Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 17

The Germanic peoples are an ethnic group
I think that the question of the choice of the term tribe instead of ethnicity should be discussed again. The Germanic peoples are part of the same ethnic group.

Ethnicity is the feeling of sharing a common ancestry, whether because of language, customs, physical similarities or lived history (objective or mythological). This notion is the foundation of the notion of identity.

from the Greek ethnos, group of beings of common origin or condition, nation, people.

An ethnic group is a group of people who share the same culture, language, traditions and customs, which are passed on from generation to generation.

The Germanic peoples fit the description perfectly. Sonnenrage (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That is the crux of the issue; the very first sentence of the lede says: "The historical Germanic peoples are a category of ancient northern European tribes." They did not share culture, language, traditions and customs. After a vast amount of discussion by many different editors, this is the consensus now, as I understand it. Carlstak (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

They did not share culture ? Traditions ? Language ? Is that bad faith ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_culture

Perhaps we should change the whole of Wikipedia so that we can modulate European cultures and history as we see fit? Sonnenrage (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Germanic_culture

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages Sonnenrage (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_paganism Sonnenrage (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If Germans are not an ethnicity, then Wikipedia might as well assume its unbiased IDEOLOGY and say: ethnicities do not exist. Sonnenrage (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Putting aside several problems in what you say, and trying to focus on the main issue, the challenge is simple, in a way. The problem is that in careful scholarly writing, which we try to follow, because that's what we do here, there are several different definitions of who were Germanic peoples. Example number 1, Goths living in what is now the Ukraine spoke a language in the Germanic family, and are therefore sometimes called Germanic (but not by everyone). However, there is no evidence that anyone realized that this language was more closely related to the Langobardic than to say Gaulish. In terms of everything other than language (eg material culture) they were apparently like their neighbours who were speaking all types of languages. Example number 2, the Germani cisrhenani were probably the first true Germanic peoples, and yet they were not geographically Germanic, and probably not linguistically Germanic. 3. The simplest way to feel like there is a solution to the problem is to declare that you'll stick to a linguistic definition, but then you have the problem that we have almost zero evidence for a lot of the peoples considered to be Germanic. You would basically be turning the term into something completely artificial. The big languages which we have evidence for (Gothic, Old English etc) were clearly new standard languages in a new social situation where people were living in multi-ethnic situations connected to the Roman empire, so we know nothing about the older diversity. I've just been looking at a recent collection of articles by scholars from several disciplines called "Interrogating the Germanic" which helped remind me of reality of this issue. If we were not finding this article a little difficult to work on, we would have been doing something wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, what are the problems with what I am saying? It would be nice to talk about it. What I am doing is showing you the academic definition of ethnicity, and simply showing you that yes, Germans are an ethnicity.

Taking me as a particular case to justify your choices is not serious. Because if you play this game, you can discredit almost all the historical ethnic groups around the world.

The Germanic tribes shared a similar culture, religious beliefs, customs and language. Which is the perfect definition of an ethnic group.

You mention the Goths, but Germanic history did not begin with the fall of the Roman Empire. That there are Goths in Ukraine, that they have evolved their culture and de facto their language, is normal. This is in no way a valid argument for doubting the ethnic existence of the Germans.

The Germanic languages all derive from proto-Indo-European, giving rise to almost all the languages present in Europe. It is normal to find strong similarities between Celtic and Germanic languages, especially if one adds to that the strong geographical proximity.

Can we stop beating about the bush? What I want is neutrality from Wikipedia. Sonnenrage (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum for chatting. We are trying to work together to summarize what experts have published. If you have published sources which show changes that should be made to articles, then bring those. Concerning Germanic languages, there are lots of articles including this one which explain what they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"I want to believe". You are not honest. Again, the definition of ethnicity is clear and academic. At no point can you deny to me that the Germanic peoples are not an ethnic group. You have no argument. Only ideology, and a distorted view of reality.

The first person who came along said: "Germans are not an ethnic group, I read it in a book. Everyone applauded in unison. Pathetic.

You want sources? Which sources suit you best? Ancient sources? Modern sources? The writings of the Romans? Tell me. So that I don't waste my time for nothing.

Wikipedia does not respect Sonnenrage (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sonnenrage, you are not respecting the policies of the Wikipedia project, and you are personally attacking other editors, for which you can be blocked. This isn't how disagreements are settled on WP, and you can't bully us to get your way. Simply as a practical matter, one would think that if you truly want to see the article changed, you would behave in a way here that might have a chance to bring that about, but you seem to prefer to vent your rage, calling other editors names and accusing them of sinister motives. What is truly pathetic is your telling another editor "You are not honest", then fabricating a quote: "Germans are not an ethnic group, I read it in a book", and then saying in your own words: "Everyone applauded in unison", which everyone can clearly see is not true. Carlstak (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My culture is under attack. Clearly. Which is annoying, because Wikipedia is the authority for most people. Yes, I am clearly annoyed that none of my arguments are taken into account, even though they are clearly valid.

Now, I'll make a quote. Here's the argument that got the article changed: "I don't think historians view the Germanic peoples in terms of ethnicity, but rather tribes. ". No one has objected to this.

Is this a valid argument for the modification of an article? My simple arguments are not being heard. There is a different treatment. This is why I believe it is motivated by politics rather than the simple search for truth and impartiality. I do not want to impose my ideas. I simply like truth and neutrality.

When you say that I am in the attack. I am. It is perhaps not wise to proceed as I do. If some people are offended, I apologize.

Once again, I have demonstrated in a simple and concise way that the academic definition of the word ethnicity corresponds very clearly to Germanic peoples. I am not in the "a peu près" business.

I do not wish to go to war. I like Wikipedia, I like neutrality and truth. I wish to keep it that way. Sonnenrage (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

What is a tribe? From a historical point of view, a tribe is a social formation existing before the formation of the state. Some ethnologists use this word to designate societies organised on the basis of kinship ties, especially families with the same ancestry. Thus, several family clans living on the same territory may constitute a tribe, and several tribes an ethnic group.

To say that there is no Germanic ethnicity is nonsense. There is a Germanic ethnic group, and this ethnic group is made up of several tribes.

In the article, it is explained that the Germans are a category of northern European tribes. This is not factually correct. Sonnenrage (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking these arguments into consideration. I do not spin them, I do not manipulate them. I am not acting in bad faith. I explain very clearly and without any ambiguity.

The Germanic peoples, or Germans, are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group originating in Northern Europe, whose members are identified by their use of Germanic languages. Their history extends from the 2nd millennium BC to the present day.

They share a common identity. Common religious practices. A common social organisation. Common customs. These are facts. Not an assumption. Sonnenrage (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * And there's where you go astray. Look at the hatnote at the top of the page. It says: "Not to be confused with Germans, Teutons, Theodiscus, or Germanic-speaking Europe." The nub of what I'm saying is that this article is not about the Germans. Do you see your mistake? The inhabitants of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and England are mostly the descendants of Germanic peoples, but they are not Germans. Carlstak (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The historical Germanic peoples. The article does speak of the ancient Germanic peoples. There are no mistakes.

I am talking about Germanic peoples. Saxons, Franks, Swabians, Goths etc. I do not mention the Germans. Sonnenrage (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You're contradicting yourself. You say directly above, "The Germanic peoples, or Germans, are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group..." You'll never get anywhere addressing others this way; it's a waste of time. Carlstak (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My arguments have so far not been refuted. It is a deaf discussion. I have the distinct feeling that you don't want to read what I write. But the decisions are not final? I don't think so.

The point of the debate is: is there a Germanic ethnic group or not? Yes. And I explained why, just above. Sonnenrage (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but I think I express myself well enough, even if there are mistakes, to make it understandable and simple Sonnenrage (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given the academic definition of the word tribes, and the word ethnicity. I did not invent it. The facts are there.

I am really starting to believe that you don't want to hear what I have to say. Impartiality, neutrality. Take the facts without putting your personal opinion or resentment into them. That is Wikipedia's duty. Sonnenrage (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is indeed not our duty to prove you wrong, or hear what you have to say. If you are here to contribute to Wikipedia then you need to learn to work in a different way. This is not a forum for debate about what we have to say. However:
 * There is no clear evidence that ALL the historical peoples now designated in different discussions as Germanic all shared one language or set of traditions, which is not surprising, because there is no single definition which all scholars can agree on.
 * The first version of this concept was invented by Julius Caesar, who was not looking at languages and traditions except in the sense of what these peoples were NOT (they were not like those closer-to-Rome Gauls who'd been softened by mediterranean culture, they did not have druids, they did not drink wine or use money, etc). Caesar still influences the way we write today.
 * While sharing a language is sometimes connected to feelings of shared ethnicity, Germanic is NOT a language. It is a family of languages. Already in historical times scholars believe it won't have been obvious to speakers of these languages, for example Goths and Franks, that their languages were closer to each other than to other Indo-European languages. There is no historical record of them recognizing this (or caring).
 * Classical writers called the early Goths "Scythians", like their neighbours, and never associated them with Germanic peoples. Archaeologists can't tell the difference between Goths and their neighbours either. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again you are taking particular cases to theorise your ideas. A special case is de facto a special case, there is no need to make it an example to build on. This is far from the scientific work and impartiality you think you are.

▪︎ there is no clear evidence and there may never be. This is the case for all ancient peoples. If you apply your reasoning to the Germanic peoples, you must apply it to the remnants of the ancient ethnicities. But you won't, because it is simple to tackle European history.

▪︎ That Rome would consider Celtic or hybrid peoples living along the Rhine to be Germanic is not proof that there is no Germanic ethnicity. It makes no sense. Especially since Cesar is not the only ancient source dealing with the case of Germanic peoples.

▪︎ Language is not the only thing they share. You want to be so right, that you don't take into account the rest. The social system? Religion, myth and custom? That too is to be taken into consideration when you want to do a serious job.

You're obsessed with Goth. It's unbelievable. The Germanic ethnic group developed in the south of Scandinavia and then developed in the north of Germany today. All the so-called Germanic peoples come from this common stock. They share a language, customs, religion and social system. I could amuse myself by naming Germanic tribes and asking you for the differences, but you will be hard pressed to find any.

Archaeologists speak of a civilization that existed long before the wars with Rome. I invite you to read Rudolf Fellmann if you are interested in the subject. I also invite you to read what is a tribe and an ethnic group. Maybe we should rewrite the dictionary, as you do with history.

▪︎Is it not your duty to read what I write? This is the best one. Once again, the first person who comes along asks for a change without any preamble, and you accept. I've been posting valid arguments for a day now, and you haven't contradicted any of them. You're just running me around in circles, trying to make me lose my patience. You have one objective, to remove the term ethnicity, and there was never any question of going back on it.

▪︎Your friends who call me a liar when I caricature a quote, but I'm reposting the quote that got the article changed: "I don't think historians view the Germanic peoples in terms of ethnicity, but rather tribes. Perhaps, the sentence should read: "The historical Germanic peoples are a category of ancient Northern European tribes... "wow. What a profound work of scientific research. Wonderful. Sonnenrage (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is indeed lots more evidence and discussion possible, but the comments you are making are, unfortunately for us, who don't know you, only statements being made by an anonymous person on the internet. This is a very large but useless discussion so far. I propose that you should first read the article beyond the opening lines, and examine the extensive list of sources. It is not just Caesar. It is not just the Goths. It is not just language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, you are acting in bad faith. Your reasoning applies only to the European people, and in this case to Northern Europeans, who are merely an agglomeration of tribes, not ethnic, a shapeless mass of individuals.

You are doing politics, not historical research. There was no debate, there was no exchange, because what I say goes against your ideological bias.

None of my arguments have been accepted. When I see how easy it was to remove the word ethnicity, and to remove the ethnic character of the Germanic people, it is simply unbelievable, unfair and infuriating.

You answer in the wrong way, for the simple reason that it is not acceptable to put the word ethnicity back in, it is not possible in your world view.

It is easy to destroy European history and identity, to have a pseudo position of strength, in your little comfort. It will not always be like this, be sure. Sonnenrage (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I also noted your reply to . You are too worked up and I think this discussion is going nowhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, you should say that she never started. Sonnenrage (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two solutions, either I accept your ideas. Or I accept your ideas. Sonnenrage (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You fundamentally misunderstand not only me personally, but also how WP works. We are here to summarize the ideas of others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic folklore
Several of us recently developed Proto-Germanic folklore, which should have a substantial presence somewhere on this article. But where? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What would a substantial presence look like? It seems difficult to summarize, because list-like? Also consider Early Germanic culture, which seems more directly relevant, but seems to need a lot of work. [Just musing. I suppose it depends how we define the main focus of this article. I still think it the logical core topic, which all other disciplines are implicitly claiming to also connect to somehow, is the Roman-era Germanic peoples as such, rather than their predecessors or successors, or the language family now known as Germanic. Sometimes I wonder whether we need to re-name this article.] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering folklore—myth, legend, ritual, foodways, folktale and so forth—play such a crucial role in every aspect of any group of peoples eveyday life, the topic deserves substantial attention. And it's pretty remarkable how much of this is reconstructable in early Germanic society, all things conisdered. However, what this would look like in the article's present state is a good question.


 * I do think this article should be split and renamed. Modern era academics—who wield tools alien to the Romans—don't use the exonym Germanic at all as the Romans did, of course, and right now the article is really talking about two different things. I think we'd be doing readers a service by way of splitting the article into something like Ancient Germanic peoples (linguistic and ethnic group) and Germani (Roman exonym). (For that matter, I think figures like Goffart making essentialy fringe claims are still receiving way too much attention in this article.) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for a long answer but I think there are a lot of topics connected...
 * FWIW, I've learned this while working on this set of Wikipedia articles for several years, but did not realize it before, and it did not match any previous ideas or preferences I had: while Goffart's style of argumentation is controversial he is certainly not seen as a fringe writer by historians, and many of his positions are now widely accepted. WP policy tells us what to do. In any case, we can look at specific concerns. I don't really know which bits you think are controversial. Honestly it seems his name triggers people, but in most/all cases we could quote multiple historians.
 * I think your specific article name proposals raise confusing issues (even for scholars) involved with the way philologists and linguists continue to not only use the name of a real "Roman exonym" for a specific reconstructed language, but also to make implicit/explicit claims that they are in fact writing about those historically attested Roman-era peoples. Scholars clearly don't agree about whether the two concepts should be seen as two ways of studying one topic, or just two related topics with confusing names. Lay readers of those scholars are even more confused, and generally think they are 100% talking about the same topic. So we agree we need to try to unentangle them it seems, but it is going to be interesting to see how we can do that.
 * In your proposal you demote the real historically-attested Germanic peoples to be a side topic which does not even have the normal English term in its title. I find that problematic, because even the linguists seem to believe that they are writing about those historically-attested people, and lay readers clearly think they are writing about them. So the historically attested peoples (Ambiorix, Arminius and Marobodus etc) are the "real" Germanic peoples, surely? They are the physical "things" everything is really thinking of. Looking at other similar topics on WP, we often have both an article on the proto language reconstructions, and sometimes a separate one concerning proposals for the "Urheimat". Currently most of that is jammed here, and that is a problem, because it is anchored to language studies. My own thinking about how to possibly re-name and split the content currently in this article has been changing over time but I am starting to think that we need (1) article about the concept "Germanic", which is a big scholarly topic that connects to debates about ethnicity and other types of "identity", plus an article (2) about the historically attested Germanic peoples (and that is their English name). (1) and (2) are both have their main article here for now. (3) I also continue to feel that we need to move the massive discussion about Germanic languages out to several language articles, and (4) potentially an Urheimat/"early culture" article, and replace it with shorter summaries in this article.
 * Anyway, sorry for bringing that bigger topic into your call for feedback on this new work you've done. We should perhaps come back to it in another section, unless we find that there is no way to handle your proposals without a complete rearrangement of articles? But can you please explain your proposal though? What would "substantial attention" look like? The new article is itself not a normal running text but a list of linguistic reconstructions, so clearly we can't just insert it, and it is difficult to imagine a summary. Perhaps it would look at bit like the types of commentary Dennis H Green made? I think in the past it was foreseen that such attempts to reconstruct an original pre-Roman and/or Proto-Germanic-speaking culture was what Early Germanic culture was for? Maybe that was wishful thinking on my part. FWIW I am unsure of what that article should really cover, and IMHO much of it probably needs to be scrapped. I had been thinking that something like Dennis Green's work might be a good thing to have there, so it would be an article about attempts to reconstruct a very early shared culture connected to speakers of the earliest and proto Germanic language(s). Maybe others do not agree, but honestly I've not seen any clear vision for what it should be about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've wondered what has been wrong with this mess of an article for a while now, and I think I see what the issue is now. Andrew, do you have a formal background in Germanic studies? As in, academic? As, in, perhaps, from any of the world's many Germanic studies departments? Given your frankly strange and impenetrably long-winded comments all over this talk page and given very poor state this article is in, I have to suspect that the answer is no and that you, unlike the field that handles this topic, have some kind of particular fixation on the works of Walter Goffart. If you did, you'd be very well aware that Germanic studies departments continue to exist all over the world, despite Goffart's complaints. In fact, term Germanic remains quite widely used throughout academia, including in the historically high volume of papers produced by scholars active in the field of ancient Germanic studies. Repeatedly highlighting Goffart's generally ignored and often polemic opinions—which have to date had next to no influence—in the lead is definitely WP:UNDUE.
 * Before today, I had no idea Goffart was so extensively highlighted in this article. Before my recent round of edits, I note that Goffart—ultimately a comparatively minor scholar who is best known in this field for his extreme minority opinions, if he's mentioned at all—was cited no less than 15 times in this article and was directly quoted, by name, throughout (even after the several particularly obvious examples I've removed). Meanwhile, well-known and highly influential scholars in the field, like Rudolf Simek, receive not a single mention, the field's historically most influential scholar, Jacob Grimm, gets mentioned only a couple times, and the tremendous amount of comparative discussion from Indo-Europeanists goes almost entirely ignored. Red flags everywhere. Given the numerous individuals who have procuced and continue to produce scholarship on this topic, Goffart's essentially fringe takes deserve maybe a single mention in the article, if that, yet the article reads like the field rotates around Goffart's complaints about, as he calls it, "the g-word". No wonder this article is in such a confused, garbled, and rambling state.
 * Next, I'm going to have to ask you to keep your responses concise. Flooding this talk page with essay after essay is not helping the state of this disastrous article. At the end of the day, this article needs to be a central point for the numerous ancient Germanic peoples-related topics all over Wikipedia and for me to even have to explain to you why an article like Proto-Germanic folklore is crucial for an article like this is mind-boggling. Any reasonable individual can describe how academics use this term today, particularly philologists (who have produced and continue to produce the vast amount of academic discussion on this topic), and how the Romans used it in the past—this is not difficult. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , — what is your take on the state of this article? Is all this fixation on controversial historian Walter Goffart—whose opinion has historically been inserted into every nook and cranny of this article and directly quoted wherever and whenever possible—solely coming from ? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just recently noticed this thread and your similar misgivings (which I share as a student of Wolfram)) with the attempt to un-Germanize the Germanic people from their very existence ala Goffart. Your contention to create an Ancient Germanic peoples (linguistic and ethnic group) and a separate Germani (Roman exonym) page is spot on and very much akin to what I suggested some time back. Unfortunately, the extensive dialogue and bickering between a couple of editors on the Talk Page made it near impossible to maintain interest in pursuing that goal and so I made an exodus therefrom. Some of that same dialogue spilled over into the Goths page as well, something you've likely noticed. Nonetheless, I want to commend you for very accurately summing up what has been bothering me for some time about this page. Not sure who has the time or inclination to take the entire article to task, since most of us academics have professional lives that keep us very busy. --Obenritter (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a mere layman on this subject, who's been trying to follow the various arguments (without much success) on the talk page, made previously by various editors who know more than I about it, may I say again that the habitual excessively long comments made by certain editors over the last year are distracting and confusing to say the least. The discussions here have led nowhere, so may I suggest that someone forgo the endless discussion and start making some bold edits. The article badly needs a jolt of new energy. Carlstak (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged, I agree that the article is extremely convoluted and hedging, with far too much attention given to the position that the only justifiable use of the term would be a reconstruction of or even more circumscribed than the usage of Classical authors. And in particular that Goffart's views should be presented as his alone. I bowed out of the discussion at Talk:Goths after repeatedly requesting that provide citations in support of his assertions regarding scholarly consensus, and I believe that is the way forward here, too: it may well be that Andrew Lancaster is not alone in his view that Goffart's position is broadly accepted, it may well be that there is division over the matter among scholars (perhaps regional, perhaps a matter of schools, who knows); let's see evidence. Otherwise I concur with  that while there are skeptics in multiple areas of Indo-European and Germanic studies, in my experience they do not dominate the field and the skeptical viewpoints should be summarized in their own section of this article as minority positions. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster's general strategy is bludgeoning and other editors give up after a while. I have given up trying to reason with him, because I have a private life.--Berig (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I suppose the basic principle of writing about the content and not about editors is out the window? While there was a burst of editing by me in early 2020, I agree with Carlstak that it would be better for people to just edit, and then we can discuss CONTENT. I thought the proposal to discuss future changes to the way the articles were divided was promising. I can see a lot of the focus is upon how to balance the Goffart positions which is fine by me. But one topic we need to come back to is clearly the topic of whether this article is about linguistics, and can ignore what historians write. I think it is clearly a HISTORY article and NOT a linguistics article? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Secondly, are the speakers of PROTO Germanic, the same as the "Germanic peoples" of history? Despite what you say I did not question the relevance of proto Germanic to this topic. I asked what you were envisioning, after you asked for feedback.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * in answer to more specific points.


 * I suppose Simek is relevant to discussions of mythology etc which have not been worked on by me. Based on past discussion I honestly think that this has been seen as a topic for Early Germanic culture. At least two editors have mentioned their intention to work on that article and I understood this was among the topics.
 * I do not understand why this particular article would need more than a couple of mentions of Grimm, whose is part of the history of ideas especially concerning languages, but no longer taken as a serious source for the historical Germanic peoples? However, if we find a way to divide this article in the future it sounds like there might be one which focuses more on the concept, and therefore also probably on the history of ideas?
 * Please also remember that on WP we are all volunteers and as long as each of our edits is an improvement that is considered good. We don't have to answer to other editors about things which we have NOT worked on, and we don't have to explain our qualifications and private lives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should also respond to another point. I don't think anyone is denying that many people disagree with Goffart and that many of the ideas about the concept Germanic are still present in academia. As WP writers the relevant point is that in any case we may not report a consensus among scholars if there is none. I am personally happy if more editors will help now to get the balance right (and not just complain on the talk page) - unless it goes in an extreme direction. I agree with Obenritter that both the article and talk page have been discouraging, after an awkward period. (We are both participants in that history.) I would however add that it is not that surprising that we've needed to digest the situation and decide on further restructuring ideas etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Structure ideas again
, can you explain what the boundaries and differences would be between the two articles you propose: Ancient Germanic peoples (linguistic and ethnic group) and Germani (Roman exonym). The titles seem to imply that WP would be insisting absolutely upon a linguistic definition of Germanic peoples, and completely ignoring historians writing about real historical peoples? Am I wrong? What about: Germanic peoples (Roman era) for the historical subject, and Proto-Germanic Urheimat for the linguistic topic? I also honestly think we need an article for The concept of Germanic, for its evolution and debates including discussions about ethnicity etc. Of course these would be interlinked articles. BTW, speaking of good interlinking, regarding the new folklore article, apart from Early Germanic culture I also notice we have older articles such as Common Germanic deities and Germanic folklore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't be concise, you're not going to be taken seriously here. The article badly needs to be improved and your obstructionist essays and pet fondness for Goffart's theories have wasted enough time. It's time to move forward. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am trying to take your proposal seriously, and the post is short and does not mention Goffart (who seems to be your obsession, not mine). Please answer in good faith, and do not distort what I write. I do agree with you on the need to break old circles, but that means not making them worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Goffart
Given the emphasis placed by other editors upon balancing how we handle Goffart I'll try to make quick notes on recent deletions. If nothing else, we at least then have a record of what is removed, and other editors can see if they have any concerns:
 * Lead. Attributed remark mentioning Goffart's famous (IMHO) proposal that we stop using the word Germanic, apart from in the linguistic sense, for discussions about real peoples in the "late antiquity" period (roughly between 3rd and 8th century). (Note those qualifications, which Wikipedians frequently seem to ignore.) However this remains: "the tradition of describing late Roman Germanic language speakers as a single collective enemy of Rome has been criticized by some modern scholars, because it implies a single coordinated group." But we are not mentioning the person who is one of the main people associated with that idea.
 * Lead. Removal of Goffart from a footnote about the Traditionskern approach associated with Vienna. Again, this is maybe not a major thing but IMHO this is removing something quite often discussed. Walter Pohl, who is arguably the current main representative of that school of thought, has addressed Goffart's criticism of the approach in articles specifically about that criticism at least twice now, and other scholars have written about the disagreement between the Toronto (associated with Goffart) and Vienna schools on this matter. There are several volumes of articles which have it as a major theme.
 * ADDED:
 * Note. The online version of the Reallexikon gives 140 hits for "Goffart", 39 for "Gillett", 52 for Kulikowski.
 * . 19 mentions of Goffart. Also Toronto associated: 10 mentions of Andrew Gillett, 4 of Kulikowski, 1 of Callandar, etc. The book this essay is part of contains many more such citations.
 * (Also see all the OTHER articles in this volume.)
 * Complains that Goffart is WRONG to say that he and "a host" of other scholars are "committed to the existence of his subject, a coherent ‘Germanic’ people foreshadowing the ‘Deutsche’ of today" or defenders of the Germanic paradigm. This is "the exact opposite of my real position".
 * Examples of other works focusing upon the debate between Goffart and Pohl, and the whole related debate about the Germanic etc:
 * Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Interrogating the ‘Germanic’, edited by Matthias Friedrich and James M. Harland, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021, https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9783110701623-003 . Example from Intro: The blistering criticisms of such scholars as Walter Goffart or Alexander Murray highlight the absurdity of believing that scant traces in later literary sources give us windows into a broader, late antique pan-Germanic ethos for which the late antique source material provides decidedly no evidence, yet in studies ranging from philology to archaeology, such assumptions remain, as we have seen, firmly embedded in contemporary scholarship.


 * Deletion from Later Roman Germanic peoples section. At least we keep a quote by Edward James saying the same thing. According to a quick google books search, James mentions Goffart 20 times in that book though so why are pretending Goffart is not a major cited source of such ideas? It almost seems fraudulent?
 * Deletion from Jordanes section. Removal of a sentence citing Goffart which mentions criticism of the way modern scholars have leaned on Jordanes. This one does concern me, and . This type of criticism is certainly mainstream and not restricted to Goffart, but Jordanes is a topic Goffart gets cited for, so it seems petty to remove his name. OTOH maybe Kulikowski's oft-cited remark about a "text-hindered fantasy" is better? (I can give two well-known authors who cite it with some approval: Peter Heather and Florin Curta. ) I have placed some citations about this topic here. (Still, Kulikowski is thought of as influenced Goffart's "Toronto school" and here we are arguing that a person with his own "school" is not well-known etc which seems a bit fake?)
 * Deletion of summary of Goffart's position from "Modern debates". Presumably this is part of the position being taken by Wikipedians that Goffart is not notable? That really seems quite incorrect to me. His notability might require another post.
 * Deletion of what I think was non-controversial information from the Invasions of 401–411 section, apparently only because Goffart was being quoted. ("four distinct groups of barbarians – different from Alaric's Goths – invaded Roman territory, all apparently on one-way journeys" etc) The information fitted usefully in the narrative. What is the justification for this?
 * Deletion of paragraph citing Goffart from the Invasions of 401–411 section. ("warriors could improve their condition by forcing their existence on the attention of the Empire" etc) Again a non-controversial part of the narrative is being broken but not repaired. We can find other historians like perhaps Kulikowski or Halsall or Heather saying similar things, but normally we should do that first rather than deleting significant parts of a narrative. (I recall reading Pohl claim that Wolfram is one of the originators of such ideas.)
 * ADDED:
 * In Pohl's 2002 "response" to Toronto critics of his and Wolfram's Vienna school he complained that they are criticizing old versions of their position and stated It was precisely Herwig Wolfram [Vienna school] who underlined the Roman foundations of the Gothic kingdoms, contrary to the views held by Hofler, Schlesinger, and Wenskus. Patrick Geary’s [Vienna school] ‘mantra’ that ‘the Germanic world was perhaps the greatest and most enduring creation of Roman political and military genius’ sketches a new paradigm that is contrary to all that Hofler ever believed.

So I hope other editors will examine the above and make adjustments where appropriate. Where I have note already cited something, I'll have a look to see if I can suggest more sources relating to the parts where I feel something needs to be put back in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. If desired I can provide a wide range of sources describing the Vienna school as the current leaders concerning the topic Germanic ethnicity. This is also reflected in Germanic studies, not only in works by historians. There are minorities who find they don't go far enough yet (e.g. Goffart), or that they go too far now (e.g. Liebeschuetz).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, and I asked you above to stop with the essays and to keep it concise. We're not inserting Goffart into every nook and cranny of this article. Seriously, knock it off—get a blog or something where you can produce these lengthy essays lawyering for why this discussion should rotate around Goffart. It's truly bizarre to see. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't give orders, because that is also not going to go anywhere. It was suggested above by another Wikipedian that I should explain the sourcing available. You also made a large number of pointy-seeming deletions very quickly, and these SHOULD be examined. I am happy to be discussing this, but obviously you have no right to write long personal attack posts (which frankly show ignorance of the field), and then declare that no one is allowed to respond or explain the sources. Can we try to work together please? I am honestly happy to have someone looking at this. Much of what you are saying is quite right, but not all of it. The sources provided above prove this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also BTW, the above summary is not a revert request. There are different ways to respond to the concerns I've explained, and in any case you should feel some responsibility to tidy up after a big deletion. Please don't insult what I write unless you actually read it. That is exactly how discussions like this get worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A request
After rereading all the conversations on this page, I've come to the conclusion that the well meaning Andrew Lancaster is presently an obstacle to progress on the article, mainly because of his rather obsessive attempts to micromanage every aspect of its composition. I respectfully request that he take a break from this talk page for a few days and let invested editors (you know who you are), a very capable set of scholars, discuss the matter without his voluminous input, and let us see what happens. What say ye? Carlstak (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See here.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but rather than just limiting the number and length of his comments, which he's never been inclined to do, I think Andrew should take a vacation from this page. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I believe it would be good for him, emotionally and spiritually.;-) Carlstak (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, for your concern. LOL. I don't say I would trust you as a psychiatrist but I have no problem with that idea - at all. I have also been avoiding the article itself. It needs more people working on it, and trying to really grapple properly with it instead of just dropping by for a whinge. There were a lot of aggressive comments making assertions about the history of the article, and me personally, which I felt were sufficiently misleading to need attention. It would be helpful to this article, and everyone interested in it, if that fantasizing stopped. I then found the comments of Austronesier and Yngvadottir very interesting, and I really wanted to comment on those before backing off to a more minimal participation. Of course if the topic of discussion continues to a fictional version of me, then that makes it difficult. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you feel that way, Andrew. I'll send you a bill for services rendered, Venmo is good. I found those editors' comments to be very interesting also; I agree that editors here should not personalize their criticisms and should not discuss personalities. Carlstak (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. People should feel free to ask me stuff, within reason. I like the research. I collected a fair bit of stuff over time, so if anyone is looking for sources on something (e.g. Pohl) I can post information somewhere else if needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Late 20th c. Academia, Migrationism and Immobilism (diffusionism)
Like any period academia, late 20th c. scholarship has to be presented within within the ideological framework it belongs to, and in this case, it is the post WWII-era and the Cold War with the immobilist agendas that appeared. Immobilism/diffusionism is basically the idea that before the advent of modern mass media, and without any movement of larger groups of people, large areas of Europe could change languages like people change any kind of cultural expression. It is a belief in the successful and peaceful transmission over large geographical areas of languages that had incredibly complex patterns of conjugations and declinations, new and unfamiliar pronunciations, complex semantic fields, etc. Moreover, this article is about so much more: linguistics, culture, religion, archaeogenetics, etc. I suggest that there is a section where "immobilism vs. migrationism" is presented and discussed, and that late 20th c. scholars are presented within that framework.--Berig (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel this could give a wrong impression. Who would be a scholar that is an "immobilist" relevant to this topic? Is the term "immobilist" one which scholars really use? If I understand correctly, aren't you just parodying all critics of the "language = material culture = ethnicity" methodology of Gustaf Kossinna, and treating his position as the neutral modern one without "agenda"? To the extent that this article might be about the history of debate then something about this could be relevant, but I think critics of Kossinna and extreme "migrationism" (the method were all change has to be explained by a mass migration) are mainly writing about archaeological cultures, not language, and their position is NOT that no migration happens. I can't think of any scholar who has ever had that position. Instead positions include (1) that small movements of people can make big changes and (2) that Rome could influence the way people moved around and how they identified themselves. Those would both be typical Vienna school positions for example and are very much 21st century mainstream. One of the most massive ways people moved around was because Rome forced them to, or because they were in the recruiting zone for the Roman military, which was a culture unto itself that clearly came to have its own distinct barbarian languages and fashions that were (so the scholars say) very influential on the material cultures of the recruiting zone. In short: this is a bigger more complex topic than the summary above would indicate. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the archaeological debates to comment on that, but I wanted to say that I think that the main reason for the questioning of Germanic nowadays is not directly connected to that, but rather to the ascription of various things to a common Germanic culture that has since been questioned. This is mostly the work of historians rather than archaeologists. Compare |this introduction to a new work on Theodoric the Great:
 * pages 24-28 discusses the history of scholarship on Gothic identity (and by extension, Germanic) identity. It discusses how "older scholarship" thought of the Goths as Germanic peoples with a fixed identity, how the Vienna school challenged that after WW2, and how they were in turn attacked by Anglo-Americans in the late 1990s for "having placed the old ideology of Germanic in new clothes" die alte Germanen-Ideologie in neue Kleider gehüllt zu haben. (p. 26). It then introduces Pohl as providing "the current position of the Vienna school":
 * "The proposition is defended that ethnicity and ethnic identity are necessary terms if one wishes to understand how social groups in the early middle ages were constituted and reproduced. Pohl rejects the accusation that the modal of ethnogenesis is basically only a new version of the theory of Germanic continuity from Caesar into the late time of the Hohenstaufens." Verteidigt wird […] die Auffassung, dass Ethnizität und ethnische Identität unverzichtbare Begriffe sind, wenn man verstehen möchte, wie sich soziale Gruppen im „Frühmittelalter“ konstituierten und reproduzierten. Pohl weist den Vorwurf zurück, dass das Modell der Ethnogenese im Grunde nur eine Neuauflage der Theorie einer germanischen Kontinuität von Caesar bis in die hohe Stauferzeit sei… (p. 26)
 * What should be clear from these quotations is that there is virtually no support for the old idea of "Germanic continuity" or that there was some idea of "Germanic identity" at the time. There is no mention of archaeology in any of these considerations. A look at Pohl's actually essay would no doubt make this even more clear and go into more detail.
 * There is also a section discussion heroic poetry, wherein it is stated:
 * "The emphatic affirmation of "Germanicness" has not been any less frowned upon in German(ic) [literary] studies than in historiography since the 1970s." Das emphatische Bekenntnis zum Germanentum ist in der Germanistik nicht anders als in Geschichtswissenschaft seit den 1970-er Jahren verpönt. (p. 35)
 * The essay goes on to discuss the idea that heroic poetry spread because of mutual intelligibility of Germanic languages, but seems not to have had any role in creating an identity.
 * My point is, I don't think diffusionism vs. migrationism is necessarily all that relevant to the debate.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The main difference here may be that we are talking about such long periods of time. What you are saying is very relevant for Medieval Germanic cultures, but this article also covers periods where archaeology and linguistics are the main source of information. When I studied North European archaeology, I had a professor who was a fervent immobilist. Even in a late publication from 2010, he maintains that languages were not spread by speech communities but by people just meeting each other. He was specifically talking about the appearance of the probably Indo-European Corded Ware Culture, and said that linguists have come with some "interesting arguments" against him, but he still did not believe in any c. 3000 B.C. migrations from the Yamna culture into Northern Europe. Since then archaeogenetics have proven that there was indeed a major migration of Yamna people into Northern Europe. Archaeogenetics are bolstering the Migrationist viewpoint, and showing that we are all of mixed origin. I do indeed think that the migrationist vs. diffusionist debate is relevant, at least for the earliest periods.--Berig (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that different time periods (and hence different types of evidence) are part of the problem. But also different disciplines (and hence different types of evidence). Linguists are bound to put language front and centre, just as archaeologists will front material culture and historians written records. There is no doubt that communities of native speakers of Germanic languages have existed ever since Germanic languages existed. But what does that mean for speaking about Germanic peoples? Of course, if you define Germanic peoples as "communities of native speakers of Germanic languages", then you have a very clear answer. But that is precisely what, e.g., Goffart et al. are arguing against doing, at least for so late a period as Late Antiquity. I don't really think the "Torontonians" have anything to say about the Proto-Germanic period. Their argument has to do with the modern application of the category "Germanic" well after Caesar and Tacitus. DeGruyter released a volume this year entitled Interrogating the ‘Germanic’: A Category and its Use in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. The editors are, I think, archaeologists. Note the subtitle. So it is not a coincidence that a Wikipedia who worked heavily on Proto-Germanic folklore and another who works on the early medieval Low Countries would come at this topic from completely different angles.I do think this article is in bad shape. Austronesier's suggestion about rolling back to a version by Obenritter seems like a good start to me. The current version has too much Goffart, but I'm not sure why some Wikipedians have such an aversion to him. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but Google Scholar thinks his Narrators of Barbarian History is more cited than Peter Brown's The Making of Late Antiquity. Srnec (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That volume is available at DeGruyter online through the Wikimedia library. It's introduction is quite enlightening. It actually points out that the introduction to the Reallexikon already says that the editors did not believe the term Germanic was useful for archaeology or history. It also discusses Walter Goffart by name, saying The blistering criticisms of such scholars as Walter Goffart or Alexander Murray highlight the absurdity of believing that scant traces in later literary sources gives us windows into a broader, late antique pan-Germanic ethos for which the late antique source material provides decidedly no evidence, yet in studies ranging from philology to archaeology, such assumptions remain, as we have seen, firmly embedded in contemporary scholarship (p. 6). Not coincidentally it also goes on to discuss the incredible rancor between the Vienna and Toronto schools - which is reflected here in our current debates on this article. Andrew Lancaster is not wrong, however, when he points out that both the Vienna and Toronto schools are now both committed to dismantling the notion of a pan-Germanic ethos or identity, both seeing Germanic as a linguistic term - as the introduction states on the same page I just quoted.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So then this article will be superfluous, and will best serve as a redirect to Germanic languages. I actually think that would be the best solution overall, considering the controversial nature of the topic.--Berig (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, some scholars continue to want to use the term in various ways (as is also detailed in that article), while others wish to dispense with it entirely. It’s also still commonly encountered. So I think we just need to acknowledge the controversy and problematic history of the term and then we can still have an article here.—-Ermenrich (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we'll also need a short overview of the Toronto, Vienna and Oxford schools as well. Not everyone is familiar with the influence of modern politics, ideologies and movements such as postmodernism.--Berig (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I'll let Ermenrich's posts above speak for me. But another point: I think treating mainstream scholars such as the Walter Pohl, Patrick Geary and Michael Kulikowski as political ideologists, and constantly claiming that DNA evidence is about to show them all wrong, or even hinting that they've already been shown wrong, isn't going to be something most people (or WP policy) can work with. We don't have sources for that, and we can't use Wikipedia editors as sources. Also, just deleting the name Goffart and switching it to "some scholars" clearly won't help us find the way. Moving SOME things to language-related articles might indeed be a good idea though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic groups?
Germanic peoples are recognized as a collection of ethnic groups throughout Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Germanic_ethnic_groups. The recent edit that replaces "Germanic ethnic group" with "Germanic tribe" is biased and politically motivated. -- 13:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In the intro paragraph the first sentence states: "The historical Germanic peoples are a category of Northern European ethnic groups...", I don't think historians view the Germanic peoples in terms of ethnicity, but rather tribes. Perhaps, the sentence should read: "The historical Germanic peoples are a category of ancient Northern European tribes..." --E-960 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "tribes", but capitalized "Northern Europe" did not exist in antiquity, so I suggest "northern Europe" and remove the link to Northern Europe. The link makes it look more thingish than it actually is. –Austronesier (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --E-960 (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no personal issue, but I know in the past some editors have expressed concerns about the term tribes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tribal societies, than? --E-960 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Tribes" comes with a bunch of problems: Namely, the ancient Germanic peoples were organized in groups that need not necessarily fall within the parameters of "tribes". The term has broadly fallen out of favor in anthropology since the 1970s. See Tribe. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Does it give you a hard-on to transform European history? To adapt it to your ideology? Sonnenrage (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic group: A group of people who share a number of civilisational characteristics, including language and culture.

The Germanic tribes do not share a common language, culture, religious rhythms, practices, customs and beliefs ? Sonnenrage (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The change from ethnicity to tribe has only one objective: to adapt reality to its ideology. Sonnenrage (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you give further explanation of your problems with the usage of "ethnic group" in this context? Do any academics disagree with classifying Germanic peoples as ethnic groups? Looking at the past edits, it seems that reference to Germanic peoples as "ethnic groups" in the opening paragraph was only removed immediately following this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1017816564 I mention this because I was also going to ask why the article isn't titled "Ancient Germanic peoples" or something similar, given the article is specifically focused on ancient Germanic history. 188.141.88.155 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article should be re-named, but OTOH indeed it is quite simply a fact that there was never a single ethnic group which we could call "Germanic" in any straightforward way, with the possible exception of whoever spoke proto-Germanic. Putting aside that linguistic definition, the historical Germanic peoples, who are the most obvious real "Germanic peoples", were discussed by Roman and Greeks and quite a concrete topic but they were never described as anything like what we would now call an ethnic group. Writers such as Tacitus went out of their way to say the name was a new invention, and that the Germani were not a single collective entity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why it was written in plural, 'ethnic groups'? Avilich (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)