries, because his views are "controversial" .--Ermenrich (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even stranger that Krakkos chose to describe this concern above, and in the tag placed, as a "falsification" of a source or a "verification failure". The two complaints seem to be incompatible descriptions of a real good faith concern about one single citation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * did you read my 4 responses to your 4 incompletely explained concerns above, before tagging? It is hard to see why you would post 4 specific-looking, supposed concerns and then switch completely to vaguer, different un-explained concerns as if nothing happened? Why not give 4 responses, following your own format, and/or try to home-in on your real concerns clearly so that we can explore possible solutions? (Otherwise it looks like you don't want to be clear, and don't care about solutions. Can you see that it looks that way?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In his latest book, which Andrew Lancaster cites, Walter Goffart writes that "there were no Germanic peoples in late antiquity", that the term "German" should be "banished from all but linguistic discourse", that "Germanic collectivity exists in linguistics but never existed anywhere else", that "there was no Germanic world before the Carolingian age", that "the history of a language as known to philologists has nothing to do with that of human beings," and that the term "Germanic" should be entirely dispensed with. These views are far outside of the mainstream. Goffart actually admits this in his conclusion, writing that although has been promoting these views since 1972, "nothing has happened". Goffart his of course a notable scholar, and his views should be included in this article, but we should not use someone with such extreme views to define the subject.


 * The Vienna School of History is, as i said, controversial. According to Wolf Liebeschuetz, Walter Pohl, the foremost representative of the Vienna School today, believes that the Germanic peoples had no genuine history or culture of their own, and that they made no contribution to medieval Europe. Liebeschuetz describes these views as "extraordinarily one-sided" and a form of ideological "dogmatism" evincing "a closed mind". Herwig Wolfram, in turn, writes that Germans have "as much a Germanic history" as Turks, Maltese people, Tunisians and the "Slavic nations". Looking at literature on Germans and Maltese people, it becomes clear that Wolfram's theories on the amount of Germanic history throughout Europe has little acceptance.


 * I think it is mistake to believe that reliable sources on Germanic peoples are somehow limited to works of the "Toronto School" and "Vienna School". There are plenty of classical scholars who belong to neither school, such as Peter Heather. Also note that the study of Germanic peoples is not limited to the classics. Study of the Germanic peoples is an interdisciplinary field which also encompasses prehistory, medieval history, philology, archaeology, comparative religion etc. This article, like any other, should reflect the consensus of all relevant fields. Krakkos (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Examining the replacing of links reveals how ridiculous this edit was. Links to Arminius and Alaric I have been removed and replaced with links to Walter Goffart and Guy Halsall. Links to Goths, Franks and Germanic paganism have been removed, and replaced with a links to French people, Scythians, Sarmatians and Nazism. Krakkos (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is obviously a very strange description! It is a new lead. Links were not replaced with other links. I have been drafting in public and posting on this talk page to explain that I would be removing some things, such as specific historic details like Arminius and Alaric. Walter Goffart does have a link. We can discuss adding more links, but I can't help thinking this is a side issue you are trying to use?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos you are back to "answering" things no one has said in order to try to slip out of answering the questions you need to answer if you want people to take you seriously as an editor of articles.
 * You surely know that I never implied that you were "criticizing the amount of sources". I am sure you know it is quite the opposite: I have complained that it is wrong to demand every sentence in a lead to be filled with long footnotes, as you are now doing. (My drafting shows me preparing more sourcing for the detailed discussion to be placed after the lead.) At the very least you should demonstrate in such a case that you honestly believe the things are not sourceable, explain what facts need better sourcing, rather than not even making your supposed concerns consistent and logical.
 * You surely know that neither myself nor Ermenrich have implied in any way that if you disagree with Goffart you should agree with the Vienna school. Goffart is pretty much universally respected. He is certainly respected by the two authors you now choose to mention, Liebeschuetz and Heather! Both authors are clearly influenced by the work he has done.
 * You clearly do not understand what "WP:FRINGE" means on Wikipedia, or else, very likely, you are deliberately exaggerating as with the words you throw around like "drastic" and "falsification". The fact that Liebeschuetz disagrees with almost everyone else also does not make him "fringe" either. We don't ban the use of reliable sources because they disagree with other reliable sources??? If you seriously want Goffart declared "fringe" there is a community noticeboard, but I am sure you realize this would be a waste of time?
 * More practically, if you think Goffart is controversial and far from the consensus concerning the topic of the sentence he is being cited for, please explain why you would say this? To me the sentence seems perfectly orthodox in the field in the 21st century. The footnote does not only cite him. It is not a particularly "Goffart" position. Explain your concern. I am open to feedback on this. Please explain why not if you disagree. That would be what most good faith editors would have done first.
 * Which "literature on Germans and Maltese people" are you saying is relevant??? Isn't this just a red herring?
 * Please answer my responses to your 4 supposed concerns; and please answer, as requested, my questions about your 4 strange tags.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)