Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

My thoughts....

My thoughts on the article is that it's entirely too dense. There is too much on the various Roman author's definitions which is oddly intermixed with modern controversies about the concept, but for the average reader (not someone in academia who is well versed in the topic) it's utterly unreadable and makes no sense in its placement - it just rambles and doesn't inform the reader about WHY all these long dead Roman guys are important. As a historian, I'd be interested in this sort of material but it's not helpful to the actual topic of the article .. whether we're going with the "Germanic peoples" exist angle or if we're going with the opposite angle... all this stuff just buries the topic under historiography that's not going to be relevant to explaining the controversy. There's 11K words in the article, and 4400 are on the historical definitions of "Germanic peoples".

Frankly, this article reads more like a grad level paper on the historiography of the topic than an actual attempt to concisely explain what the controversy is to the non-historian/linguist/sociologist/etc. It needs severe pruning and cutting out of academic minutiae. Until THAT problem is solved, it's always going to be a confusing mishmash of an article that can't convey what its about because no one can read it enough to figure it out. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Good points.--Berig (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement from me.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As you say, Ealdgyth, the article is nearly opaque to the naif. I believe your points should be applied to any reorganization of the article, if that is ever done,;-) although I would say it should go with neither "the Germanic peoples exist angle" nor with "the opposite angle". Our purpose is to describe the opposing views, not to adopt one or the other as the point of view of the article itself. Carlstak (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Carlstak!--Berig (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, as an "outsider" .. I can't make heads or tails of what's being proposed for the article direction, at least from reading this talk page. But that's a totally different problem than the actual article content. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the folklorists are on board, I think there’s actually a viable path forward in the section above.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. Thanks Ealdgyth. There's a history of how we got here, as I am sure you can imagine, but once we have enough people talking we will move ahead. I am wondering if it would help to make some kind of spin-off article already about the Germanic concept's history and debates etc. If such a thing existed it might help editors start the pruning process with the confidence that there is another place where the more scholarly aspects are discussed in detail, so that they are not just being deleted completely from WP. What do others think? I could potentially help on that, or kick it off, if others think it is a good idea. But what would we call it? Of course in German every good topic has a Begriff or 5, but not sure Wikipedians like "concept" in article title names?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I will weigh in here once more, as a warning or on a cautionary note: too great a reliance on scholars and academicians can never bring satisfaction or peace. Academicians live for controversy. Historical facts are kind of like real property, i.e. land. They're not making any more of it. Those facts exist more or less inertly; the only thing ever new about them is how they are interpreted and argued over by scholars. Although ... new facts have been created recently, namely, the wealth of DNA evidence on ancient peoples. And guess what? David Reich's brilliant and scholarly book just raised more debate! Wikipedia can only succeed as an encyclopedia by presenting facts first and then barely nodding to the academic debates swirling about them. Dynasteria (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: there have been lots of attempts to make encyclopedic websites, and Wikipedia has been the most successful one with its specific strategy on how to handle things. We don't try to "pick a winner" when there is scholarly disagreement. We report the disagreements, and only make our report of "facts" simple when a scholarly field has itself decided upon a "winner". This works well. The complication here is that we have several fields and schools who once shared a terminology, but have grown apart. That would normally be easy to fix by just splitting up topics and disambiguating carefully. However, in some cases the older terminology contains presuppositions which are NOT seen as facts anymore, causing more concern in some fields than others. There is (as I'm sure you've noticed) a push to simplify our story about this, but the MORE it is simplified the LESS compromising can be done in terms of respecting the old terminology? I'll be interested to see how people propose to do this, but your idea of ignoring scholars is something you could do on another website, but not here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why a spin-off article about the Germanic concept's history and debates, etc., Andrew? That's basically what we're talking about doing with this article. We don't need to start another discursive discussion here—we need to stay focused on getting this one in good order—I thought we all agreed on that. Since we have so many content creators with expertise, I was thinking that someone could start boldly pruning the article, perhaps temporarily reducing it to bare bones, and the experts could write about the history of whichever school they follow, with the various histories assembled in the article, without interminable discussion, because we will be merely describing those positions in their appropriate sections. Everyone will have their say, without unproductive debate. Carlstak (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: I don't have a clear vision of how this would look so maybe I am over-worrying, but I suspect that unless we have another place for it, it means that much of the discussion of the history of the concept, and the debates, will end up being deleted from WP and replaced by a simple statement that there is disagreement? Maybe you and the other editors see a way to avoid this. In that case call my comment a back-up idea? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Andrew, I think you over-worry everything. Why can't we just step back and let change happen, without trying to anticipate every possible issue that might arise? It seems to me that is why there is no progress in improving the article. Carlstak (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: I don't think I'm holding up anything, and I think people know I'm not against bold editing. Quite the opposite, LOL. I understand that in answer to my question you see discussion of the concept debates as staying here, but being re-worked. Sounds good, apart from the query raised below about making sure we avoid too many "parallel" schools all being treated as equally mainstream, as also explained by Austronesier. I think we can be simpler than that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe that; you've said so before. When it comes to the discussion, however, xtools shows that presently you've made 815 or (45.2%) of the edits on this page, and added 721,614 bytes, or 56.8%, of its text. Second place editor has made 179 (9.9%) edits, and added 220,121 (17.3%) bytes. Carlstak (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, while I'm sure you mean well, I think Carlstak is right and it might be best to limit your replies for a while. You do tend to dominate the discussion, which has the side effect of chilling attempts to edit the article, whether you intend it to or not.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Beg to differ, Ealdgyth, moving the article forward is not "a totally different problem than the actual article content". The article's problematic content, now stagnated, is exactly what we want to move forward from. The consensus here is that the article in its present state sucks. Carlstak (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I second Carlstak's proposal above "and the experts could write about the history of whichever school they follow, with the various histories assembled in the article, without interminable discussion, because we will be merely describing those positions in their appropriate sections. Everyone will have their say, without unproductive debate.", but we need to have a maximum length for every school, so the section on a specific historian doesn't explode in size.--Berig (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposing anything, but concerning those words, I can't quite envision how this will look simpler yet, and maybe I'm not yet understanding the proposal. Won't we end up with different sections of the article essentially arguing against each other, and covering the same partly-shared history of the definitions and debates based on different POVs? (That was something which was happening in late 2019.) If the topics are truly separable we could be just splitting them into different articles? (That was something everyone seemed opposed to in early 2020.) Having said that, I will be interested to keep reading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Presenting the range of opinions for the main topic and every subtopic is the probably the only way to go. Every school attributes a different degree of thingishness to the term "Germanic", ranging from presumed emic collective identity all the way to zero validity except for the textual record about the Germani and the linguistic family with continues to the carry the name solely for historical reasons. This affects every subtopic. So it is virtually impossible to separate debate from content.

What we should clearly avoid is the principle of "each-one-adopts-their-pet-scholar/school", which leads to an indiscriminate accumulation of School A says, School B says etc., each from presented only either from an internal angle, or from the opposing angle (with all its polemics and strawman distortions). It's utterly ridiculous to let School B talk about School A in Wikivoice (e.g. "The Vienna School of History is a revisionist school of history"—source: Liebeschuetz LOL). Ideally, each discussion should rely on honest and non-polemic secondary sources. Obviously, such sources are hard to find in the 2000s, but this discussion has brought up several sources from 2020/2021 that we can take as guidance for a decently neutral presentation of the overarching debate (but keeping in mind that no scholar can fully detach her-/himself from her/his POV in such a review). In the same way, we must also to dig up secondary sources that review the subtopics from all angles, which might be a harder task. –Austronesier (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds correct to me. I think the actual definition debate is not so complicated. There really is a recognized mainstream, and then critics. Discussion of the definitions (or implied definitions) used in specific fields like archaeology and linguistics, outside that main debate, are more challenging to keep simple.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, my "a totally different problem than the actual article content" comment was about the insanely long and discursive and (frankly) impenetrable walls of text on the talk page that make it difficult for the outsider to figure out what's being proposed to move the article content forward. If I had even the slightest bit of knowledge about the disput, I'd start whacking on article content, but I'm not at all knowledgeable about the topic so I've restrained myself. But the long discussions on the talk page aren't getting anywhere with improving the article, so someone probably needs to do something ... Ealdgyth (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Many of us have been saying just that since forever. That's what I'm trying to cut through with my proposal—it's a call to action rather than more endless discussion and no progress. Someone more knowledgable than me needs to get bold. As the hippies used to say, "just do it.";-) Carlstak (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't that the ethos of WP in the early days? "So fix it". Those words now redirect to the WP:BOLD guideline, also called WP:FIXIT, which starts: "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it.' " That's what I'm saying. Carlstak (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I say, to start, get rid of much of the exegesis in the article, it's more clearly explained in the given sources anyway. There is a lot of scholarly jargon, confusing and boring to the average reader, that could be pruned. Even those a little more conversant with the material will be overwhelmed by all the unnecessary depth of detail. Pruning is something I could do, but won't have time because I'm re-embarking on my commission. So why don't some of you big strong editors get in there and kick some ass?;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ealdgyth, you would be an ideal person to do some pruning, if you still want to, because you're new here, don't seem to have any alliances, and aren't subject to feeling inhibited because of loyalty to a friend. I think the editors who contributed the materials would take it less personally to see it removed if a neutral, previously uninvolved editor did it. I know what it's like to see content one sweated over removed, but when I saw that it was replaced by something manifestly better, i.e., more helpful to the reader, I could accept it. Carlstak (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think you would do a good job, Ealdgyth.--Berig (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but my wiki time is much reduced and what time I can carve out really should go to projects I've left half-finished. I'm happy to give outside opinions though. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a shame, Ealdgyth, thanks anyway. Carlstak (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to put my comment in this section rather than starting a new one, because the person to whom it is addressed is already here. Andrew Lancaster, you've come to my talk page with another wall of text, but I haven't read it, and I'm not going to. You seem to be obtuse to what several editors have been telling you for a while. It comes down to this: you talk too much, and you're muddying the waters. I'm asking you to keep the promise you made to shut up (your words way above, "I promised to shut up"). Carlstak (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Mystery source...

What is The Imperial Teutonic Order given as a source for some of the footnotes? By all the gods, I hope it's not http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/index.html this "order"... which is blacklisted in fact. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a blacklisted source that should be removed wherever you see it.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

TNTing the lead

So Andrew Lancaster has a draft of the lead in this sandbox. I was looking at it trying to figure out what I would change, but it seems to me like I would just apply wp:TNT to it and start over. I think the focus on Roman authors is misplaced and that the obvious place to start would be the linguistic aspect of Germanic peoples before even getting into the geographic issue of Germania. The rest would follow. We'd include a single paragraph in the lead about the controversies over the term. Roman descriptions can go in a paragraph on history rather than being the focus of the lead.

Unfortunately I'm not sure I'm the one to write this. Like many of you I'm very busy with other projects that give me more joy than endlessly arguing about Germanic peoples. But I'm more than willing to lend a hand.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As a comparison, if we look at the German article, it begins by saying Germanic people are traditionally identified by speaking a Germanic language. It then mentions "Germania magna". Then follows a paragraph on history and then mentions other articles. The lead doesn't mention any of the controversies, but we would.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm an outsider and not knowledgeable about the topic area, but this whole focus on the lead is approaching things the wrong way around. The lead should summarize the article, and until you get the article into shape, you're putting the cart before the horse. Get the article into shape, then the lead will write itself because it will be the summary of the article that it should be. I've found over the years of editing wikipedia that folks who want to focus on the lead are often here to push an agenda - because they are wanting to make sure "their" version is right there in front of the reader, while folks who are really working to create NPOV content worry about the article body first. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right - I think we need to TNT the whole article, now that I think about it. I think the best solution is to roll it back to the version created by Obenritter as discussed above, and make adjustments from there. In fact, I'm going to do that and see what happens. At least something will finally have happened.

I also think that, as the most visible part of the article, work on the current lead would help get us going where we want to go. It would also help us identify what the hell this article is about, because at the moment it seems like it's about Greco-Roman writers writing about the Germani. This would be my preferred first paragraph:

The Germanic peoples (Latin: Germani) were a historical group of people living in Central Europe and Scandinavia. Traditionally, they have been defined by their use of a Germanic language. The Romans described the area in which they lived as Germania, which modern scholarship typically describes as stretching West to East between the Vistula and Rhine rivers and north to south from Southern Scandinavia to the Danube.

We can add footnotes/argue about the rivers later, but for reference I just followed p. 3 of Steuer's book mentioned above.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

And done - for some reason all the references are f%^!&$ up now... But I suppose in fixing them, we might start to make some progress?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich – Your proposed changes to the article seem the most cogent and pragmatic, particularly the lead paragraph. Like so many of us, this is coming at a bad time when we're busy on other things, but if we make it a collective group effort and peck away at it over time, we should be able to make notable progress. --Obenritter (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: p.3 must be in the contents pages? I have not accessed those. What does it say? Does it really say "Central Europe and Scandinavia"? (That would not even include the Rhine. The only "modern" definition of Germania is classical, and it did not stretch to all parts of the Danube or include all parts of Central Europe.) Honestly I am surprised. I thought Austronesier was talking about using the structure?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Central Europe and Scandinavia was added on the basis of the German article, Steuer mentions the countries on the Baltic sea instead of specifying Scandinavia (although he talks about it elsewhere). I'm not sure what your definition of Central Europe is, but mine includes all of Germany, including the Rhine. I think you're confused: I say "between the Rhine and Vistula" which obviously does not include the entirety of central Europe, nor the entire length of the Danube if we're only going as far as the Rhine and Vistula.

The discussions about structure, etc. were simply not leading anywhere, so I decided to go back to a version of the article more people were happy with. We can improve it from here.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Central Europe has multiple meanings in English. During the cold war for many (most?) English speakers it came to be the term for the countries along the Iron Curtin. The peoples of Hungary varied a bit in Roman times, but at most moments none of them were described as being in Germania. The definition proposed above certainly includes Hungary and even Romania the way I read it. A fine point which I may as well mention, is that from the very first descriptions classical ethnographers mentioned Germanic peoples stretching into what is now Belgium, west of the Rhine, and also before Caesar the Bastarnae, later described as Germani, were east of the Carpathians. So there were Germanic peoples outside Germania, meaning we should avoid words which disallow that possibility.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the definition of Germania used by Steuer - the focus is the part not conquered by the Romans ("Germania Magna"). This isn't really worth arguing over though - lets focus on actually improving the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Does anyone know what's going on with the citations? Half of them are from books that weren't cited in the old article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I recall that being a major job. Obenritter also put a lot of work into cleaning that up but it got completely messed up again and was not easy to repair. One of the things I recall investing in was reducing the number of long notes, and reducing the number of works in the bibliography because I think a lot were not used. I also replaced many old ones with newer ones. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've managed to get most of the notes cited to something, but a few are still missing.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, so now we are back to an Encyclopedia Britannica version. We are starting with Nordic Bronze Age Proto Germanic people, and Arminius is one of the most important world turning points. Goths won a victory over Iranic peoples. etc etc. This is not coming from Steuer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

if it isn’t cited to Steuer, it’s not from Steuer, it’s what was there in the version on July 2 2019. I haven’t gone through the whole lead, I’ve merely reverted to a structure more people were happy with as a basis for further improvements - it was either that or write a new article from scratch.-Ermenrich (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

At any rate, Ealdgyth is right: or focus needs to be the article right now, not the lead. I believe it’s not clear what the article is and is not about so we can set about doing that.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Too much of the page is now back to its original state of just a few days ago. We have more mentions of Aëtius than Theodoric or any other Germanic kings. Pathetic.--Obenritter (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? Is it the history section I just put back sort of the way it was? What would you like changed exactly Obenritter? We could return to the previous medieval sections potentially - two sections have "citations needed" tags...--Ermenrich (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

While I am in agreement with omitting the content from the Proto-Germanic discussion wholesale, as well as the discussion of genetics (which still abides), returning this page back to its Romano-centric focus from the 3rd century forward (poorly cited on top of it) does no service to the history of the Germanic people, but that's just my perspective. The fact that I had to mention that Flavius Aëtius is getting more textual attention/mentions than Gaiseric (entirely unmentioned), Theodoric, or Alaric combined should speak for itself.--Obenritter (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The old version was largely cited to 19th century scholars, so I think the current one is still an improvement. Feel free to change anything you want though. Is there some improved version that was later than July 2 2019 you had in mind?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, starting with the lead was not necessarily a good idea in terms of editing, but talking about it a bit would have been wise IMHO, because it encapsulates some of the questions like what this article is about, and it seemed better to start discussing concrete text, not vague generalizations. Anyway something had to happen. One thing I would say though is that coming out of the last round of chaos I feel that one bit of progress we did make was to get agreement what this article is primarily about, and that we would avoid structuring this article around the Kossinna approach of simply equating language, archaeology and ethnicity and using those definitions interchangeably as if they were the same topic, which is basically what we are back to. In fact, I think going quite far back this article has been primarily about the Roman era Germanic peoples, and it has been confirmed a few times, and it is a good topic that deserves an article? I still don't understand what the problem is with that or even what alternatives are being proposed. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, we haven't written the section on the controversy and problems with previous scholarly approaches yet. This is exactly the sort of hand-wringing that's prevented anything meaningful from happening here for a year. I'm sorry, but almost no one was happy with the article as you had it - you'd turned this into an article almost entirely about terminology. I've tried to gently remind you a few times that you're sort of wp:BLUDGEONING the conversation here - why don't you let the rest of us work, or maybe do some edits yourself, and we can actually work via action instead of constant hand-wringing?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich you wrote that "I believe it’s not clear what the article is and is not about". Does not seem a minor point to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Culture

Just a note so people don't end up regretting working on something without knowing this. I believe that after July 2019 what is section 5 at the moment was vastly expanded and split out to a large new article, Early Germanic culture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Geography

FWIW the Steinacher (Vienna school) article in the "Interrogating" book which we started looking at (and which we should forget!) offers this A term like Germani still evokes, no matter how much one tries to avoid it, notions of contingent identities in vast areas east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, including parts of Scandinavia, and with undefined borders to the east. This is very near to what Roman writers from the first century BCE to the second century CE, especially Caesar and Tacitus, wanted their fellow Romans to believe. For Caesar the Rhine was the one clear boundary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

New book on Archaeology and Germani

Austronesier, since you asked about it specifically, but this will interest everyone: a friend of mine who works on the tribes-formerly-known-as-the-Anglo-Saxons has just made me aware of this volume by Heiko Steuer „Germanen“ aus Sicht der Archäologie. For some reason, the Wikimedia Library only grants me access to some of the chapters individually, but I was able to download the whole book. Besides the use of scare quotes in the title, he oftens refers to the "population of Germania" when discussing the people-formerly-known-as-Germani, though he also sometimes uses the plain "Germanen". For instance, he says that the aim of the book is to write about "Germania from the Perspective of the Germani" ("Germanien aus Sicht der Germanen", title of chapter 2). His explicit aim is: "to turn the view of the "Germani" away from the written sources and to try to display the living environment the "Germani" overwhelmingly with archaeological sources, as "archaeoogy of the 'Germani'" or "archaeology and Germani" or even "archaeology in Germania". die Blickrichtung auf die „Germanen“ von den schriftlichen Quellen abzuwenden und zu versuchen, die Lebenswelten der „Germanen“ überwiegend von den archäologischen Quellen aus zu schildern, als „Archäologie der Germanen“ oder „Archäologie und Germanen“ oder auch „Archäologie in Germanien“. (p. 19). He complains that most works on the "Germani" do not cover archaeology in any detail.

He notes on page 28 that the use of the term "Germani" is today very controversial and that some people want to stop using it altogether, while other archaeologists wish to keep using it because it is generally understandable. On page 30, he notes, following the discussions in the Reallexikon in 1998, that every discipline now has its own definition of "Germani"/germanic", and that the "least controversial" aspect is the linguistic definition, for which reason some now prefer "Germanic-speaking". Nevertheless, Steuer has decided to use "Germanen", "germanisch" and "Germanien" (p. 33).

This is how he begins the first chapter: Wenn auch diese Publikation im Titel wieder den allgemein im Bewusstsein gespeicherten Begriff „Germanen“ enthält, dann muss gleich zu Anfang betont werden, dass es im Nachfolgenden nicht eigentlich um eine imaginäre Völkerschaft „Germanen“ geht. Vielmehr geht es geographisch um den Raum zwischen Weichsel und Rhein sowie zwischen den Ländern an der Ostsee und der Donau als Siedlungsgebiet und um die Bewohner dieses Gebietes, also um die Bevölkerung in diesem Raum. Behandelt werden Kulturerscheinungen aller Facetten, auch Kunsterzeugnisse, die innerhalb dieser Landschaften während der ersten Jahrhunderte um und nach Chr. Geb. entstanden sind. Zeit und Raum verbinden mit ihren Bewohnern die Aussagen für ein Gebiet, das ich im Folgenden als „Germanien“ bezeichne (Abb. 1). Aber, und das ist entscheidend: Alle die zu schildernden Facetten früheren Lebens sind keine Eigenschaften, die „Germanen“ als Völkerschaft definieren und in ihrem „Wesen“ gespeichert sind, sondern sie sind im genannten Raum entstanden, wer auch immer darin wohnte.

Even though this publication once again contains the general term "Germani", which is saved in the [common consciousness], in its title, one must stress right away at the beginning, that [the subject] in the following is not really the imaginary people of the "Germani". Rather it is about the area geographically between the Vistula and Rhine as well as the lands on the Baltic and the Danube as an area of settlement and about the inhabitants of this territory, therefore about the population of this area. Cultural manifestations in all their facets are discussed, including artistic products that were created within these landscrapes during the first centuries around and after the birth of Christ. Time and place connect the attestations for a territory that I refer to as "Germania" in the following, with the inhabitants [of these territories]. But, and this is decisive: all the facets of earlier life that will be portrayed are not qualities that define the "Germani" as a people and are saved in their "Being", but they have appeared in the aforesaid area, no matter who lived there.

My apologies for the very clunky translation - German academic prose is not easily rendered in English.

Anyway, for those of us who read German, this is a great resource for the page - he discusses settlement types, evidence of lordship, transportation, agriculture, crafts, gold and treasure, religion, warfare, sacrifices, graves, etc. etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I already noted this same source on Austronesier's talk page, but now I suppose it would be silly not to post a short note here together with yours. Compared to most archaeology works this seems really well suited to use on this article because of its engagement with the bigger perspective. I would note that this article's archaeology section is currently a relatively separable task which has been waiting for a source like this for a while. In a sense he is going back to the Caesar/Tacitus approximate and geographical definition, and dropping the assumption that the Germanic peoples need to be one material culture or language family. Each of the material cultures have their own story but it has been difficult to find sources which are not either dry "primary" work about individual groups of sites, or else totally built around various proposals about what was happening with languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

On pages 1275-1276 he gives ten reasons why he thinks we can speak of some sort of Germanic identity:

1. language
2. runes
3. burial practices
4. warrior groups from different "tribes"
5. spread of jewelry and pottery
6. spread of artistic forms
7. gold bracteates after the 4th century
8. gold sheet figures ("Goldblechfiguren")
9. the encounter with the Roman world and material continuity into the Viking period
10. again the encounter with Rome (unless I'm missing something - I'm sort of skimming)

So it seems that the issue isn't as cut and dry as I thought and it really is mostly historians who are trying to abolish the term entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It is those points that make me quite perplexed as to why this historical revisionism is so popular among historians. This article can't be the sole domain of revisionistic historians, and I expect the views of archaeologists and scholars of historical linguistics to be just as relevant.--Berig (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its revisionism, with all of its negative connotation. It's a reaction to the information given in the written sources. Steuer's work is full of examples of how the written sources are obviously inaccurate from an archaeological perspective, and it's not surprising that many historians would find them less than trustworthy from a historical perspective: Caesar and Tacitus use cliches from other ethnographies, etc. What has made the idea of "Germanic identity" especially suspect is that we don't get any descriptions of similarities of the Germanic languages even from the perspectives of their speakers until the Carolingian period.

As I've said elsewhere, we need to incorporate the criticisms of the term and the reasons for this into the article. Steuer doesn't just dismiss these criticisms, he takes them seriously, which is why he's so careful in how he presents his ideas. "Germanic identity" is probably too strong a translation even, he says "ethnic group feeling" ("ethnisches Gemeinschaftsgefühl"). Nevertheless, he finds it appropriate to continue using the terms Germanic.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with criticism, but should it be the topic of the article?--Berig (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, but it needs to be a significant part of this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What would be a source from historical linguistics equivalent to this new work? I have a feeling that Steuer's book is a relatively unprecedented step forward in terms of the fields trying to adapt by defining their terms more carefully. Certainly the RGA circles that Steuer is part of include many whose speciality is more in a linguistic direction. I think as a collective they've been working towards such adapted approaches for some time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: after looking at that list of 10, I notice that it is presented as an argument for the existence of a community consciousness and inter-communicating region among Germanic-speaking peoples. IMHO that makes a big difference. Old dilemmas which still seem open still seem to include: how long any community consciousness lasted, which Germanic peoples spoke Germanic languages in which periods, and to which extent Rome was a cause of language dispersal and community consciousness. Correct? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich IMHO you are wrong here. For example:

Nun gibt es auch (zehn) Gründe, die für ein überregionales Gemeinschaftsbe-wusstsein der Bevölkerungsgruppen in Germanien sprechen, für einen „germanisch-sprachigen“ Kommunikationsraum.

We need to look at the way our sources define their terms and then make sure we do not equate apples and pears, let alone make apples fight with pears in a fantasy play-off.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Started working on Modern definition

I've started working on presenting a modern definition and the controversy around it, but this is by no means finished.

@Alcaios:, I think that we should present the theories of etymology about the term in more detail. Would you be willing to do that?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can handle that.

I think the sub-section "modern definitions" does a good job at summarizing the current (and often conflicting) scholarly positions.

It is controversial to say that the "Proto-Germanic population emerged during the Nordic Bronze Age" though (especially since it is stated as a fact in the lead). The only material culture that can be quite confidently associated with Ancient Germanic peoples is the Jastorf culture because a continuity can be demonstrated between this culture and populations described as "Germanic" by the Romans. While the Nordic Bronze Age is one source of the Jastorf culture, one should remain very cautious when equating an archaeological culture with a prehistoric people or language.

There are also some issues in the "linguistics" section, but it can be handled in a future discussion. Alcaios (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct any inaccuracies you see (I am not versed in the early archaeology of the Germani), thank you Alcaios!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is rather a speculation than an inaccuracy. I would mention it but not state it as a fact, especially in the lead. Alcaios (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say that limiting the Proto-Germanic to *only* the Jastorf culture is also controversial since it disagrees with linguistic evidence from the Uralic languages.--Berig (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added "securely" since that seems to solve the issue while leaving other controversies out of the lead. I think the current article actually fails to discuss this? Maybe I need to dig out something from an earlier version.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the information from the old draft is so bad (and much of it cited to a blacklisted source website) that I think it's best to write about the Jastorf and other cultures proposed links to the Germanic peoples from scratch.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the position of Alcaios about what the sources say on that, and can help with providing sources if requested. It is pretty clear. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have never said that Proto-Germanic should be limited to the Jastorf culture (even though linguists date the emergence of the Proto-Germanic language to ca. 500 BC, so the Nordic Bronze Age would be "Pre-Germanic" rather than "Proto-Germanic"). The thing is that associating Ancient Germanic peoples to the Jastorf culture is way less controversial than to the Nordic Bronze Age. The issue could be discussed in the article, but we cannot write in the lead that the "Proto-Germanic population emerged in the NBA" -- this is both speculative and terminologically incorrect. Alcaios (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would add that most Finnic loanwords were borrowed during the Proto-Germanic rather than the Pre-Germanic period (cf. Grimm's law). It is probable that Proto-Uralic speakers occupied an area further south of Scandinavia, where they were eventually "replaced" (i.e. population replacement or language shift) with Germanic speakers during the first part of the Common Era. Cf. Nedoma: "The oldest loan layers − they can only be dated relatively − possibly trace back to PGmc. times; however, it is doubtful that there are any Pre-Gmc. borrowings (Ritter 1993; on the contrary, inter al. Koivulehtu 2002: 586 ff.)", cited in the previous version of the article. Alcaios (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

But, @Alcaios:, the reason why there are no pre-Germanic words in Uralic is because the Uralic languages were probably not spoken in Scandinavia until the Iron Age, see Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate.--Berig (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Berig:, you're right (if by Scandinavia you mean "Scandinavia proper", that is without Finland). I'm not familiar enough with Uralic scholarship. I'm going to spend more time with the relevant studies of early loanwords in the coming days. Alcaios (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Finland is part of this. The hunter and gatherer cultures of the northern Scandinavian forest hinterland have usually been extensions of those of Finland.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Language section and Roman classification section

I've reinstated the language section that was made by Alcaios that was an inadvertent casualty of the larger revert. I've also readded the version of the Classication subdivisions section that was made, I assume, by Andrew Lancaster. While it's an improvement over what was there before, it needs to be footnoted to secondary sources. I also am not sure if it's proper to even include questions there such as "whether the Gothic peoples saw themselves as Germanic". That strikes me as outside of the scope of a section on classical subdivisions.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as a quick note I think historically discussion of this topic has been in many versions of the article, but often moved around. It overlaps a bit with other topics and should maybe be merged into another section. I think it has been mixed with discussion of Germanic languages (as per tradition) but the approach of Alcaios meant splitting them, which is indeed better. Perhaps it should just be wherever we are going to summarize classical ethnography. We can discuss further if interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My two cents: I applaud Alcaios' language section. It's clarifying and even I could understand it. Carlstak (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Carlstak that Alcaios has notably improved the content discussing the language division. Nice work. --Obenritter (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Obenritter to avoid misunderstandings, it is not new work. It is a reinstatement of the version which was there before the reversion to the July 2019 structure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster Since I had remained away from the article for some time, largely due to the ongoing bitter contestation over its contents, I had not carefully read that particular section. If it was part of the original text, you should be happy that we're all expressing pleasure with the content. Unless that is, you've come to gloat? Not sure why you'd stress that otherwise. Anything else? --Obenritter (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not stressing anything. I saw a misunderstanding. That's what people do for each other. You are welcome. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, once again, why I stayed away. --Obenritter (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

the question of what this article is about

@Ermenrich: after some reflection, these points seem to be worth distilling from recent discussion:

• Your new position is that this article can not treat the "views" of Pohl and many other mainstream historians as the "correct" subject of the article because they "go against" the "entire tradition" of defining Germanic peoples as "Germanic-speaking peoples", "and they don't want us to call them that anyway". I don't think this is a standard WP rationale?
• OTOH, from what I understand (but please correct me if I am wrong) you do not just want this article to be describing this "tradition", but in fact to write in Wikipedia voice as if it was the "correct" "view". (There could be notes saying not everyone agrees, but the article would be structured around the presumption. For example it seems we must treat the Eburones as either not real Germanic peoples, or else as probable Germanic speakers, "with doubts", just to force things to fit the "tradition". We also seem to be back to deliberately avoiding terms like "Germanic speaking" which allow for the possibility of "Germanic" having other meanings.) At first sight, this is opposed to WP policy because we do not write "in world" about "traditions". For example, our article on Christianity does not have to be written from the viewpoint of it being "correct".
• It seems relevant to clear our minds and ask what would an article which was clearly and openly written about the likely prehistory of Germanic languages look like? (Maybe we need to write that.) I proposed to you as follows, but please reconsider these words in the light of your revert to my edit of the lead:- Old dilemmas which still seem open still seem to include: how long any community consciousness lasted, which Germanic peoples spoke Germanic languages in which periods, and to which extent Rome was a cause of language dispersal and community consciousness.
• While there might have once been a unified tradition, with a straightforward bundle of views about each region and period, is there still such a tradition? You seem to think so, because Pohl "goes against" it. I think this misses one of the main points of doubters like Pohl: there is no single set of definitions anymore. Pohl and Steuer seem to agree on there being confusion, and the need for clear language. You seem to think such concern about confusing word use is something we can not be guided by on WP, because it would necessarily be taking a side concerning specific historical proposals. I think this is a mistaken conclusion. Clear language, rather than old "in world" terminology that deliberately confuses terms in now-controversial ways, is not only a practical aim, but also most consistent with WP policy.
• Steuer is only one author, who sees himself as making a new proposal relevant to specific regions and periods, and who uses fairly clear language about that. I suggest you should specifically reconsider what Steuer says about his use of the ideas of Geary (one of those "revisionist historians"). In some ways it seems his proposals are not very traditional. Please try putting aside the question of which terminology he prefers (like mathematicians do) and reconsider what he is proposing about those old dilemmas, those old debates about "what really happened" which I mentioned. He is proposing that the Germanic-speaking peoples of Germania came to be a real entity, but this entity did not exist before Rome in effect created them. It is a fascinating idea, but is this compatible with the way you are using him in our article and on this talk page? (To me, when we ignore the question of terminology, this does not "go against" the "views" of historians, even "revisionists", in any simple way?)
• Proposal: There is nothing wrong with articles or article sections about the history of early speakers of language families, including debate about how long these peoples continued to be a single community in any way. However, such articles can and should clearly identify themselves as being about speakers of a certain language or group of languages. If the concept of Germanic peoples was always ONLY linguistically defined, then this whole article could be written that way. But for better or worse we also need to find a home for the real scholarly topic of historical peoples who are always called Germanic, but lived in the period when the languages of specific groups are uncertain.

Just to remind the context here: we've had a bold revert worth two years of edits. Fine, but we are not going to get past the above questions without being a bit thoughtful at some point. I've made an attempt to explain something difficult to explain, and I hope this will not lead to ad hominem posts. We really do have to deal with the above issues eventually, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Just look at his latest wall. This editor continues to ignore community input about his constant overlong posts on this page, and demonstrates once again that he will continue to bludgeon the page, and sabotage progress, despite repeated requests to lay off from other editors. I think someone needs to take the matter to ANI. I would, but I don't have time. Enough is enough. Carlstak (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Carlstak: enough is enough. We’ve been having these discussions “what is the article about” here and at Goths for over a year I think, and it only seems to make things even LESS clear and allow Andrew Lancaster to bludgeon his way to having the article how he wants it….—Ermenrich (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My work was reverted, and there were three of us in a conversation about that last night. The above post summarizes some fundamental problems now apparent after that discussion. Just read it? How can you justify constantly ignoring and attacking any attempt to discuss problems even after you've reverted 2 years of edits and (unsurprisingly in such a situation) posted many long posts yourself (then told me to just edit, and then reverted my work)? It was also you Ermenrich, not me, who described yourself as making these changes without having being clear what the article is about. The way you've started chanting "bludgeon" at everything you dislike is Kafkaesque. This is a cheap shot, because we all know that the scholarly sources themselves are making people angry, and that this has demanded a lot of discussion (including responses to constant visitors to this talk page). No version of this article has ever been much loved, and that goes back before my involvement. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, honestly we don't need to have the same debates again and again (I myself shouldn't have participated in needless debates yesterday night). The relevant discussion is already occurring among specialists of the field. Remember that we're just WP editors ; our only job is to provide a fair and comprehensive overview of the current scholarly debates and positions. Alcaios (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course I fully agree with that principle, and sure we all sometimes say things with too many or too few words. But what on earth is going on? It is exactly the principle of accurately summarizing our sources which is rejected in these edits: [1], [2]. Which sources justify those edits? Not Steuer. This is a simple valid question and I'm being attacked for asking it. Furthermore, whatever you want to say about past debates, this one is about specific edits and sources and we have not had it before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So the source behind the edit (Steuer doesn't say "Germanic speaking", he says "Germanen", as anyone can see by looking at the text) cannot be used to justify not changing the wording to say something Steuer does not say? Constantly accusing people of twisting sources when you don't get your way is not a good look, Andrew.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to translate Steuer's Germanen as "Germanic peoples". His usage of the the term relates to the geographical area of Germania, but also to the relatively coherent cultural area that largely overlaps with it. In the introduction he states that he bases his conclusions on what archaeological founds (which he calls Quellen 'sources', thus equating them in value with written historical sources) tell us. So it does not equate with the Germani of the historical record. And überregionales Gemeinschaftsbewusstsein der Bevölkerungsgruppen in Germanien ('supraregional sense of unity of the ethnic groups in Germania') is different from "shared ethnicity". –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, I believe "ethnicity" is a Freudian slip/muscle memory on my part. It should read "identity" and I've changed it accordingly.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ermenrich: just give me one second and don't kill me? The 10 arguments are introduced like this: Nun gibt es auch (zehn) Gründe, die für ein überregionales Gemeinschaftsbe-wusstsein der Bevölkerungsgruppen in Germanien sprechen, für einen „germanisch-sprachigen“ Kommunikationsraum. Please just help stupid old me understand why you think I am misunderstanding? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

He goes on to say Aus römischer Sicht lebten östlich des Rheins Germanen, nicht nur weil Caesar und in Nachfolge auch Tacitus durch ihre Benennung der Bevölkerung jenseits mit dieser Sammelbezeichnung Germanen charakterisiert haben. Den antiken Historikern war durchaus klar, dass es einen Unterschied zwischen den „germanisch“ sprechenden Germanen und den „keltisch“ sprechenden Bevölkerungen in Gallien gab. (From a Roman perspective, Germani lived east of the Rhine, not only because Caesar and following him also Tacitus characterized Germani by calling the population across [the river] this collective term. It was completely clear to antique historians, that there was a difference between the "Germanic" speaking Germani and the "Celtic" speaking population in Gaul." So if you take the whole context, he's arguing that the Germani spoke Germanic, and thus I don't see any real reason to say "Germanic speaking" rather than "Germanic peoples" - when the article is about "Germanic peoples" and he is clearly discussing "Germanic speaking peoples" as the "Germani".--Ermenrich (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

But then he is talking about Germanic-speaking Germanic peoples, „germanisch“ sprechenden Germanen, right? He does even use those words. I feel you accused me wrongly. I wish you'd read me the first time. Can we agree that the judgement call to remove the disambiguating words was yours? ("I don't see any reason...".) My reason for questioning this judgement is that Steuer (and all our sources collectively) show that this is not the only possible definition. We need to define terms: apples, pears etc because we also use other sources. Another way to do this, longer, is to explain Steuer thinks all Germanic peoples were Germanic speaking (although I think this only applies to a specific period)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: A concrete proposal: Heiko Steuer has chosen to define his own work on the Germani geographically (covering Germania) rather than ethnically. I think it could better be "linguistically and geographically" (or Heiko Steuer has chosen to limit his own work on the Germani to Germanic speakers living in Germania, without trying to define ethnicity.) because that is how Steuer describes his working definition. Without this, the meaning of the first argument also becomes more fuzzy the original IMHO. (I am posting rather than editing because I was reverted for a vaguely similar idea.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is actually a slight inconsistency on Steuer's part - he says he's defining it geographically, but he clearly is also defining it linguistically, and some of his ten reasons assume a connection between geography and language (burial practices, Gold bracteates, for instance, although by that time I don't think there's much question the people were speaking Germanic). This is what I've been trying to get across: even scholars who attack the concept of Germanic peoples do so under the guise of uncertainties about what language some of the Caesarean/Tacitean tribes spoke. Supporters, on the other hand, can always point to the reality of Germanic languages, who must have been spoke by someone, and gosh darnit, ancient sources say it was these people who lived here. What we need to avoid doing is deconstructing the subject of the article or trying to force it to follow the definition of Germani in ancient sources, as even most historians don't do that (whatever Goffart may say, his goal is for people to stop saying Germanic, not to start talking about the ancient Germani as described by Tacitus and Caesar).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What we need to avoid doing is deconstructing the subject of the article or trying to force it to follow the definition of Germani in ancient sources. So are you accusing me of that? Please see the discussion above with Srnec and Austronesier where this is discussed in a more constructive way. This is about reading the modern sources, which is what we have to do. If deconstruction means paying attention to the way different authors define similar-looking terms then I am sorry but we have to do that. If it means something else, please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: it strikes me that we may have lost sight of the original point. You are attributing the modern scholar, Steuer, and specifically his delimitation approach, in a very prominent way. In accordance with the principle you explain yourself, I think it is important you report his "deconstruction" accurately and that we don't attempt to "improve" upon him. It effectively changes the meaning of the whole list. My suggestion above would be a small simple tweak?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Germanic-speaking peoples

Germanic languages (whose speakers may also be called "Germanic-speaking peoples" reads as terribly redundant to me. Like "the English language, whose speakers may be called English speakers". Srnec (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s because we (and scholars) are having this debate about whether or not we can say Germanic peoples are people who speak Germanic languages. It is a real term used in scholarship for that reason. Is there a better way to word it? We can’t just list it as an alternative title because that just replicates the problem…—Ermenrich (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Germanic-speaking peoples" strikes me as a dictionary-level term that we do not need to explicitly mention. Put another way, this article is not intensionally about Germanic-speaking peoples in any period. The question is whether the Germanic peoples are extensionally equivalent, for a certain period, with the Germanic-speaking peoples. In other words, the Germanic-speaking peoples per se are only of interest insofar as they formed, to adapt Austronesier's phrase, an etically identifiable cultural group, i.e., the Germanic peoples. Srnec (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have instinctively thought that "Germanic-speaking peoples" is generally used with a wider meaning than "Germanic peoples", by also including Germanic-speaking groups of the modern age (thus more equivalent to the broad but quite non-distinctive concept of "Germanic peoples" appearing in few sources (i.e. the concept most of us reject for this article). Quite surprisingly, most instances of "Germanic-speaking peoples" in Google Scholar are restricted to the refer to peoples of the early period (or better: relatively early period up to the Early Medieval; @Srnec: I wrote very early on one occasion, which you have correctly pointed out as not quite correct). So even "Germanic-speaking peoples" is most often used as a non-self-explanatory synonym for the ancient "Germanic peoples", which per MOS is lede-worthy and to mark in bold text.

Most attestations are from the 21th century. This surge in the use of the "clumsy" term is clearly related to the increasing dispreference for the term "Germanic peoples". What I suggest is a change in the phrase, something like "(and therefore are also often referred to as "Germanic-speaking peoples")", or something else without the loathed "referred to". –Austronesier (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a 21st century thing - it's how I refer to "Germanic" people in anything I've ever published. Maybe we could do "and scholars therefore also call them..."?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Long avoidance-induced terms always remind me of "jenes höhere Wesen, das wir verehren". –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I agree with Srnec that in this case the wording looked redundant. OTOH in many situations writing about this topic, adding the "speaking" can be helpful to avoid unnecessary ambiguity in passages where there might be doubt about the definition being used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

questioned edit

Edit summary [3] of Ermenrich: No Andrew, for any modern scholar using the concept Germanic people use Germanic language - any ancient people NOT using a Germanic language would not be Germanic by the standards of modern scholars who use the term, even if Roman authors called them that. For other scholars, see the word “traditionally “. The second sentence of the lead is not the place to start deconstructing the term. Ermenrich, saving time, you are flat wrong, and I completely disagree, but I won't "bludgeon" you with evidence unless you demand a full debate on it. You are saying all modern scholars agree that all Germanic peoples are known to have spoken Germanic languages? Really?? If the second sentence is not the place to put a Pandora's box like this, then I think we have to get it out of there? If this article is about the history of Germanic languages then please tell me where is the article about the Germanic peoples? And "deconstructing"? What is going on with that word? That is apparently just a culture war word for "defining" here, so yes the opening sentences of an article are a pretty good place to be defining the article topic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, we need to find a balance between Goffart, Wolfram and Heather. All of them are respected scholars in Germanic/Barbarian studies. If we manage to collaborate with each other efficiently, we can write an article where any significant voice in the field can be heard : "Heather argues that ... On the other hand, Goffart thinks that..." Alcaios (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's true (assuming that "Goffart, Wolfram and Heather" is meant as a rough simplification) but I don't see the connection to the defence of this sentence which has been added to the lead and is just completely incorrect? None of those three scholars would agree that all Germanic peoples spoke Germanic languages by definition, except in the tautological case that someone is voluntarily using the controversial definition of Germanic peoples which says they speak Germanic languages. All of these authors know that this is not the only modern definition. It is the old linguistic definition which is now widely rejected. What language did the Sicambri speak? What language the Ariovistus, Ambiorix, and Arminius speak at home? We do not know. Please find me a strong source saying that the Eburones, Tencteri, Usipetes and Sicambri were not Germanic. Everyone calls them "Germanic" and doubt about their language is mainstream, which proves that the definition of Germanic is not always linguistic. I am not even trying to use examples from Tacitus, but serious scholars know they can't just ignore his testimony on this either, as none of these proposals could ever have existed without him. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, you are trying to force the definition of a single clique of historians onto the article - this is precisely why no one liked how you had edited the article before. We have it from the mouth of the Reallexikon itself and from Steuer that the modern definition of Germanic peoples is people who spoke Germanic languages. It has traditionally been understood as an ethnolinguistic group. Some scholars like Goffart are now saying that we have to use the definition that the Romans themselves used, as this is not, apparently linguistic, but that is hardly the majority perspective in the field. The same people who want us to only use the Roman definition also want us to not use the term "Germanic" at all. We can't have the article written from the perspective of people who think the subject does not or should not exist, that's just ridiculous. We can mention criticisms, but there's no getting around the fact that most scholarship has historically associated being Germanic with speaking a Germanic language.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The comment was not directly related to the issue but to the constant "fights" I've been seeing on this talk page between editors. That said, I would argue that Roman/Greek sources were sometimes biased and ill-informed. Ancient Germanic peoples spoke Germanic languages and shared common cultural traits, just like Ancient Greeks spoke Greek dialects and worshipped Greek gods, no matter if they or contemporary observers saw them as "Greeks" or not. But this is a personal point of view. Alcaios (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right Alcaios, we need a balanced view on this. It's true (maybe most) historians and some archaeologists dislike the term now, but it's definitely also true that the traditional definition, based originally in historical linguistics, is still going strong and is actually the basis for the term as used elsewhere. We need to include Goffart, Pohl, etc., but we can't base the article around their definitions (namely that we shouldn't call them Germanic peoples), otherwise it would be a redirect to Barbarian.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that many Ancient Germanic peoples were influenced by Celtic speakers. The name of the Eburones and their leaders are most likely of Celtic origin. Yet, they are described as "Germanic" by Caesar. But the ethnic name "French", as well as most of the names of French kings, are of Germanic origin. Would anyone argue, based on these facts, that the French are a Germanic people? I don't agree with most of Goffart says, but he's right to point out that ethnicity is way more complex than the essentialist vision of 19th–early 20th century scholars. Alcaios (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement here, Alcaios. The problem is that we can't present Goffart's views (or Pohl's views) as the "correct" subject of the article when it goes against the entire tradition of talking about Germanic peoples and they don't want us to call them that anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ermenrich: Please quit the ad hominem, which is normally sign interneters know they are twisting the sources, and just bring your sources. (Note my citations above.) IMHO you have misread. There are disagreements between scholars, but you are getting confused about what they are. Tacitus and all serious scholars who have engaged with this topic know that we can't say all the peoples known as Germanic peoples definitely spoke what we now call Germanic languages, except of course if they are talking in the context of using the 19th century / Kossinna definition which just equates language with ethnicity etc. That is just a tautology - a word game which makes the many Germanic peoples non-Germanic. Mathematicians don't bother arguing when they know differences can be accounted for by different definitions, and neither should we. This is not about minority and majority positions, or "nobody likes you". For goodness sake. Kossinna is not mainstream. We need to avoid mixing apples and pears. If deconstruction means defining our terms, then it is WP policy. You can look up the Eburones, Sicambri, Usipetes etc in RLA. You can also check what material culture they were in (La Tène). But if this article is about a speculative linguistic topic, then tell me where is the article about the historically real group which they were part of? I think they were part of a group called the "Germanic peoples" in both ancient and modern sources. Prove me wrong. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Many "Germanic" peoples are only not Germanic if you insist on using the definition of Julius Caesar, Andrew. The Reallexikon says that the Ebrunones were Germani cisrhenenses in Latin and then discusses whether they were Germanic or not: So steht die Forsch. hier vor der Frage, wieweit sich diese Beobachtungen mit der oben erwähnten Aussage Caesars vertragen, auch die E. seien ‚Germani‘ genannt worden, oder präziser formuliert, inwieweit sich diese Bezeichnung mit dem deckt, was die Sprachwiss. als ‚Germanen‘ bezeichnet. The linguistic definition is, and always has been, primary for modern scholarship.

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that you are trying to force a definition on the article that is at odds with what "Germanic peoples" is commonly understood to mean outside among historians who don't want us to use the term at all, and that this is precisely why this article was tagged as non-neutral and has attracted numerous complaints over the past year.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You know this is wrong, and you have brought no source to prove it: The linguistic definition is, and always has been, primary for modern scholarship. Most people who come to insult and bait this article's editors do not read the main sources, but you do, so you can't claim ignorance about the fact that complaints on behalf of this belief are not according to WP policy. What would be ridiculous would be if WP goes back to giving Kossinna's methodology in it's own voice for any long period time. This is certainly not mainstream and I can't see how you would avoid this being a political compromise that has nothing to do with WP policy or the publications of experts in this field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wie gesagt, entscheidend ist, dass der Begriff „Germanen“ ursächlich und überzeugend von der Seite der Sprachwissenschaft her zu definieren ist. Die Definition des „Germanischen“ von der Sprache her ergibt sich aus der Überlieferung von Namen und Texten im beschreibbar eigenen Idiom. "As said above, it's decisive that the term "Germanen" is causally and convincingly to be defined from the area of linguists. The definition of the "Germanic" preceding from language is produced from the transmission of names and texts in describably their own idiom." Steuer, 2021, p. 30. The RGA also says that the definition originates linguistically.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Am wenigsten umstritten ist der Germanenbegriff der Sprachwissenschaft; denn „germanische“ Sprachen haben ohne Zweifel Gemeinsamkeiten, weshalb sie so definiert worden sind, und von der Philologie aus wurde der Begriff dann in die anderen Disziplinen übernommen. Man spricht deshalb auch von „germanischsprechenden“ Bevölkerungen. "The least controversial is the "Germanic" term of linguistics; for "Germanic" languages doubtlessly have commonalities, for which reason they are defined [as Germanic languages], and out of philology the term was taken up into other disciplines. For this reason, one also speaks of "Germanic-speaking" populations." (Steuer, ibid.).--Ermenrich (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Steuer goes to great lengths to explain which definition he is using. To say the least, this does not show that there is a consensus that the definition he uses is the only serious one in modern academia. The first chapters of his large work show a lot of agreement with those who write in different ways, as I am sure you have noticed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Here are the sentences before the second quote you give, which argue against the way you are using those words: Vielmehr versucht jede einzelne Wissenschaft zu definieren, was bei ihr „Germanen“ bedeuten. Es gibt also einen Germanenbegriff der Geschichtswissenschaft, einen der Archäologischen Wissenschaft und einen der Sprachwissenschaft. [ADDED: in other words historians and linguists use different definitions of Germanic peoples.] Also notice how this ONE author says we can use the terminology "Germanic speaking". Indeed, we can. We can easily split discussion of that concept out and avoid being confusing, or we can deliberately be confusing. Why would we deliberately be confusing? We know why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alcaios: so are you really saying you can bring good sources showing that a clear scholarly consensus is that the Eburones, the largest part of the original Caesar-period Germani, were only pretending to not be what we now call Germanic speakers? Hmm. I think all evidence including archaeological evidence makes all the early Germani on both sides of the Rhine, and covering a large part of what is now Germany, a kind of Gaul who used fewer luxury goods and coins, and indeed Caesar and authors after him continued to write that way. Tell me if your want citations, ancient or modern. FWIW Steuer, for example, is far more careful how he defines his terms, and explains which part of the topic he is talking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Caesar says, in a definition that everyone says is problematic, that the Eburones were Germani. They don't "pretend" to be it, since Germani is by all accounts not a name any Germanic people ever called themselves.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding. According to Tacitus the Eburones and their neighbours were really called Germani before the innovation by which that name started to be used for more peoples. When applied to them the name was not an innovation. Their name was extended to other peoples, not the other way around. Modern sources also call them Germani. Also, I guess you must not realize that Caesar called the Eburones not only Germani, but also Gauls, and Belgae. He never said anything, anywhere, about Germanic languages. Pre-empting any "technical" complaint, this is not just what the primary source says, but also what modern secondary sources say. As human beings we can doubt whatever we like in primary sources, but modern secondary sources couldn't say anything without accepting most of it. You are picking on the fact that a classical source is (as always) "problematic", but not explaining whether there is consensus among modern secondary sources about any specific problem relevant to this discussion here. So back to the issue: modern experts do not all say that all Germani spoke Germanic languages. And we can not "pick a winner" (let alone make a minority position into a winner) based on the idea of choosing the position which makes the article easiest to write, and is most friendly to people who post angry messages on this talk page but never cite sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that even if we can prove that an ethnic name (or personal names for that matters) is of Germanic or Celtic origin, this doesn't imply that they spoke a Germanic or Celtic language. Historical examples demonstrate that this is not always the case. Therefore, founding the definition of "Germanic peoples" on the language they spoke is a dead-end since we'll never know which language most these peoples actually spoke before the Early Middle Ages. Ethnicity is way more complex than saying "Caesar wrote that they were Germani" or "their ethnic name is of Germanic origin" so they can certainly be described as a Germanic people. Alcaios (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What I mean fundamentally is that even if I agree that Ancient Germanic peoples can be defined as the populations who spoke a Germanic language and shared common cultural traits, it is very difficult to tell whether they spoke a Germanic language or shared (inherited) Germanic cultural traits based on our primary sources (Caesar, Tacitus, et al.) Alcaios (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I again agree with Alcaios. Hence the use of the word "traditionally" in the lead and other hedging.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Goffart, Halsall et al. are playing on these ambiguities to say that Germanic peoples never existed. The right way of thinking would be to carefully analyze all available evidence in order to reach the most probable conclusions, or to simply say that we don't know (and will never know) with certainty which of these pre-Migration Period peoples were Germanic or not. Alcaios (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

But those two authors don't argue this in any way which makes sense here, as has been pointed out many times. (Their concern is the question of whether there was a single Germanic-speaking people in late antiquity.) And why do you suddenly mention these two authors who make people angry? It seems like a change of topic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So Alcaios (slightly tongue in cheek) if all evidence is pointing in a certain direction, we can be sure it is wrong? Perhaps you will say that is not what you mean, but anyway it is just presented as your personal argument so far. What is important is whether we can find proof that modern secondary sources are in consensus that languages define who was Germanic, and that the Eburones and Sicambri and so on, who many experts believe probably spoke Gaulish, actually spoke Germanic. I don't think the sources allow us to say this in good conscience. I think when we come down to it, you'd have to agree Alcaios? I understand this is controversial to some people, but IMHO we can't ignore this reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: 'Germanic peoples' is a modern scholarly construct. There is no obligation that any of Caesar's Germani be included. There is nothing wrong with saying that, e.g., the Germani of Tacitus were not in fact all Germanic peoples. You cannot simply put together a source which says the Sicambri spoke Gaulish and another which calls them Germanic and conclude that, for scholars, Germanic peoples included some Gaulish speakers. For example, see Rolf Hachmann, The Germanic Peoples (1971), p. 71: "In this sense [the total cultural picture revealed by archaeological evidence] neither the Sugambri and Ubii nor the Vangiones, Nemetes and Triboci can have been Germans, even though the Romans referred to them as such." By the way, I think this would be a good source for this article. Although dated, it addresses certain important definitional questions head-on. Unfortunately, I do not have full access.

I would support a separate article on the Romans' Germani, as I've said before, so that the ancient concept is not conflated with the modern concept. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: Alcaios Austronesier In past discussions about such ideas the consensus seemed to be that because of the significant overlap and unclear boundaries, both topics (Germanic-speaking Germani and La Tène Germani), should be covered by this article. But looking at recent edits we've given up on that, and the article is moving to a more Hachmann-like position which will mean defining the La Tène Germani as either "not real" Germani or else they really spoke Germanic but had all their names translated? (FWIW I don't see that as "the" modern concept, but just one common modern approach.) Whatever the case, it is awkward to use this language orientation for all Germani in the Caesar/Tacitus period because language use was unclear for most of them. We'd be presenting this whole topic as just a problem. So I think no matter how many articles we have, at least for this period the definition of Germanic peoples needs to be looser, and more uncertainty about language admitted. For this practical reason, for such early periods where the languages and the peoples are hard to connect, I've argued that proto-language discussion should mainly be in language-focussed articles. (Sorry if I am repeating myself.) But indeed (and maybe this is more approximately what you mean Srnec) perhaps another idea is split by periods: If this article is to be more language-focussed now, then the "narrative history" of the Caesar-Tacitus period Germani be moved out, letting this article focus on speculations about how Germanic languages were dispersing during that period? In any case I think as Ermenrich progresses, there will be call to reconsider if any splits are needed and this is one area where it is worth thinking ahead about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, 'Germanic peoples' is a modern scholarly construct, and as we have seen, read and discussed, this construct is defined in different ways by different disciplines and scholars. (We say this in the lead and there it should stay.) One of these definition includes the identification of 'Germanic peoples' with Caesar/Tacitus's Germani, but this is just one out many possibilities and thus neither wrong nor absolute truth. If scholars choose to define them differently, of course the outcome can be that certain tribes subsumed by the classical sources under Germani are not counted as "Germanic" from the chosen angle. And we should be aware from Sebastian Brather's research that populations which have left a archaeological track of a "Germanic-looking" material culture might not necessarily have been Germanic speakers, and vice versa. This natural fuzziness does not inevitably render the term "Germanic" useless. It's complex, challenging, and defies dogma. –Austronesier (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So coming back to the edit, shouldn't the opening line be adapted to allow for the possible existence of multiple overlapping definitions? To be clear "Since the 19th century, they have been traditionally defined by the use of ancient and early medieval Germanic languages and are therefore also called "Germanic-speaking peoples"" means Germanic peoples are always Germanic speaking in all serious definitions, in all periods etc. I propose the eventual number of articles does not really make a difference because all have to be written in a way which allows for the existence of the others. (Otherwise each describes a different "in world reality" = POVForks). Example solution (I think): Since the 19th century, they have traditionally been defined as the speakers of ancient and early medieval Germanic languages or "Germanic-speaking peoples".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Outsider stepping in again...

Okay, first, whatever Caesar, Tacitus, Herodotus, etc may have said, we should not be basing our article on interpreting what they said. They are the primary sources, and the historians/linguists/etc are the folks who interpret those sources (as well as others) to create the secondary sources we use for our articles. So let's not get side-tracked into discussing what Caesar/Tacitus/etc may have meant, because that's pretty much textbook WP:OR. (Likewise trying to figure out what language ancient figures spoke at home isn't something we can do nor does it help the goal of improving the article). Secondly, we need to focus on the secondary sources - and depersonalize the discussion. If a source isn't up for inclusion, we shouldn't be discussing it. So we need to stop dropping "Kossinna" into the discussion unless we're thinking of using them as a source (which I gather no one is since he's been dead for a while). Third, if folks are putting up German sources, can they be translated for the folks who don't speak German? Same for any other foreign language source. Fourth, can we again ... depersonalize the discussion. Try to address the sources, not the other editors. Don't do challenges - we're supposed to be editing cooperatively. Saying "prove me wrong" or accusing others of twisting sources just contributes to a worsening of the atmosphere and does not get us further along the goal of improving the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Prove me wrong" is IMHO a simple reference to the standard WP position that our rights to make demands here are based on bringing sources to the table. The onus is on those who make claims? Let's not be too over-sensitive? I think it is the one kind of "challenge" which we are encouraged to make.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Prove me wrong" is needlessly confrontational. Perhaps rephrasing to "Can you show me the sources that support that position?" would work better. And please do not say "Let's not be too over-sensitive?"... that appears to be trying cast requests for decorum as being bad (i.e. "over-sensitive"). There have been several requests on this talk page and in the archives to have the discussion on the talk page be less bludgeony and more focused on improving the article, I made some suggestions on how to improve it, from an outsider's perspective. Folks are free to ignore that outside perspective but ... if the talk page doesn't improve nothing is going to improve in the article either. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't disagree with your description of best practice, of course. IMHO "bludgeoning" seems to have become an easy way to get away with attacking people trying to explain sources, whenever you don't like what they are saying. It is extremely disruptive and it makes discussions longer and less effective. I really don't like WP:NONO bombing, but if I were to pick a relevant acronym for our road block it would be good old WP:IDHT. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth honestly what do you think of Ermenrich's demand that WP can not present the mainstream consensus (some Germanic peoples probably did not speak Germanic languages), because it goes against "tradition"/"historical" scholarship?[4][5] Is this not similar to demanding that articles about God should have leads making it clear that God exists, and only mention doubts in an isolated sub-section, or am I exaggerating? I must be missing something about why my edit to the opening sentences was reverted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Germanic paganism

Would someone, perhaps Bloodofox, care to expand the section on Germanic paganism? It's now shorter than the section on the conversion, which doesn't seem right.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I've been meaning to rewrite Germanic paganism and Germanic mythology for a while now. I'll carve out some time to do this sometime soon. All are welcome to help, of course. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Delighted to see all the progress suddenly being made recently.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Scirii = σκιροι?

@Obenritter: Regarding this edit[6]. Müller mentions skiroi among the attackers without further explanation. According to this article by Alvar Ellegård, the same tribal name appears in Procopius' writings, appearently as the Greek name for the Sciri. –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier Exactly, but where does Müller mention the Scythians or Galatians in this context? Hence, my removal of that source and citation. Alvar Ellegård claims that Sidonius Appolinarus, when writing about the Eruli, was operating under the assumption that all peoples coming from the North were Germanic barbarians. Ellegård remarks, "We have no reason at all to think that Sidonius knew anything about the Baltic... When they heard, or said, that the Goths, or any other Germanic, or Sarmatian, or Scythian, tribe came from the North, they were taken to come from the unknown and fabulous area bounded on the south by the Danube and the Black Sea, on the west by the Rhine, on the east by the Tanais, and on the north by the Ocean, which everybody assumed to be there, though nobody had seen it - as both Herodotos (3:115) and Strabon (7-2-4) admitted." (p. 17) --Obenritter (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If anything we could mention Claudius and his lumping them into a broader "Scytharum diversi populi: Peuci, Greuthungi, Austrogoti, Tervingi, Visi, Gipedes, Celti etiam et Eruli" (p. 7) < the same Ellegård source.--Obenritter (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't thought of the Scythians or Galatians because they are mentioned in the same sentence, although not with their Greek designations. Do you suspect that Müller's use of "Galatians" and "Scythians" is an extrapolation from her side? "Celts or Galatians" might suggest this. She cites her own paper from 2009 (in footnote 42) about the ethnonyms in the decree for Protogenes,[7] but unfortunately, the link to that paper doesn't work. Austronesier (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier Müller might be using them (Scythians and Galatians) under those auspices, but you'd be better informed on that aspect of ethno-linguistics than I. With that in mind, I'll leave that for your judgment.--Obenritter (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That paper can be found here. Braund ("Greater Olbia" in Classical Olbia and the Scythian World, p. 66) quotes the inscription: "Deserters were reporting that the Gauls and Sciri had formed an alliance, that a large force had been collected and would be coming during the winter". The threat of "Thisamatae, Scythians and Saudaratae" is a separate but concurrent thing. Of the ethnicity of the these Sciri, the historian who shall not be named (Barbarian Tides, pp. 203–5) writes

In view of the early date of the Greek inscription and its reference to Galatians, the residents of Olbia are very likely to have classed the Sciri as "Celts." Five centuries later, when the Sciri are encountered not very far from where they had been when annoying Olbia, it hardly matters what ethnic conglomerate they had belonged to so long before.

but stops short of describing them as Germanic, of course. He lists 13 mentions of the Sciri between c. 220 BC and 476. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I changed the text with another source while you editors were having this conversation unbeknownst to me. Is it okay? Carlstak (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me Carlstak. --Obenritter (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Great! Carlstak (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)