Talk:North Germanic peoples

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Norsemen which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

should this this double of the germanic peoples article be deleted?

The following discussion 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.

---

should this this double of the germanic peoples article be deleted? 194.14.30.254 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support.
• Oppose.
• Oppose deletion for now. This article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Norsemen. It is not a double of Germanic peoples, but might well be renamed to Scandinavians. This nomination seems not very well-timed, or well-argued. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. North Germanic peoples are no more a duplicate of Germanic peoples than East Slavs, West Slavs, South Slavs are of Slavs. The term West Germanic is purely linguistic; peoples that spoke these languages are rather grouped as Suebi, Alemanni, Franks, Anglo-Saxons etc. North Germanic/Scandinavian/Norse covers more than just linguistics, for example religion, art, folklore, law, funerals, mythology, cosmology and many other topics. Renaming to Scandinavians is terrible idea. Such a title could be interpreted as including every inhabitant of Scandinavia, and is thus too ambiguous to distinguish it from other subjects, which makes it fail WP:PRECISION. Krakkos (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  So why did you redirect Scandinavians to this article, before someone reverted you? Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Support remove double, we already have germanic peoples and norsemen articles whats next a article about west germanic peoples? 194.14.30.254 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural close Malformed RfC. This should be an WP:AfD or WP:MERGE, surely? Endymion.12 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is not a WP:RFC matter. If you wish the article deleted, please raise a WP:AFD; if you think it should be merged, follow the directions at WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 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.

Requested move 1 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Reasonable arguments have been put forward on both sides: while "Scandinavians" might be more common, it lacks sufficient precision, and "North Germanic" is the unambiguous, if a bit technical and potentially confusing, term. While I understand the frustrations about fragmented coverage of this and related subjects (Norsemen, Vikings), no clear consensus has emerged about merging or splitting either. While some alternative titles ("Norse peoples", "Nordic peoples") have been proposed, neither gained sufficient traction, so keeping this RM open further does not seem fruitful. No such user (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

---

North Germanic peoples → Scandinavians – Many people have expressed concerns over this title, especially at this protracted discussion at the Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard (now archived). It is certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, and is a purely linguistics-based term, and not surprizingly so, since for example the North German Plain/Postal Union/Confederation etc refer to a very different area, which is bound to cause confusion to many. I propose that much of the early medieval material is moved to Norsemen, which should become a main article for that period, and anything useful at the current disam-ish Scandinavians be included here. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - Making this move would the contrary to both WP:PRECISION, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY, all essential criteria at WP:TITLE.

• WP:PRECISION: Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. The term Scandinavians ambiguous. It has both ethnic, geographic and political connotations, depending on the context, and can have at least five meanings:

• Ethnic speakers of North Germanic/Scandinavian languages (Ethnolinguistic; This is what the article is about)
• Citizens of a country in Scandinavia (Legal/political)
• Inhabitants of a country in Scandinavia (Geographic)
• People born in a country in Scandinavia (Geographic)
• People with ancestry from Scandinavia (Geographic)

The term Scandinavia is itself ambigious, and has at least four meanings:

• Countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula (Norway, Sweden, parts of Finland and Russia)
• Norway, Sweden and Denmark (This is the most common term)
• Scandinavian/North Germanic-speaking countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland)
• All members of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, sometimes including Estonia, Latvia, and possibly Lithuania)

What we have here is in fact double ambiguity. Choosing Scandinavians as a title for this article will result in an endless discussion of "who is a Scandinavian". North Germanic peoples is completely unambiguous, and is only used within the context which is the subject of this article.

• WP:COMMONNAME: This policy is based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. Since the term Scandinavians has so many different connotations, and because the term Norsemen is frequently synonymous with Vikings,[1] search results for these terms are inflated. What a subject is called in reliable sources is not determined by a simple Google search. One has to look at the reliable sources that deal with the subject and see which term that is used. North Germanic peoples is frequently used in the context which is the subject of this article (and not just by linguists, as the nominator claims):

• E. V. Gordon: "Norse was the language spoken by the North Germanic peoples (Scandinavians)"[2]

• Please note: This is the first sentence in the introduction to Gordon's book An Introduction to Old Norse. This book is considered the standard text in the English-speaking world on the subject of this article. That Gordon uses the term Scandinavians as an alternative name to North Germanic peoples, rather than the other way around, is significant.

• E. V. Gordon: "The later expansion of the Scandinavian nations in the viking age may be regarded as the final wave of North Germanic migration; but the process was probably not the same, and the results were essentially different. When the Goths and Burgundians migrated from Scandinavia, the North Germanic peoples spoke a language nearly identical with that of other Germanic nations"[3]
• David Diringer: "Old Norse" was spoken by the North Germanic or Scandinavian peoples"[4]
• Stith Thompson: "The North Germanic, or Scandinavian group, consists of the Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, and Icelanders"[5]
• Bernard Bloch:"Northern Germanic peoples, i.e. the Scandinavians"[6]
• Gustav Ränk: "Contacts are not impossible also with the Northern Germanic peoples, i.e., with the Scandinavians directly across the sea"[7]
• J. R. R. Tolkien: "Vikings (who were Northern Germanic tribes..."[8]
• Otfried Höffe: "Sweden (where more than 95% belong to the North Germanic people of the Swedes..."[9]
• Peter D'Epiro: "The Northmen, Norsemen, or Norse were North Germanic peoples who settled in the Scandinavian countries of Noway, Sweden, and Denmark"[10]
• Philip Baldi: "The North Germanic peoples were quite expansive from the time of the Vikings"[11]
• "Some 86 percent of the people living in Norway today are ethnic Norwegians, a North Germanic people"[12]
• "Scandinavians are a North Germanic people closely related to the Anglo-Saxons, the Frisians, the Germans, and the Dutch."[13]
• "Not all the Germanic peoples left the Baltic region in the period concerned and consequently those that stayed behind were to become the ancestors of the present-day North Germanic peoples, the Scandinavians"[14]
• "Swedes streamed into Denmark in order to prevent the danger threatening the North Germanic peoples"[15]
• "Towards the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, large numbers of North Germanic (Norse) peoples settled in northern England"[16]
• "Some of the Vikings were Swedes, some Norwegian, and some Danes, but they were all North Germanic people who spoke much the same language and whose social and cultural patterns of behavior were very much alike"[17]
• "His [Thor's] figure was generally secondary to that of Odin, who in some traditions was his father; but in Iceland, and perhaps among all North Germanic peoples except the royal families, he was apparently worshiped more than any other god"[18]
• "North Germanic, or Scandinavian, or Norse, peoples, as they are variously called, became a distinctive people"[19]
• "For the period when the existence of the Germanic tribes is first clearly recorded by Roman writers, archaeological evidence suggests five tribal groups, with perhaps five incipient distinct Germanic languages, as follows: (1) North Germanic tribes (Scandinavians)"[20]

WP:COMMONNAME also states that Ambiguous... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. The ambiguity of the term Scandinavian, as outlined above, applies here. Even if it is more used in reliable sources, it should be avoided as a title.

• WP:CONSISTENCY: Article titles are to be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. The subject of this article is peoples who are native speakers of North Germanic languages. Removing the term North Germanic from the title about peoples speaking North Germanic languages is obviously inconsistent. It is also inconsistent with the titles of other ethnolinguistic groups at Wikipedia:

• Austronesian languages - Austronesian peoples
• Dravidian languages - Dravidian people
• Germanic languages - Germanic peoples
• Iranian languages - Iranian peoples
• Turkic languages - Turkic peoples
• Bantu languages - Bantu peoples
• Uralic languages - Uralic peoples

The question of policy is of course not the only issue here. Changing the title to the term Scandinavians will spark an endless discussion about "who is a Scandinavian", which can do nothing but harm our project. By using the term North Germanic peoples, which the nominator foolishly calls confusing (it is easily distinguishable from people of the North German Confederation), such fruitless discussions can be avoided. Krakkos (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I have many reasons to support this, but the most compelling is seen in this ngram showing a clear common name preference to Scandinavians and slightly less to Norsemen. North Germanic peoples appears only in the specialist field of ethnolinguistics, notably the sources provided by Krakkos, but has almost no common usage at all. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Frayae The most common name is not disputed. What is disputed is whether the suggested title is sufficiently consistent and precise. As North Germanic peoples are an ethnolinguistic group, we should use the terminology used by ethnolinguists. Linguists use the term North Germanic languages for the languages, which is why the Wikipedia article is titled as such. If one was to base Wikipedia titles on your ngram then the title of North Germanic languages would have to be changed to Scandinavian languages. The term Scandinavian has geographic, in addition to ethnolinguistic implications, and is therefore not precise enough. As the content of this article is about native speakers of North Germanic languages, rather than just inhabitants of Scandinavia, moving the title to Scandinavians would make it inconsistent with the title North Germanic languages. Krakkos (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a reasonable common name grounds to rename North Germanic languages to Scandinavian languages as per Britannica and this ngram also. This would restore consistency. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the reasons listed by Johnbod and Frayæ. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the reasons listed by Johnbod and Frayæ. Krakkos is cherrypicking sources that fit their POV (moving everything that mentions Norsemen, Vikings etc to their preferred name "North Germanic peoples"), a POV they have been pushing for a long time now, and on many fronts, from a major undiscussed rewrite turning Norsemen into an article about North Germanic peoples in everything but the article title, to mass changing internal links to point to their own new article North Germanic peoples, a POV-fork that was created after their rewrite of Norsemen was reverted, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Norsemen. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• That Norsemen/Scandinavians/North Germanic peoples are different names for the same people is not simply my POV. That is the view of experts, including E. V. Gordon,[21] David Diringer[22] Stith Thompson[23] Bernard Bloch[24] Gustav Ränk[25] Henry Goddard Leach,[26] David Luscombe,[27] Norman Davies[28] and others. As these views are never contradicted by other scholars, highlighting them do not amount to cherry picking. You should read up on what cherry picking actually means before leveling such accusations. It is worth noting that your rationale for supporting a move is based upon suspicion against me as an editor, rather than the merits of the article and relevant naming criteria. Krakkos (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you again admit "that Norsemen/Scandinavians/North Germanic peoples are different names for the same people" the appropriate policy for determining the title of an article about them (one that is not time-limited the way Norsemen is) is WP:COMMONNAME, which is always the principal criterion; contrary to what you claim above, there are no "criteria of equal importance" to it. We know what that supports, as Frayæ's ngram shows. You don't seem to realize that all these quotes showing usage support the opposite conclusion to the one you are drawing. WP:CRITERIA says: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally we agree at least about something. However, your quotation of WP:COMMONNAME is quite cherry picked. A couple of sentences later the text says: "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The problem with the title Scandinavians is precisely this ambiguity, as the term also has geographic and political implications. This ambiguity is also partially responsible for the inflated results for Scandinavians in the ngram. The lead of WP:TITLE says: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Results from an ngram are not necessarily to be equated with what a subject is called in reliable sources. In reliable sources which deal with the subject (ethnic North Germanic speakers) in detail, the term North Germanic peoples is frequently used, as shown above. As we already have a perfectly unambiguous term which is frequently used in the best sources, there is no need to replace it with an ambiguous one. Krakkos (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid because Scandinavians is not ambiguous, Scandinavians live in Scandinavia. North Germanic peoples is very ambiguous with people who live in North Germany. Additionally describing people by where they live rather than what origin they have is in my opinion preferable and is clearly the common usage. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If Scandianvians are people who live in Scandinavia, which is incorrect,[29][30] Scandinavians is the wrong title for this article. This article is about ethnic speakers of North Germanic languages, not inhabitants Scandinavia. Please refrain from Reductio ad Hitlerum. Scandinavians is ambigous and can have at least five meanings

• Ethnic speakers of Scandinavian/North Germanic languages (Ethnolinguistic; This is what the article is about)
• Citizens of a country in Scandinavia (Legal/political)
• Inhabitants of a country in Scandinavia (Geographic)
• People born in a country in Scandinavia (Geographic)
• People with ancestry from Scandinavia (Geographic)

The term Scandinavia is itself ambigious, and has at least four meanings:

• Countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula (Norway, Sweden, parts of Finland and Russia)
• Norway, Sweden and Denmark (This is the most common term)
• Scandinavian/North Germanic-speaking countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland)
• All members of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland)

What we have here is in fact double ambiguity. Choosing Scandinavians as a title for this article will result in an endless discussion of "who is a Scandinavian". With the title North Germanic peoples, such fruitless discussion will be avoided. Krakkos (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, having chosen to begin the article "North Germanic peoples, also called Scandinavians..." and redirecting "Scandinavians" to it (before you were reverted), you have given yourself a weak ground from which to argue that there is a vast difference between the two terms! Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood my argument. My argument all along has been that North Germanic peoples and Scandinavians are completely equivalent in an ethnolinguistic sense, but that Scandinavians can have multiple meanings, and therefore shouldn't be used as a title when a excellent alternative exists. Krakkos (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have understood both the completely contradictory "arguments" you make very well! When it suits you they are identical, but when it comes to renaming your article with the WP:COMMONNAME, that's a different matter. I have said several times that the article would need minor tweaks (but frankly not more) to deal with the non-North Germanic but Scandinavian elements, but then we would have a better and more useful article, that would also be read far more. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Understandable, but your preferred title also has several meanings, is easily confused with other concepts, and is also almost never used outside a specialist field of linguistics. It is also questionable if we should completely ignore the common name policy here, which we would have to do to stay using North Germanic peoples. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. North Germanic has only one meaning, which is a linguistic/ethnic one. It is a similar term to North German, but still clearly distinguishable, just like Germanic and German is distinguishable. North Germanic is used by a variety of experts, including linguists,[31] folklorists[32] Scandinavian studies scholars,[33] ethnologists[34] and archaeologists.[35] WP:COMMONNAME is not an isolated policy, but part of WP:TITLE. As noted above, WP:COMMONAME states very clearly that ambiguous and inconsistent titles (like Scandinavians) are to be avoided, even if they are based on the most common name. This is not ignoring policy, but following policy. Krakkos (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Johnbod and Frayae. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)t
• Support per nomination, above discussion, and blondes. 18:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Randy Kryn (talk)
• Strongly oppose. The North Germanic peoples are native speakers of North Germanic languages, and the term is not synonymous with Scandinavian. Non-North Germanic speaking peoples have lived in Scandinavia from ancient history until today, including the Sámi, and they are certainly also Scandinavians as we use the term today. Academics typically use North Germanic peoples to refer to the historical North Germanic speaking peoples, not vague and ambiguous terms like Scandinavians for exactly this reason. It's also quite possible that there were Celtic speakers in what we now consider Scandinavia, particularly in Jutland, such as the Teutons (the term Scandinavia (< *skadinaujo) itself refers to an island, probably today's Scania—not at all how we use the term today). These people would have been ancient Scandinavians but not ancient North Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

All true, but not imo any reason to oppose, rather the opposite. Most of the text is relevant to the wider concept of "Scandinavians", and stuff can be added on non-North Germanic speakers. As it is, the article begins "North Germanic peoples, also called Scandinavians...", so this already effectively is the article on them, as the current Scandinavians is a wierd little disam-type list. So let's take this opportunity to make an article that covers the main natural term, and explains these distinctions. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much every single word of this text has been written by me. The text is about people characterized by speaking North Germanic languages, and based upon sources about people characterized by speaking North Germanic languages. It is not, has never been, and should not be about a "wider concept of 'Scandinavians'" (whatever that means). Wikipedia deals with isolated concepts separately. It covers things, not "main natural terms", unless the term is notable in its own right. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Interestingly, you are now suggesting that "stuff can be added on non-North Germanic speakers" after the title has been moved to Scandinavians. It is clear that you are planning not only to change the title, but also to completely change the subject from being about an ethnolingustic group to being about people inhabiting a specific region. If you don't think the subject of North Germanic peoples as an ethnolinguistic group is notable, you should deal with it through an AFD, rather than engaging in deceptive move requests. Krakkos (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: You seem to confuse ethnic group with nationality and/or geographic location. The ethnic group called Scandinavians has spoken Germanic languages since prehistoric times, first Proto-Germanic, then Proto-Norse, then Old Norse and then the modern North Germanic languages (the Germanic languages in fact originated in Scandinavia), and that's the people the article is about. Confusion between ethnic group and nationality and/or geographic location can be avoided by a statement at the top of the page, or in the lead, that the article is about the ethnic group called Scandinavians, not nationality/geolocation. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomas, my response was crystal clear and accurate. Judging by your response, the confusion here seems to be on your part. Please review relevant literature in these quarters, as your response indicates to me that you could use some brushing up on it. Declaring all non-Germanic peoples of Scandinavia as non-Scandinavians, for example, is either an act of racism or ignorance. Here’s hoping it’s the latter. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And your response clearly shows that you don't understand the difference between an ethnic group and geographic location. And no, talking about ethnic groups, and having articles about ethnic groups, has absolutely nothing to do with racism (believing that one ethnic group is superior to another is racism, but this has nothing to do with that...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What is this, Alt-Right-apedia? In the real world, the Sámi are considered just as “Scandinavian” as others groups in Scandinavia, including the North Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? The Sami are as Scandinavian as anyone else who lives there if we're talking about geographic location, but are not part of the same ethnic group as Germanic-speaking Scandinavians, especially not in a historic context. And you accusing me of being racist and "alt-right" (both of which are as wrong as it possibly can be) doesn't change that, so maybe you should find another subject area to be active in, a subject area where you understand what is being discussed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethnically, geographically, culturally, the Sámi and North Germanic peoples are both ‘’Scandinavian’’. Outside of racist forums where numbers like “1488” are very popular, this is well understood. It’s historically inarguable. The North Germanic peoples don’t have some special claim to the term “Scandinavian” under *any* context. So exactly what are you trying to promote here? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You just proved my point, that is that you have no idea what an ethnic group is. Ethnicity is about culture, language and common origin, and Germanic-speaking Scandinavians and the Sami people share neither culture, language nor common origin, especially not in a historical context, which is what we're primarily discussing here. And "Scandinavian" is a term that in English is, and always has been, applied primarily to the Germanic-speaking people of Scandinavia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I’ll continue to ignore your petulant comments on social science fundamentals and I’ll even continue to overlook your ill-considered outline of North Germanic languages above. However, what isn’t acceptable is your attempts to wiggle out of defining the Sámi as “Scandinavian”. It reeks of racism, and it won’t get a pass here. Once more, the Sámi are as Scandinavian as the North Germanic peoples—without an asterisk. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And I'll ignore everything you post, wherever it's posted, since trying to discuss with you obviously is a total waste of time. I don't know if you simply can't understand it or don't want to understand it, but ethnicity, especially in a historical context, has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, no matter how many times you repeat it, and "Scandinavians" can refer to both an ethnic group, that is the people who have spoken Germanic languages since prehistoric times, and all people now living in Scandinavia. Which is why I wrote that it should be pointed out at the top of the article that it refers to the ethnic group... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The aggressive discussion above, which is caused by the ambiguity of the term Scandinavians, is a perfect example why moving the title to Scandinavians is a bad idea. And i agree with you that the term Scandinavian can have both geographic and ethnic connotations. Once this article has been moved however, the intention of the nominator is however to "add stuff on non-North Germanic speakers", that is, to merge the geographic (including Sami)[36] and ethnic connotations into one subject, which he calls "the wider concept of 'Scandinavians'.[37] This does not seem to be in accord with what you have in mind. Krakkos (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (and a slightly different suggestion). This issue is a real headache; very sensible points have been made on both sides above. Just speaking from my experience, I don't think academics have very clear usages when it comes to the terrifying Norsemen/medieval Scandinavian/Viking/North-Germanic-speakers mishmash. People use different terms partly depending on what aspect of these people's history they're writing about at a given moment (language, raiding, geography, etc.) -- and perhaps, given the complexity of the history of North-Germanic speakers, that's how it should be. So there is definitely no good solution here, and we should recognise that!

• • If we take the 'Scandinavian' option, can we make it clear thatthe article is about ancient/medieval Scandinavians? E.g. 'Ancientand medieval Scandinavians'. The debates about who is included among 'Scandinavian' peoples get even more fraught as we approach the present (Iceland and the Faroes often want to be 'Nordic' but not Scandinavian, the Sámi ought to be included, and Finland and Estonia have their own complex relationship with the terms). Scandinavians probably works quite well as the disambiguationpage that it is.

• • The term Norsemen is old fashioned, so I'm not keen on it as a main article title myself. I think the current Oxford English Dictionary entry (from 2003) is pretty representative. It gives the sense as 'A native or inhabitant of Scandinavia in ancient or medieval times. Frequently in plural. Chiefly but not necessarily designating a man'; its citations include scholarly work down to 1968, but after that the only citation is from a local newspaper, indicating the cartoonish associations the word now has: 'Tuam (Co. Galway) Herald & Western Advertiser 8 July 18/6   They went on a Viking cruise..dressed in Norsemen's clothes with helmets and brandishing plastic swords and shields.' That said, scholar.google.com gives 16,800 hits for "Norsemen" and 61 for the string "North Germanic people", so by that measure Norsemen is a better destination for an artice move.

• • Personally, I see 'North Germanic peoples' as a precise and relatively colourless term. English-speakers are widely confused about the technical usages of 'German' and 'Germanic', and we can't hope to avoid these confusions on all pages relating to theGermanic languages. We could always put a note saying 'For articles relating to northern dialects of the German language see Low German (disambiguation)' or something like that.

• • By a slim margin, then, I oppose the move, and would encourage integration of Norsemen into North Germanic peoples. Alarichall (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• • • This doesn't make much sense, frankly, and has absolutely no chance of happening (getting consensus). The struggle over the years has been to keep Norsemen seperate from Vikings, to which it has frequently redirected. There is no way it will be merged to an all-period article like this - any migration of text should be in the other direction. The difficulties you explain with the term "Scandinavians" are reasons to call the article that, and cover them. What is there (other than the language they speak at a particular point, and Sami culture etc) that distinguishes Scandinavian speakers of North-Germanic languages from other Scandinavians? We don't have an article on West-Germanic people of the British Isles, nor should we. "North Germanic people" is far too obscure and specialized a term, and will convey nothing to the average reader, so should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you think, Johnbod, of renaming North Germanic peoples as 'Ancient and medieval Scandinavians'? As I say, I'm concerned that just renaming it Scandinavians would create more problems than it solves. Alarichall (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather see the material on later periods expanded so the last 2,000 or so years are covered in one go, as is normal in such articles. Most of the article is already just the history of Scandinavia, with (thank heavens) little ethno-linguistic spin. At this, of all points in history the ethno-linguitic approach to the topic is not the best to take!. Krakkos had the option of writing a little article on the ethno-linguistic angle, which nobody much would read, but in typical form he insisted on turning it into the main article of Scandinavians, and turning links to Norsemen to point here (he has been pushing similar unwise grandiose ethno-linguistic schemes on speakers of the Iranian and Indo-European language groups). WP articles do not solve problems, but where complexities exist, they can explain them. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

North Germanic peoples and Sami are ethnically distinguished from each other in every way:

• Languages: See North Germanic languages and Sami languages
• Culture: See Old Norse religion and Sami shamanism
• Ancestry: See Genetic studies on Sami

Merging these completely different ethnolinguistic groups into one article, which seems to be the idea of the nominator, is a very bad idea. Krakkos (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think 'very bad idea' might be overstating it -- or perhaps rather I'd say there are no very good ideas on the table! We cope with article titles like Medieval Scandinavian law alongside Ancient Germanic law, for example. It would be quite interesting to include both Norse-speakers and Finnic-speakers in the same article; there could be an interesting section on the massive Germanic influence on Finnic languages and the possible non-Germanic substrate influence on Old Norse, etc. But I do agree that North Germanic peoples is the simplest in terms of categorising different topics. Alarichall (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per the excellent points made by Krakkos and Bloodofox especially. I'm not sure what else I could add. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Krakkos has been canvassing, and with a misleading pitch. [38] , [39] and [40], perhaps more. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This discussion was far too long for me to read all of the relevant points, but I agree that simply calling it Scandinavians is a mistake as that term includes ethno-cultural groups that are not Germanic. As for the accusation that Krakkos has been canvassing, he had no reason to believe I would support him (aside from the fact that, as a member of the Germanic Germanic studies project, I would be likely to be knowledgeable about the subject and see his reasoning). I can't speak to the other editors, but Krakkos and I have never interacted in any significant way before.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we all know Scandinavians "includes ethno-cultural groups that are not Germanic". The question is, is it better to have an article with a purely ethno-linguistic title, to which Krakkos has been been busy redirecting a vast number of links, many highly inappropriately (see this discussion at the Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard), beginning "also Scandinavians", and which includes an attempt at a history of Scandinavia, or is it better to have an article actually covering the topic of Scandinavians properly? Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's a big place, though, Johnbod: it would be possible to have an article on, say, '(ancient) peoples of Scandinavia' that would link out to separate articles on different cultural groups, including the older cultural formations like the Bromme culture, more recent ethno-linguistic groupings like Finnic peoples and North Germanic peoples, subgroups like the Sámi and national identities like Swedes, and minority ethnic groups like Russians in Finland, Norwegian and Swedish Travellers, Arabs in Denmark, and so forth. Alarichall (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Why "ancient" peoples? Krakkos has brought this article up to the modern period, though increasingly running out of puff, and his changes to links on a wide range of articles (now mostly reverted after a lot of work by many editors) included many modern references. That is one of the worrying aspects of his global scheme, dividing the world up into Indo-European, Iranian and so on as "ethno-linguistic" blocks (see the previous discussion). Krakkos doesn't do "cultural groups" - its all "ethno-linguistic". Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, I don't know the whole context of your feud with Krakkos. I know he's been making a lot of categories and redirects that I have found, if not always wrong, sometimes sort of unnecessary. I think that's an entirely separate issue from whether to say "North Germanic Peoples" or Scandinavians. The fact of the matter is that the Sami and Finns - people often counted as Scandinavians today - were culturally distinct from the Norse. North Germanic Peoples is a term commonly employed in modern scholarship. I personally would have nothing against calling it, say, Norse peoples, but I know there's a whole other battle about whether to say "Norsemen" or not that I'd rather not wade into.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no feud, but he is a menace, as several other people editing in different areas have found. We all know "the Sami and Finns - people often counted as Scandinavians today - were culturally distinct from the Norse". That's rather the point! We now have an article, to which he has been redirecting all references to "Scandinavians", which only covers the main ethnic component. He has been up to similar things re other parts of the world, especially where categories are concerned. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I say then, Krakkos's redirects have no bearing on what this article should be titled, do they? I think calling him a menace is a bit harsh, though.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, don't follow that at all. Try looking at this discussion at the Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. He does of course, as here, try to smother all discussion of his edits with long lists of not-very-relevant references to books. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is I who am not following you. Krakkos could start redirecting Martians and bicycles to North Germanic Peoples, it has nothing to do with what the page should be called. I am well aware of the noticeboard, which, while showing that many people have problems with Krakkos's redirects, ended inclusively and is irrelevant to the discussion here.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The point of the issue is that there is demand for an overview article which can be used to replace existing links to a variety of smaller articles such Norsemen. The issue is not only to find the best title for this article, but also to find a suitable main overview topic for all Scandinavian/Norse/North Germanic peoples. I hope it can be agreed that this is a very decent article, whatever it is called, and that it is a good overview of the people it is about. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a good idea, Alarichall. Information on inhabitants of Scandinavia should be a separate article rather than merged with one specific ethnolinguistic group. The topic of inhabitants of Scandinavia would however have a problem passing WP:GNG. In such cases Wikipedia has lists of inhabitants of the given region. Such was the outcome of this discussion, which resulted in the article Anatolian peoples for the ethnolinguistic group and List of ancient peoples of Anatolia for inhabitants of Anatolia. List of ancient peoples of Portugal, List of ancient tribes in Thrace and Dacia, List of ancient tribes in Illyria and List of ancient peoples of Italy are other examples of lists one could also make for Scandinavia. The problem is of course that the boundaries of the region of Scandinavia itself are loosely defined. Krakkos (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

[outdent] Would Nordic Peoples have the same problem as Scandinavians in including Finnic peoples? I'd note that the article is mostly about the Middle Ages, for which reason Norse Peoples as strikes me as a good name. But North Germanic peoples, the current name, is also fine.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Nordic peoples would definitely include Finnic-speaking regions, and arguably Greenland, so that wouldn't help :-( Nice idea though! I agree that 'Norse peoples' would be no worse than 'North Germanic peoples'. Johnbod: there are two reasons why I've encouraged trying to keep this article (whatever it's called!) to ancient and medieval periods. (1) It's hard enough trying to define its scope as it is! (2) I suggest that in most respects, from the later medieval period onwards, it's easiest (albeit in some ways problematic) to just use national categories for most things. It's fairly straightforward to organise articles about Swedes, Icelanders, etc. once they inhabit fairly clearly defined polities. I think the headaches we have in this discussion particularly pertain to pre-state periods. I do recognise though that articles can also cover supranational identities and so forth though! And I agree with Frayæ that the article is a good piece of work :-) Alarichall (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion is already quite lengthy and there is no reason to exacerbate the problem by reiterating points previously made, so I will just say I oppose per Krakkos and Bloodofox. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, but to add that, if a different name were considered, "Nordic people" would be preferable.--Hazhk (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the reasons listed by Johnbod and Frayæ. Jerry Stockton (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thiod

I think the claim that the ancient North Germanic peoples referred to themselves as "thiod" needs a better source. Currently its sourced to something from a nineteenth-century source that is arguing for the use of "Teutonic" as a general name for the Germanic-speaking peoples. It obviously makes many assumptions about the equivalence of language and race/ethnicity that modern scholarship would not, and it seems more than likely to me that the claim is simply assumed from the use by West Germanic speakers rather than historically attested. Can anyone provide a more recent source?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that the move proposal is no longer attracting attention away from this, does anyone else have an opinion? I'm inclined to remove the statement entirely unless a better source is found.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

They did indeed call themselves something like that, but it was "þjóð". This name survives in the name of Sweden, derived from "Sweoþeod", the Old English counterpart of an Old Norse name for Sweden - "Svíþjóð" (meaning "Swedish people/nation"). It also survives in the Latin name for Sweden - Suecia - and in Latin derived names for the country in other languages.- Berig (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling themselves "Swede-people" (the literal meaning of Svíþjóð) is not the same as saying the ethnonym for Northern Germanics was "theod" or "þjóð".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is true. They referred to themselves as þjóð, but probably not to separate North Germanics from other groups.--Berig (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal seems appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to removal. The early North Germanic peoples were a group of separate peoples, who do not appear to have had a fellow ethnonym.[41] However, i still think that the meaning of the word þjóð in Old Norse should be mentioned in the article. Krakkos (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How would you want it mentioned, besides the mere fact of the word's existence?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something similar to the more balanced way it's mentioned now. Krakkos (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Your link sums up what I was about to write here. They had a common identity, but for some reason they don't seem to have had a name for it (or it can not be attested).--Berig (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the recent edits, I would still be more comfortable if either 1) the claim about Thjod is removed (an article from 1878 in Notes and Querries is certainly not the most recent scholarly opinion on the matter!) or 2) the source were replaced with something up-to-date making that claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not sure that there is a case for highlighting "þjóð" when they also had other names like "fólk" and "lýðr". The cognate stem "deut" has come to refer to some West Germanic peoples, but as far as I know it was inspired by the need to have a name for the local language (deutisc, i.e. "folkish") in respect to Latin, and probably grew from there to be a name for the "nation". The idea of using indigenous names for "people" (such as Inuit) for ethnic groups seems to be a modern fashion, and rather driven by a need to remove negative colonialist connotations.--Berig (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like removal is the best option. I still think information on the question of a North Germanic ethnonym belongs in the article however, given that it is discussed in a reliable source. Krakkos (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I just removed the stuff on Thjod. How's the current version look to you?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that part looks fine.--Berig (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks good. Krakkos (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic group

Last year user @Nederlandse Leeuw removed the term "ethnic" from this article, claiming it was not supported by the references. Now user @Dylansmrjones has added it back, claiming the opposite. I don't have easy access to the many sources on this article, so which one is it? TylerBurden (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well that's an easy one. This edit is not supported by the source [3], which is quoted: Ostergren & Le Boss 2011, p. 166 "The north Germanic peoples occupied the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula. They subsequently spread westward across the Danish islands and Jutland, and their linguistic descendants today are the Scandinavians and the Icelanders." Therefore WP:FAIL. You did it right by restoring the original, I'll restore it too, and I'll repeat what you told Dylansmrjones already: 'see edits made in August, or add new sources supporting the ″ethnic″ term.' Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Danicus Politicus: The same rules apply to you. The sources do not mention "ethnic", so Wikipedia shouldn't say "ethnic". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I just added updated heading to say Are "a Germanic ethnolinguistic group originating from the Scandinavian Peninsula." I also Used a citation from oxford University.--Zyxrq (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw I changed the heading to say "are a Germanic grouping of people originating from the Scandinavian Peninsula". I think people are trying to say its a grouping of people, but are conflating it with a ethnic group. I would say source [3] dose support the change. Zyxrq (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zyxrq I disagree with the change. Source 3 says "The north Germanic peoples occupied the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula. They subsequently spread westward across the Danish islands and Jutland, and their linguistic descendants today are the Scandinavians and the Icelanders." (emphasis by me). In other words, the north Germanic peoples no longer exist, they lived in the past (therefore past tense), and the only connection to people living today is linguistic.

This is the core of the two misunderstandings that keep happening here:

1. People coming to this page and trying to rewrite it as if the north Germanic peoples still exist today;
2. People coming to this page and trying to rewrite it as if there is more than just a linguistic connection between people living today and people living centuries ago, usually framed in terms of "ethnic", "ethnolinguistic", "common/shared identity" etc.;

even though the reliable sources do not support such claims. In your case, source 3 does not say "Germanic grouping of people" at all. Those are your words, but they not are found in the source you refer to. This is WP:FAIL and WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we cannot write such things. I will revert to the previous version. I do appreciate any improvements you do on this article, as long as they are verifiable in reliable sources etc. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed stuff

. Sorry but what? Check this: Out of 442 Viking 145 were R (84 R1b, and 61 R1a-Z284) and 95 I (I1). R1b is regularly cited as one of the most common Viking haplogroups ., beside being the most common haplogroup among northern Germans. So if haplogroup I is to be included in this article's See also list (as you averred), so should R1b. By the way, I reiterate my objection to including any haplogroups. Full genomes should be the main focus, and usage/mention of haplogroups should be reduced as much as possible in any article. Beside, why should we POV-push that the Vikings are somehow more closely associated with haplogroup I when this is simply not true? So when a Scandinavian person does a DNA test, or some great Norseman like Somerled turn out to be something else than I they should feel less Scandinavian or North Germanic? When Hitler turns out to be E is he not German anymore? Y chromosomes are 1% of the genome and they don't really mean much except they create confusion and division. Viking123456789 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You should address the concerns that has been raised with your account and editing instead of edit warring across several articles, if there is no significant content included in the article about the topic at hand, it doesn't belong here. It's only confusing for readers to click on a "see also" link expecting to be able to read more about North Germanic people, only for it to not even mention the term. This is unlike the other haplogroups included, which at the very least establish some link to Northern Europe. TylerBurden (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

References

"North Germanic peoples" change to "Scandinavians"?

The page should be changed to Scandinavian or Scandinavians. Do people really use "North Germanic peoples" more than Scandinavian when referring to this group? Zyxrq (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No. This was proposed already 6 years ago and has been rejected, see #Requested move 1 September 2018. These are not synonyms. If anything, "North Germanic peoples" is a synonym of Norsemen, and this article should be merged into Norsemen. NLeeuw (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw OK, I agree that merging this article into the Norsemen article is a good idea. I think having a article Called North Germanic Peoples causes confusion that we don't need. Also I do think The "Legacy" Section could be moved to the North Germanic languages article, and maybe the Norsemen article. What do you Think? Zyxrq (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with my suggestion. I think we might move the Legacy section to Norsemen, especially if we are merging the whole article there anyway. I would not move it to North Germanic languages though; that article should be reserved for linguistics only and not anthropology/ethnography. NLeeuw (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)