Talk:Germanic Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ireland

Why is Ireland included in Germanic Europe? Irish people are Celtic in ancestry, and therefore should not be included in this grouping at all. Ronline ✉ 10:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, the concept "germanic Europe" says that every country (in Europe) with a Germanic language as a national one is part of it.Ireland has English, a Germanic language.Of course this doesn't mean they're "ethnicly germanic" if such a thing still exists in the 21th century... Sandertje 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the definition of Germanic Europe is a cultural one - which countries in Europe speak Germanic languages and are culturally "Germanic peoples". This includes the UK (specifically England), as well as Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Flanders, etc. Just because Ireland has English as an official language doesn't make it part of Germanic Europe. Malta also has English as an official language, but that doesn't make it part of "Germanic Europe". This definition should be more about heritage and culture than purely linguistics (of course, language is a good indicator of cultural ancestry, but the "national" language of Ireland is Irish, not English). And what strikes me as very very odd with the map is why Ireland is green, while Finland and Belgium is blue. In Finland, Swedish and Finnish are equal in status, but in Ireland, English is the "second official language" as specified by the Constitution. Ronline ✉ 06:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In Finland, Swedish is spoken by a small minority (~10% fluently). In Ireland, English is spoken by everyone (or at least in the high 90%). As for the cultural heritage, Dublin was founded by vikings. I don't understand why Ireland could not be part of both Celtic and Germanic Europe. (Of course, it could be because Irish national identity is based on the at best dubious idea that they have nothing at all in common with England.) Julian

So? That's got nothing to do with the definition.Besides that it's spoken by 100,000 to 2 million people, and English still is an official language.

But I don't see why Ireland shouldn't be in the Celtic Europe, you just have to make a small note and link to that article...

Sandertje 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, English is an official language, but that in itself doesn't change things. Maltese has English as an official language. In fact, in Malta English is equal with Maltese (which isn't the case in Ireland). Should Malta be drawn green on the map then? I don't see the difference, if we're looking at it in purely lingustic terms, which we shouldn't. Secondly, why is Ireland green when Finland is blue? Finland is blue because one of its official languages - Swedish - is Germanic. Ireland is the same case - Irish is official, but so is English, a Germanic language. But trying to imply from the map that English is the national language of Ireland is a bit chauvinistic, IMO. Ronline ✉ 06:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How many Irishmen and women speak English and how many of them speak Irish? English is a national languages of Ireland.

And, how can I be chauvinistic about English? It's not even spoken where I live...

Sandertje 13:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you were chauvinistic, just that the map is a bit chauvinistic. More importantly, however, it's important to understand that English is not the national language of Ireland. In the Constitution, Irish is mentioned as the first official language and national language of Ireland. English is the second official language. This is different even to Finland, for example, where Finnish and Swedish are actually equal in status (yet Finland is blue on the map and Ireland is not). Yes, English is spoken by more people, while Irish is only really used as a first language in the Gaeltacht, but since we're looking here at cultural divisions, Ireland should not be part of Germanic Europe just because English is used there as a medium of exchange. Languages should be used to determine cultural heritage, and therefore the situation is more complex than just looking at a list and saying "this country has English as an official language. Hence, it is Germanic". Under the definition, Malta should also be included, as I have said. The caption of the map says "Green: Countries where a Germanic language is the national language". English is not the national language of Ireland. It is not even a national language. Ronline ✉ 06:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The alter the map, and give a false impression that the entire island speaks Irish.I don't care. Sandertje 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But by leaving the map the way it is, we give a false impression that English is the only official language and that the whole island is Germanic in culture! Please understand this! I'll alter the map to make Ireland in blue. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Legal definitions are about politics. In linguistics though, a national language is the one that is spoken by the majority of the population of a country. In the case of Ireland, that is obviously English (only a small minority speaks Gaelic as first language). 161.24.19.82 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't embarrass yourself. Linguistics does not, and cannot determine the status of a national language. Designating a national language is always a political decision. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand ;-)

--Sandertje 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


What is the most spoken language in Ireland, English or Irish ? I don't know this country, but I'm not sure that everybody speaks Iraish in the streets of Dubblin ? Does everyone can understand Irish ?

--Fabb leb 19:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the majority of Irish people can speak Irish, but it is generally spoken as a second language. This is more of a practical than cultural issue, however, as English was traditionally spoken in Dublin (as it was the seat of British control over Ireland - 'the pale') even when most of the country spoke Irish. A further reason for the dominance of the English language in Ireland is the determined efforts of the British to kill the language, culture, and religious traditions of the Irish around the time of Cromwell, as well as the death and emigration during and after the great famine. Thirdly, whilst Ireland is (like everywhere in Europe) very ethnically mixed, Irish people (as well as a significant number of Scots and Welsh) are naturally much more celtic than germanic in origin (and in fact share strong genealogical connections with the population of northern Spain, South-western France and the Pyrenees: see Black Irish). Further, Irish culture is certainly not Germanic in origin.

The fact is that whilst yes, English is the dominant language in Ireland, this was not a natural occurrance but rather the result of the actions of an oppressive occupier whom considered the Irish to be racially and ethnically inferior. Whilst ethnicity in Europe can be quite a trivial issue - everything is extremely mixed - Ireland is by no means predominantly 'germanic' and should be removed from this list. There is also a case to be made for the removal of Scotland and Wales, as the 'germanic' influence in these countries is more the result of the economic, military and political dominace of England than any 'germanic' heritage.

If Scotland is to remain on this list, it should be changed to blue. Finland should be removed from the list and map on the same grounds as the republic of Ireland, otherwise the Czech Republic and perhaps Poland should be turned blue. - Dónal O'Cluanaigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-dizz (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regions

First, I heartily agree with Ronline's take on the Irish situation, and I'm very pleased he stuck with his guns! I'm wondering whether this map could not be improved by adding a regional dimension, so that, for example, South Tyrol is shown as being Germanic-speaking, and Wallonia is not. I don't think the number of regions so affected would be large, and I would volunteer to make the changes myself, unless others think it would be a bad idea. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. At the moment, Belgium is shown blue, but I think it would be more accurate to show Wallonia as grey and Flanders as green, and perhaps Brussels-Region as blue. Ronline ✉ 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Two questions here
1. Is this article based on anything or is it a piece of original research? Having lived in Ireland, I can guarantee that most Irishmen would take offence at the idea of Ireland being a part of "Germanic Europe". So please provide some external, scientific sources that define Germanic Europe by that name.
2. It's a good thing that the map has been updated, and it could be further updated. The Swedish parts of Finland and the German parts of Switzerland are just as Germanic as Flanders, so showing Flanders in green and all of Finland and Switzerland in blue is to invent a distinction that is not there. MartinTremblay 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alsace-Moselle ?

I agree that in Alsace, French Flanders and parts of Lorraine there is a history and tradition of Germanic origin, but including it at the same level with countries such as Germany or Netherland is purely wrong. It gives the wrong idea that everybody in Alsace, Lorraine or Flanders live in a germanic society; The reality is that the daily life (shops, offices, etc) is made only in French, and the huge majority of the population use only French, and don't speak at all any germanic language. Assuming that "ethnically" (if such a thing exist) the people of those region would be "germanic", is even more wrong. It is forgetting that those regions were home of thousands of Italians, Portuguese, Italians and Frenchs of other regions since the 19th century wich melted together, and more recently people from north Africa or black Africa. The "germanic" thing in those regions is more a folkloric/historical souvenir thing than a daily reality.

Is there in London or Berlin none Italians, Portugese, Turks, Pakistani or black peoples? By the way your conception over the melted society is far much alarming within the whole Netherland. In what Ireland is most Germanic than France's Flander or Alsatia? The ancestral language of Ireland is Irish Gaelic and this isn't owned by the germanic three althoug on other hand flemish and alemannic spring the both from Proto-Germanic. Furthermore did you know that English is the less germanic language (with about 40% made up of latin vocabulary) among the germanic family. Then about Finland, the major area of the country is of Finnic culture and language. --Snowballa68 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

--Fabb leb 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fabb leb, do you honestly believe people in the Netherlands or Germany wake up every morning thinking "I live in a Germanic culture" ?

Apart from that culture and language are things that are taught to you, you're not born with them. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:English_language#The_English_people_and_language_are_Romance

Rhode Islander 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYN

Find sources: Germanic Europe — news, books, scholar

without a single source showing that the term wasn't coined on-wiki, it is unclear whether this is a viable topic. dab (𒁳) 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

a websearch suggests that two usages need to be disambiguated:
  • "Germanic Europe" used as a historical term, referring to the migration period and the Middle Ages, in particular in Romanticist contexts.
  • "Germanic Europe cluster" a term in contemporary economics, as defined by
    • V Gupta, PJ Hanges, P Dorfman, Cultural clusters: methodology and findings (2002)
    • E Szabo, FC Brodbeck, DN Den Hartog , The Germanic Europe cluster: where employees have a voice , Journal of WorldBusiness, 2002
dab (𒁳) 07:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be a third option that is dominant on this page. Linguistic Germanic Europe (i.e. there where Germanic languages are spoken). Anyway the aim, ideas and meaning and ultimately value of this article are for now beyond me. Why do we need this at all???? Arnoutf 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This article seems extremely dubious to me. 'Notable Germanic Europeans' and Germanic countries (with, for some reason, depencies in the caribean) all the notable information in this article should (and I guess already is, as it is basically a copy and paste article) at Germanic peoples and Germanic languages.Rex 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it a modern sense "Germanic Europe" refers to the countries where German is the official language, that's how the term has been used in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms.--Rudjek 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge request

This is a weak excuse for an article as the above discussion hints. Imbuing the topic with encyclopedic significance seems to be largely original research. Its material should be merged with and it should redirect to Germanic languages and be done with it. — AjaxSmack 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any useful information about the Germanic languages on this page that isn't already at Germanic languages? If not, there shouldn't be a merger. —Angr 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed! - there's nothing here that would improve Germanic languages. Don't see the point of this page, frankly. --Pfold 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finland

No way should the whole of Finland be shown on the map. The Swedish speakers are 5.5% of the population and they concentrate in the coast of Ostrobothnia and Uusimaa. And of Uusimaa's population only circa 10% are Swedish speakers nowadays. And most Swedish-speaking Finns do consider themselves to be ethnically Finns. Thus this map is very offensive towards Finns. And the article is quite dubious generally as well... --88.114.235.214 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who the hell has put a pic of hitler here?

yes, some sick racist f*ck has again placed the pick of their good old friend adolf... This time as a notable northern european! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.96.226 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's not wrong per se, but it doesn't give any good connotations. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with putting hitler in? he was germanic. How is it racist?
Notable Germanic people: Hitler.
What is incorrect or racist about the above statement? Hitler was Germanic, and he is probably the most famous germanic person in history and he should therefore most certainly be included as a notable germanic person.
Secondly, would it not be racist to NOT include hitler? as I have said above hitler is probably the most famous germanic person in history, to exclude him would, in my eyes, be tantamount to denial, a cover-up if you like. If someone made a list of germanic people and only included those who have made a positive contribution to humanity, such as scientists, composers, queens, politicians and writers; whilst excluding those who have made a negative contribution to society, such as mass-murderers, I would see THAT as a very biased and racist view of Germanic people.(81.104.240.80 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
I guess Germanic as an ethnic term is rather fuzzy and could have bad connotation in itself, expecially linked with Hitler as notable, since his use/abuse of the idea of ethnicities led to such atrocities. Further comments? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah i agree. I can't think of any other movement or ideology that is pan-germanic expect for Hitler's third reich.(-- 81.104.240.80 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
Well, that's no reason in itself for him to stay. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
do we really need the pictures? I wonder how many of them would have thought of themselves as having any connection to "Germanic europe" in any case. Charlie Chaplin?Zebulin (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That's another issue. The concept is a little fuzzy. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit

Thats what this page is. Completely non-referenced, original research crap. i have tried to remove the most ridiculous parts, but this article should be merged with Germanic languages, or Germanic Peoples, or deleted Willy turner 16:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion, this article is pitiful in its claims. A 100 years ago La Tene culture wasn't even heard of, now its a culture reputed to have stretched from Ireland to Armenia to Moscovy, the linguistic history of "Germanic Europe," the entire basis of this article, is thus extremely suspect and basing it on archaic claims made by 18th century French Germanophiles or the folksy history passed down as "common knowledge" by grandfather to father to son is ridiculous. Bloody Sacha 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think it is enough to simply say bullshit.
As far I can see the article seems to be part of larger group of articles that about ethic groups, languages, peoples and geography. See other ethnic groups for reference.
see also
I think this article was modeled on the article Latin Europe, and thus I think the edits that Willy turner made yesterday were made too hasty. Don’t get me wrong I think the doubled information contained in these langauge/peoples/Europe articles should be removed and maybe the Europe articles should be merged with the language or peoples articles.
But, please before we start removing, editing, merging, deleting, ect… let’s come up with a common schematic article structure for these langauges instead of having one article for Germanic and ten for Latin and five for Slavic, (ect… ect…). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber Jack second account (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I propose this devision:

  • Ethnic (e.g. Celt, Germanic, Slav, Latins, ect )
  • Peoples (Latin peoples, Modern Celts, Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples)
  • Nations (Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Slavic Europe, Celtic Nations)
  • Languages (Romance languages, Germanic Languages, Slavic languages, Celtic Languages)


The Ethic article should: Describe the origin, the spread, the typical characteristics and culture of the Ethnicity. Describing the historic group.

The Peoples article should: Describe the modern ethnic group (groups) as of today.

The Nation article should: Describe the nations, territories, colonies where the language and/or culture is spread (Thus Ireland would be part of Celtic Nations (main, as well as part of Germanic Europe (sub), --- Romania would show up on Latin Europe (main), Slavic Europe (sub), Germanic Europe (sub) and Uralic Europe).

The Language article should: Describe the language with language box, origin/history, Branches, Distribution/Spread, Vocabulary/Grammar/Phonology

---Lumber Jack- 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there's too much room for overlap between the "ethnic" and "peoples" groups, and too much room for OR in the "nations" group. If the article Germanic Europe is to stay, it needs to show that the European countries where Germanic languages are spoken share some sort of common culture, and it needs to cite sources to back up that claim. Right now, it seems to be just a copycat of Latin Europe, which frankly isn't much better in this regard. Basically, the question is, do sociologists agree that there is some sort of unified entity described as "Germanic Europe"? If not, this page needs to be deleted or merged elsewhere. And the same goes for all of the others. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I would rather not say that there is not such a thing as Latin Europe, Slavic Europe or Celtic Nations Celtic Europe I think this article should stay.

However it’s style should change. As far as I can see the article Latin Europe is modeled after the article Latin America, and Germanic Europe is modeled after Latin Europe.

After further research, here is a new proposal Latin Europe and Germanic Europe should be modeled after Latin Africa (size, content, ect…)

The excess and doubled information in the articles should be split up as follows

Germanic Europe

  • Language, Germanic influences on the rest of the world (picture) should go to Germanic languages
  • Population & Notable Germanic Europeans should go to Germanic peoples under a new section
  • English, Dutch and Afrikaans, German, Frisian, Anglo-Saxon/Englisch should be added to Germanic languages, merged into their separate languages or erased.
  • Cities should be erased.
  • The countries, dependent territories or autonomous areas should stay
  • Maybe short introductions to Germanic Language and Germanic Peoples should stay, referring to the Main article:

Latin Europe

  • Language should go to Romance languages
  • Population & Notable Latin Europeans should go to Latin peoples (linguistic) under a new section
  • The countries, dependent territories or autonomous areas should stay
  • Maybe short introductions to Romance Language and Latin Peoples should stay, referring to the Main article:

---Lumber Jack- (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Gaelic is an official language in Scotland because of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, the map should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.236.238 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] country

should switzerland not be included in germanic europe as well there is a majority german speaking population there they are included in latin europe but they should be here also--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it should if it's not already. The majority of the country speaks German. Kman543210 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

yes thanks for responding because this country is latin and germanic i mean this article mentions a swiss population further down the article but it does not have the country flag in the box--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added Switzerland. The article states that between 62-72% of people speak German. Although I'm not sure why all the dependencies are listed that are not in Europe; I don't think they should be included. 00:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)