Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 23 January 2020

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Krakkos, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Vangio and Sido, Krakkos!

Misplaced Pages editor Falkirks just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have reviewed and passed your new article. Great Work!

To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Germanic peoples shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop working on the new Germani article until you have justified it

Krakkos, please show some good faith cooperative behavior and stop creating this POVfork while we get a plan agreed. The original article still exists, and the discussions on its talk page show that you are knowingly working in a disruptive way by having deleted chunks of it as an excuse to create this article. We still have no agreed definition of what the distinct topics are for the two articles in the future and you know we need that, because you know that has been a controversy and source of these problems. Please make an effort to break the cycle and to get a proper rationale on record. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to trick everyone. See WP:POVFORK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have replied to a similar comment at Talk:Germani#Re-creation of this article but what is the topic and is it not a POVFORK?. See Talk:Germanic peoples#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article? and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Warned user(s)). Krakkos (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No you clearly have not given any sort of sensible and convincing reply. Just posting a couple of words is not a good faith reply. Furthermore ALL replies to you have been NEGATIVE, and yet you are continuing!! I repeat please stop trying to push through these major controversial changes. First there needs to be a single agreed direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is at Talk:Germani. Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

In your edsums you previously said the proper thing to do was an adf, which is of course tendentious (and completely different). Actually there are several "proper" places we can discuss it, but you are refusing to use ANY of them. I have decided to handle it as a merge proposal and the discussion (as noted in the template) is on the Germanic peoples article which is the parent/mirror article with more people watching it. (Indeed you created this rejected split off secretly.) Coming back to this talk page though, it is the correct place to contact you personally to make suggestions about changes you should make to your own personal approach to editing, which you have succeeded in making a subject of vital importance to anyone interested in these topics. You should freeze work on this controversial mirror article. All feedback you have had on it was strongly negative. You are making articles worse all the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnic peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue is now fixed. Krakkos (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

please edit articles only in a way which respects EXISTING titles, structures, etc

Krakkos, including a section about Germanic languages in the Ethnonyms sections, or already treating the Germanic peoples are sometimes in your edits (including wikilinks in other articles), etc etc, is not on. Stop it please. If you want to change sections, titles, etc then certainly in the case of Germanic peoples you are being called upon very clearly to explain your ideas first, so you need to do that. It is more generally necessary for practical common sense reasons that we all work in the same direction, of course. That is very hard if you work against everyone on purpose and REFUSE to nominate a plan despite making massively disruptive changes that you know to be controversial and in conflict with WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Issues related to Germanic peoples should be discussed at Talk:Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is related to your editing behaviour.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You're consistently removing sources and information I'm adding about Germanic languages and Germanic culture at Germanic peoples as being beyond the scope of the article. I started an RfC on the question, in which every participating editor, including yourself, agrees that information and sources on Germanic languages and Germanic culture is within the scope of the article. In the spirit of the consensus of the RfC, i reinserted scholarly sources, but you're STILL removing them. It's about time for you to re-examine your own editing behavior. Krakkos (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Germanic " is not an ethnonym Krakkos, which is where you put that new section. Furthermore it is made of duplicated material, and as you recently pointed out yourself this article is getting long, and the reason, as I pointed out, is for a big part because of these edits which randomly insert the same information into multiple places without any reference to the article structure. This has been a long term problem, and as this is one of the only articles where you go beyond category, link and list editing, this editing history is very problematic. Before you made Germanic an ethnonym, you made Barbarian an ethnonym! Please look at the articles you are editing and fit your work with others, or else announce your ideas first on a talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

An ethnonym is defined as "a name applied to a given ethnic group". We have an article titled Germanic peoples about "a category of ethnic groups", so Germanic is their primary ethnonym. This should be discussed at Talk:Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your entry was for Germanic as a language family and contained duplicated information. The ethnonym already contains a section for Germani, which, as the opening says, can be translated as Germanic peoples. We do not need to make separate sections for every plural form or translation. Why on earth do I need to explain something like that though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

My entry was for the Germanic peoples. See the citations from Peter Heather, Christopher R. Fee and Edgar Charles Polomé. The term Germanic is very recent, it does not equal to Germani, which translates as German. If you're opposed to having separate sections for Germanic and Germani, the proper course would have been to merge the sections, but you just removed everything about Germanic. Krakkos (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Because there was nothing worth keeping. Your edits never seem to take account of what is already in an article, and create constant duplication and artificial inflation. Sections you have been working on become unreadable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why aren't definitions by Peter Heather, Christopher R. Fee and Edgar Charles Polomé of Germanic peoples worth keeping in the article on Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

First let's get agreement about what the article(s) are about, and then about how they will be structured. If you are finding good quotes you'd like to use, instead of inserting them impulsively now, while basic things are unclear, collect them, for example on a draft in your sandbox. Frantically making massive, repetitive, point-making changes into random bits of the article now is not a good idea Krakkos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A cursory examination of the edit history of this article shows that you're the one who's been making the largest amount of edits to the article in recent days. And that you edits are of a radical nature. If I'm not permitted to edit the article "while basic things are unclear", why are you? Krakkos (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if your count is correct but in any case I did not expect you to bring problems this far. I propose for now we both slow down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Krakkos (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Crash course in the Germanic peoples dispute

• Chronology
• For more than thirteen consecutive years (2005 to 2019), Germanic peoples was defined on Misplaced Pages as being about peoples identified as speakers of Germanic languages.

• This definition has fundamentally shaped the body of the article Germanic peoples, and the way the article is integrated into the rest of Misplaced Pages.

• In April 2019, without any prior warning on the talk page, Andrew Lancaster fundamentally changes the scope of the article Germanic peoples from being primarily about peoples speaking Germanic languages to being about peoples "identified by Roman-era authors as distinct from neighbouring Celtic peoples".

• Andrew Lancaster provides no new sources when changing the topic.
• In fact, the change of topic is in direct contradiction to the source which is used.
• Andrew Lancaster provides no edit summary for the change of topic.
• Andrew Lancaster does not refer to any consensus for this drastic change of topic.
• Andrew Lancaster's change of topic is opposed by Florian Blaschke, but Andrew Lancaster successfully edit wars to get his will.
• In ensuing discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 7#Do modern "germanic people" exist?, i also express opposition to the change of topic, but the discussion comes to nothing, and the determination of Andrew Lanncaster to edit war ensures that the article topic is changed.

• In early September 2019, i insert a citation by Edward Arthur Thompson at the article Germanic peoples, in which he defines Germanic peoples. This source is removed by Andrew Lancaster with the explanation that "this is not what this article is about".
• Later in September 2019, i create the article Germanic peoples (modern).

• Germanic peoples (modern) is soon nominated for deletion. Andrew Lancaster votes delete, calling it "a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP". A large majority votes merge, and the decision becomes to make it a redirect to Germanic peoples.

• On 16 January 2020, i merge a number of sources about peoples speaking Germanic languages, from Germanic peoples (modern) into Germanic peoples. These sources include scholars such as Edward Arthur Thompson, Francis Owen and Paul Robert Magocsi.

• On 07:29 17 January 2020, these sources are removed by Andrew Lancaster, who states that they are "sources about another topic (speakers of Germanic languages) handled in other articles" and a "deliberate confusion between Germanic peoples and Germanic languages using inappropriate sources".
• On 10:51 17 January 2020, i initiate an RfC to determine if information on peoples speaking Germanic languages are within the scope of the article..
• In that RfC it soon becomes clear that there is unanimous agreement, including by Andrew Lancaster and myself, that information and sources people speaking Germanic languages is indeed within the scope of the article.
• On On 11:29 20 January 2020, encouraged by the sentiment in the RfC, i insert quality information and sources on the relationship between Germanic peoples and Germanic languages.
• On 12:08 20 January 2020, this content is removed by Andrew Lancaster, who states that the content "does not fit here".

• On 10:18 17 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster removes a whole chunk of sourced information from Germanic peoples#Germanic, under the rationale "shortening".

• On 13:13 17 January 2020, i create the article Germani.

• This is in order to preserve the quality information Andrew Lancaster has just removed, and to have a clearinghouse for information related to the etymology of Germany, Germanic peoples, Germania etc.

• On 18 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster suggests that Germani be merged into Germanic peoples.
• On 20 January 2020, Andrew Lancaster block the addition of information on the term Germani at the article Germanic peoples, citing an "article length concern".

• The remarkable double-standard of Andrew Lancaster

• Sources

• When i attempt to add reliably sourced information to Germanic peoples, Andrew Lancaster removes it as based on "inappropriate sources", "unsourced assertions", or "not relevant to recent trends"
• When i request Andrew Lancaster to attribute the information he's adding to reliable sources, he refuses to do so and replies: "Who cares? Why is this important? What is your point?", and adds that the information he's adding does "not have to match individual sources. They are editing decisions."

• Consensus

• When i request Andrew Lancaster to point to the "editing decisions" which justifies his edits, he refuses to do so and accuses me of obsessing about "the past".
• When i add information which warrants inclusion per an unanimous agreement in an RfC, he removes it as being without consensus.

• Content relevance

• (1) When i insert a source (Edward Arthur Thompson) about peoples speaking Germanic languages at the article Germanic peoples, he removes it with the rationale "this is not what this article is about".
• (1) When i create an article to cover this subject which Andrew Lancaster has previously identified as beyond the scope of Germanic peoples, he wants it deleted as a "content fork".
• (2) When i create an article Germani, Andrew Lancaster wants to have it merged into Germanic peoples.
• (2) When i add information about Germani to Germanic peoples, this addition is blocked by Andrew Lancaster, who cites an "article length concern".

Krakkos (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Asking and answering questions

• Andrew Lancaster asks me "what the core topic should be".
• I answer the question in a straightforward manner. In return i request Andrew Lancaster to say what he considers to be the core topic.
• In his reply, Andrew Lancaster refuses to answer the question. Instead he asks me to make a "proposal about the best way to divide up the topic".
• In return i make a proposal about how the topic should be divided. I request him once again to tell what he considers to be the core topic and how it should be divided.
• Andrew Lancaster again refuses to answer his own questions. He replies with the phrase: "I'm not really not sure what your point is", and accuses me of "turning the same question around... saying I should answer first?"
• I again request Andrew Lancaster to tell what he considers to be the core topic and how it should be divided.
• Again Andrew Lancaster refuses to answer his own questions. He accuses me of "not trying to think about what people are saying", and of "asking the wrong questions". He now says that the core topic of an article "is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness".

example corrections in case it helps

• April 29. Krakkos describes it as a major article change when I mentioned that Germani were contrasted with Gauls, and also in conflict with a source (Heather). In fact it is neither a major article change, nor in conflict with that source or any other, nor with previous versions, nor talk page discussions. Heather : "Romans learned to distinguish precisely between the Germans and the Celts, a distinction that is made with great clarity by Julius Caesar."
• Dispute with Florian Baschke depicted as same discussion, but it was about a change of one word: are -> were. The context of the sentence is about Roman era peoples. That does not mean I have blocked discussion of later Germanic speakers in other parts of the article.
• The discussion Krakkos then describes as "ensuing" was not the same, and had actually begun months earlier.
• The first mentioned Thompson quote which was removed was about language phylogeny and placed between sentences about the Roman era peoples.
• The second accusation of me removing Thompson (and Owen etc), is NOT a deletion of material from those authors, but material from low quality sources which were part of an enormous block of footnotes (not article text) which was in essence meant to DISAGREE with the article text in the lead (to show it was wrong?).
• The third accusation of me removing Thompson etc, was, as mentioned in the real edsum, concerned also with duplication which is a major concern with Krakkos edits, also mentioned by other editors.

I stop at the RFC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Germanic peoples discussion

I wonder to what extent the solution chosen in Celts can serve as model for a way forward. However, it would be highly desirable to cite literature that demonstrates a comparable debate about the continuity between ancient Germanic peoples and medieval and modern Germanic-speaking ethnicities (the debate about the Celts being one that I personally find perplexing). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

For the Celts we also have the articles Celts (modern), Celtic nations and Names of the Celts. Many solutions for Germanic peoples are possible when looking at how the Celtic topics are covered at Misplaced Pages. Krakkos (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the first thing which must be determined by the community is which subjects that fall within the scope of Germanic peoples. That is the purpose of the RfC. The second thing which has to be determined by the community is which of these subjects constitutes the primary topic for term Germanic peoples. In my opinion this should be decided by what is written in reliable sources. Krakkos (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I created a title for this discussion. Feel free to reverse that Krakkos, but I come here taking the section seriously because you directed others including me to look at this (on Doug Weller's talk page). Comparisons to Celts and also to other linguistic topics have of course been made before. Arguably, ethnolinguistic topics are one of the worst parts of Misplaced Pages in my honest opinion, so referring to other groups does not necessarily help. One of the problems (let's put it on the table) is amateur interest partly triggered by new DNA testing work including commercial tests to test whether you have viking genes etc. Secondly there are some special problems with the term Germanic, including the beliefs which were widespread among scholars up until WW2 and even after, which scholars now reject - but making it difficult they don't all agree in how far to reject them. Those old beliefs are the ones people often get when they google.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos, we do not have to base our titles on source usage, especially if sources don't all agree, but what do you feel that reliable sources imply about what the core topic should be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comparing to Celts

Just for notes. I think

• Celts (modern), is not dissimilar in aim to articles such as Germanic-speaking Europe (broad modern), and Germans (narrow modern)?
• Celtic nations looks to me at first sight like it should be merged with Celts (modern). (It is about modern nations, divided into modern nation states, like the other one.)
• Names of the Celts addresses an issue specific to the Celtic topics. I honestly have my doubts about whether this article is needed, as it is more or less duplicated in related articles such as Celts.
• Celts seems to be quite settled as an article focused on ancient peoples without the controversy caused at Germanic peoples caused by people wanting to mix ancient and modern. At first sight this topic also does not have the challenge coming from the imperfect overlap between linguistically defined peoples, and the peoples as they were described by contemporaries.

I think the imperfect overlap issue is a critical one for Germanic peoples, that Krakkos should address before taking more actions? Historically, many editors of Germanic peoples have wanted to treat the two highly overlapping concepts in one article. If we want to convince them a split can work then the onus is on the person demanding the split to convince everyone of how it can avoid overlap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

See this for the lulz

This guy is so predictable; zero creativity. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha! Krakkos (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Core topic of Germanic peoples

Krakkos, we do not have to base our titles on source usage, especially if sources don't all agree, but what do you feel that reliable sources imply about what the core topic should be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - WP:NOR states that "all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source." I believe WP:NOR applies to titles, definitions as well as every other material on Misplaced Pages. I do not just feel, I'm firmly convinced, that the majority of reliable sources considers speaking Germanic languages as the primary defining characteristic of Germanic peoples. Here are some examples of clear scholarly definitions of Germanic peoples:

"The Germanic peoples are those who spoke one of the Germanic languages... Clearly the people who came to speak Proto-Germanic must have been isolated from other Indo-Europeans for some time... It was among these groups that a German language and ethnic identity would gradually develop during the Middle Ages." - Heather, Peter. "Germany: Ancient History". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editors=, |subscription=, and |registration= (help)

"The Germanic, or Teutonic, peoples are a branch of the Indo-Europeans ; that is, the peoples of Asia and Europe whose original common language was Indo- European." - Thompson, Edward Arthur (1973). "Germanic Peoples". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 10. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. pp. 243–246. ISBN 0852291736. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"The term “Germanic mythology” refers to the gods and heroes of European peoples, among whom are included Germans, Scandinavians (Norse), and Anglo-Saxons. These are people whose languages—one of which would evolve into Old English and then, along with other influences, into Middle and Modern English— derive from the same Indo-European branch... The Germanic people emerged in the early Iron Age “Jastorf” culture in what is now Scandinavia and northern Germany at the beginning of the sixth century b.c.e." - Polomé, Edgar Charles; Fee, Christopher R.; Leeming, David Adams (2006). "Germanic mythology". In Leeming, David Adams (ed.). The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199916481. Retrieved January 3, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"The languages spoken by the early Germanic peoples formed part of that large group known generally as the Indo-European... which also includes Celtic, Greek, Italic, Illyrian, Hittite, Thracian, Iranian, Sanskrit, Slav and Baltic." - Todd, Malcolm (2004). The Early Germans. Blackwell Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 1-4051-1714-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"The problem of the origin and expansion of the Germanic people is intimately connected with the problem of the origin and expansion of the Indo-European speaking peoples, since it is universally admitted that Germanic is a group of the Indo-European language stock." - Owen, Francis (1960). The Germanic People. New York: Bookman Associates. p. Foreword. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Germanic... is a collective term referring to the peoples who speak the modern Germanic languages', Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, English, Frisians, Dutch and Germans, and to the ancestors of these peoples." - Pasley, Malcolm; Bithell, Jethro (1972). Germany: a companion to German studies. Methuen. p. 5. ISBN 1438129181. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I have now stated my position clearly, and provided the sources which forms the basis for my position. Could you please do the same? What do you consider the primary defining characteristic of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position? Krakkos (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough, no, in fact you still have not made a proposal about the best way to divide up the topic or topics with specific article titles, although I have asked over and over. You seem unable to ever say something in a direct way. Concerning my own preferences, I have not been pretending when I have asked for feedback so that we can get one way of working, as long as it can be explained how it avoids obvious problems like POVFORKING, etc. But putting those two things aside, the correct policy page is WP:AT, titles working a bit different than normal content:

The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles. etc.

Just for example, and we know it is just an example, we discussed this one a few times (Heather, p.5)

the Germani, as these Germanic-speakers are now often called

And an obvious complication is that unlike you and I, who've done our job and looked at a range of recent sources, many of these writers, at least when they wrote, assumed that the Germanic-speaking peoples in the Roman era has a perfect overlap with the Germani. If we both believed that we would have no problem. Nevertheless one option we do have available is to handle both topics in one article, because the overlap in our sources is extremely high - with the topics often being treated as the same.

Concerning how to choose what to for example mention first in an article for example, should we continue to handle these highly overlapping topics in one article, I don't know of any criteria apart from editing judgement. For example a lot of articles work through a topic on a chronological basis, or a logical basis starting from how a concept developed, and working towards more advanced debates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - This discussion is not about the title of the article Germanic peoples, it's about the content of the article Germanic peoples. You didn't ask me about "the best way to divide up the topic", you asked me what i feel the "core topic" of the article should be. I have now answered that question. You have so far not answered this question. With regards to dividing the topic, i think that information on the Roman term Germani and inhabitants of the region they called Germania can be placed in the article Germania. There is no need to transform the topic of Germanic peoples into a duplication of Germania#Population. Now could you please answer your own questions: What do you consider the primary defining characteristic of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position? How do you want to divide the topic? Krakkos (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I am really not sure what your point is. Aren't you just turning the same question around (which title goes with which content) and saying I should answer first? I am saying that (a) the sources don't all treat these terms the exact same way, meaning we need some pre-agreements and a structured way of handling this, and (b) a simpler more stable structure within articles, and indeed the group of articles, that everyone can then edit in a way which won't constantly create chaos. Such situations are common on Misplaced Pages, and as mentioned solutions tend to come from simple structures. The talk pages and my new drafting page show me working with ideas. The chronologically original concept can be important for explanations, but does that make it "primary defining"? I am not sure editors always need to argue about "primary defining" in such cases. But anyway the way it seems to me, you are the one whose comments and edits (article splits etc) appear to indicate a strong position about what you want. Is that a misunderstanding?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact, Todd still seems to write "Germans". Wolfram's book in English also says Germans even though it says we shouldn't. I presume this is because in German he was writing "Germanen".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're not sure what my point is. Read what's written in bold text. You asked me two questions of fundamental importance to solving this dispute. I answered. I've now asked you twice, and you've yet to answer the questions. So i'm asking again: What do you consider the primary defining characteristic (the "core topic") of Germanic peoples? Upon which sources do you base this position? How do you want to divide the topic? Krakkos (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You are just shouting again, and not trying to think about what people are saying to you. You are asking the wrong questions, and getting stuck all the time. As I wrote, in a case like this the concept of a "primary defining concept" is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness. We have strongly overlapping concepts, not necessarily a hierarchy of concepts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please try to think about what you've been saying to others. You asked me "what the core topic should be". When i ask you back, you say the core topic "is not something with a clear meaning or practical usefulness", This entire controversy revolves around what the "core topic" of the article should be, and this is the right question. Why won't you answer it? Krakkos (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, "primary defining" means "core" in this case? I thought you were talking now about the question of how to write about the two overlapping topicz in one article, which is the historical situation and my interpretation of what most editors still want, and also what I am working on, as you know. Apparently you are still proposing to split the article? You can see above that my answer is that I don't feel any need to have a strong preference about article title. I remain open to discussion about concrete proposals to change the article topic or split the article up. But you have made no such proposals? I guess I am missing something. As the person pushing for change, don't you need to explain? On my side, I've not pushed for title change, but explained my concerns, over and over. My aim is a more stable and better-made article, and the avoidance of too many over-lapping articles. I know from the past that without work on a logical structure no one will be happy. I also see article fission as a major cause of bad articles on Misplaced Pages. So I am very cautious about sudden changes, especially splitting changes, but not necessarily pushing any particular article title solution. I believe all or most editors share my concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as i understand it, you're essentially advocating the merge of Germania into Germanic peoples, and then switching the scope of Germanic peoples into being about inhabitants of Germania. This is a big change. I'm opposed to it. I think the "core topic" of Germanic peoples should be preserved the way it has been since Misplaced Pages was created more than ten years ago. That topic is peoples speaking Germanic languages, practicing Germanic paganism, following Germanic law etc. This is how the topic is generally defined in reliable sources. I think Germania is a distinct and notable topic, and that it should be kept as a separate article. I think Germania should be the primary destination for information on the etymology of the name Germani and information on inhabitants of Germania. This is my proposal. Clear and simple. What is yours? Krakkos (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That was really what you were asking me? OK, that I can answer. I have made no proposal about that merge with Germania yet. I only said I was considering whether it was worth discussion based on how my draft writing goes, and what feedback it gets. (If it becomes obvious that Germanic peoples needs discussion of Germania that covers everything in the other article, then it is policy telling us to merge them.) But I have no proposal, except that I want to avoid overlapping articles, articles that annoy people because they seem incomplete, and also unstructured articles. These problems have knock-on effects which make everything difficult for everyone, and keep articles bad and editors annoyed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright so you have no proposals. What about the `"core topic" of Germanic peoples? You asked about what i felt about the "core topic". This question has been answered by me. You have previously removed substantial information from Germanic peoples with the rational that this information outside of the "topic". What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have said that I am trying to work with the old article aim, which I understand to be the consensus, of having an article which handles the two over-lapping topics in one article. I am not proposing a chance. If you are suggesting I need to pick one topic over the other, I have mentioned both my aims, and the relevant policy, above. I understand you did not find that an interesting topic for this discussion, but it is still there. Does that not answer you?
• I do not believe any question that might fit your description above ("This question", whatever that refers to) has been answered by you? My apologies, but can you give a diff? Are you talking about the idea of merging with Germania? But this was not a question of anyone, and saying you are against it before anyone has put forward any case is not really useful. Furthermore, the implication is that you want me to answer the same question, but that makes no sense in this context?? My apologies for not being able to understand you.
• Deletions of duplicated materials, webs of footnotes trying to argue against something on the talk page, materials placed into wrong sections etc, might have given a wrong impression, as mentioned here , for example. I am trying to remedy any concerns with the drafting exercise, as I suppose you know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• You asked me what i consider the core topic of Germanic peoples. I consider the primary core topic to be peoples speaking Germanic languages. Here is the diff for the original statement.
• I have not been able to discern what you consider the core topic of Germanic peoples. Could you provide a diff? Could you tell me again what you consider the core topic?
• Which "two over-lapping topics" are you referring to? Krakkos (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So you are still proposing to keep trying to split articles? I think that is a bad idea, at least as I understand your current approach. The post you refer to which is just a series of quotes is not a clear proposal, let alone an explanation of how it would work. Apparently you instead think the quotes give you some kind of right to demand a split on a policy technicality but that is not the case, as I have explained. Instead, as I've said over and over, a critical thing would have been for you to explain how to avoid the multiplication of overlapping low quality and POVfork articles. But you do not seem to want to ever address those serious concerns. (Frankly, your editing record seems to show that you don't even see them as problems.) So for now, as I explained, I am not thinking in terms of which core subject I want to argue for, but how to structure one article which covers both "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Roman era Germanic peoples". I don't know of any other reasonable and policy-consistent proposal at this time and I think this approach, when done properly, can be executed much better. One particular area I certainly want to improve is to get the right structure to be able to handle BOTH topics better. Is there any reason you think this is impossible to achieve already?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Germania and Germanic peoples be kept split. This debate has never been about article structure. It has been about article topic. You asked me about the core topic of Germanic peoples, and i answered it. What do you consider the core topic of Germanic peoples? What do you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples"? Krakkos (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Which debate? Let me know if you are prepared for a more constructive discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This debate. Have you even read the title of this section? Or the title of the the RfC which reignited this debate? I'm always prepared for a constructive discussion. You say you want a composite article about "Germanic speaking peoples" and "Roman era Germanic peoples". For the sake of having a constructive discussion, i would like to know what you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples". Krakkos (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Not much of a debate, and the RFC was ridiculously unclear too. Over the last few days you and I have discussed the two overlapping meanings of "Germanic peoples" and the various sourceable terms for them, maybe 50 times? If you want people to take you seriously, I suggest continuously pretending that when it suits you you can't comprehend other editors, written sources, or WP policy, is probably not the best approach. Demonstrate some WP:COMPETENCE. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4 a. states that an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is engaged in disruptive editing. Given your proclaimed constructiveness and competence, it should be an easy task for you to answer two basic and essential questions: What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? What do you mean by "Roman era Germanic peoples"? Krakkos (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You think those links are about having to answer circular rounds of un-ending questions which other editors demand of you on their own talk page? Again, whatever case you want to make, either make it to the rest of the community, or keep out of future editing in this group of articles where careful coordination is going to be important to finally get stability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to "answer circular rounds of un-ending questions". I'm just asking you to answer the same question you came to my talk page to ask me. I answered this question. I've asked you this question a number of times and you have still failed to answer it. What do you consider the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And your connected action is here, posting on User:Doug Weller's page. Anyone might think you are looking for a way to get what you want to link up real-world articles to your walled garden of Germanic alternate-reality articles and categories, by catching me slipping up on a technicality. I hope all your editing gets a lot of attention. It deserves it. I think some admins would block you just for the obvious dishonest intentions of that post on its own.

But just to say it one more time: I asked you about what titles and topics you wanted when you were (openly, for a while) pushing for an article split. I have not been pushing for any such change. The article has had two 90% overlapping main topics for a long time because that is what editors wanted. I believe that can work, and I want to try to make it work. Will you let it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

These are not "90% overlapping main topics". Germanic peoples (Germanic-speakers) and inhabitants of Germania are quite different subjects. As Peter Heather says:

"While the territory of ancient Germania was clearly dominated in a political sense by Germanic-speaking groups, it has emerged that the population of this vast territory was far from entirely Germanic... expansion did not annihilate the indigenous, non-Germanic population of the areas concerned, so it is important to perceive Germania as meaning Germanic-dominated Europe... The more one moved south and east through the region during the Roman period, the more likely it is that Germanic-speakers constituted a politically dominant force in very mixed societies. - Heather, Peter (2007). The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780199978618. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Mixing those two topics will not work. See WP:NAD. We already have the article Germania, so mixing does topics is not necessary either. They each have their own articles The fact that you have been removing content reliably sourced to E. A. Thompson, Edgar C. Polomé, Peter Heather, Francis Owen, Malcolm Todd and others as "off-topic" confirms that mixing those subjects will not work. A "core topic" must be decided. You asked me about the "core topic" of Germanic peoples, and i answered. What about you? What do you consider to be the "core topic" of Germanic peoples? Krakkos (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As you know very well, because repeated over and over, I would like to try to handle the two over-lapping topics together, like all our sources including Heather do. It is great that now you remember what the two agreed topics are! Of course, like Heather, good clear explanations of the bits that are not perfect in the overlap are needed in appropriately prominent places. This is why I am carefully asking feedback on a new lead and structure, and want to get rid of the duplication and general mess which is a major concern of your colleagues. I think every other involved editor, with all their diverse opinions about other things, seems to also want this to go ahead? BTW I think this is the closest you have ever come to explaining what you want, rather than just splitting the article without warning, and writing misleading posts. Do you have anything else to say in favour of it apart from BS stories about "removing content"? Why would you be so desperate to even let other editors TRY to make it work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I interpret you as considering Germanic-speakers and inhabitants of Germania as "the two over-lapping topics". Is this interpretation correct? If no,t could you please enlighten me? Krakkos (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Close, but I think it is better to say Germanic-speakers and people described by Romans as Germani. Eburones were Germani for Caesar (and also Gauls I'm afraid) while the Volcae and Boii were not. By the time of Tacitus it becomes fuzzy whether a Gaulish people in Germania would be called Germanic. These are the tricky bits, but the need for careful handling of these matters will not go away by having more articles. In fact, the more articles, the worse their quality will be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)