Talk:Germanic peoples

message: I think this should be updated, its not like the germanic people no-longer live in england/netherlands/france/germany etc, so to refer to where we live in the past tense seems a bit strange 84.71.92.188 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The past tense is correct. Presumably you are assuming that "Germanic-speaking peoples" are the same as the subject of this article, the "Germanic peoples" of the Roman era. While there is real debate about whether such an equation can or should be made in specific periods of history and in specific regions (read the article) there is no modern ethnicity uniting modern Jamaicans, Nigerians, Australians, Scots, Austrians etc. Unfortunately Wikipedia itself was once one of the internet sources which promoted such confusion, but the article is now more carefully written. Unless you are bringing new sources, please take your time to read the article. It is likely to contain answers to whatever doubts you have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What  means here—in the event that it is not clear to you—is that scholars no longer make the conflation between the ancient Germanic peoples and the contemporary German-speaking world. These ancient peoples were not some monolithic assembly of ethnically related groups as promulgated by 19th and early 20th century racialists, who passed on specific idealized characteristics to modern Europeans. Just as Andrew makes plain, you'll want to carefully read the article in its entirety to understand why these once pseudo-scientific eugenicist ideas connecting the ancient past and modernity were specious in so many ways.--Obenritter (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  once occupied? 

message: Runologist Bernard Meet recently published The English Language before England (Routledge, 2023 — note that this says 2022 but my copy says "first published 2023"). Mees focuses primarily on early runic inscriptions in this one and it contains a huge amount of discussion very relevant to this article. We definitely need more runology coverage here (runes were developed by and, as far as can be seen, used solely by Germanic-speakers) but it gets little discussion on this article. This is an excellent source for contemporary discussion on the matter from one of the most visible runologists in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can point to errors and oversights in the current section on Germanic peoples#Runic writing? What isn't included there that should be? Keep in mind, the article is already overlong, and we already devote several paragraphs to runes - I'd suggest removing something from that section (perhaps the etymology) if we're going to be making any substantial additions.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Should runes and their relationship to the development of one Germanic language (English) really have that much shrift? Certainly, Mees deserves inclusion, but this article is about Germanic peoples writ large and the current section on runes keeps it fairly generic. Additional depth on runes might be better directed to the page specifically dedicated to it. Surely  can find a way to integrate salient points in a manner that does not overburden the article.--Obenritter (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the title may imply otherwise, Mees's book is mainly about early Germanic stuff in general with a focus on early West Germanic inscriptions. I don't have time to contribute much right now but I will probably return to it in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Mees's "The English Language before England" (Routledge, 2023)