Talk:Germania

Northern extension

In Tacitus' conception of Germania it also includes what we nowadays call southern Scandinavia. Should really the northern border be conflated with that of northern Germany in this article?-Berig (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think he was the only one to do that, so I'd suggest not mentioning the northern boundary in the lead. He also called all the Scandinavians Suebians. As a more general issue, the 4 or so writers who mentioned this concept in classical times all defined it differently. BTW for Tacitus this Germania did not stretch all the way to the Danube either, nor to the sources of the Rhine (which lie south of the Danube).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Both Tacitus (98 AD) and Ptolemy (150 AD) appear to consider southern Sweden part of Germania. They definately considered modern-day Denmark a part of Germania. Archaeologically, southern Scandinavia was part of the Roman Iron Age, which corresponds to the area called Magna Germania by the Romans. Malcolm Todd provides extensive coverage of Scandinavia in The Early Germans (2004). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Roman Germany (2020) appears to consider Scandinavia part of Germania. I agree that we should not conflate the northern borders of Germania with northern Germany. Krakkos (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Using the archaeological data to define Germania would move us a long way from talking about a classical concept looks a bit synthy? I don't want to take too strong a position on that so I'll just generalize. Sometimes an argument can be made, but we don't want to be the ones making it, so where it is fuzzy we should consider whether we can avoid using strong language, especially in the lead. As articles get longer then of course details of more specific published proposals can be added in the body and potentially the lead, but everything in the lead should be in the body first? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikistyle academia

I can understand you work as a team, but I cannot accept your actions.

You have left me with little room for discussion: The current article is in a flux and the revised text is specifically rejected, in an ambigious way that does not make it obvious what you consider wrong. If it be the language, or the article structure, then surely it is insufficient to use just these general statements to reject the revised text?

I can understand you work as a team, the way you do, because of the character of what I write on the talk-page and in the article-space. Just like I was struck dumbfounded when looking at the talk-page on 3 September at around 10 o'clock, I can easily imagine that you were dumbstruck when looking at the talkpage on the morning of 24 July. We both, you as a team and me as a single contributor, have our modes of practice.

This is humanely fair, but still your actions are unfair, both from the aspect of considering the importance of namespace 0 and from the aspect of considering the importance of community communications. I have been civil, honest and showed engagement with the particulars of the article content, and you have shown uncivility, especially pretense, and your engagement with the problematic details of content-related issues is affected by this, including your intra-team engagement with namespace 0. Sechinsic (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please try to join in the discussion. I would appreciate your input on the content being added. I think the other editors are focusing on style improvements etc which did not go so well in your proposals so far, but I think your interest was more concerning the content anyway, so maybe this is a good way to divide tasks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Who or what is "namespace 0"? I have not heard about this before. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, he's misusing a template documentation term. At first glance, I thought he was talking about something related to Deep Space Nine. Carlstak (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do thank you for the link, but to me, the info stated there is bizarre and incomprehensible, rather like Klingon. If "It helps other templates detect what type of page they are on" I am happy for said templates, and will leave them to detect in peace and privacy. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the intro

This phrase's usage of parentheses is inconsistent

• "also called Magna Germania (English: Great Germania, Germania Libera (English: Free Germania) or Germanic Barbaricum"

Corrected,

• also called Magna Germania (English: Great Germania), Germania Libera (English: Free Germania) or Germanic Barbaricum

This phrase is too inexact,

• "in order to distinguish it from the Roman provinces of the same name,"

Corrected,

• in order to distinguish it from the two Roman provinces; Germania Inferior and Germania Superior.

This phrase has a dubious character:

• "was a Latin term used during the Roman era for the large historical region in north-central Europe, which was associated by Roman authors with the Germanic peoples."

"was a Latin term used during the Roman era"

§1 From the present state of academic knowledge, the term was mostly in use arguably one millenium after the Roman era, ie. during and after the Renaissance. The phrase suggests to the reader - and editors - some importance to the classical use of the term 'Germania', but the suggestion is unbalanced. The phrase at the same time confound the use and invention of the term. It is correct that the term was invented in the Roman era, and it is also true the term was applied actively in the Roman era. However, the use of the term in the Roman era is not well described in the present state of academic knowledge. This is a complex matter, even to the extent of being an academic, or scientific discussion-topic, and may not be trivially comprehended by anyone - readers or editors. This complex matter should not be explained through discrete suggestions, but could possibly appear in the article in a clear outspoken statement.

"for the large historical region in north-central Europe,"

§2 In current academic literature, the north-European region is very rarely referred to as 'Germania'. The book of Peter Heather, first published in 2005, listed with 53 editions up to 2020 in worldcat.org, is one notable exception, but still, his book does not in particular stress this. A search on 'Germania' at the books.google page of his book only return 5 occurences of this term. The phrase suggests a historicity of 'Germania' as a historic-politic region. It is true that in especially the modern era up to WW2 the north-European region was studied as a historically German region. This is a controversial topic. The wikilink to the neologism "historical region" is perhaps the editor's choice, for dealing with such controversiality. The neologism does not explain anything.

Corrected,

• the Latin term was used during the Roman era, and especially during and after the Renaissance, generally associated with the Germanic peoples.

This is the very first sentence of the article. It is syntactically correct but the sentence is very long and has a clumsy construction. It also contains multiple fallacies, described above.

• "Germania also called Magna Germania (English: Great Germania, Germania Libera (English: Free Germania) or Germanic Barbaricum in order to distinguish it from the Roman provinces of the same name, was a Latin term used during the Roman era for the large historical region in north-central Europe, which was associated by Roman authors with the Germanic peoples."

Corrected,

• Germania a Latin term used during the Roman era, and especially during and after the Renaissance, as a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples.
• The similar terms Magna Germania (English: Great Germania), Germania Libera (English: Free Germania) or Germanic Barbaricum appear in various contexts, to regionally distinguish between a Roman occupied territory - Germania Inferior and Germania Superior - and the region beyond the Roman frontiers.
• In terms of geography it overlaps with modern north-central Europe.

Let's hear some responses Sechinsic (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC) (re-edited, to add quotes 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC))

Thanks. I hope you don't mind that I added square bracketed numbers. My first responses: [1.] seems like the same sentence? [2.] No major opposition, except I would put the two terms in brackets, not after semi-colon. (That is just more orthodox English writing style.) I considered doing it also but was worried about making a long sentence at the article opening and I felt that any reader would find these article names quickly for example by following the disambiguation link right at the top of the article. [3.] Again, one issue is that you would be adding this into a sentence and making it long, so it would be better to make this point about the rebirth of the term in the Rennaissance in a separate sentence or paragraph. I think this rebirth topic should be mentioned in the lead and also have its own discussion section in the article. [4.] First sentences are often difficult, so your point is valid, but I think your proposed solution does not work. You actually make it more complex (see [2.] and [3.]) and your first sentence is not a grammatical sentence. Furthermore, there is a Wikipedia "rule" about moving the main bold alternative terms right to the front.

Clarifications: [2.] While I am not strongly opposed I am not sure it is a good idea, just because it makes the sentence even longer. (See 4.].) [3.] There is already a "legacy" section, and I think it is mainly just a matter of expanding it. ("Legacy" is a typical Wikipedia name for such sections, basically used when no one has a better idea. If we have a better idea, that can be discussed.) In recent decades there has been quite a bit of good writing about the topic, for example by Walter Goffart, whose ideas on this are (I think) not controversial? BTW I think "Rennaissance" does not cover the whole story. There seems to have been a revival of the term already in Carolingian times. From memory Goffart thinks it started being applied to contemporary entities in Ottonian times, and he thinks that the Ottonian Holy Roman Empire was the first political entity that could meaningfully use the term to describe its bounds.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster, you show basic lack of understanding complex language. Or are you only feigning your above misunderstanding of the analysis I have given? I thought it unneccessary to use quotes, but have now re-edited my analysis, so that readers not familiar with the Germania-article can also understand the discussion.

Andrew Lancaster, you should not tamper with other editor's talk-page posts. This is fully described at WP:TPO. You are also not following the normal praxis of indentation, which I have now restored. preceding unsigned contribution from 80.62.117.123 (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC) too much in hurry Sechinsic (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Your response to my critic in §1 is to refer to Goffart, concerning the Frankish era, to the effect that there was also a usage in the Middle Ages. I am not sure I agree, and rather suspect you are misreading Goffart, but in all cases this only emphasize the undue balance shown in the first sentence of of the intro. Sechinsic (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we both need to learn to stop and breathe before writing. From rereading your first indented paragraph I can see that you are somewhat agreeing to the critic. My critic of inconsistent parentheses is a bagatel, in your words "seems like the same sentence", and my critic in §1 makes you think such information could follow in a separate sentence, which is not an impossible idea. In my suggestion, I also use three separate sentences to replace the clumsy and suggestive first sentence. But then your discussion-post seems to lose focus, somehow reading the corrected phrases as whole sentences. I am not a grammatician, and there might be a technical term better to describe parts of sentences, such as for example 'sub-clause', which term is very unfamiliar to me. I also lack a response to my critic in §2. Sechinsic (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe my responses were quite simple and uncontroversial. It is very hard to follow what you are trying to say, but to start with something simple, it is a common problem on Wikipedia that people try to put all their favorite things in the first sentence. That is a basic practical problem, and more generally first sentences have certain guidelines as I explained. Can I suggest that instead of saying I do not understand things, pick one thing I don't understand and explain just that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Practical, non content issues but just about how to work:

• Concerning adding more details to the lead, keep the bold alternative names of the article name right at the top. Avoid bullet points or extremely long sentences in the first paragraph, but instead use multiple sentences.
• I believe the subject of revivals of the Germania concept, whether Carolingian, Ottonian, Rennaissance, 19th century etc deserve their own separate lead paragraph, and section (currently entitled Legacy) in the body. Goffart is a well-known source, and not so controversial on this topic, but there are surely others. This is currently not really in the article at all, so none of us can complain about the current text.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

When you believe your response was simple and controversial, then I still lack your response to §2. And, I suppose my reading of your responses, concerning parentheses and separate sentences, is also valid. I fully agree on your idea that the article should not start with bulleted points. This was also not my intention, but I do gather you are not so foreign to the idea of breaking up the first sentence.

You are also raising a worthy issue, in relation to my corrected version. In the corrected version of the first sentence, there is a balanced statement, expressing some extent of how the term 'Germania' has been used, and you point out the current article text lacks this information. As said, it is a worthy issue you raise: it points to a problem in my corrected version of the first sentence, and as well points to a problem in the current article text.

I'll choose to hold on to the focus introduced in this discussion, under the name "The first sentence", and present a new correction,

• Germania, a Latin term from the Roman era expressing a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples.
• The similar terms Magna Germania (English: Great Germania), Germania Libera (English: Free Germania) or Germanic Barbaricum appear in various contexts, to regionally distinguish between a Roman occupied territory - Germania Inferior and Germania Superior - and the region beyond the Roman frontiers.
• In terms of geography it overlaps with the modern north-central Europe.

Sechinsic (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

These are bullet points and the first sentence is still not a sentence. So this proposal is still not good English, or conventional Wikipedia style, which I guess you don't have much experience with yet. Trying to understand your content concerns I am not sure what the core is of your "§2", but my best guess is that it concerns your remarks about "Germania" in post classical usage. If I understand correctly you are concerned that the article treats Germania as a mainly classical topic because you argue the topic is mainly post Rennaissance. I think that on WP this might be too uncompromising, but we don't need to argue that it is mainly classical or post classical. The more important point is that I think everyone agrees it was a term used by several Roman authors and post classical usage is derived from that classical usage. Make sense? So we still have to logically build this article starting with discussion of the original classical concept even if its importance to classical people is a topic of controversy. In terms of how to handle this in practice in the article, I think it needs to be in a separate short paragraph in the lead (we can not shove everything into the first sentence) and in an expanded version of the Legacy section. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to #Article topic change? New lead edits (6 Sept 2020)

Article topic change? New lead edits (6 Sept 2020)

Sechinsic concerning your change to the article opening [1] I am concerned that you've made an article opening which is about a different topic than the current article. If I understand correctly this edit means the article now covers ALL of Germania, including the Roman Germanias (which have their own articles)? It also coverts the article topic from a definable geographic term, into a controversial ethnic one. (Because scholars don't agree how real the ethnic or linguistic domination of Germania by one group was.) Please confirm or correct my understanding. Maybe a change is necessary, but topic changes need to be discussed, and if accepted it might require a lot of changes to the rest of the article. Furthermore, other editors might see better solutions based on their experience with Wikipedia - such as renaming this article to Germania Magna (a more geographical concept, which is more clearly what the article has been about, and this has been, I think, because it is more clearly distinguishable from the topic of the other two articles).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(replying to your post in #The first sentence in the intro) Hmm. Did you mean there should be a verb before the "a"? I obviously prefer the sentence as is, but if you can give a link or two or use some grammatic terms to describe the issue, then I don't mind inserting an "is", ie. "Germania is a". However @Tribe of tiger has boldly done this for us - so there are now two verbs in the sentence. Regarding your guess about my critic in §2, I guess you may have confused §1 and §2? The words you use, and the issue you describe fits more to my critic in §1. You also express concern for the rest of the article, and I have perhaps some similar worries, but still would like to focus this discussion. You did suggest "step-by-step".

(replying to your opening post in this discussion) You seem to confuse the idea of geography with the idea of historicity. What you write relates very well to the issue I have described in §2, from the abandoned discussion above. It does indeed have consequences for the article text. The realisation and insight, that 'Germania', although quite well determined in geographical terms, does not really have a history, such as for example 'Italy' has a history, is a challenge, for us editors. As said, this is arguably complex, to the extent of being a scientific topic.

I suggest you reread the revised text I have written, where the challenge is confronted by way of comprehending 'Germania' as a word, including a shorter historical period where 'Germania' authenticately was somewhat resembling a historic-politic region. This historicity also appear in the short article by Scardigli that has recently been added to the article. Regarding your mentioning "ALL Germania" I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please do not complicate what does not necessarily (by WP:AC) needs to be complex. Sechinsic (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not really answering. The idea in the past has been that this article handles Germania east of the Rhine, which is a common definition. This is not necessarily my preference, but that is what it was. Your changes mean that the article now covers the Germanias west of the Rhine. Correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW there are still style issues. See for example Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Use_of_"refers_to" and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Fixing_the_introductory_sentence:_removing_"refers_to", and more generally WP:LEDE#First sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the article is now defined as a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples, who have another article which already covers territorial understandings of those peoples. In contrast, Magna Germania and related terms distinguishing non-Roman Germania, the topic until yesterday, are now described as similar terms, so they are no longer the main topic here. My first impression is that we should switch topic back, and possibly re-name this article to "Magna Germania" to avoid any future confusion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment The phrase "territorial understanding ..." etc. is gibberish and should be removed at once. As a word with numerous semantic referents, I'd support a change to Magna Germania and the changing of "Germania" to a disambiguation page if it comes to it, but ideally this article should be about classical period non-Roman Germania beyond the Rhine and Danube. We don't need to cover all subsequent usages of the Latin word for Germany, or focus on the word itself as a derivation of a "land" of "Germani", whoever they are; that's a topic for a different page, or an etymology section, surely. GPinkerton (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton is right—"territorial understanding" is gibberish. Sechinsic is incompetent to be writing text in an English WP article. He has only a tenuous grasp of proper English syntax and vocabulary, and can't write consistently intelligible sentences in the language. Just look at what he's written above: writing critic when he means critique, making up such words as authenticately, and composing such unintelligible nonsense as "your intra-team engagement with namespace 0". He nicely sums up his attitude towards talk page collegiality with an imperious "I can understand you work as a team, but I cannot accept your actions." We shouldn't ruin the article by indulging an editor and allowing him to run roughshod over the work done by competent editors. Carlstak (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand your responses as a strong reaction against my criticcriticism in §2. Here it is again

• §2 In current academic literature, the north-European region is very rarely referred to as 'Germania'. The book of Peter Heather, first published in 2005, listed with 53 editions up to 2020 in worldcat.org, is one notable exception, but still, his book does not in particular stress this. A search on 'Germania' at the books.google page of his book only return 5 occurences of this term. The phrase suggests a historicity of 'Germania' as a historic-politic region. It is true that in especially the modern era up to WW2 the north-European region was studied as a historically German region. This is a controversial topic. The wikilink to the neologism "historical region" is perhaps the editor's choice, for dealing with such controversiality. The neologism does not explain anything.

I have boldened 'the phrase'; this refers to a part of the first sentence: "for the large historical region in north-central Europe,". The whole context is at the opening of #The first sentence of the intro.

But, I presume our disagreement is more trivial. @Andrew Lancaster,

(1) can you explain to me, grammatically or by using literal quotes, how the change of the first sentence makes you think 'Germania' refer to the west of the Rhine?

(2) you seem to express confusion about the corrected first sentence, which reads

• Germania is a Latin term from the Roman era expressing a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples.

Out of that sentence you seek to understand that the article text describes "a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples". This is plainly a mistaken reading.

(3) you mention 'Magna Germania', but your sentence (here, in the discussion-post) is very compressed, and I fail to see what you are trying to show. Please clarify this.

Regarding that you object I am not really answering. Well, I have done my best. You asked me to confirm or correct your understanding of my intention, as being to convert the article topic from one of geography to one of ethnicity. And the main part of my response is exactly that, where I do use the exact term 'geography'. You requested some response regarding an issue concerning "ALL Germania" and I have adressed this issue by way of saying that I do not understand the sense of your sentence.

GPinkerton, Carlstak: I disagree with your idea that the corrected version of the first sentence is gibberish. GPinkerton: I find your following clause to be not obvious: "As a word with numerous semantic referents". I certainly hope you are referring to 'Germania', but I am not familiar with the expression "semantic referents". Your content-related comment "this article should be about classical period non-Roman Germania beyond the Rhine and Danube." shows to me that you have a naive comprehension of the term 'Germania', and I sort of wonder if you have actually read any of the various versions of the article? Perhaps your expectation is better met at, for example, Germanic peoples? GPinkerton, Carlstak: Please note that a simple discussion of the first sentence in the intro has exposed complex issues, which deserves a more stringent discussion focus. I am not preventing your point-of-views, but only advising you to not add further suggestions. Sechinsic (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be confused, Sechinsic. You don't have the authority to advise other editors to "not add further suggestions". You seem to think you are the Imperator of WP. Please do us all a favor and learn English. Carlstak (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sechinsic:, on the style and word choice issues, I tend to agree with the last two posts by GPinkerton and Carlstak, but on content, as a native English speaker who lives in continental Europe I do not understand the distinction you make between "describes" and "expressing". I also think saying that Germania is not a common term would be a reason for maybe even deleting this article, but then you say Peter Heather is an exception, and he is one of the biggest English language authors on such topics. It is very difficult to follow. I do think that you've drawn attention to a potential issue with Germania in the broadest possible sense, versus Germania Magna which does not include the Roman provinces called Germania, as explained above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your sentence mentioning "Germania is not a common term", I have to confess I read this as a muddled sentence. Saying that Germania is not a common term, seem to point out 'Germania' as definitely a niche term. But in medieval and as well classic history it is very well known. Today. What I wrote was that "in current academic literature the north-European region is very rarely referred to as 'Germania'", of course implicitly referring to the relevant academic literature. It is a worthwhile reflection if this should interpret as a cause for page deletion, and I dare to suggest the same holds true for the term 'Magna Germania'. My own viewpoint has already been expressed, very clearly, at the opening post of #Some corrections. You choose to emphasize Peter Heather's view, which is of course fair. However, his treatment of 'Germania' has to be held up against the contributions from the larger circle of medievalists. For example, Pohl has made the suggestion 'Germania' is the Roman idea of a territory inhabited by Germani - sourced to both the "Oxford Handbook", p.xvii and Pohl (2004) "Die Germanen",p.3. This does not correlate with the suggestion of 'Germania' as the Roman era term "for the large historical region in north-central Europe,".

To refocus: your objections to the corrected first sentence is not clear.

(1) can you explain to me, grammatically or by using literal quotes, how the change of the first sentence makes you think 'Germania' refer to the west of the Rhine?

[(2) dealt with below]

(3) you mention 'Magna Germania', but your sentence (here, in the discussion-post) is very compressed, and I fail to see what you are trying to show. Please clarify this.

Regarding your mentioning 'describes' & 'expressing'. I'll just restate the context:

(2) you seem to express confusion about the corrected first sentence, which reads

• Germania is a Latin term from the Roman era expressing a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples.

Out of that sentence you seek to understand that the article text describes "a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples". This is plainly a mistaken reading.

What I wanted to make obvious, was only that your understanding of the corrected first sentence as: "the article is now defined as a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples" does not fully restate the corrected first sentence. I may also add you are putting a determinative value into the first sentence that seem disproportional. Strictly speaking, the first sentence defines the word 'Germania', not the article text. Sechinsic (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As explained, you changed it so that "Magna Germania" and related terms distinguishing non-Roman Germania, were described as "similar terms" to the article topic (not the same). So this means they would no longer be the main topic. Those "similar" terms, which should be the main topic, were, you correctly said, used in English to contrast to the Roman provinces west of the Rhine. Three different editors are saying they find your text confusing, so I do not claim to understand your intentions, but this text certainly implies that you want "Germania" (the article topic) to NOT contrast with the Roman provinces. I believe we need to state clearly which Germania this article is about, right at the top. Maybe we need to consider a name change and more disambiguating.

I believe whichever passage you are looking at in Pohl it explains the origins of the modern English terminology which IS used by scholars of the late Roman empire (and not only Heather) when they write in English. In other words, it is a discussion for the etymology section. In contrast, the term Germania is not normally used by people writing English to refer to medieval or modern political entities, and it is not a term which should be used in careful language to describe places as inhabited by Germani in classical times. It is, for better or worse, defined instead by things like rivers and mountains. This is at least approximately based on classical usage, but of course differences can be noted in the main body as side issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It is quite a problem. However, none of the versions - the 'old' text, the revised text and the current text - has much to say on the lands of 'Magna Germania'. I guess what caused my lack of understanding your objection was partly that, and as well the obviously evidential rightness of the corrected first sentence.

As I see it, you have invented a problem. First, it is paradoxical that you so strongly defend the wish to describe territories east of the Rhine, when there is very little to no such information to be found, in the various versions. Secondly, it is also very trivial that the term 'Germania' is widely used, now and before, in place of 'Magna Germania'.

But, you may have a point, by bringing to attention a sort of cluttering of information. In the corrected form, this clutter may even present itself more sharply, in contrast to the muddled form, the long first sentence, where the informations were less easy to read, caused by 'syntax clutter'. In my revised text I have constructed a simple solution, that reads " Magna Germania, often just Germania, extended to" etc. The intro is the place to present the highlights, not a place to explain the details. But this still is problematic in the current article text, since neither of the terms 'Magna Germania' / 'Great Germania', 'Germania Libera' / 'Free Germania' and 'Germanic Barbaricum' are explained in the article text. I see this as a sign of something not well thought through, and also as a fait accompli. That's how the article text is written, so the variate terms has to flock and clutter in the intro.

I think this pretty much rounds up your response. Sechinsic (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading over the last posts I think it is necessary to clarify that I am responding to objections concerning the corrections to the first sentence, described in the discussion #The first sentence of the intro Sechinsic (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You never come to a point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

First sentence, etc...

Friends, I am just a WP reader, in regards to this article. But the first sentence is a problem. It states that Germania is a Latin term. The second sentence begins "it stretched roughly from xxxx...

A "Latin term" cannot "stretch[ed] roughly from the the Middle and Lower Rhine in the west to the Vistula in the east." This is a region, not a Latin term. I have made some changes, accordingly. Sorry if I have made mistakes, here, but it doesn't make sense, otherwise.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have happened during @GPinkerton's restoration [2]. I have now reverted the first sentence back to the corrected form, described in the two previous discussions. Sechinsic (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have not tried to understand the concern because the version you reverted to has the same problem. I also previously directed you to MOS pages explaining it. I will fix it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You have reverted and tweaked but insisted upon keeping the two "technical" problems which have been pointed out to you for several days. (1) The article should not be about a "term", and (2) "territorial understanding" is unclear. See above. I see no sign you have been looking at the concerns posted by others. I feel these are very avoidable problems, so your reversions without any sign of explanation seem concerning. We all have to work together on Wikipedia. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the disruptive changes made by the uncooperative, recalcitrant editor who ignores the input of other editors as well as WP policy. Carlstak (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This version [3] makes sense to the reader. First sentence: "Germania...was a large historic region".. Second sentence: "The region stretched roughly from..." The opening sentence provides a definition: Germania was a region. Second sentence tells us where the region was located.

The first sentence of the previous version [4], by Sechinsic, defines the word only, and is suitable for a dictionary entry for the word itself: "Germania is a Latin term from the Roman era expressing a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples." This is a dictionary definition, not the proper opening sentence for an article which discusses a geographical region, the people who lived there and the history of both. Obviously, the origin of the word (Latin term) may be discussed in the body of the article, but it is not suitable as the opening sentence for said article. The article is not about the word, it is about what the word represents, ie region/people/history. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!}

Please consider that the tone of responses and edit summaries has a value.

Starting with @Andrew Lancaster (0908 09:34), the compressed language makes it difficult to know what exactly is the message. @Andrew Lancaster's next post (0908 19:33) makes it clear that the issue is not the grammar, but more complex issues, referred to in @Andrew Lancaster's post as (1) & (2). The full description in @Andrew Lancaster's post is

• (1) The article should not be about a "term", and
• (2) "territorial understanding" is unclear.

Concerning (1),

this has been adressed shortly by my response to @Andrew Lancaster, 0906 18:38. Here's the excerpt from my response (@Sechinsic 0906 20:19)

• What I wanted to make obvious, was only that your understanding of the corrected first sentence as: "the article is now defined as a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples" does not fully restate the corrected first sentence. I may also add you are putting a determinative value into the first sentence that seem disproportional. Strictly speaking, the first sentence defines the word 'Germania', not the article text.

The links to WP:MOS occur in $Andrew Lancaster's post 0906 14:09.

• (A)WP:REFERS, (B)WP:ISAWORDFOR and (C)MOS:FIRST

Link A concerns the use of 'refers to'. I use this phrasing several times on the talk page, but it does not occur in the text corrections I have put forth. Link B is similarly irrelevant. Link C points to a bulleted list, where I actually find a couple of good matches for describing the clumsy-muddled first sentence I set out to correct:

• "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject"
• "Try not to overload the first sentence"
• and from the lead-in in MOS:FIRST also "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence"

Here I'll 'cherrypick' the bulletpoint that seems most relevant for the corrected form of the first sentence.

• "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible."

Finally, a note of caution. @Andrew Lancaster's issue (1) is synthetic:

• When 'Germania' is defined dictionary-like in the first sentence
• Then the article is about a term

This logic is not absolute, since a dictionary-like first sentence can also be read and understood as introducing a jargon.

Concerning (2),

this issue seems originally to have been

• (@Andrew Lancaster 0906 14:16) "the article is now defined as a territorial understanding of the Germanic peoples,"

and seemingly in conflict with @Andrew Lancaster's point (1). But the phrasing "territorial understanding" has also been critisized as gibberish:

• (@GPinkerton 0906 14:49) The phrase "territorial understanding ..." etc. is gibberish
• (@Carlstak 0906 16:14) "territorial understanding" is gibberish

and I have properly responded to this critiscm:

• (@Sechinsic 0906 17:51) I disagree with your idea that the corrected version of the first sentence is gibberish.

Conclusively, I see these objections - (1) & (2) - as already debated.

@Andrew Lancaster, 0908 19:33 has also pointed out my "reversions without any sign of explanation seem concerning.", but actually the revert and consequent changes carried lengthy edit summaries:

• (0908 17:45)(reversion) Changing suggestive WP:OR, see discussions, especially Talk:Germania#The first sentence in the intro, §2
• (0908 18:21) intro, 1st paragraph: syntax & fixing the indeterminate reference plus fixing impossible sentence "Archaeologically, these peoples correspond roughly to the Roman Iron Age of those regions." plus concretizing suggestive tone of last sentence
• (0908 18:30) intro, first paragraph: altering "Germanic people" to "Germanic-speaking people". This is a sourced statement, with afull quote given in the article.

Sechinsic (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally when 3 editors express clear disagreement with the proposal of another editor, then the other editor should accept that edit is not going ahead? If you think there is a special case here we can call in more members of the community for comment but honestly I don't see that changing anything in this case. I guess you are also concerned that several other edits of yours might have gotten caught up in your reversions, but the solution to that is simple: make those edits separately and/or discuss them separately, and stop trying to get through large bundles of changes if it is clear that there is concern from other editors about some of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)