Misplaced Pages

Talk:Germanic peoples: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:53, 22 March 2019 editAndrew Lancaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,201 edits →Term for the mainstream Rome-centred religion Clovis joined etc← Previous edit Revision as of 12:36, 23 March 2019 edit undo83.185.82.92 (talk) →does modern germanic people exist?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 84: Line 84:


:So why did we not just change the wikilink? And on the other hand, I still do not understand what point you are making, because it seems you admit there was a catholic christianity, and that there was a church of Rome which was catholic, and surely this is referred to as the Roman catholic church? It did not begin to exist in the 11th century it only became more distinct from other catholic/orthodox churches? What am I missing? But in any case does anyone have any opposition to simply changing the wikilink?--] (]) 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC) :So why did we not just change the wikilink? And on the other hand, I still do not understand what point you are making, because it seems you admit there was a catholic christianity, and that there was a church of Rome which was catholic, and surely this is referred to as the Roman catholic church? It did not begin to exist in the 11th century it only became more distinct from other catholic/orthodox churches? What am I missing? But in any case does anyone have any opposition to simply changing the wikilink?--] (]) 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

== does modern germanic people exist? ==

{{rfc|hist|lang|pol|soc}}
Shall we remove "Germanic ethnic group" from all ethnic groups articles?
:Before 2015 all so called "germanic" ethnic group articles said "nation and ethnic group" instead of "germanic ethnic group" which was added without greater discussion. germanic is not neutral because it is based on old obsolete racial theories, and is really more an ancient peoples, none of the modern people call themselves "germanic" This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. ] (]) 12:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:36, 23 March 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconEtymology
WikiProject iconThe etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology
Template:Vital article

lets remove the line about "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A straightforward closing: remove the sentence indicated. Only one participant expressed an opinion possibly opposed to that, & she did not explicitly cast a !vote. As a side note, it would have been easier for the closer to perform his task had the location of this sentence been provided; he had to look at the article history to find where the sentence had been & understand the discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the the line "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples" be removed? Freeboy200 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Snow Close. RfC repeating previous, from an SPA that has done nothing but attack this page. Probably an experienced wikipedian, auto-confirmed in 9 minutes flat by "repeated blanking of their talk page" (observed above) just 8 weeks ago. Who are you, Freeboy200? Reveal yourself! Batternut (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
... or this RfC might be for another agenda - that of drawing a veil over Germanic influence upon the modern world. Batternut (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The what influence of the what? You realize this sounds a bit strange? This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. Or are the Germanic tribes a kind of ever-present illuminati in your mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is intended to cover the concerns discussed in most of the previous discussions on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Given the ongoing debate and controversy about this single line in the Summary—which is in no way a substantial part of the article's body—my inclination is to delete the line altogether so we can dispense with this agonizing banter in the Talk section. Germanic peoples is a generic term for people who speak Germanic-derivative languages and who have a history in western Europe's general historical development. It would benefit more to omit/delete this sentence than it helps us since strife has been its only reward. BTW-somebody also inserted this controversial line near the end of the article...so whoever takes the axe to it, please remove it from the Summary and Body.--Obenritter (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Obenritter: So the Irish are Germanic rather than Celtic because they mostly speak English? I don't think so! You could be right that the lead should not even mention this small part of the body, ie that it is WP:UNDUE. However, some cost-benefit evaluation of controversial content is no justification to WP:CENSOR it completely. Batternut (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Batternut: There's plenty to be discussed with reference to the Celts since they also traversed some of the same territory on the Iberian Peninsula that the Germanic Visigoths did and there was known contact with other Germanic tribes...so yes, they might be part Germanic as well. They were not entirely immune to contact with the Normans, Saxons, and/or Vikings as well, so any attempt at ethnographic exclusivity for the Celts is probably misplaced. Nonetheless, this is not about censorship in so much as it is about reducing dissension. Frankly, I could care less but my opinion was requested.--Obenritter (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Obenritter: I was summoned by a bot. Who/how were you roped in? Batternut (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Two questions: (1) would editors find it suitable to remove the sentence if it concerned: "Modern ethnic groups descended from ancient Bedouin people"? Or "ancient Inuit people"? (2) Would reference to scientific evidence concerning not only linguistic but DNA affinities (haplogroups) be of assistance here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yseult-Ivain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Yseult-Ivain (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The first question is not relevant, and looks like a "trick argument". The history of one ancient people is not the same as another. The simple answer to the second question is yes, but the complicated answer is that this is totally missing the point. WP has various different articles about northern European population genetics etc, and indeed this article has a section about such things. No one is objecting to those, but they are a whole subject on their own, ongoing research without many clear results we can link to Germanic tribes, and not easy to summarize. The concern that has kept coming back in this article is to a specific passage in the lead of this article which presents itself as a simple relevant core fact, but which is not reliably sourced from the types of sources you mention at all. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Andrew, please don't worry about any "trick arguments" coming from me: people who understand brainstorming would know an invitation to do so when they see one, and few such would likely be "tricked" by much of anything.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not something I am entirely unfamiliar with. But I personally think the quality of brainstorming is not something which "just happens". It needs work, and avoiding illogical folksy positions helps to keep quality higher, in terms of both results and effort/time. I think what you are thinking of is more like developing a sales pitch. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It would appear that some of the contributors here are not in the habit of guessing at others' "hidden agendas" or at their "hidden motives."
I will continue to read these contributions with the greatest interest, and very much look forward to doing so.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Your point is not clear but looks like it is intended to be an unclear accusation. People who make points unclearly can expect misunderstandings, and should not complain too much about people reading agendas into their words. However, I don't know why you suggest people are saying you have an agenda in this case. In case I was unclear also, I will restate my points: 1. Your first argument above is not logical, but it is salesman-like or "tempting", and therefore a "trick argument". In other words you are using a common "logical fallacy". Whenever I see those I tend to mention it. Partly this is because I wish everyone recognized them more quickly, because that would make the world better :) 2. Use of such arguments does not help "brainstorming" and learning to recognize and avoid common logical fallacies would improve your skills in brainstorming or discussion generally.
None of this is meant to imply anything more than it says. It just my understanding of the facts, and I offer the advice in good faith. I make no claims about knowing your agenda. Trick arguments are a type of argument (convincing-sounding logical fallacies) the way I see it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

conflation of franks with visigoths?

I made a change (838551115) which was reverted (838551115) and which I have again reverted and this is my attempt to prevent it from being reverted again. apologies if I am not doing the bureaucracy part of this correctly, I typically just make drive-by corrections

the previous version of the line in question was "Against Germanic tradition, each of the four sons of Clovis attempted to secure power in different cities but their inability to prove themselves on the battlefield and intrigue against one another led the Visigoths back to electing their leadership." which seems to confuse two different subjects with each other. the source (bauer 178-179, https://books.google.com/books?id=1u2oP2RihIgC&q=amalaric#v=snippet&q=amalaric&f=false) briefly discusses the frankish succession and resulting civil war among clovis's four sons, then _by way of example_ tells of amalaric, who became king of the _visigoths_, some two decades later, before being killed for incompetence and replaced by an elected warleader. somehow these two different events, tribes, and individuals were merged into the one sentence, which I have removed

Problems with summary

The lead does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. Undue weight is given to etymology and the relationship between Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire. It would be better to make these parts shorter so that one can include other important information addressed in the article. Krakkos (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pytheas

In the section on Pytheas his floruit is missing. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The template was broken. But, in fact, we don't know. Edited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Term for the mainstream Rome-centred religion Clovis joined etc

There have been a series of edits and reverts concerning terms derived from "Catholic". This should be discussed here now. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dimadick#Germanic_peoples--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that needs to be done and for the involved editors (3) to reach a consensus. Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The main articles on the religion of Clovis I and the rest of his 6th-century contemporaries are State church of the Roman Empire and East-West Schism. The term "Catholicism" was in use for the churches of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and those in communion with them:

  • "Justinian definitively established Caesaropapism, believing "he had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest details of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church". According to the entry in Liddell & Scott, the term orthodox first occurs in the Codex Justinianus: "We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.""
  • "Justinian was the first to use (in 531) the title of "patriarch" to designate exclusively the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, setting the bishops of these five sees on a level superior to that of metropolitans. ...When in 680 Constantine IV called the Third Council of Constantinople, he summoned the metropolitans and other bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople; but since there were representatives of all five bishops to whom Justinian had given the title of Patriarch, the Council declared itself ecumenical. This has been interpreted as signifying that a council is ecumenical if attended by representatives of all five patriarchs.
  • While the church at Rome claimed a special authority over the other churches, the extant documents of that era yield "no clear-cut claims to, or recognition, of papal primacy."
  • Eastern Orthodox state that the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople. The patriarch of the imperial capital succeeded in his efforts to become the leading bishop in the Byzantine Empire: he "headed a vast curia and other bishops who resided in Constantinople constituted a permanent synod, which became the real governing body of the church".
  • "In the areas under his control, Justinian I established caesaropapism as the constitution of the Church in a scheme according to which the emperor "had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest detail of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church". According to the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, this caesaropapism was "a source of contention between Rome and Constantinople that led to the schism of 1054". Explicit approval of the emperor in Constantinople was required for consecration of bishops within the empire. During the period called the Byzantine Papacy, this applied to the bishops of Rome, most of whom were of Greek or Syrian origin. Resentment in the West against the Byzantine emperor's governance of the Church is shown as far back as the 6th century, when "the tolerance of the Arian Gothic king was preferred to the caesaropapist claims of Constantinople".
  • "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".

So there was no distinct "Catholic" or "Orthodox" church in the 6th century, and it is not that clear that there was any in the 11th century. As for Clovis I, in recognition of his nominal affiliation to the Byzantine Empire, he reportedly received the title of Roman consul by Anastasius I Dicorus. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. Ayer (1913), p. 538
  2. Ayer (1913), p. 553
  3. Code of Justinian I.5.21 Archived 27 July 2013 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Idea was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. patriarch (ecclesiastical), also calls it "a title dating from the 6th century, for the bishops of the five great sees of Christendom". And Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions says: "Five patriarchates, collectively called the pentarchy, were the first to be recognized by the legislation of the emperor Justinian (reigned 527–565)".
  6. "NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library". CCEL.org. Retrieved 16 April 2017.
  7. Kling, David W. (20 April 2005). The Bible in History:How the Texts Have Shaped the Times. Oxford University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-19-988096-6. Retrieved 31 October 2012. Obviously, the church at Rome, given the dual presence of the apostles Peter and Paul, claimed a special authority. In the first three centuries, church leaders and thinkers throughout the empire increasingly recognized Rome as a center of Christianity. At the same time, the literary evidence yields no clear-cut claims to, or recognition of, papal primacy.
  8. "Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time". Orthodoxytoday.org. Retrieved 23 February 2013.
  9. ^ Schaff, Philip, ed. (2005-06-01), The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Christian Classics Ethereal Library, NPNF2-14, retrieved 2 June 2012
  10. Romanides, John, Romanity, There are no primacies nor primates according to Roman Orthodox Canon Law, but only bishops with "Seniority of Honor" since all bishops are doctrinally equal. The Franco-Latin and Protestant translations of "Seniority of honor" by "primacy of honor" is theirs, not ours
  11. Council of Chalcedon, 451 (resource materials), Monachos, 2012-05-28, archived from the original on 26 May 2012, retrieved 2 June 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. Bunson, Matthew (2009), Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Infobase Publishing, p. 115, ISBN 978-1-43811027-1
  13. Schadé, Johannes P (2006), "8", Encyclopedia of World Religions, Foreign Media, ISBN 978-1-60136000-7
  14. Ayer, John Cullen, ed. (1913). A Source Book for Ancient Church History. Mundus Publishing (2008 reprint).
  15. McKim, Donald K. (1996). Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-66425511-4.
  16. Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. University of California Press. p. 328. ISBN 978-0-52006983-1.
  17. Bishop Kallistos (Ware), op. cit., p. 67.
Thank you Dimadick, but the large text you have pasted in does not seem to suggest any clear proposal or any clear problem with the word catholic? In the context of Germanic people in western Europe, the competitor to the religion in question was not any other type of orthodoxy, but Arianism. So we only need a clear common term to make that contrast. Furthermore there is no real potential confusion in this region about which church is being referred to as catholic because even in the eyes of other orthodox patriarchies, western Europe was Rome's territory. So to me it seems from your post that you accept that catholic is not a technically wrong term. Therefore we should just pick the most common and easily understood term in English?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree to linking to Catholicity, but not the Catholic Church which did not even exist at the time. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So why did we not just change the wikilink? And on the other hand, I still do not understand what point you are making, because it seems you admit there was a catholic christianity, and that there was a church of Rome which was catholic, and surely this is referred to as the Roman catholic church? It did not begin to exist in the 11th century it only became more distinct from other catholic/orthodox churches? What am I missing? But in any case does anyone have any opposition to simply changing the wikilink?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

does modern germanic people exist?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Shall we remove "Germanic ethnic group" from all ethnic groups articles?

Before 2015 all so called "germanic" ethnic group articles said "nation and ethnic group" instead of "germanic ethnic group" which was added without greater discussion. germanic is not neutral because it is based on old obsolete racial theories, and is really more an ancient peoples, none of the modern people call themselves "germanic" This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. 83.185.82.92 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Categories: