Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 5

Etymology
Before you people, historians and pseudo-historians, name this or that as "Germanic", you should know the origin of that word. Germans say they are Germans, but they don't know what that means. They say Romans used to call them that way. So basically, German or in Spanish hermano, or in vulgar Latin germanos, means one thing. A Brother. Nothing else.89.205.59.148 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is indeed one theory which can be found in published sources. Does the article not mention it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that much of what is known comes from ancient writings like that of Tacitus, so our drive-by linguistic expert should provide the source and include this "theory" as well. This article expressed a lot more than just petty opinion about what constitutes 'Germanic' as many important scholars of this ancient period are mentioned as are the writings of the predecessor historians of old. BTW as a person of Germanic ancestry -- pretty sure Germans know what being 'German' means. I guess that Spaniards (having their roots in Latin rule [Roman], Visigothic dominance, and Berber/Moorish occupation) don't know what it means to be Spanish either? How pompous and ignorant of this person. Please do not waste your time on such drivel .--Obenritter (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * this "theory" is from wiktionary dictionary. i'm not spanish. when people wear a name which somebody else gaveth to them (in this case, the latins), they should know the exact meaning. not guessing while at the same time being proud of it. a wrong theory can lead to people thinking of themselves as something else, or even to war, genocide etc. so let's get it clear. german, as well as vella (walhaz), or cimmerian, or combrogos, means one thing. a brother, kin, fellowman. it doesn't represent nationality. even if we put aside the fact that nationality is a political construct and that nations are born in 19th ct.89.205.59.148 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because the word/term 'German' shares a lexical connection in a Latin based language does not mean that the word does not have other meanings. Language evolves. Germanic has meant Northern Europeans since the Romans began distinguishing them this way. Take your misgivings up with Tacitus. If Tacitus thought of them as "brothers", his descriptions and denigration of these northern Europeans certainly does not accord the Latin-based manifestation of the word. By the way, classifying human beings does not necessarily imply some sinister divisive ulterior motive when anthropologists or historians are referencing people in a modern context. If such categorization was accompanied by hierarchical valuation at the expense of other races or people, your contentions would have merit. However --- in the case of this article, that is not the case and this article is about the historical trajectory and variations of people who share genetic heritage and geography. Nothing in this article points to an offensive agenda so I am a tad confused as to what your point really is in the end. Are you trying to say that it's missing the reference to germanos...if so, feel free to contribute to the content of Wikipedia vice making blanket assumptions about the authors as though we are an assemblage of children for you to lecture. Your condescending tone does not seem constructive.--Obenritter (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * my point is, every name, for every culture in the past (not nation, because we agree nation is a political construct) have descriptive character. as for germans, it means people of same or similar origin, a.k.a. brothers. as for sclavs, tribes of many origins, but same role in the society. as for celts, also people of simmilar origin. as for servi, it means an army/soldiers/servicemen. as for vulgaroi, it means common people, peasants. as for goths, it means christians. as for schytians, it means nomads. as for tauri, turks, it means people who make their living out of aurochs/taur. and the list goes on and on. there is not a single name in the history which means nationality. historians should know that fact and move out of political misuse of those therms. otherwise it's not history, it's propaganda.89.205.59.148 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then all of the Ivory Tower historians cited throughout this article are all propagandists according to you. Let me ask you a question since you seem entrenched in the semantics of classification here: How exactly would a historian write about an epoch without using descriptors; i.e.... The Brothers (Germans) fought the Christians (Goths) for dominance in the region. The Army (Celts) fought a group of Brothers (Germans) who were aided by various tribes of Christians. That would be profoundly confusing and nonsensical. Lots of other peoples were Brothers and Christians and various groups of people were Nomadic. Sorry - while I understand your general concern, as a historian, I find the current operable naming convention works much better than what you are supposing. Everything would be generic and unclear otherwise. Since you are a physicist, that would be like calling all the elements on the periodic table, atoms. After all, they're all just atoms, right? Why distinguish them. Or instead of naming them, just call them by the atomic weight....Atom 39.098 reacted with a combination of 2 Atoms 1.0009 and 1 Atom 15.999. Anyway someone of your intellect surely gets my point. By the way, for all intents and purposes, Germanic throughout this article is referencing people who speak a related "Germanic" language.--Obenritter (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But anyway, we should not be really debating here about what we think, but about what the published sources think. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Wikipedian discussing etymology and classification obviously thinks all these Ivy League historians (referenced in this article) are nothing more than propagandists and those of us who cite them are "pseudo-historians" despite our credentials otherwise. Wonder how he'd react if someone referred to him as a pseudo-physicist and attempted to lecture him accordingly. But you're right Andrew...this place is for discussion of the sources and the relevant content. Thanks for keeping us on track.--Obenritter (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Germanic identity
Was there some sort of common Germanic identity in ancient times, comparable to a Grecian identity that existed despite the political fragmentation and constant warfare between the different Greek states? -- Orthographicus (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Like many cultures who experience fragmentation, there was likely some common framework (often derived from related spoken languages) that was strongest when fighting a common enemy. When the Germanic Arminius (once a leader of Roman auxiliary forces) turned against Rome in 9 AD for instance, he did so by uniting disparate Germanic tribes to fight against Quinctilius Varus and his three legions, annihilating them near Teutoberg Forest. This does not mean they maintained cohesion as they eventually began fighting one another, to the degree that Arminius was killed by rival German chieftains. So yes, there was an understanding of shared identity, albeit to a limited degree. Local interests however, often trumped any common identity which remained the case well into feudal/medieval Europe.--Obenritter (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, as a reader of this article, and as a historian of luxembourg, who also belongs to germanic speaking and germanic culture (but it was forgotten in the article), i can say that in ancient times there was a sort of pangermanic identity, called in the old germanic 'duitisk' wich means 'belongs to the folk'. From this 'duitisk' came the modern word 'deutsch' (meaning German) wich is the 'adjektiv' of 'Deutschtum' wich includes all people having a germanic language and germanic culture. (Modern Germans, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Nederland and Flamish; and in larger term the scandinavian nations like Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Färöer, Danmark, Frisian...etc), but also Anglosaxon Speaking Cultures are a part of that 'duitisk'. Charlemagne, the King of the Franks, was the first to build on a common germanic language who was called 'theudisk' wich is the same as duitisk. So Duitisk was the knowing of the same source of the 'fulka' the folk, wich was praised in old songs and dedicated to the God Tuisto and his son Mannus (wich means Men). This Myth was Pangermanic and Tacitus was the first one to write it down. Also Pangermanic was not only the similarity of the Language, but also the Mythologie and the Gods...and even cult Brakteats (Amulets) with the same design and who could be found in all the germanic Lands, so that historians are sure that there have must been a sort of Network and Common Sense. Also is it documented that in old times when a war was going on, that all Men from different Tribes came together to Protect theire land against intruders... this was called 'fulka' wich later on by the creation of the 6 historic great german tribes (franks, saxons, frisian, thüringian, Swabian, Baiern) was known as 'Volk'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.69.46 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing this information. Yes - you are correct to add Luxembourg to this discussion. In fact, if you could reference some of what you've shared, you should find the appropriate place for it in the article (likely the discussion on etymology). It would be a welcome addition indeed.--Obenritter (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?
If you're interested, participate and write your comment here: RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? --Zyma (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Germanic antiquity in later historiography
Propose the total DELETION of the section entitled "Germanic antiquity in later historiography" since it contains ZERO citations (has been on the page for a couple years now) and appears to be lifted verbatim from the previously mentioned site: http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html. Please post DELETE or RETAIN with your digital signature included. --Obenritter (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Concerning the website you mention, could the copying be the other way?
 * Concerning the question of whether to delete, I suppose it makes a difference whether we think the material is really likely to be wrong, or just "stub like" and not worked on properly yet by anyone. I suppose there is notability in the fact that Germanic tribes played a role in the thinking of renaissance and/or enlightenment thinking. I can at least say that authors such as Montesquieu certainly mentioned them in an influential way, and he had an impact on much later thought concerning European history. Just as an example I recently read some of David Crouch's books about the development of the idea of a knightly nobility, which of course connects to how the English parliament came to be, and he mentioned Montesquieu and others as examples of people who'd seen the roots in the early medieval integration of Germanic barbarians into Europe.
 * If the material is objectionable in the details, but still considered notable and a reasonable subject for future editing, then maybe a shortened stub version can be left? (But it is already pretty short?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My problem with the section is twofold; first, it lacks a single academic attribution -- secondly, it is verbatim from that other website which means we do not know whether the chicken or the egg came first -- so best to err on the side of caution. It does make some legitimate points with which I agree, but it seems that it has remained unedited for a couple years (which also makes me think it was just a cut and paste with no intellectual capital invested whatsoever}. What's even worse, it used to refer readers to another Wiki-article for further information which contained little to no substance. If you'd like to rewrite this segment and provide quality content, there are a few historians who could be referenced that come to mind. One is Peter Watson, another is the work of the late George Mosse, while Peter Schröder, Peter Gay, Hajo Holborn, Steven Ozment, or Hagen Schulze would also be suitable for certain aspects as well. --Obenritter (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think nearly everything on WP appears duplicated somewhere on the internet, so I don't think we can use your rule of thumb of assuming everything is copied and deleting it. Anyway, if we think the subject is a "real" one, then having a stubb is acceptable, to let someone improve it one day. I think just from the words we have written here we have material that could be used to make a better stubb than we currently have now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it then.--Obenritter (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Germanic peoples
Shouldn't the French be included in your list of Germanic peoples at the beginning of the page. They have Frankish and Norman ancestry. Also, how about the Swiss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geor-el0 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The list has been removed, but a duplicate remains in the "See also" section. As to your question, no, the French are not considered Germanic (apart from the likes of the Alsatians, Lorraine Franconians and French Flemish who do natively speak a Germanic language), as the term is primarily language-based (ethnolinguistic). Only about 64% of the Swiss are natively German-speaking and thus Germanic (there are French-, Italian- and Romansch-speaking Swiss too), and in any case the list does not claim to be exhaustive ("include"); if they're not listed in the source, better leave them out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say the term "Germanic" is mainly about language families (modern and ancient), but "Germanic peoples" is normally about the various ancient peoples beyond the Rhine and Danube who almost certainly did not all speak Germanic languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that the list I mean is now in the "Genetics" section. It refers only to modern Germanic peoples, and when talking about modern people, Germanic is always taken to mean "Germanic-speaking" in my experience. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Typical "Germanic peoples" who are suspected today of not having spoken Germanic include the Buri in Poland and the first non Suevian Germani who the Romans met in the area where Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium now meet, such as the Eburones. In fact it is difficult know what most tribes spoke except by looking at things like personal names, but many Germanic tribal and personal names from the earliest period of contact are thought to be Celtic (which of course is not perfect of evidence of what language they spoke).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is here. I was only reacting to the IP user's question, which concerns the sentence "Modern Germanic peoples include [...]" that's now in the "Genetics" section. I thought we already agreed that if at all, "Modern Germanic peoples" aren't defined in any other way than linguistically in the scholarly literature. I'm already aware that the ancient tribes called Germani by ancient authors were not necessarily all Germanic-speaking, but I'm not talking about ancient tribes right now. Please stick to the point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Germans
In English, Germans originally referred to the ancient people. (In German, we still call them Germanen, and ourselves Deutsche. Except jocularly, Germanen never refers to modern people.) After the rediscovery of Tacitus' Germania in 1425, the term Germans was initially established for the ancient people. At the time, the modern people were known as Almains (the term only disappeared in the course of the 18th century) or Dutch. Only in the 16th century, the term Germans began to be used for the modern people too; Shakespeare still uses Almains and Germans side by side. To differentiate, it is often said the ancient Germans, even today. Calling us Germans is like calling the English Anglo-Saxons or the Italians Latins, Romans or Italics. It's a revived ancient name that we don't even use ourselves to refer to us (and that the ancient people never seem to have used as a self-designation either). Not to mention that strictly speaking, the Danes for example are "modern Germans" too in that sense. See Germans, Names of Germany and Names of Germany.

This should be noted in the article, where Germans (or German) is indeed used several times in the Germanen sense. If you check the talk page archive, you'll find people confused by this usage and assume it's somehow nationalistic or at least anachronistic, when in fact it is the use of the term for the modern people that is the real anachronism. (The same is true for Russians, which is offered as a parallel, cf. Rus' (name): russkij refers to the medieval state as well as the modern state, and etymologically speaking the medieval sense is the original one, so terms like "Old Russian (language)" or "Ancient/Medieval Russian" or "Little Russian" are not really anachronistic, and the distinction between Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian is artificial, given that all three have equal claim to the ethnonym.) I've created a redirect at Ancient Germans to help address this confusing situation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So you are proposing to rename this article? Maybe worth considering. My one concern without thinking very long about it, is that then someone is going to take the current name (Germanic peoples) over to make an article about the supposed modern Germanic peoples who can be found discussed in very few serious publications? I think the term Germanic peoples primarily refers to the ancient ones in normal usage, and the concept of a "modern Germanic people" is mainly a fringe idea. I do not think many people are seriously confusing them with "Germans" (people of German nationality)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If the article were to be renamed, "Ancient Germanic peoples" would be the best solution, indeed. Ancient Germans and the like does seem to be dated at least in scholarly usage (though maybe only since 1945), even if it partly persists in popular use, so I would not recommend it as the title. And yes, many people are evidently confused when they encounter the term Germans in reference to the ancient people, that's why there should be an explanation of the issue.
 * Personally, I'm not too concerned with the title of the article, although the current title is indeed problematic because it is not obvious that it refers exclusively to ancient people. When do the (ancient) Germanic peoples cease to be "Germanic"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A similar issue is that of Germany having historically been used for Germania, sometimes differentiated as Ancient Germany. This can irk the hell out of people, who then suspect nationalistic motivations again. But Germany is simply the traditional Anglicisation, and Germania is a later reborrowing from Latin, after Germany had come to be anachronistically applied to the Holy Roman Empire. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Europe is full of such cases. :) But I do doubt that the term Germany is what causes confusion on this article, having watched the editing disagreements on it over some time. I think the big confusion comes from the promotion of the idea, which I think we want to avoid encouraging, that there is a widely accepted and commonly used concept today of "Modern Germanic peoples" meaning not only linguistically. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I don't disagree that "Modern Germanic peoples" has no real application but a linguistic one – my favourite example is Philipp Rösler, who, being entirely of Vietnamese descent but adopted by German parents when still a baby, likely has not a single ancestor from Europe but is linguistically and culturally 100% German and thus "Germanic" and does not speak any Vietnamese, so is effectively fully of German and "Germanic" ethnicity unless you're a Blut und Boden nationalist, but the case only serves to demonstrate how murky the concept is.
 * But in any case the article should have some note about the use of (the historically correct, but apparently somewhat dated, and possibly confusing term) Germans for the subject of this article, especially considering that the article itself sometimes does this! Basically, something like "also known as (Ancient/Old/whatever) Germans". That's all I'm saying. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"we don't even use ourselves to refer to us". This is not unusual, it is an exonym. See the article Exonym and endonym and the various related lists for examples. I am more familiar with the List of Greek place names, many of which are exonyms. Germany is called Γερμανία (Germania), a direct transliteration of the Latin term. France is called Γαλλία (Gallia). Britain is called Βρετανία or Μεγάλη Βρετανία (Bretania or Megali Bretania), a transliteration of Britannia. England is called Αγγλία (Anglia). Scotland is called Σκωτία (Scotia). Wales is called Ουαλία (Oualia). Ireland is Ιρλανδία (Irlandia). Japan is called Ιαπωνία (Iaponia). The Unites States are called Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής (Inomenes Politeies Americis), literally the united polities [of] America. And so on.

At least it is better than older Greek sources, which call Germany Αλεμανία or Αλλεμανία (Alemania or Allemania). It is a transliteration of Alamannia and comes with some Medieval connotations.

I am not certain what you mean by modern Germanic peoples. The speakers of the Germanic languages? They are an estimated 500 million people who are native speakers of any of the extant Germanic languages. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

CE/AD
CE needs to be changed to CE/AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkfeast (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"North Sea Germanic", "Rhine-Weser Germanic", "Elbe Germanic"
Should probably mention the alternate names of these, Ingvaeonic, Istvaeonic, and Herminonic (from the Ingaevones, Istvaeones, and Hermiones of Tacitus). AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Those terms are already mentioned several times?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right that I overlooked some things, but the way they occur in the article is still a little confusing. They first occur in an image caption, and down in the "Early Iron Age" section the terms "North Sea Germanic", "Rhine-Weser Germanic", and "Elbe Germanic" are defined as though these terms hadn't been used in the article at all previously...  And "Herminonic" is not included in the article -- I was doing a Google search for ingvaeonic istvaeonic herminonic and was surprised when the only Wikipedia result was Talk:Lombardic language... AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Germanic peoples
„Germanic peoples” is idea not improve science, because Romans named Slavs as Germans. 213.5.141.148 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Distribution of Y-chromosomal haplogroup I1a in Europe
This map should be removed form Genetics section, for one it has no verifiable source to reference. Also, the map makes some very peculiar claims, notice how the area of Pomorze in Poland on the Baltic coast has a very high concentration of HG I1, however anyone with a bit of history knows that this area was inhabited by Slavic tribes around the year 1000 AD, then German settlers moved in, and then after WWII, the German population was expelled and Poles form the east were moved in. With all the population shifts in the last 1000 years, I'm not sure how you can get such uniformed distribution of HG I1 in that area which is connected to Denmark. Thus, the map makes some very questionable claims and should be removed. --E-960 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never personally paid much attention to the maps, as graphics are not my area. Good catch ! --Obenritter (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No written records
In the second paragraph of the Linguistics section, first sentence, it says: From what is known, the early Germanic tribes may have spoken "mutually intelligible dialects" derived from a common parent language but there are no written records to verify this fact.[2] This is referenced to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "Germanic Peoples" which doesn't mention this. Maybe "Germanic Languages" but I don't have access to that article. In any case, "no written records to verify this fact" seems unscientific, like saying we can't verify that the electron exists because no one has ever seen it. Of course linguists acknowledge that reconstructed proto-languages are hypothetical, but some are more hypothetical than others. This statement just stands out as amateurish. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me this is not true
I always had deep admiration for Germanic people and their respective nations...and I consider them the most prestigious ethnic group in the world but I felt like my life ended when I read the following: ''However, it is quite possible that Haplogroup I1 is pre-Germanic, that is I1 may have originated with individuals who adopted the proto-Germanic culture, at an early stage of its development or were co-founders of that culture. The Y-DNA genetic composition of the earliest Proto-Germanic speaking populations would most likely be an admixture of the aforementioned I1, but would also contain R1a1a, R1b-P312 and R1b-U106, a genetic combination of the haplogroups found to be strongly-represented among current Germanic speaking peoples.'' please tell me its not true I just can't accept that, for me its impossible. 41.140.211.171 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what your exact concern is, and why you are for example your the word "prestigious" or expressing strong emotions. However it is a fact that these genetic sections in articles like this are often a mess, and badly sourced. I have simplified it a bit. Basically, no cultural or linguistic group can be equated to a haplotype, and many of the associations (not equations) made are speculative even when they appear in peer-reviewed publications. They should not be re-interpreted into anything more than that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean.... they are like everyone else trying to cope with life's difficult questions.Ernio48 (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On WP we just summarize other people's published attempts to cope with life's difficult questions, so it should be simpler than "real life".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Kossina's smile."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Joshua if you are referring to the link between material cultures and genetics, please do note that this discussion is about specific haplotypes and not more complex patterns of correlation looking at hundreds of thousands of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Modern history and culture: rise and fall of Germanics?
The article introduction mentions modern Germanic ethnic groups by name and refers to the Germanic people in the present tense but the history section cuts out in the early modern period as do the culture sections....

This is strange because it is exactly during this period that the Germanic peoples had the most significant influence on world history (literally achieving physical world domination through the British Empire, German Empire, Dutch Empire, Belgian Empire and United States).... including industrial revolutions, philosophical developments, spreading their languages (to the detriment of non-Germanic languages), causing Two World Wars and ultimately petering out into complete decadence and probably irreversible physical and psychological decline post-1960s.

We do not mention that the Germanic people today are mostly known around the world for their liberality: tolerating to fully supporting homosexuality, gender-dysphoria, feminism, pornography, euthanasia, limitless abortion, cosmopolitanism, etc (especially the Swedes, Dutch, English, Belgians, Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-Americans and Germans). This is almost unique in human culture. Modern Germanic people, more than any other ethnic group are involved in these things and associated with them by the rest of the world (ie - Central-Eastern Europe, Islamic world, Africa, Asia, South America, etc), yet we do not mention it.

On the article for Celtic peoples, we cast dubious aspersions on ancient Celtic sexuality based on mere Roman rumour and propaganda, but objectively verifiable modern Germanic sexual proclivities are not mentioned here? IMO we need to radically re-orientate the focus of this article and broaden the scope of the content, instead of pretending Germanic people are frozen like museum pieces from the Early Middle Ages. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Bring reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to develop our own pseudo-histories. We summarize what is published by the best sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Modern Germanic People
Afrikaners should be deleted because they are the only diaspora group included. If we include them we would also have to include Ulster Scots, Anglo Americans, Anglo Australians, Anglo New Zealanders, Anglo Canadians, Pennsylvania Dutch and Anglo South Africans and Transylvania Saxons. If those groups are covered under German, English and Lowland Scots, than Afrikaners are included under Dutch. Also since we are talking about ethnicity and not nationality, shouldn't Austrians and the Flemish count as Germans and Dutch, respectfully. If we count Austrians as an ethnic group distinct from Germans than German Speaking Swiss should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD58:1310:3D7A:9D0E:D73:694A (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lowland Scots
I am surprised by how this article lists lowland scots as being germanic. While we speak germanic languages the culture and ethnicity beyond language is strictly celtic. It's a bit misleading to label us as germanic simply for having a germanic language.
 * It is an old problem on this article that people keep adding modern peoples who happen to speak a Germanic language, and then every now and then this section gets shortened again as it should. Basically this article should be about classical ethnic groups in my opinion, and I think the opinion of quite a few other editors over the years also. So please feel free to try and improve the article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I would edit it but the page is protected so I am unable to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovur (talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have posted at WP:RLN in order to get new feedback on this subject: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As Andrew has stated, there have been drive-by editors with little to no real anthropological or historical knowledge/credentials weighing in on this, often incorrectly so. My position accords that of Andrew, in that, this article should be focused on the ancient and medieval understanding of "Germanic" people for the sake of avoiding extremist and racialist ideologues.--Obenritter (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The modern Germanic ethnic groups seems to be sourced. I don't think discussion of Germanic peoples should be cut off after some arbitrary date, definitely not for fear of ideologues. Hrodvarsson (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The sourcing question is laid out on RLN. Otherwise, I am not sure what this refers to. What cut off? Which ideologues? Coming back to the sources on the article now, what I mentioned at RLN is that both sources are in general lists of modern ethnic groups, i.e. tertiary sources, which implies that there must be some sources that these sources used. But such sources have not been located? In fact the two sources seem to be using the Germanic terminology in the context of referring to the ancient peoples from who the modern peoples are thought to be descended? I honestly don't find many published arguments or research which conclude that there are modern Germanic peoples in any other way that this indirect way? I have tried.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cut off meaning a date after which Germanic peoples are no longer discussed as existing. I don't know who the ideologues are, I did not bring them up. If peoples are descended from ancient Germanic peoples then they would be modern ethnic groups of the Germanic peoples. I don't see much of a problem here, though more sources on the topic would be helpful. Responding to the original post, Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues (Routledge, 2015) states "Lowlanders differ from Highlanders in their ethnic origin. While Highland Scots are of Celtic (Gaelic) origin, Lowland Scots are descended from people of Germanic stock." Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "If peoples are descended from ancient Germanic peoples then they would be modern ethnic groups of the Germanic peoples." Where is this definition from? Do you have a reliable source? Just logically, if this is a true definition then all (or at least most) people are part of all (or at least most) ancient ethnic groups, at least hypothetically, especially given that we have no pedigrees back to Roman times? Or is there a cut-off concerning the amount of DNA one has to have from one's ancestors? How much then? But anyway it would be strange to have a definition of a normal everyday word connected to a technical definition that is still being developed today. I figure this makes the whole world "Germanic peoples", so the word becomes a bit useless? To put my point another way: this definition has no source, and is not logical. There is a reason no-one can find strong secondary sources. There is a very distinct boundary in the dark ages between ancient and modern peoples, and so there is no problem to solve concerning a "cut off" between ancient and modern. Ancestry can not be traced back that far even thought we want to. Language and DNA maybe can imperfectly, but they do not define ethnicity either. On the other hand ancient texts about ancient tribes is a subject Wikipedia can handle quite well, if allowed. The only editing problem is people inserting modern Luxemburgers and Lowlands Scots and Afrikaners into an article about things thousands of years ago. Why are they doing it? The problem of an artificial cut off is what they need to explain, because they are the ones making artificial cut offs between modern people on the basis of ancient tribes, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment about the sources discussing these modern ethnic groups as being descended from the ancient Germanic peoples. It is a definitional point on "descended", which you emphasized. I do not know if the series of questions are rhetorical or not, but they do not seem to be related to the topic. The rest of your comment is based on a view that a modern people cannot claim descent from an ancient people. This would need a reliable source pertaining specifically to this case otherwise this is just forum talk about ethnogenesis. I still do not see a problem with stating the ancestry of the Lowland Scots (or other Germanic ethnic groups) is traced to the ancient Germanic peoples in the Germanic peoples article. What is your specific objection? Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "I still do not see a problem with stating the ancestry of the Lowland Scots (or other Germanic ethnic groups) is traced to the ancient Germanic peoples in the Germanic peoples article." What do you mean by "traced"? If you mean in ancestry terms, then we have no family trees that far back but all Europeans can be expected to descend to a significant extent from the Germanic peoples of Roman times, and none will descend purely from them. The Roman Germanic tribes moved around, mixed, contributed to new groups. The terms related to being Germanic in the sense of this article originally meant something very diverse and widespread and changing. It is not like saying that English people descend partly from Anglo Saxons, which actually means something that can be explained reasonably easily (partly because the Anglo Saxons have a late classical starting point we can say something about). Germanic as a word does not even mean the same thing in the different periods, and by trying to combine the modern and ancient meanings we distort the facts and explain badly. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean "traced" in the same way Jews and Samaritans trace their ancestry to the ancient Israelites. If you feel that the changing meaning of "Germanic" is important to the understanding of the article then I would suggest adding sources discussing it, but I do not think that is a reason to avoid mentioning modern Germanic ethnic groups. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please let's not forget the missing link here which is sources for your claim. Apart from the quirky insertions, the article currently has a good notable subject which has good sources. But I have not seen any sources which say that Afrikaners, for example, feel or have any strong specific link "in the same way Jews and Samaritans" do, to the diverse tribes described by Caesar, Tacitus and the rest as "Germani", who most broadly defined lived from France to Estland and apparently spoke all kinds of languages. (Actually, from what I've seen, it is more trendy for people of northern and western European descent to think of themselves as descended from Celts, which is at least as historically meaningful, if not more. And the clearest cultural predecessor to their modern cultures is of course Graeco-Roman, also not Germanic. Their main traditional religion, that guided the upbringings of people for more than 1000 years is Middle Eastern.) To point to something obvious, the Jews and Samaritans are well-known to be extreme and special cases when it comes to feeling a special link to ancient peoples? I frankly do not think there are any high quality sources to show that Lowland Scots, for example, are like them with respect to ancient Germani. The modern term "Germanic" mainly refers to a language family. Normal people do not simply equate their language family to their nationality or culture, even though they realize that the history of languages is a thread within the complex web of history in each ethnic group. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not mentioned in the article that Afrikaners "feel" linked to the ancient Germanic peoples, just that they are a modern Germanic ethnic group. (They tend to have a distinct identity from the Dutch—and that link is only a few hundred years back—but this does not negate their Dutch ancestry.) I also did not mention anything about feelings, I just tried to clarify what I meant by "traced". Lowland Scots have less reason to identify with and trace their ancestry to ancient tribes than the Jews or Samaritans do for obvious reasons. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You still have not given any sources, and I still think it is not really possible. We currently have two generalist tertiary sources after years of discussion about this. The kinds of modern peoples who everyone wants to lump together here in this article about ancient tribes are Germans, Austrians, English, Scots, etc, to the exclusion of course of Poles, Finns, French etc. That is not something real specialist historians do in a simple way. We already have an article about modern Pan-Germanism and Germanic languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? The title of this section is "Lowland Scots" and the original post is about Lowland Scots not being Germanic. i provided a source about Lowland Scots being Germanic. The chain of subsequent discussion is ultimately about one sentence in the genetics section of the article, repeated in the lead. As I said, I do not see a problem with this (you could argue the list of ancient and modern groups should not be mentioned in the lead but this is beside the point), though more sources for the article in general would be beneficial. If real specialist historians view Poles, Finns and French people as Germanic then by all means add information on that to the article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The source you brought is like the 2 we already have? 1. It is tertiary, made up of short entries 2. It is non-specialist and containing a simple off-hand remark in a small entry 3. It does not call Lowland Scots members of a so-called modern Germanic ethnic group (like the Wikipedia article does, and should not) it just says they have "stock". Basic fact: Lowland Scots and Afrikaners do not see themselves as being part of the same ethnic group and if they did they would not call it the "Germanic people" or the Germani! Find a good secondary source which shows this fact not to be correct? If it is correct, then the paragraph we currently have is misleading. That's the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say the source is the same as the others. I specifically demarcated the original post from the rest of the discussion and stated the source I gave was in response to the original post. Who claimed Lowland Scots and Afrikaners "see themselves" as being part of the same group, and how would perception be relevant to this discussion? There is no section titled "Intra-ethnic perception" in this article. The one (!) sentence of discussion is in the genetics section. I still do not really see the point you are trying to make. What I am gathering is you think that since Afrikaners, Lowland Scots or [insert Germanic ethnic group] do not have a pan-German identity, this means modern Germanic ethnic groups do not exist (or should not be mentioned)? Apologies if this is a misrepresentation, as I say, I do not know what you are arguing exactly. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, then apparently the reason we seem to be talking past each other is that you do not realize there is a paragraph at the end of the present intro which over many years keeps getting removed or trimmed, and then growing again. Currently it says, "Modern Germanic ethnic groups include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Faroe Islanders, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Swedes." I did not start this latest of many discussions about the concerns this raises because not on topic, poorly sourced, POV, and not notable. To me it seems clear this sentence makes a claim that goes far beyond saying that these people have "roots" and does in fact mean that modern Lowland Scots and Afrikaners must see themselves as being part of the same ethnic group called the "Germanic people" (rather than protestants, northern Europeans etc). Surely this is nonsense. (Being in an ethnic group is all about perception what you call yourself, and which other people you consider in or out of your group.) OTOH, it is hard to believe you've looked closely at the genetics section either because the same sentence, though not citing any geneticists, appears in the genetics section. Surely it is even more misleading there, because it is effectively implying that genetics is the same as what makes a person a part of an ethnic group.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged that the sentence is also in the lead ("one sentence in the genetics section of the article, repeated in the lead"), and I read your first reply in this section in which you mentioned that people have added/removed groups. I do not think the current version infers that these groups "must see themselves" as having a pan-German identity. It also does not preclude these groups from having other identities (this is definitely true if you are going to add Protestant as a potential self-identification). Groups are ultimately made up of individuals who are not identical so you could say any identification above the level of the individual infers that the individual has no identity below that level. (Being in an ethnic group is not all about what you call yourself. Who you consider an in-group/out-group member may be decided by your perception—e.g. Afrikaners distinguishing themselves from the Dutch—but there is a limit to this otherwise you are outright denying the existence of ethnic groups. This is forum talk and largely unrelated to the topic.) The genetics section is the most appropriate section currently in the article for it, though as I've said multiple times the whole article would benefit from more sources. Regarding your last point, I would appreciate it if you gave me your definition of "ethnicity" or "ethnic group". Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording now is claiming the existence of a modern version of the ethnic group called the Germanic people, i.e. the subject of this article. It simply can not be read any other way. It is not for example saying (like the sources used say) that there are peoples today who descend from the Germanic peoples. You apparently admit that not only do books and articles not tell people about any such modern German nation, but also that the peoples named in the article do not generally say or believe that they are a part of this Germanic people. Saying that people can be in an ethnic group without even knowing it, because of DNA, is clearly nonsense, and also not sourced, and neither good genetics, nor good anything else. Even if it were true, then shouldn't at least someone significant believe in the existence of an ethnic group for it to exist? So who? I see no point getting into a discussion about your strange ideas about what ethnic groups are, because you are not defending your opinions in any convincing way to begin with, after many rounds of useless "forum talk". I don't see any reason to believe that this is some subtle point about how to define ethnicity. It is basic and obvious. Most importantly, you have no sources for any of these personal opinions, and so they are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I think you should stop posting unless you find sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be read as these groups are descended from those groups. It is "basic and obvious" that descendants of an ancient group constitute a modern group of the same people. Your definitions of "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" are relevant as otherwise I do not think we are talking on the same page. This discussion is becoming quite snide however and I really do not see a reason for it to be so. I think a simple rewording would allay your concerns about the meaning of the sentence and the structure of the article. How does "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include..." sound? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But in genetics this descent question (putting aside the very big question of whether it is even relevant) is still a complex question, not clear at all. As I said right at the beginning, modern Europeans probably all descend from the at least some of the various groups labelled as Germani, but none of them at all have exact proof of how. Even if we just accept myths about descent as relevant for ethnicity, these are also not homogeneous in Europe, with many people seeing themselves as descended from Celts, Romans, mixtures etc. In any case, whatever the article says, there should be suitable sources. Please focus on that question first. There is no point talking about details of the wording if none of it can be properly sourced. (The sources used so far are not good enough because they are (a) aside remarks (b) in short entries in non-specialist tertiary sources, (c) that can be interpreted in different way with respect to what people WANT them to say for this Wikipedia article.) FWIW I also think it is absolutely not normal or even logical for anyone, educated or not educated, to say that "descendants of an ancient group constitute a modern group of the same people" or to say that people can be in an ethnic group without knowing it. There are no normal definitions of those words which make those statements work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "modern Europeans probably all descend from the at least some of the various groups labelled as Germani". That should be included in the article if you can find a source. Saying things are hazy is an argument to add more information, same with your earlier comments about the meaning of "Germanic" having changed over time. Who said homogeneity is a requirement for stating one group is descended from another group? This is a pure strawman. You opened a discussion at RSN about the sources currently used, was there a consensus that they are not good enough and/or inadmissible? I do not see the problem with the comments I made. You have used "basic", "obvious", "logical", "normal" but have not made a specific response. To your last point, some people may identify as "black", "white", etc., unaware of their specific ancestry until it is revealed to them or they discover it. Are they not then a member of an ethnic group without knowing it? (This is not a rhetorical question.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No in fact we do not need to add any information we can source to any article. Each article should have a defined ground to cover. This is one problem with what you are pushing, but the other - just to remind - is that you have no sources. (As you know, the RSN question did not get much response, but the response it got was certainly not positive about what you are proposing either.) The logic you are using would mean that such information would have to be added to every article about any ethnic group far enough back in history. You mention I "have not made a specific response" To what question? In answer to your new question, no it is obvious that "black" or "white" (to use your terms) DNA/ancestry are not the same as "black" or "white" ethnic groups (whatever that would mean). If people find out that they have certain ancestry this not the same as finding out they were part of an ethnic group without knowing it. They might of course choose to see it that way. You are apparently thinking of cases where a persons starts to see themselves as part of an ethnic group, for example an American who gets interested in their Irish heritage. Whether or not such an American is ever really Irish, this is something they could also choose not to do, and therefore clearly an act of will and not based on DNA. You can't for example tell such an American that they are Irish even if they think they are not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Your approach implies also that people actually loose their current ethnicity when they learn about their ancestry. Again, this is nonsense. I have I think never heard of anyone "loosing" their ethnicity in this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement that "modern Europeans probably all descend from the at least some of the various groups labelled as Germani" would be a notable piece of information for this article and should be included if you can find a source. (It is your opinion on what ground we should or should not cover that you base your comment on. Why use "in fact" when expressing your opinion?) The problem with what I am "pushing"? I have simply stated I do not have a problem with the sentence that is currently in the article remaining in the article. I also offered an alternative to the current sentence that I thought may address your concerns. The RSN discussion did not form a consensus, yes, so retaining is common practice in the event of no consensus. I do not see a problem with adding similar information to similar articles so I do not see how my logic is inconsistent. I said you did not give a specific response to the comments you countered with "basic", "obvious", etc. I have not seen loose used that way before, and why did you quote loosing afterwards? What is this in reference to? My approach also does not imply that. As I said above, people are capable of maintaining multiple identities at the same time. It is possible that some in Ireland no longer consider the people who emigrated to be Irish, or that the Irish American does not adopt an Irish identity, but neither would negate the Irish American's Irish ancestry. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the spelling mistake for "losing".
 * It is just maths that all Europeans today must descend from all the Europeans with descendants alive, as long as you go back far enough in time, and so that would by definition include all the ethnic groups at that time including Germani. There are published estimates of how far back such times would be, but how would that be notable for this article, given that it applies to all populations and ethnic groups? My point was that the reality of European ancestry as understood by population geneticists makes a mockery of this fringe theory of yours that ethnicity is the same as ancestry (especially pre-medieval ancestry). (Allowing for the kind of simple mixtures you envision does not make it less fringe.)
 * The subject of this article is what has been written about the Germani, which is a history subject where there is debate on almost every point. The genetics and ancestry of modern people do not help solve any of those debates at this time. The most clear thing is that there was a major mixing up of European identities and populations during and after the classical period.
 * Modern folk mythology about modern Celtic or Germanic or pagan "roots" and "blood", such as the Nazis loved, is only that. It is not science, but 19th century romance. If there is a modern Germanic people, bring sources to prove it. If not, as we know is the case, we should delete. (In fact of course we know that normal Scots and Afrikaners do not see themselves as sharing a Germanic ethnicity, and also geneticists and historians are not telling them they should either.)
 * There is no rule that things have to stay in an article if RSN did not give enough feedback. The rule is in fact that if there is no reliable sourcing for material that editors have doubts about, which is clearly the case here over several years, then material should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You could push the timeline back a few billion years and say all life on earth is descended from single-celled organisms too, though that would not be very relevant to this discussion either. "Germanic peoples" is obviously a distinct and identifiable topic or this article would not exist in the first place. I did not say ethnicity simply equals ancestry by the way, and I removed the term "Germanic ethnic groups" in my proposed alternate sentence as it seemed an unnecessarily debatable point. I also have not commented on the specifics of the rest of the article so why are you discussing that? If there are issues with unrelated sections in the article, I would suggest creating a new section on this talk page to discuss them. I do not know how mythology or paganism are related to this discussion, or why you have brought those topics, or nazis, up. (As an aside, "basic", "obvious", "logical", "normal", "fringe", "nazi" is a nice, steady progression of insults.) WP:NOCON states "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". The RSN discussion regarded the reliability of the sources; there was no consensus that they were unreliable. Of course the article in general would benefit from more sources, as I have said multiple times, but there is no consensus to remove the ones currently used. As I said above, this discussion is becoming, or has already become, needlessly snide, and preferably it would not continue for another 3 weeks. If you are opposed to the term "Germanic ethnic groups" then my proposed alternate sentence addresses that, and there is a strong argument to be made that including the sentence in the lead is undue so it could be removed from there. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No you do not need to push back a billion years, LOL. The Germani, the subject of this article since it started, and the only one with appropriate sourcing, lived in classical times, and that is quite far enough to make everyone in Europe related. (As I said, this is something you can look up. The maths of populations is a published subject.) If you want to study my rhetoric you are also inaccurate, because the last thing I compared your modern Germanic race theory to was 19th century Romanticism. But ok, I'll be less "snide" (what a snide thing to call me, LOL). You are just wrong. Is that clear enough? You clearly have no sources and you are down to twisting Wikipedia policy. But you are just wrong about that to. Anything challenged and without sources can be removed. This issue has been challenged continually by this article's main editors for years, and not one of the race theorists such as yourself ever came up with a decent source. So it is really simple. I was just hoping you'd think about it more and come closer to a consensus.
 * Can I suggest a new practical stage in our discussion? I tend to think we are both wanting a compromise text in practice? (For practical reasons, we should be careful about a complete deletion, because a vacuum pulls in more nonsense. Even in the intro, it might be better to put in a sentence which sends readers to more appropriate articles.) So please can you spell out what you would like to do with the genetics section. (I presume you do not want to remove it?) As a guideline I would say that what can be sourced are publications about Germanic languages, and European DNA, both of which can be linked to discussion of modern and ancient groups. What we have failed to find is sources which agree with you that this means there is a modern Germanic ethnic group or groups, mixed or otherwise. By all means start a new talk page section if you would like.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you are using "LOL" multiple times in a discussion, is this how you usually talk? And I am "race theorist" too? That is good to know—another thing for my CV along with 'ignorant of basic facts', 'ignorant of obvious realities', 'illogical', 'unnormal', and 'nazi'. Anyway, to your points, if you have a source that states all modern Europeans descend from the Germani then please present it. 'Look it up yourself' is generally not an accepted attempt at sourcing. If you mean Europeans are all a mix of WHG, EEF and ANE, that is correct, but is, as I said, unrelated to this discussion. "Twisting Wikipedia policy" is also quite a claim, considering you are the one arguing that 'no consensus = proposal goes through'. I think you have a picture of who I am in your mind and are arguing against that rather than what is actually being said. Maybe there is a history of fringe nazi race theorists who have tried to create the Fourth Reich by fostering some sort of pan-German identity on Wikipedia but that is not what I am or what I have done (I have made exactly 0 edits to this article, by the way). If you look at my proposed sentence you will see "modern Germanic ethnic groups" is not in it so I do not know why you are fixated on this. As you said yourself, the sources state the listed groups are descended from the ancient Germanic peoples, thus the alternate sentence is sourced. What is your objection to the alternate sentence? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop changing the subject to me please. Please explain your proposal afresh? Not only for the lead, but also the genetics section. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can avoid making personal attacks and blurting out "LOL", I will not have to respond. My proposed alternate sentence is "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include...". Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop making personal accusations? My "attacks" are addressed at your arguments. The change you are suggesting for the lead seems an uncontroversial edit to me, although I would eventually like to go further. You have not mentioned what you suggest for the genetics section. Should it not be deleted? It is in any case extremely up to date and based on a tiny number of primary sources from the first Y DNA generation many years ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bringing nazis into the discussion then describing someone as a "race theorist" is a personal attack, but we can agree to disagree. The genetics section would benefit from more sources and information, add an expand-section template? The subsequent section would also benefit if more information and sources were added. The template could be added to that too. I will implement the wording change if that is OK. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that you believe in a "blood-based" theory of ethnicity? (I use the term blood, because it is not a mainstream technical DNA-mixture idea, because these have nothing to do with defining modern or ancient ethnicity, and it is not an idea based on folklore and perceived ancestry. It is something in between folklore and science.) It seems to me to be just a fact that this is a position you have defended here, and it is a position with a very infamous history, and no expert supporters at all. I think it is very hard not to remark upon this very notable fact, if we are talking about whether a position is a mainstream one that should be Wikipedia? (Wikipedia policy demands we look at things like this.) I am sure there are a lot of people who have a sort of "common sense" about ethnicity being "blood based", which leads to many misunderstandings, but that's not how we write Wikipedia. I think you still underestimate how different this is to how most geneticists and historians see ethnicity. ...But I see nothing wrong with any of the edits you are proposing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Blood" is a very loaded term and I do not know of anyone who uses such language except for neo-nazis chanting "blood and soil" while carrying tiki torches, so I would deny that, yes. (You could talk instead about genetic cluster analysis but I do not think that would be a relevant or productive discussion here.) For the specifics of this discussion, I was arguing mostly about the relationship between descendants and ancestors, but if something is not specifically stated in the source it should not be included as it opens the door for OR, I agree, hence I removed the term "modern Germanic ethnic groups" in the proposed sentence. I will make the discussed changes now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a very loaded term because it is a very loaded way of defining ethnicity. I am just being honest. You clearly are aware of the historical precedent, and OTOH I think we've agreed that it is not a theory that is easy to find in reliable sources. There is a reason for that. Basically your definition of a people is a folk definition of a race. Race is a tricky concept to begin with, but also not the same as belonging to a particular people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE
The article uses both BC/AD and BCE/CE conventions. AD seems to have a clear lead on CE, but BCE and BC are both used a lot. Being consistent would be nice; anyone have a preference? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * BCE/CE - more neutral. Those old Germans were not Christian, were they?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BCE/CE. Neither the Germans nor the Romans were Christian. Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, think I got them all (except of course BC/AD as they're used in the titles of publications). --Usernameunique (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BC/AD pertains to christian cultures, christianity and germanic peoples are intertwined. this isn't a jewish or atheist article Fustos (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue I feel strongly about myself, but sometimes when I see explanations like this I wonder whether Wikipedia will eventually need to avoid all BC/AD just to stop the types of editing which BC/AD zealots do. You've seen that there was an old consensus agreement here, and normally that closes the discussion but you've gone and started changing the discussion. You seem to be arguing this is a special case because it is a "Christian subject"? But it seems you must be defining any subject as Christian as long as it has a historical "intertwining". It is hard to see how such a definition leaves many subjects at all which are not "Christian", including "jewish and atheist" subjects. The logic here is untenable surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3 people is hardly concensus. BTW it doesn't matter since it's a BC/AD article. Also, don't want to use BC/AD? come up with a calendar that doesn't just appropriate gregorian dates. BCE/CE is just elitist cultural appropriation. And it has been historically, it's just that nowadays the excuse is that it's PC. Fustos (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3 people (who bothered to write) is a relevant consensus of 100% in this case, and also note the other points I made. Your personal demands are not consistent with Wikipedia's long standing and practical policies on this subject. This is one subject where Wikipedia really does have rules in a simple sense, and the rules you seem to propose do not exist. See WP:ERA: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change". OTOH Wikipedia rightfully has no definition of Christian, Atheist and Jewish subjects like the one you made up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2018
The link at the start of the article should be changed from Proto-Indo-Europeans to Indo-European or the title should be changed to Proto-Indo-European as Proto-Indo-Europeans are not the same as Indo-Europeans Abote2 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Modern ethnic groups" arbitrary selection of Irish, Scots and Manx?
Isn't this kinda arbitrary? Modern French are also descended from Germanic tribes, "at least partially". The LEDECITEs attached to these three in particular makes them really stand out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I trimmed the lead further, leaving the details in the article body. Batternut (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which I suppose could also be called arbitrary? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My selection of what to leave in the lead was approximately based upon population (from memory) and Afrikaners to show geographic spread, so perhaps still rather whimsical. Batternut (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose if that part of the lead were written with sufficient generality, per MOS:LEADCITE (hey, lead, not lede, btw people), then the citations could possibly be removed. However, given the heat this stuff generates, I doubt it will ever go unchallenged. Batternut (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We've arbitrarily defined these groups as Celtic; while simultaneously ignoring the Norse, Norman, Anglo-Saxon settlement of these areas/nations over the centuries. As I've said previously, if we're going to have these categorisations it doesn't seem to be a leap of faith to define these groups by the histories of their populations; and in the case of Ireland, Scotland and Man they have had significant Germanic populations and influences. If that can't be agreed then perhaps a discussion needs to be had on the encyclopedic value of these categorisations altogether and/or how we as a community define these groups in the first place. Brough87 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Germanic" and "Celtic" are both linguistic terms first and foremost. When used to describe "ethnic" groups they are only really useful to describe the "original" speakers of languages within these particular subfamilies. Listing "proselyte" Germanic-speakers like everyone in Britain and Ireland who may or may not be primarily descended from Anglo-Saxons or Norsemen as "partly descended from Germanic peoples" is ridiculous as they are no more descended from such groups than the French, who we presumably don't list because their languages are primarily Italic ("France" was founded by the Franks, a Germanic-speaking people, and Normandy is named for a group of viking settlers). If what we are saying is that Irish, Scots and Manx are partly descended from "Germanic peoples" and also happen to primarily speak a Germanic language, then we need to say that, and if we are going to say that then it really needs (a) a source and (b) to be included in the article body first, and only then can a discussion take place as to whether it should be covered in the lead. My "arbitrariness" concern really has nothing to do with the supposed categorization of these particular groups as "Celtic", but your reading that in says a lot about what your motives here are. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no need to act like you've uncovered a mass conspiracy; you know full well that I have little respect for these arbitrary categorisations. When it comes to you personally, and despite your claims to the contrary, your "arbitrariness concern" does have something to do with the "Celtic categorisation". If you're so opposed to the arbitrary mention of these groups as Germanic, why would you not have the same concern for the same groups that are arbitrarily declared to be "Celtic"? If you don't wish to explain your position on this matter, then surely at least we can agree that there needs to be consensus on how define groups as X and Y? Brough87 (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content, not contributors. I pointed out how the selection of the majority "ethnic" groups in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales was arbitrary when they are no more "Germanic" than the French. I did not say "Celtic" anywhere, and in fact if I did it wouldn't make sense since most French are Italic-speakers. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've raised a concern in a talk page and now you're wanting to avoid answering why you don't hold such qualms in other areas, I would say that's rather odd but anyway. You assert that the 'Irish, Manx, Scots are no more Germanic than the French', do you have evidence for this and an explanation as to how you're defining them thus? The French are defined as "Latin European people" and a "Romance people" on their page; if linguistics is the principle we go by to define said groups, the Irish, Scots and Manx are indeed Germanic; but again there is no agreed system of defining these groups as X or Y in the first place... Brough87 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no earthly idea what you are talking about at this point -- I "don't hold such qualms in other areas"? Where was that question posed to me and where did I "avoid answering" it? Our article French people, in its third sentence, identifies seven ancient/medieval groups from which the French claim descent, and three out of seven are "Germanic", so not listing them here but listing the groups that just happen to occupy Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales is ... well, back before I knew you were the one who added them a week ago, I thought it was arbitrary, but I don't think that anymore. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of "the French" in this list. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I shall spell it out, you're worried about the supposed 'arbitrary nature' of the inclusion of Manx etc on this page, for reasons that seem to be rather incoherent. But you don't have such qualms with the same type of categorisation on other pages, why do you have this inconsistency. When we don't have community-agreed method for defining ethnic groups as X category or Y category, why do you take such issue here? I mentioned the French because they are defined as a "Latin European people" / "Romance people" on their page because they speak a Latin/Romance language; should we define groups based on how the French are defined on WP? Brough87 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here because of an RSN filing a few months back, and then a basically unrelated ANI filing a few days ago. I don't normally edit articles on ethnic groups (ancient history is another matter...), so expecting me to defend my supposed hypocrisy in not editing some other random articles is ... well, that actually is arbitrary. The ironic thing is that you're the second user to accuse me of this in the last month, the other being an Irish nationalist. Anyway, can we please discuss the content of this article now? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder at what point you will actually answer some questions rather than trailing off on your political obsessions. The French page defines groups by language family, why do you take issue with doing the same here? Brough87 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHER.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seen it, so if the 'French page model' doesn't suffice, how should we define and categorise such groups? Brough87 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I already said further up and in my edit summary when I removed them: find sources that actually describe the problem in detail, figure out how to summarize those sources in a neutral and accurate(ly nuanced) manner in the article body, and if you really, 'really want to then try to seek consensus to include some form of it in the lead section. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The whole point of Wikipedia is just summarizing what the best sources say. So your whole approach should be based on that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This short line has caused an inordinate amount of disruption and unproductive discussion. I originally argued against removal as I did not think it was such a problem but I now support removing it altogether, at the very least until more sources can be presented. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)