User talk:Tmarac

User page examples

Look at the User pages of people who reply to queries at Teahouse, as they tend to be experienced, long-time Wikipedians. Many (me for example), use existing Userboxes to provide information about their editing intentions. I recommend starting with just a small amount of info - and nothing personal (email, websites, photos of yourself, etc.). P.S. New-to-Wikipedia editors have been kicked out for spending all their time on their User page and no efforts to improve articles. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you, I am just learning how to participate on a talk page.Tmarac (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Germanic peoples and Visigoths

Greetings Tmarac - Lengthy academic debate has occurred around the nomenclature of Germanic peoples on Wikipedia Talk Pages for years (including discourse on the respective Vienna, Toronto, and Oxford schools of thought on the matter). As a PhD, who specialized in Late Antiquity and the identity relationships between the Romans and Germanic-language speaking people, I understand exactly what you mean. Much of the late 20th, early 21st century vitriolic debate was part of a corrective since 19th and early 20th century racialists (sadly - historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other social scientists) wrecked this topic and made into something it never should have became. However, there is no other real way to categorize these people without crossing into the (well, Swedes, modern Germans, Austrians, Danes, Swiss, Norwegians...etc. all speak Germanic languages) "they're all interrelated" crapola. It does not matter whether one says Germanic or Germanic-speaking, since the two are almost universally considered synonymous to the uninitiated masses. Honestly, I favored referencing them exclusively using the German-language term Germanen or calling them "ancient Germanic peoples" but Wikipedia editorial consensus was to simply keep them as Germanic peoples. If you carefully read the Germanic peoples article—linked on the Visigoths and Ostrogoths page alike—you'll find the Goths (both groups) and others in this category are given very astute academic coverage and so is the topic of identity. This includes discussion of the speciousness and dangers of modern identity conflation. Much of the page was written by a first-class scholar of Germanic linguistics and literature who goes by the pen-name Ermenrich. It was also QC'd and similarly worked by other subject matter experts (all of whom are aware of the literature and various interpretations) to arrive where it did. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, in this case (as a fellow historian/scholar of Classics and antiquity), I strongly encourage you to thoroughly read the Germanic peoples page and leave the classification issue as it stands. Once you do, I think you'll feel more comfortable with the label "Germanic peoples" than you might have otherwise. Glad you've joined the project. We could all use some help with the very lightly covered figures of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. I've been working on the barbarian warlord kings (Germanen) off and on for the last couple of years, and could use another scholar eager to help. Regards. Obenritter (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply. I carefully read the germanic peoples page before making my edit. I made the change as a way to put less focus on the loaded term, especially for people who are not medieval scholars. I truely think it is a more accurate description. I had planned to add the germanic peoples article to the list of see also articles.

Thanks again for your reply. I like your "ancient Germanic peoples" best of all. Perhaps that could be an edit? Thanks, Terry Tmarac (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Obenritter,

I think that relying on the germanic peoples article as a way for readers to get context about the term "Germanic peoples" is a case of shunting the volatile issue off the main article. Here is Mile Horswell's explaination of this term.Therefore I still think the article could be improved by altering that statement which comes right at the beginning.

”The approach of shunting this material into a separate article repeats the process identified by René König with regard to arguments that overwhelmed the capacity of article editors to manage the debate through other means: ‘the community reacts to this overload by marginalizing alternative interpretations and immunizing the article from them" (1)

1.Mike Horswell, ‘Wikipedia and the crusades: constructing and communicating Crusading’, in The Crusades and the Modern World: Engaging the Crusades, Volume Two (Abingdon, Routledge: 2019), pp. 111-129 Tmarac (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Obenritter,

I was reading the Visigoths article and note the following statement:

"Such understanding of their origins is largely the result of Gothic traditions and their true genesis as a people is as obscure as that of the Franks and Alamanni. The Visigoths spoke an eastern Germanic language that was distinct by the 4th century."

Therefore I still think that the statement Germanic peoples is an awfully definite label without the context that the antecendents of the Visigoths came from the east but perhaps way beyond and further east. Somehow it should be made clearer that their true genesis is obscure.

Thanks again for your note. In general my critique of the articles on wikipedia is that they make historical information sound more definite that the scant sources really allow. I am reading Roger Collins book The Arab Conquest of Spain. After 711 some of the Visigothic nobility kept their estates, and it was more about collecting taxes. But how to get this idea across is difficult when the 711 date means conquest and then the reader thinks that the entire culture has instantly switched to Muslim.

Thanks again, Terry

PS what did you mean by the message to Andrew "OMG, please don't Andrew. LOL"? as a newcomer I am curious about the protocols for editing? Tmarac (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)