Talk:Goths

Template:Vital article

---

Untitled

Archives: Archive 1

History

The only source for early Gothic history is Jordanes' Getica (finished in 551 or around 1850), a condensation of the lost twelve-volume history of the Goths written in Italy by Cassiodorus around 530. Jordanes may not even have had the work at hand to consult from, and this early information should be treated with caution. Cassiodorus was well placed to write of Goths, for he was an essential minister of Theodoric the Great, who apparently had heard some of the Gothic songs that told of their traditional origins.

Several historians, including Peter Heather and Michael Kulikowski, argue that Jordanes' Getica presents a fictional genealogy of Theodoric and fictional history of the Goths for ancient propaganda purposes, and cast doubt on the Scandinavian origin, on the supposed royal dynasties, and on the supposed 4th-Century Kingdom of Ermaneric.

• Actually Jordanes work is known only from edition of German politician and writer Theodore Mommsen. The 'Jordanes original manuscript' has been supposedly burn in Mommsen house by his elderly handicapped ancestor. The fact that nobody presented references, to any scholar mentioning Getica before 1800, doubts the document existence in older times. Also computer (n-gram) statistical algorithm, obviously ignorant of 'Mommsen Monumental Works', recognize the major text, of 'Goth language', text as Czech or Polish. Czech Prag is the place where from the Codex Argentus was forcefully taken. All the surrounding facts point to Mommsen, who was enough good Latin writer to received Noble Price in literature.

What do you think about adding the section above ? Any obejction ?

Re: Getica can you provide sources for your addition? If you can provide good scholarly citations, it will be very relevant, though probably still controversial. Jacob Haller 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Codices Argenteus et al. there are several codices and fragments. I'm not sure whether the Argenteus was found in Praha but the Speyer fragment wasn't and other Gothic texts or fragments derive from Italy and elsewhere. Although the extant Gothic texts use their own alphabet (modified from the Greek), they use the same uncial writing styles as late antique Greek and Latin texts. Jacob Haller 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Goth Language" see Gothic language for differences between Gothic and the Slavic languages. If you start reading the Gothic corpus, Grimm's Law is very noticable. Other features (the four-case system, ablaut, the two-tense system with present, preterite and the use of the verb "to will" to show the future and future perfect, etc.) also show ties with the Germanic languages. Jacob Haller 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and one evolved from the other (the Slavic pronunciation came first). A sound shift does not a new people make (nor even a new language). So, if you follow your own argument, the Goths are split off from proto-Slavic (which would explain a lot of toponymic similarities). Indeed, if it weren't for the few sound shifts, we would be calling Germanic languages Slavic. A very great deal was made of this in the 19th century, but this is the 21st century - and other things, such as genes, are at play as well.--LeValley 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

References

High German Connection

Can anyone tell me if Gothic was spoken in what became Germany in the Dark Ages? Its never mentionned whether it was, and Im wondering what was spoken there prior to Old High German.80.192.4.73 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gothic was never widely spoken in Germany (and I am surprised that someone has put a "Germany project" banner on this page). The indigenous population of southern Germany is believed to have spoken Celtic dialects (later probably mixed with Vulgar Latin).--Berig 13:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises because German culture was called "Gothic" by the Italians in the 15th century. This was a contemptuous nickname more or less equivalent to "barbarian". Recognizable Gothic probably didn't arise before the 2nd century, in the Ukraine, and was later spoken, of course, in Romania, former Yugoslavia, Italy, southern France and Spain, but never in Germany. That said, if you include Vandalic, which for all we know was practically identical to Gothic, Vandalic was spoken in what is now Poland and the Czech Republic, and spilled over into Austria and/or southern Germany before they moved forther west to France, Spain and Africa. So, if you like, Gothic (Vandalic) was spoken in souther Germany, if only for a decade or two in the early 400s. dab (𒁳) 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Encarta?

I just wondering, do we really Encarta in here? I see a attribution to it [third paragraph] John Manuel-22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I now deleted that paragraph, about Gothic origins. /Pieter Kuiper 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jordanes

A literal reading of Jordanes is definitely a fringe view. The 1490 BC crap should be removed from the intro. Jacob Haller 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is crap written by Jordanes. It tells us something about Jordanes' reliability. One cannot just pick the pieces from Jordanes that one likes (the emigration myth), and discard the rest. This view of Jordanes is not fringe - read: Michael Kulikowski (2007). Rome's Gothic Wars. ISBN 0521846331. /Pieter Kuiper 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Kulikowski overstates the case - I think that without Jordanes, the linguistic evidence still points to strong Germanic influences - but my point is that there are two common models, either (1) throw Jordanes out, or (2) substantially reinterpret Jordanes, yet the intro begins "The Goths (Gothic: gutans, Gutans) were an East Germanic tribe who, according to Jordanes, left Scandinavia in 1490 B.C., settled close to the mouth of the Vistula river (in present day Poland), and settled Scythia, Dacia and parts of Moesia and Asia Minor about a millennium before the common era. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, they harried the Roman Empire and later adopted Arianism (a form of Christianity). In the 5th and 6th centuries, by dividing into the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths they established powerful successor-states of the Roman Empire in Italy and on the Iberian peninsula (now Spain & Portugal)." and I would suggest trimming that to "The Goths (Gothic: gutans, Gutans) were an East Germanic tribe who, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, harried the Roman Empire and later adopted Arianism (a form of Christianity). In the 5th and 6th centuries, by dividing into the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths they established powerful successor-states of the Roman Empire in Italy and on the Iberian peninsula (now Spain & Portugal)." or some such. Jacob Haller 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that intro should be uncontroversial. After that, something should be done about the "origins" section. It should be much less prominent than what it is now, and more representative of modern views. Or make it plural: "were East Germanic tribes". /Pieter Kuiper 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To get a perspective one should know that there were remarkably good connections between Scandinavia and east Mediterranean in the nordic bronze age. The Kiviks grave and also similarities of symbols on rock carvings that also appears in Greece at this time, are among the strongest clues to that. Also findings of amber in Egypt, that has its origin around The Baltic Sea. So at least don't use the word crap. Mange Andersson 83.253.245.169 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, yes. Some have you have discovered the ancient source problem. All the sources are like that, you know. If the discovery of a false report makes an author totally unworthy of credibility then we have no ancient history. So, some of most authors has to be discounted, but there is a method. You look for substantiation elsewhere. Right now this article is a bit one-sided; however, I will be addressing that soon. A second approach looks for falsity to be substantiated elsewhere. But what do you do then? Well, if something is shown to be wrong, you discount it. Otherwise you have no reason not to accept it. The principle is familiar to us: innocent until proven guilty. So, until someone shows me that Jordanes is wrong then I believe everything he says. If I do not then there can be no ancient history. All the mediaeval writers write the same way: first the items of tradition or belief, then what the author knows. For the earlier times, we are pretty sure no pharohs of Egypt fought it out with the Goths in the Bronze Age. The names he cites are not Germanic. It appears as though he got some Alanic names and traditions, but that is a theory that would have to be proved. A lot of Jordanes is independently verified. We are as safe as anyone in using that. I see that this is the first acquaintance of some of you with the methods and assumptions of ancient history, or indeed history. I hope that you go further; however, this is not a new field, or an unscientific one, or a hobby field where whatever anyone says goes. Jordanes is pretty standard and so pretty much is incredibility of his earliest events. Best wishes, I hope you go further.Dave (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Need I remind everyone that this article is about Goths? Not about mediterranian influences on bronze age Scandinavia, which as yet is to be proven to be Germanic or Finnic; nor about Jordanes' Getica;

2. Take a peak at Imre Lakatos: using auxiliary hypotheses to provisionally reject facts contradicting the main clauses of a theory is established practice in all science, but the rejections must be properly explained in a critical audience,

3. A special remark for involved Swedes: don't get stingy and fire up for nothing (against "crap"), we're speaking English here in an English speaking culture! Just calm down and forget about Sweden's troubles for a while!

Said: Rursus (☻) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotar compared to 'gotra' of Indo-Aryan

Gotar is also like the word gotra meaning race, linege in Sanskrit and originally only referred to people of Vedic birth right.

The same is with 'Jaata' which is like the word Jute. Jaata also is like Gotra meaning birthright, linege. The word jati is related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can produce some kind of credible literature on this, feel free to do so. Until then, let's keep 'Jats' off the "See also" list, ok? Aryaman (☼) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly POV

This article is so pathetically POV it's not even funny. NOTHING about music, graveyards, poetry, darkness or tips on how to dye your hair black and stuff. You think Goths are old fashioned? There is Goth websites and everything. You people are not living in the real world, we're nothing like this article anymore. Try hanging out at a Goth club for a weekend (if anyone asks you for blood, run) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.187 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for Goth subculture. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To the literatur list you should add the two dissertations by Arne Søby Christensen (Cassiodur, Jordanes and the muth of the Goths (2002) and Ingemar Nordgren (2004), The Well Spring of the Goths. 87.57.197.10 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen

Great Floor Mosaic

As far as I can discover no one makes an identification of the head in the scroll of the Great Palace Mosaic with a Goth and the mosaic is not about Goths. There is nothing in it to identify any part of it as Gothic. The head is between motifs that are of hunting and is called a venator by some. Not even the chief scholar who studied it, Jobst, makes a Gothic identification. Moreover the definite dating to the time and palace of Justinian is a bit premature. The issue is not settled; proposals are still being made. So much as we would like to have a known picture of a Goth this is not it. There are plenty of representations of Gothic kings, popes, saints, ogres, what have you. Find one somewhere else.Dave (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Passage from etymology

The number of similarities that existed between the Gothic language and Old Gutnish, made the prominent linguist Elias Wessén consider Old Gutnish to be a form of Gothic. The most famous example is that both Gutnish and Gothic used the word lamb for both young and adult sheep. Still, some claim that Gutnish is not closer to Gothic than any other Germanic dialect.

I took this out of etymology because it has nothing at all to do with the etymology of Goth. It's not a bad summary except I've already seen parts of it in the language articles. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used but only not under etymology. If it is still around when I get to language I will consider using it.Dave (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You did correct. As much as I know, Wessén's opinion is not that well supported today, because the similarities might be due to archaisms in both languages. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Goths v. Goth

There should at least be a disambiguation link at the top of this page for goth and perhaps a diambiguation page. Currently this term links only to this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Malplaced clause

In the end of the Language section, this clause:

The Gutar (Gotlanders) themselves had oral traditions of a mass migration towards southern Europe, written down in the Gutasaga. If the facts are ...snip... in the Germanic language family.

Firstly: why is this in the language section? It should be in a folklore section. Secondly: in some cases, f.ex. in the Gotlandian tell-tale "sedan träsket brann" ("since when the lake was afire", meaning "since far-far ago") regarding Fardume Träsk (the sole important lake on Gotland), the folklore have since been attested by the archeological remains of burned buildings built over the lake on pileworks, but folklore as such is a weak argument in the Gotlandian case, since the Guta Saga could as well have collected its stories from the history of the Langobards who allegedly copycated their sagacious history from the Goths, so: do we actually need that paragraph? Said: Rursus (☻) 09:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I solved (?) this by moving it to Symbolic legacy, where I think (IMHO) it is better suited. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

An anonymous contributor, apparently from Lithuania, had many inline comments about this article which can be seen in this diff. FreplySpang 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolfram

Seems to me Wolfram makes three main points about the the Goths. 1- The grave goods did not include weapons. Burial customs should be in the archeology section. But I don't have an archeological source just History of the Goths. 2- The Kingship was stronger than in most other tribes. 3- They were inclusive; that is you could join the tribe, you didn't have to be inborn. I'm not at all certain if or where these belong in this article, but it seems that the ability to easily become a Goth was an essential element of their 1,000 year history of kingdoms in areas from the Baltic to the Black Sea and finally to the Atlantic and Mediterranean.Nitpyck (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Map showing Ulmerugi-Ulmigeria-Culmigeria

removal. Map showing Ulmerugia or UlmegeriaMap from 1500s in ancient Prussia was removed by a user who repeatedly removes references. Observing (70.133.64.127 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

goty=THIUDA = "ти иуда"?

Немцы - "девче" или "ти иуда"? А может всё-таки пастухи-кочевники, безъязыкие?

-Deutsche: "девче" : DEVA "мариша", teuton=тевтон. 1188-1241

-THIUDA: готическое слово"tHiuda" от которого немцы ведут своё самоназвание означает "ти иуда". Потому-что раньше слова писали слитно из-за экономии бумаги, а буква "Н" означала также гласную, либо украинское "и", либо украинское "ї", либо словянскую букву "ять". z. B. de Kooplüde vun de düdesche Hanse.

-пастухи-кочевники, безъязыкие: νέμω, νέμο, νέμεται, немые 6) пасти скот, заниматься скотоводством ex. (ν. τε καὴ ἀροῦν Plat.) οἱ νέμοντες Xen. — пастухи 7) пасти ex. (κτήνη Plat.; τέν δάμαλιν Luc.) тж. med. использовать в качестве пастбища ex. (τὰ ὄρη Xen.) τὸ ὄρος νέμεται αἰξί Xen. — на горе пасутся козы; νέμεσθαι ἐπὴ τῇ κρήνῃ Hom. — пастись у источника

немец Vasmer: Ошибочна также гипотеза о первонач. знач. «кочевник» и родстве с греч. νέμω «пасусь», νομή «пастбище», νομάς «кочевник», νέμος «лес», лат. nemus, -oris «роща». —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.107.108 (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Scythian Goths

The Scythian Goths is a strange definition, maybe is useful to modify this? CristianChirita (talk) in order to show that anciet sources used the therm Scythian show a geographic area.CristianChirita (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fritigern

Are there any recent scholarly works which substantiate the claim that Fritigern was a king? Kulikowski avoids saying one way of the other. Not all major Gothic leaders of the period were kings. Marja Erwin (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Kulikowski has an opinion about that(not regarding the Fritigern in particulary,but as a general observation), regarding the titles. As far I remember he use the judes, and ...It is in the book :) As an personal observation,( Please keep in mind that I'm not having any reference) till the late medieval period the valachian rules in the area ocupied by the goths in late antiquity were named judes.CristianChirita (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological records for Goths on the Roman Borders

I removed this section since it largely duplicates the corresponding section under Migration. The quote from Madgearu has some interesting information, but as it stands it is poorly translated and not well integrated into the article. Long quotes like this should be paraphrased and tied into the article, not dumped in verbatim as quotes. -- Elphion (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Undoubtfull the roman limes are within Cernijakov culture. I can't with Ceriniakov unde the migration, because the migration is contested by some hystorians like Kulicowski. The ideea that all the acheological research was biased by Jordanes make sense.Considering the we will never know the real truth, some doubts must exist on the migration theory.CristianChirita (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like suggestions on the division into periods. We could do something like Baltic Sea (including the Weilbark Culture) / Black Sea (including the claimed migration, the Chernyakhov Culture, and the Goths on the Roman Borders) or we could use centuries, with some overlap. Marja Erwin (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest something like Baltic Sea, Archaeological remains from the Black Sea, and Historical accounts from Greeks and Romans (or Historical accounts of conflict with Greeks and Romans). -- Elphion (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Why does this list sources with passing mentions of the Goths, lost sources (Cassiodorus' history), fraudulent sources (the Historia Augusta) and sources with no connection to the Goths? I have taken the liberty of cutting Arrian's "Order of Battle Against the Alans" from the list. Marja Erwin (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They are no more fraudulent sources, then Jordanes, which is based on a lost history, and even lost Cassiodorus is mentioned by others, you have right about Arrian, it was a source used by Ammianus as an inspiration source, still regarding the Adamclisi Metope I belive that the germanic tribes in the first century were similar with the germanic tribes from second century.CristianChirita (talk)

Could someone point out to me where to find Ambrose's reference to Athanaric's royal titles in De spiritu sancto? Paragraph 15 of this edition seems to contain nothing of the sort. Iblardi (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's paragraph 17 of that version - iudex is interpreted as a translation of Athanaric's title. It was paragraph 15 of the version I checked earlier today. Marja Erwin (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Postea vero quam fidei exsules abdicavit, hostem ipsum iudicem regum, quem semper timere consueverat, deditum vidit, supplicem recepit, morientem obruit, sepultum possidet. Quantos ergo et Constantinopoli, quantos postremo toto hodie in orbe mundasti!" I think that's the passage in question. Marja Erwin (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gothic groups

I suggest someone read Heather in particular about the formation of Gothic groups, which is not much dealt with in this article. Ie the Tervingi and Greuthingi were 3rd century groups, amongst others not mentioned. In the 5th century, several groups existed. Only later did the Visigoth and Ostrogoth 'supergroups' emerge after the turmoil and political re-orientation in the post-Hunnic era. 121.209.233.173 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting (and major) point.--LeValley 05:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions

If you accept the theory that the Goths originaly lived on the coast of the Baltic sea is it not safe to asume that they;

1. Had regular contact with the people of southern Sweden, who lived only a couple of days journey away by boat and who probably had incentive to trade with their southern neighbors?

2. If they had regular contact with each other and used the same name to describe themselves (or a simular name), then is it not likely that they considered themselves to be the same people?

I think that to much focus in the article and in this discussion has been put on where the Goths originated from. I mean where do the French originate from? Where do the Russians orginated from? Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask- did the Goths consider themselves to be the same as the people of southern Sweden and there maybe Jordanes can give some answeres.

FP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.186.173 (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Gutans

please stop restoring the "Gothic: Gutans" without attestation. Least of all in Gothic Unicode. It suggests that the name is actually recorded in Gothic, or even in Gothic script. This is not the case. Feel free to explain "Gothic *Gutans, reconstructed from such and such evidence by this and that author (year)(page)". Please try to remember we are an encyclopedia, not a Unicode test page. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pietroassa ring: gutaniowihailags often interpreted as "holy (is) the worship place of the Goths". The early form used by the Goths themselves was prob * gutanos. Strabo mentions "Goutones", Plinius "Gutones", Tacitus "Got(h)ones", Ptolemy (some of them) "Gythones". The gotlandians use the derived form Gutna alþing for their tings. I would guess * gutans was singular, and * gutanos plural. Aside from that, there aren't many alternative options. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Or better, see Ring_of_Pietroassa#Reconstruction_and_interpretation. The name "gutans" is simply trivially known for us who know Gothic, but of course such a name needs attestations, citations to reliable secondary sources. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect (comment moved from top of page)

This article is full of errors and presents old and mostly outdated academic views. The arcticle even gives the impression that the authors seek to foster a kind of Swedish nationalism (so called Swedish Gothicsism). With the actual known history of the Goths this article has very little to do. This article is beyond repair and needs to be re-written in a balanced and academically sound manner.

The best source to base a new article on the Goths on is Michael Kulikowski's "Rome's Gothic Wars", which, despite its narrow title, deals with the entire known history of the Goths. G.H., historian of late antiquity and early medieval history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.254.25 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely this article is heavyily slanted toward 'traditionalist' explanations which have been extensively critiqued by Gofart and Kulilowsky; and needs some serious scholarly attention. Nevertheless, even tho one might aree with nwer interpretations, all sides do need to be presented Hxseek (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship is not a citation

"Mainstream scholarship" (as in textbooks published by academic presses and textbooks published for university use) do NOT agree that G^t/G^Θ comes from Sweden! Quite the opposite. Since the early 19th century, linguists have proposed all manner of names for the pre-PIE (now usually just called PIE, as it's being pushed back in time well before 8000BP), such as Nostratic. But the sound sequence was already there and the toponyms of Sweden follow far more general rules than just Scandinavian or Germanic rules.--LeValley 03:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Legacy of the Goths? Removed entries

Modern cultural Goth subculture

[[:File:Asterixcover-asterix and the goths.jpg|thumb|right|Asterix and the Goths by Rene Goscinny depicted the Goths (portrayed as Germans) as militaristic barbarians.]]

The meaning of what Goths represented or stood for is various among societies. The Goths are perceived to be both barbaric in appearance but shown intelligence to overcome a great deal of struggle and adversity, and Goths were renowned a class of skilled warriors in the Western Roman Empire and the Dark Ages of Europe. The term "Gothic" came to mean dark, macabre, morbid and depressing in Western Europe.

In modern times, the "Goths" are more known as a subculture developed by teenagers in the western world in the 1980s and 90's. Their characteristics of Goth subculture involved the formation of social cliques among each other, the choice of gothic fashion: dress is dark macabre clothing styles, applied face "corpse paint" makeup and dyed black hair, body piercing, some spoke of a marked fascination in death and depressing topics (though a stereotype) and avid fanfare in heavy metal (esp. black metal and death metal) rock music songs or bands. It is unclear whether the "Goth" namesake is linked with knowledge in history about the Goths of ancient times unrelated to the cultural trend in the 1990s and 2000s, thus the meaning of Gothic is interpreted differently in the 21st century.

Gothic Ancestry and the Chilean Race myth

In the South American country of Chile, the Goths appeared in literary work of military officer and physician Nicolas Palacios in his 1910's novel La Raza Chilena. He wrote a national mythology on the origin of the Chilean people, as descendants of "non-Latinized" (Visi)Goths in Spain, a martial race from Gotaland (Modern day southern Sweden) arrived in northern Spain in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Their descendants the Spanish people esp. in the La Rioja region (formerly the province of Logrono of Castille and Leon) of Spain lived apart from their "Latinized" neighbors.

Palacios explained later the Spaniards of Gothic origin settled the Southern Cone of South America in the late 16th century when Chile and Argentina was a Spanish colony. They heavily intermarried with another martial race, the indigenous Mapuche to produce a mestizo Chilean race, but with (theorotic) evident Germanic characteristics, according to Palacios, found in both physiology and psychology of Chileans. His book was based on myth of Chile's racial identity relating to tales of bygone Goths of medieval Spain, but he insisted the Gothic ancestors went "unmixed" with Castilians lacked evidence to be proven a fact. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Getica is not Gothica

Because of Jordanes confusion between Getae and Gots, large parts of Getic and Dacian history were introduced in the history of some germanic populations. Some historic events are distorted following this confusion. Caracalla (in 214) received Geticus Maximus and Quasi Gothicus titles following battles with gets and goths. Also Belizarius received Geticus title after battles against gets. Iordanes history (Getica) it is impossible to be credible after all these confusions. Readder (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)readderReadder (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Goths are not Getae

Several historians, including Peter Heather, Arne Søby Christensen and Michael Kulikowski, argue that Jordanes' Getica presents a fictional genealogy of Theodoric and fictional history of the Goths for ancient propaganda purposes, and cast doubt on the Scandinavian origin, on the supposed royal dynasties, and on the supposed 4th-Century Kingdom of Ermaneric.[2][3] Readder (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)readderReadder (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Recceswinth

Is there any point in including the anachronistic, historically inacurrate image of Recceswinth, which IP 96.224.various.avatars from NYC keeps inserting? And if we do include it, should it not go with the discussion of the nobility in Spain (under "Legacy"), since its primary purpose is to glorify the latter? -- Elphion (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly not appropriate as a lead image and I am not convinced it is more appropriate than the image of the statue of Pelagius in the legacy section, which is what it would have to replace.--SabreBD (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Elphion and Sabrebd. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Era Style- CE Current Era

This Wikipedia article about the Goths shows consistently dates of BC, AD : 567 AD , 1st millennium BC, 4th century BC, ca 1300- ca 300 BC, 1300 BC, 300 BC and AD 100), yet its shows one single date as 1200 CE.

I changed this to AD to conform to the style used in the article, but was reverted with the claim that scholars now use CE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goths&diff=524060598&oldid=524059067 .

I corrected it again and pointed out the inconsistency of that one date (1200 CE in an article of BC's and AD's).

It was changed back to CE with the comment to look up the Wikipedia article about Common Era http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goths&diff=524094952&oldid=524089113

Well, exactly, wikipedia states

• that CE and BCE are used by some scholarly or religious writings.
• Either may be appropriate.
• Use either BC AD or BCE CE notation consistently within same article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.206.15 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

germanic

there is no such thing as germanic. thet's an imagination of sabbatean/frankists and vatican. you have indo-iranians(slavs) and north african gatherers in europe and thats all about diversity.212.13.65.14 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Hey it is already known that the Wielbark culture is not related to the Gothic invasion. The link between "Scanza" and Black sea the Wielbark culture does not exist,because the Wielbark culture was not Gothic. Please stop speculate that Goths came from this pinky god forgotten island east of Sweden as arceologist prooved this:

However, archaeologists are wary of ascribing ethnicities to archaeological cultures, and it is considered to be an extremely difficult matter. This is reflected by the names used for the cultures, usually baptised after the towns where remains are found. The latest tendency is to doubt the equation between the Wielbark Culture and the Goths, and contemporary researchers do not believe that immigration from Scandinavia is the sole cause of the Wielbark Culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture

The real Goths came from the east, most possible Ural mountains went south to Scythia minor and Sarmatia. They came exactly in 2-3rd centuries along with Hunnic-bulgar invasion. Maybe then in 2-3rd centuries some migrated to the north.

Ugly as a Goth

In my city (northern Portugal, the Germanic early settlers were the Suebi, conquered by the Visigoths) we have an expression which is "Feio como um gode" which means "Ugly as a Goth", to mean people who are very ugly as in "That guy is ugly as a Goth". I always found this expression curious as people also use it naturally, not knowing who the Goths were, must be similar to Vandals (which has the meaning everybody knows), but as expected nothing is written about it. People here also call "gode" to round river stones. Dont know if similar expressions are found elsewhere (most notably in Spain and France) or something was written about it in medieval texts.--Pedro (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, I always heard "feio como um bode" or "ugly as a goat". I'm pretty sure this expression is much more spread across the entire country and Galiza too. Perhaps in your village people use this new version of my traditional expression. Perhaps some one said it the wrong some day and it "stuck". Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.71.87.106 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious

The root in Gdańsk & Gdynia is gъd-, used in various placenames in many Slav countries with the meaning 'wet, marshy/swampy'; see https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk#Toponimia & https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdynia#Toponimia for references. 46.186.34.99 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Where were they settled after the Adrianople revolt?

Trying to find where this info is located in Wikipedia, it just seems to mention "They were given land in Roman territory" after the Gothic Wars, but doesn't specify where (I believe it was northern Bulgaria?). I've looked at the Goths, Visigoths, Thervingi, Gothic War, Battle of Adrianople and Alaric I pages but can't seem to find this stated anywhere (unless I'm not looking closely enough).

I know they moved around a bit but surely as terms of the peace they were given a specific area of land rather than just told to "mingle"? Harshmustard (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

vestrogoths

Anyone have information on who the vestrogoths were?

Rescued comment by another user from Archive

Moved

The above comment was posted in an archive by Modredd, presumably by mistake. --Rubbish computer 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but presumably this was meant for Talk:Goth subculture? It has nothing to do with the Germanic tribes, the subject of this article. -- Elphion (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Elphion: Oops. Yes. Rubbish computer 08:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Expand lead from overview section

The lead contains only two sentences on this rather lengthy topic. I propose to lengthen it by moving content there from the "Historical summary" section. Also perhaps add a "timeline" section. As it's a little hard to follow as it is. --Cornellier (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A scythian heritage perhaps

Weren't Goths the same as scythians , who's homeland was to the east of caspian sea , before the current day sino - mongol inhabitants of central asia ? i don't even have to put a link in here there are multiple web sources claiming this .

Wikipedia itself suggests that every asiatic tribe has raided europe at least once : the Huns , avars , alans , Attila , mongols , etc. so Why not Scythians ? Maybe German people were their foot soldiers . It doesn't seem like the ancestors of current day german people conquered anything at all . If anything Rome conquered germans not the other way around . Isn't it because scythians were also the forefathers to modern day persians that things get political and they are not mentioned here on wikipedia ? The catholic encyclopedia is more fair in this regard . if you visit their webpage you can get better information on non-christian topics such as the scythians.

Derakh (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Gothic migration

This article could probably do with some critical notes inserted from books such as Christensen's 2002 study of the Getica, Kulikowksi's writings on Gothic origins from his Rome's Gothic Wars, and so forth. The Scandinavian-origins narrative is not nearly as uncontroversial as this article currently seems to suggest. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with my barbarian origin theories, but I was under the impression that a large number of scholars today reject the notion of migrating Germanic tribes entirely, following attacks by Walter Goffart, among others. In this reading Scandinavian orgins are given to the Goths by the Romans because its far away and makes them Barbaric and later peoples are given Scandinavian origins because it becomes a trope.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Truthfully it's probably one of the most contested issues at the moment. The most I will venture to say is that there is evidence from the Gothic language that the Gothic language community - whether that is identical with the Goths as a supposed ethnic group or not I will leave aside for now - moved around quite a bit in its prehistory. Certainly the Gothic language did not originate in the Balkan/northwestern Pontic area where the Goths first appear (leaving aside earlier uncertain references; cf. Christensen 2002) in the historical record during the third century and where the Gothic Bible translation was created. Where it did originate is problematic. The language shares both features unique to North Germanic and features only found in West-Germanic and Gothic. It features loanwords from Proto-Slavic, but also Celtic loanwords not found in any other Germanic language. Gothic prehistory is mysterious as hell. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this discussion above is some months old, but the same topic was being raised more widely and I have been modifying Germanic Peoples and going over the literature. To put it on record here, the Gothic case is not necessarily the same as some of the other ones. (Indeed one of the concerns of scholars is the lumping together of "Germanic peoples" as if they all did the same thing. Some points:

• The place where Goths live in contemporary sources was roughly the Ukraine.
• The idea that they came from the north is something we need to balance carefully: (1) In reality it comes from the much later work of Jordanes, who also mentions ancient Egypt and Amazons. (2) OTOH archaeological and linguistic evidence is consistent with the idea that they came from the direction of the Baltic sea. (3) They certainly might descend from the Gutones of the Vistula estuary, but I don't think this can be called proven. (4) That they moved to the from Sweden is I think something which comes only from Jordanes and word games. It should be attributed and not reported as a known fact.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goths/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Krakkos: Great to see this important article in such a good shape. First comments below, more to follow in the next days.
• inhabitants of present-day Swedish island Gotland in Baltic Sea call themselve – I'm not a native speaker, but I would add "the" before both "present-day" and "Baltic Sea".
• certainly, of course – these can be removed according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
• Paulus Orosius wrote – Would be helpful to introduce him (e.g., "the priest Paulus Orosius") and state when he wrote this. This will help a lot; while reading I was wondering if this was a contemporary author or a modern scholar.
• and onwards was so considerable that some[who?] – the "who" maintenance tag should be resolved if needed and removed.

• began moving south-east from their ancestral lands at the mouth of River Vistula, putting pressure on the Germanic tribes from the north and east. – I can't follow: they were moving south to put pressure on the tribes in the north?
• began moving south-east from their ancestral lands at the mouth of River Vistula – Why did they move, do we know the reason?
• In the spring of 399, Tribigild, the Gothic leader in charge of troops in Nakoleia – Hi is an ostrogoth, so why is he mentioned in the visigoth section?
• He settled the Visigoths in Gaul and Honorius' sister Galla Placidia, who had been seized during Alaric's sack of Rome – what about the sister? Is something missing here?
• Why did Alaric sac Rome? Motives would be interesting and important.
• After being driven from Gaul, Athaulf retreated into Gaul in early 415 – From Gaul to Gaul??
• Under Theodoric I the Visigoths allied with the Romans in inflicting a severe defeat – The article on that battle says the battle was somewhat inconclusive … is "severe defeat" the correct wording? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Just checking if you are still on it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Jens Lallensack. Thank you for a very helpful review. I'm still in on it. I will follow up on your recommendations very soon. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and please take your time. I will complete the review in the meantime then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to do so. The lead of the article is currently too long, and i intend to shorten it. It might not be necessary to spend much time on reviewing the lead for the time being. Krakkos (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Jens Lallensack, i have now amended the article in accordance with your recommendations.[1] Krakkos (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Krakkos, thank you very much! Remaining comments will follow soon; the first one already below --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• After the update, there is now a number of paragraphs that have no source at their end (the first paragraph of the "Name" section is an example). This makes it very difficult to verify the respective information, especially given the high number of sources used in the article. We have to know which sentence is based on which sources, otherwise the article will not be verifiable as required by the Good Article criteria, and needs fixing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Dear Jens Lallensack, i have now made an attempt at improving the sourcing of the article.[2] Krakkos (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to register here: related discussions relevant to the GA review, [3], [4], [5] .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Jens Lallensack, Krakkos, where does this review stand? It's been over a month since anything was posted to this page, and it would be nice to get things moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Another editor joined after the review has started, but cooperation between the two didn't go well and now both are blocked from editing the article without clear consensus on the talk page, which makes it difficult to continue the review. But yes, I have to close it now, though I encourage the author to call me back once the dispute is resolved and the article is nominated again, as I am still available for continuing this review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section: verification issue

The current etymology section cites Wolfram 1990 p.21, where he does mention the theory Wikipedia is currently giving in its own voice. However, it mentions other options, and specifically says that to pick one as a winner would be arbitrary. A quick summary of Wolfram would be that we do not know for sure what the etymology is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: This is still a clear verification failure. There are clearly several etymology proposals, and WP should not be picking a winner.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: we now have several theories, all different, but all stated as facts in "Wikipedia voice". This is clearly a case where Wikipedia should be explaining that there is no conclusive consensus, only several proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Still a problem. Getting worse even. If there are several theories then we can not report them all and say they are all true. Obviously.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I'd like to comment on this closing sentence of the etymology section, which I believe needs tweaking but also shows a more general complication relevant to other sections:

The name "Goths" would eventually come to be applied to a large number of peoples, including Burgundians, Vandals, Gepids, Rugii, Scirii. On the basis of linguistics, these are today often referred to as East Germanic peoples. <Wolfram 1990, pp. 19-20.>

2 simple logical problems:

• You are avoiding mentioning that for example the Alans are also normally included in such lists, including the one of Wolfram which is being cited.
• YOUR strong preference for OVER-emphasizing "linguistic" definitions of ethnicities does not work here. It is not just a problem of the Alans probably not being Germanic-speaking but also that we have basically no evidence for the smaller peoples you mention.

Suggestions:

• I think Peter Heather's approach is more appropriate in such cases, and I know you are familiar with the way in which he writes of "Germanic [speaking] dominated" peoples or groups of peoples.
• Many of the sources, including the ones you allow, use the genuine classical term "Gothic peoples" (found in Latin in Ammianus Marcellinus, and Greek in Procopius for example). This can perhaps help distinguish when we write about this broader concept. (But you are correct to mention that the simple term "Goths" also applies to the broad group, and that should be mentioned at least in passing.)

I think everything I've written can be sourced from your normal sources, but if not perhaps I can help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos We are in a fortunate situation because Peter Heather has recently written reference works on the Goths. He classifies them as a Germanic people/tribe:

"Goths, a Germanic people, who, according to Jordanes' Getica, originated in Scandinavia." Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Goths. A Germanic *tribe whose name means ‘the people’, first attested immediately south of the Baltic Sea in the first two centuries." Heather, Peter (2018). "Goths". In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. p. 673. ISBN 9780191744457. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Wikipedia should classify the Goths and deal with them as a concept like the world's most foremost expert on the Goths does. Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Goths = Gutones and similar assumptions

• The lead jumps straight into making a simple equation between the Gutones in Tacitus, living on the Vistula, and the Goths in the Ukraine centuries later. This simple equation is not how our better sources explain it, and in fact this is uncertain.
• The etymology section has apparently been written to back this up with mention of a Gutone-like form on an inscription. You only need to read the WP article to see that this inscription is also uncertain.
• Missing the uncertainty also means missing some of the colour. Our better sources describe the Goths as a mixed people. We also seem to be missing the whole concept of "Gothic peoples" which existed (i.e. Goths plus similar peoples, some of whom probably did not speak Germanic languages).
• Another result of simplification is that lead treats the Visi/Ostro distinction as something which already existed in the Ukraine or even Poland. Did it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is a bit of a confused article, could benefit from a thorough and critical rewrite. Small note though regarding the second bullet point - it is important to note that the part of the Pietroassa inscription that is uncertain is not really the gutan- part, it's mainly the -iowi- part hailag, too, is fairly unambiguous). The link with gutthiuda is also not particularly problematic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

But still, it seems at least one proposal disagrees? Do do this well we ideally need sources which not only give proposals (there might be hundreds) but which also help explain what the current consensus or majority opinion in. Not always possible, but if you know of any...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Peter Heather says about one issue in this article (Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 199):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

the immigrants had come across the Danube in two separate groups: Tervingi and Greuthungi. This distinction disappeared, in my view, by 395, in another by 408. But the date is a matter of detail. North of the Danube, the Greuthungi and Tervingi had been entirely separate political entities. Within a generation of crossing the Danube, the distinction disappeared.

Another example of the pattern of misleading/hidden content in this article is the way in which the Hlöðskviða is treated as straightforward history in this article, and fitted together with Ammianus Marcellinus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Krakkos: for looking at this, but to be clear, one concern here is that I would understand it the events in the saga can not simply be dated and connected to a single real conflict? That is what the inclusion of this material in the section where it now is, would seem to imply though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. But it will take some time. Krakkos (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning origins myths, they should of course be mentioned. But apart from Jordanes and his Gutones story there were also other parts of Jordanes. And there were also Procopius and Isidor of Seville, who had things to say about the origins of the Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning origins narratives, Christensen, cited below, has a very detailed analysis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Our foremost sources on the Goths, Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, consider the Gutones ancestral to the Goths.[6][7] In his 2018 entry on the Goths in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Heather classifies the Goths as a "Germanic tribe".[8] Divisions among the Goths are first attested in the 3rd century AD, and this article reflects this. The article doesn't discusses divisions into Visigoths and Ostrogoths until after the Hunnic invasion in the late 4th century, which is in accordance with reliable sources such as Heather. Krakkos (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that dictionary is not a "foremost source", and what are you talking about? It would be ridiculous to base this article on that source only, and the community won't allow that way of working. Please be more reasonable and practical. There are several significant content-based content concerns listed above. Please address them in a practical, constructive and policy-based way rather than trying to trump them with some artificial concept of a "foremost source" that no other editor has recognized.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

To help you understand how RS discussions work, for example on RSN. Can you name any respectable source in this field which cites The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity as an authority? Does Heather himself ever do it? Wolfram? Pohl? Goffart? Liebeschuetz? Halsall? You have to be able to show a practical and effective reputation. Goffart is on the other hand cited respectfully by everyone. If you want an example of an encyclopedic source in this field which is treated with respect, there is of course the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, which cites all of the above types of chaps, and also, BTW, Christensen, and Rübekeil. That is how we work on Wikipedia when we write articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: your editing today has gone even further in the direction of basing all sourcing on one preferred author. You have written quite a lot about how you know that there are quite a lot of scholars who disagree with that author. Obviously the article's content is controversial while it stays like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: and today also, despite everything, the article becomes more and more just based short dictionary articles by Peter Heather - one author who has not yet written about a lot of widely cited works in the 21st century on this topic, and whose specialist works on this topic, at least that we've found so far, were in the 1980s and 1990s. Instead, the article needs broader sourcing, reflecting the whole field. Your edits are deliberately going in this direction, as shown by you various comments about Goffart etc, so the word "censorship" really does come to mind in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Goths and Gutones again

@Krakkos: The new second sentence still states as a simple fact, in effect, that the Goths were the Gutones, with no mention of controversy:

They are first documented by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living along the lower Vistula

This is obviously referring to the Goths=Gutones theory. (There is a citation to Heather, but with no page number, and also the sentence has two parts. In any case I think Heather and Wolfram are indeed authors who accept this theory to some extent, even if they also might not agree with the wording we have.) Most write-ups of this theory are more cautious than Heather and Wolfram, but both of them are arguably also more cautious than our sentence. Examples of stronger criticism of this theory, which are certainly not rare or limited to any small group of scholars:

• Rübekeil, Ludwig (2002), "Scandinavia in the light of ancient tradition", in Bandle (ed.), The Nordic Languages, vol. 1, pp. 594–604
  • Rübekeil also gives a different etymology than WP.
• Christensen, Arne Søby (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth.
  • Long and positive review by Ian Wood which goes into many details: http://www.dendanskehistoriskeforening.dk//pdf_histtid/103_2/465.pdf

I think the wording should therefore be modified.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have modified the lead.[9] However, Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram are certainly more reliable sources on the Goths than Rübekeil and Christensen. In his 2018 article on the Goths for The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Heather mentions no doubts about the equation between the Goths and Gutones.[10]

I don't see how you can say Heather and Wolfram somehow trump Rübekeil and Christensen on this particular topic? Both Heather and Wolfram on this topic defer to the field, and talk about what "philologists" etc, think. Rübekeil and Christensen are people who get cited for specialist works on it (and there are not many) so the type of people the other two are deferring to.

Anyway, even if they were "better", it would make no difference: WP sourcing is not "winner take all" and we must NOT pick winners, when we know there is significant controversy.

Concerning the Oxford book, as mentioned many times tertiary works are generally not the best sources for resolving how to write up a subject where there is a controversy - especially, of course, when they are the type which does not mention controversies, because, to say it again, on WP we MUST report controversies. (In contrast, some of the German resources on topics like this give very detailed literature reviews concerning all the latest debates.)

In summary, the WP norms on this type of issue are really indisputable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This issue is a question of WP:DUE. As Jimbo Wales has phrased it, due weight is best determined through references from "commonly accepted reference texts". The highest-quality reference text on the Goths is Peter Heather's article on them in the 2018 edition of the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. No high-quality reference texts mention any doubts about the connection between the Gutones and Goths, and such doubts should therefore not be given much weight in the lead. Krakkos (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No you are apparently misunderstanding the normal policy interpretations and community consensus, either WP:DUE or WP:RS. Secondly, you have not at all shown that Heather's Dictionary article is the "commonly accepted reference work" or the "highest quality". The articles by Rübekeil and Christensen are widely cited by various expert writers as specialists on this specific topic, at the very highest level of writing. Experts in this field OTOH do NOT generally cite Oxford, Cambridge or Britannica reference articles. And consider WP:TERTIARY. Heather and Wolfram are bigger in sales and have a high status overall, but in the sections you are citing they defer to the specialists. We can get community feedback from WP:RSN if necessary but honestly there is no doubt about this IMHO.

OTOH, thirdly the most important general point to please understand is that the threshold for saying that a whole group of strong sources are worse enough than some others to not be mentioned at all is also much higher than just saying that the source is a bit less strong in terms of book sales or University positions or whatever. Rübekeil and Christensen are certainly not WP:FRINGE, which is what you seem to be arguing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I only gave two sources just to save time. I honestly did not think anyone would argue like this, given that WP is really even being written much more strongly than Wolfram or Heather to begin with. For one of the sources I even gave a review article, to confirm its status, but I also could have given more examples of reviews and comments especially about the Christensen article, and I could have given more sources which agree with a similar position. How far do we need to take this discussion? Consider also WP:WPVOICE. You are not proposing a mere "balancing question" but the total censorship of a very highly discussed and respected position (similar to your arguments about Goffart). Honestly, you will not be able to make any stable articles if you continually try insisting on something so extreme. It is very far from the norms of this community. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any "total censorship", but minority positions should not be given undue weight, particularly not in the lead. The theory that the Gutones and the Wielbark culture are unconnected to the Goths is contradicted by our best sources on the subject (Heather, Wolfram), and isn't mentioned at all in any of our best reference works (Heather, Pritsak, Thompson). These sources flatly equate the Gutones/Wielbark culture with the Goths, and thus take a stronger position than this article does. We are not "experts in the field", but volunteers writing an encyclopedia, and must therefore take due weight into account, which as Jimbo has said, is best determined through examining "commonly accepted reference texts." Krakkos (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you are really advocating that due weight means "all or nothing" and really that would be censorship (zero mention) of the less popular opinion, no matter who cites it. That is really, really not going to work on WP if you keep trying this, and mentioning Jimbo is ridiculous to be honest. No normal editor on Wikipedia will agree with this approach, and neither will Jimbo. Get over it. Please make sure you mention the respectable minority positions whenever you write any article. If not, then it will just be a very long and hard process which will never work out well.

But secondly, what would be a policy-based argument that your preferred sources are better than the ones which disagree? None. You have given no such policy-based argument. You have none. If it were really all or nothing, many of your favourite theories would be up for deletion. You seem to just see WP as a WP:BATTLE where you have to push out other opinions and get yours to dominate. Why do you say Heather is number one, and Goffart, for example, can be ignored? Such a position makes not policy sense at all. If you have a rational argument, explain it. Goffart is surely in the running for being the most prominent writer in this whole subject area, and your way of writing about him has nothing to do with that of your favorites Heather or Wolfram or Liebeschuetz, who are clearly all heavily influenced by him. Nor have we even gone into the subject of what the German sources say, and your sources all cite the German sources.

Thirdly on a point of detail, the question we are discussing is not about the relevance of Wielbark and archaeology. I don't see much dissent about the archaeological evidence, but more about whether we can specifically say that Goths=Guthones. Wielbark is not the name of a people. It is an archaeological material culture. The way you equate languages and material cultures and peoples is definitely something no serious author in the 21st century is doing any more.

...Let me know if you insist on any of these points and then we can try to word a question together for one of the community discussion groups. If you were right though, we would then have to start deleting a lot of things you are writing into the articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You have to use more sources and reflect what the field says. You can't just cite one source all the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This article cites plenty of diverse sources, with weight given to the WP:BESTSOURCES. Check the reflist.

If Walter Goffart is the preeminent scholar on the Goths, it seems strange that none of our best reference works mention his theories or list him as a source.

That the Wielbark culture is to be equated with the Goths and related Germanic groups is the consensus of opinion in scholarship:

"[I]s now generally accepted that the Wielbark culture incorporated areas that, in the first two centuries ad, were dominated by Goths, Rugi and other Germani... [T]he Wielbark and Przeworsk systems have come to be understood as thoroughly dominated by Germanic-speakers..." - Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. pp. 104, 679. ISBN 9780199892266.

I have no interest in any WP:BATTLE. We recently had a bitter edit war at Germanic peoples,[11] and as soon as i backed down you completely rewrote the article. That article still has serious issues with original research, lack of sourcing and neutrality as a result of your editing. Instead of fixing the serious issues of that article, you have instead followed me to this one, an article which you have never edited before,[12] and which is in the midst of a GA review. It seems clear that you're the one who has a WP:GRUDGE. Krakkos (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Amazing answer avoidance. Again, you can't just name your favorite dictionary article as a "reference work". Has anyone ever cited it? Does any other Wikipedian even see it as an authority? Rule of thumb based on WP:RS which can help avoid battles and create table articles....

• Publications which are never cited by anyone (outside WP) are not normally reference works or authorities.
• Publications which are commonly cited by experts, are not the types of articles you should ever be censoring. Make sure you mention their positions in a fair and balanced way, and certainly do not ever delete all mention of them.

Also: I am watching a lot of articles connected to Germanic peoples now. Logical. Of course your own posts have constantly pointed out to me that there are other WP articles that you work on, which all have similarities. Some are split off from Germanic peoples. I think it is logical that groups of articles should be coordinated and not have completely different approaches. OTOH If you can explain any problems about my work on Germanic peoples, in terms of real policy, sourcing, logic, grammar, spelling, etc, that other people can understand, do so, on that talk page. Constructive feedback would be great. Last I heard your position was that what you think of as Goffart's opinions should not be mentioned there. In general your approach there was not constructive but a WP:BATTLE.-Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

...and your Heather quote does not mention Gutones. Remember to read what you are replying to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter Heather doesn't mention the Gutones, because he obviously equates them with the Goths. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is certainly a reliable source. I'm not advocating any "censorship", but we must take WP:DUE into account when writing articles. What exactly are the changes you are proposing? Krakkos (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that this Oxford Dict is not reliable for anything, but it is a very big and serious call to be saying that a very commonly held scholarly position (doubt about Goths = Gutones) should be not mentioned at all (so yes, censored). And this source you keep mentioning is not only un-cited by anyone, it does not even discuss the question.

...So it clearly can not justify a censorship of other positions. So evidently these doubts need to be discussed in our article. By the way, not many specialist authors have addressed the Gutones equation in any detail since 2002. I think Christensen is the last book really focused on this, unless you count Goffart. Goffart describes it as the latest work on the topic (Barbarian Tides p.265 ). Christensen has been cited and reviewed quite a few times, and I have not yet found any which brought counter arguments on this specific issue - not by Heather or Wolfram either?

And to repeat, these doubts do not necessarily deny a connection to the Wielbark culture, but only the very over-exact story based on Jordanes's version, which even Wolfram admits to be chronologically impossible (which is why he says there must have been several related tribes with similar names, and that the movements of peoples were small elite groups). As I have mentioned a few times, your combative way of pushing your preferred sources actually makes you write things up very differently (more extreme, less cautious, over-simplified) than the scholars you agree with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

One more source I own, and have been reading, which was published after Christensen, cites him, and does discuss the question here:

• Steinacher, Roland (2017), Rom und die Barbaren. Völker im Alpen- und Donauraum (300-600)

On page 48, roughly summarizing, he says that historians now dare to ask how and in which way the Gutones, starting in the 3rd century, might have been related to the so called Gothic peoples. Names and groups who used them should not be treated as the same without critical examination. The continuities and connections between the Wielbark culture and the Goths of the 4th century accepted, the relationships were more complex. The only thing sure is that the Goten/Gutonen/Gauten, as with the Rugii name, carried prestige and was prominent. Archaeology is basically in agreement that in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, culture and funeral norms from the Vistula area were similar to those from the northern edge of the pontic Steppe zone. What is debated is whether the reason for these parallels is the mobility of small bands, or large migration movements (as used to be generally accepted), or simply a culture transfer. For the traditional account, Jordanes plays a role. Archaeology can help? He then discusses the archaeological evidence, and concludes that the Goths show a lot of older local traditions along with influence of BOTH Wielbark and Przeworsk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW I am wondering if our article is not downplaying Przeworsk (possibly Vandals) too much as a possible vector of cultural transmission.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am also surprised we are using this source, and in fact using it quite a bit for quite unusual wording compared to what the real doubts of scholars are (like Goffart and Christensen):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mark, Joshua J. (October 12, 2014). "The Goths". Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 17, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editors=, |registration=, and |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It looks like a online/paywall non-scholarly history magazine?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps useful. Shows an example of Christensen being cited as important in a "reference work"; Reallexicon de Germanischen Altertumskunde:

• Andersson, Thorsten (2012), "De nordgermanische Sprachzweig", in Beck, Heinrich; Geuenich, Dieter; Steuer, Heiko (eds.), Altertumskunde – Altertumswissenschaft – Kulturwissenschaft: Erträge und Perspektiven nach 40 Jahren Reallexicon de Germanischen Altertumskunde

Roughly (p.235): A migration of the *gutaniz and other tribes out of Scandinavia has long been generally accepted, whereby we now mean a tradition-bearing "Kerne", in the wake of Wenskus, Wolfram and Pohl. Such migrations are however more recently strongly in question. Partly, this could be a reaction to earlier emphasis on Scandinavia. More difficult is perhaps the increasing criticism of Jordanes' legendary presentation of the gothic migration out of Scandinavia. [cites Chrsitensen as the most important work to look at] Jordanes will thus be deliberately left out. My argumentation...[etc. It is another example of how even the defenders of the migration have now changed it to an interaction and smaller movements of elites.]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Supposed evidence from the Sagas

It seems concerning that WP is not only stating as a simple fact that the Goths appear in Norse Gutasaga, which is not clear at all, but that this is being given as the FIRST bit of evidence concerning the origins of the Goths, before Graeco-Roman literature and archaeology?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevance of the Gutasaga to the origins of the Goths is mentioned by Herwig Wolfram. I have moved the section in question down below those on archaeological, literary and genetic evidence.[13] Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say "possible relevance" but indeed I am not suggesting removing all mention, just re-sequencing it. I realize you are working on these sections bit by bit anyway, and I am making notes here on that basis. (I have edited one sub-section about classical authors you did not get to yet and added more sources to it, etc. Hopefully that will help integrate it into whatever structure you come up with. Actually I am not sure if the classical authors should be before or after Jordanes and the other origo writers. Readers need to consider them together in a sense?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding additional primary sources from Strabo, Tacitus and Ptolemy. I think the separation of Jordanes from the sections including earlier classical writers is fine. Jordanes deals with information on Gothic origins, while the classical writers write on contemporary affairs. Krakkos (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but discussions about whether to believe anything in Jordanes revolve around those old authors, and discussions about whether the old authors say anything clearly relevant to the later Goths revolve around Jordanes. I am not saying the two sections need to be mixed though, only that the two sections should be written with an eye to the other. Probably they should be next to each other?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I see a new problem introduced by your recent edits, connected to this Saga issue.

Evidence from etymology and the Gutasaga suggests connections with Gotland and the Gutes.<Wolfram
— User:1990

• Yes, the evidence from etymology is what is used.
• No, the Gutasaga might sometimes be mentioned in passing but it is rarely if ever the actual evidence being used to argue for something. In any case implying that it is would be a bad distortion of how the field writes. I do not think it should be mentioned in this way, which implies that it is strong evidence, arguably a "proof". I think it is only ever seen as a possible "confirmation". (If A is true as discussed, then B can be explained by it.)

Here, BTW, is what Wolfram, your preferred source here, really writes:

"the question is not whether Scandinavia was the "original homeland of the Goths"; at best it is whether certain Gothic clans came from the north across the Baltic Sea to the Continent". (p.37)

I think our readers are having this point censored from them. Your use of your favourite citations, as has been pointed out to you many times, distorts and caricatures them, and is clearly intended to give our readers a completely different impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A missing topic or topics: how to fit

I will keep it simple, just to trigger thinking:

• There is a broader concept in ancient and modern sources of "Gothic peoples" which includes Gepids, and perhaps the Rugii, Heruli, Scirri, Alans etc. We are not mentioning it I think. It is not easy to always draw a clear line between Goths in this sense and Goths in the sense of Tervingi etc (who are also not always called Goths). So I think it needs to be handled somehow.
• There is a major phase in the history of the Goths and Gothic/Scythian peoples where many key bits of those peoples moved west of the Carpathians, near the Danube and Pannonia. The Huns also came and a lot of things happened before and after that included the creation of many minor kingdoms and some not-so-minor ones like the Ostrogoths. As I understand it, this "Danubian complex" became an archaeologically recognizable material culture which was very influential, while in the meantime the old Gothic/Vandal associated cultures west of the Elbe and Carpathians faded out in the meantime? Again a lot of stuff to handle, and maybe not easy. Best to think ahead about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

why all the wrong publication dates and even edit warring about it?

@Krakkos: please explain why you keep switching publication dates of your favoured sources to newer dates, even after I correct them? [14][15]. I think my edsum explains the problem, but you mixed your revert in with other edits and did not mention it. Is this by error? But you keep making similar errors? [16]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have not reverted your 2009->2012a revert, so if this is an error, perhaps you will fix it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The version of Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather which is cited in this article is the 2012 reprint by Oxford University Press. There is nothing wrong with the publication dates. Krakkos (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A reprint date is not a publication date, and everyone calls this a 2009 book, including the publisher and other authors citing this work. The online versions are also showing 2009, despite you writing a misleading edsum. (Was there even a 2012 reprint?) Please fix it, and please do NOT use reprint dates. There is not good faith way to interpret your insistence on this silliness. Perhaps the biggest on-going debate on this and other articles concerning your editing is that you systematically favour older authors, older theories and older books. Every one of these errors is one where you make one of your favourites look more recent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The 2012 version is at 734 pages, while the 2010 version is at 752 to pages. They aren't identical. Wikipedia should use the most recent version, which is the 2012 version. Krakkos (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The version you are calling 2012 says 2009. Look at the title page. You are getting your information from the google front page which is always full of mistakes. My 2009 version, on my desk has 734 pages, like the so-called 2012 edition according to you. If there was an expanded version the number of pages would not go down, but then again the so called 2010 version on google can not be read, so is clearly not our source. And no we should NOT pick the newest edition, we should give the one we use. And of course also a new printing would not be a new edition anyway. Why are you arguing things like this all the time???? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: will you revert your revert?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

More examples.

• Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This was published 1988 in English (1979 in German). 1990 was the date of a paperback printing, but I see no reason to call that date the publication date. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Undue genetic conclusions?

We currently have, in the opening discussion of "Origins and early history", this simple a decisive conclusion in Wikipedia voice:

Recent genetic studies has lent support to the Scandianvian theory.ref name="Stolarek_2019"/

There are actually two related articles in the bibliography:

• Stolarek, Ireneuz (February 6, 2018). "A mosaic genetic structure of the human population living in the South Baltic region during the Iron Age". Nature Communications. 8 (2455). Nature Research. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-20705-6. PMC 5802798. PMID 29410482. Retrieved February 20, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Stolarek, I. (May 1, 2019). "Goth migration induced changes in the matrilineal genetic structure of the central-east European population". Nature Communications. 9 (6737). Nature Research. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43183-w. PMC 6494872. PMID 31043639. Retrieved February 20, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

We always should be careful with individual reports of raw genetic data from small studies, but I note in this case the studies are particularly inconclusive in reality, because they are based on mitochondrial testing. The most solid conclusion seems to be that there was migration, but beyond that these are not very strong. Yet we are using these studies for a VERY DIFFICULT and exact conclusion: distinguishing between Scandinavian and other Germanic places of origins, such as the nearby Jastorf culture. I think this is not justified.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

These are recent studies, conducted by a team of qualified scholars, and published by Nature Research. The abstract of the study states that "the collected results seem to be consistent with the historical narrative that assumed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia".[17] It's not undue to mention that in this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeming consistent with something is what even a completely indecisive trial or experiment is. But the wording we have is "lends support". The problem is obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe this undue sentence should be removed from where it is now in the opening sections of the article. As you know, a typical solution on how to handle genetic claims, which is a controversial matter on WP, is to have a section near the end of the article which gives a short dry summary of findings so far. In this particular article even that would arguably be undue, but what we currently have is unusually questionable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources?

Helpful perhaps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Andrzejowski, Jacek (2019), "The Gothic migration through Eastern Poland – archaeological evidences", in Cieśliński; Kontny (eds.), Interacting Barbarians. Contacts, Exchange and Migrations in the First Millennium AD, Neue Studien zur Sachsenforschung, vol. 9, pp. 227–239
• Andrzejowski, Jacek (2010), "The Przeworsk Culture. A Brief Story (for the Foreigners)", in Lund Hansen; Bitner-Wróblewska (eds.), Worlds Apart? Contacts across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age, Nordiske Fortidsminder, vol. C/7

describe where the Goths lived

@Krakkos:, seriously? [18] Please give a simple explanation about where you think they lived. I think the place description added matches the rest of the article, which is how leads should work. But what geographical places would you say the Goths lived in? If I add 3 sources to the sentence to get past this, what have you achieved? Making the article ugly? What is your point???--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have three top-quality sources on the Goths from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, written by Peter Heather and Omeljan Pritsak. There is no need to add additional sources to the lead. The lead should not mention theories not mentioned in any reference works on the Goths. The lead is long enough as it already is. Krakkos (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So your tagging was dishonest and you now explain it a different way. Nothing new there, and of course this explanation is still not honest but as usual just veering off into the surreal. I will remove your dishonest tag.

Concerning the length of the lead etc please feel free of course to explain here honestly what you are talking about, but to me it is obvious that the opening of the article needs to connect a topic to reality for the reader. My edsum when adding these two simple sentences [19] was: important to open with something which connects to well-known things, and distinguishes from other similar topics - where they lived in modern terms is a common method . Logical? Not? In other words the opening needs a bare minimum of something like this. If you did not agree, you should have explained honestly and given your reasoning instead of being dishonest. If length is a real concern, which I doubt, there is a lot of less important stuff in the lead. I predict you will however not engage in constructive discussion, as usual. After seeing the way you do this over and over, I don't even think lead length is a concern to you.

Concerning the RS status of the two tertiary sources you name, please name any expert source that cites them as a trusted authority. I believe it is evident that they are NOT "top quality" sources, but I also don't see how this connects to your dishonest cn tag. What is the connection? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Poor sources for potential deletion

I will start a list. If anyone sees a good reason to keep any of these, please explain it. For now I will not list all the basic-summary style tertiary sources yet, as some of these would be ok for non-controversial use, but clearly they also require discussion as they are being used in the wrong way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Jarus, Owen (March 18, 2016). "Who Were the Ancient Goths?". Live Science. Retrieved September 17, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editors=, |registration=, and |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mark, Joshua J. (October 12, 2014). "The Goths". Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 17, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editors=, |registration=, and |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Concerning the tertiary sources, there were already discussions at Germanic peoples including this one - at least for the Britannica ones, demonstrating that most are old, and all written with no discussion of controversies etc, making them unsuitable for use on WP for any topic where there are several respected view points. There are now many Oxford tertiary work articles being cited. @Krakkos: has Wikipedia library access to Oxford publications, so the question is whether more of us should also apply for that access so we can work. But Krakkos can perhaps confirm some points first:

• From the citations being made, it appears that these Oxford articles do not mention controversies or alternative positions, or present the results of latest research. They just summarize the position of whoever writes them. Correct?
• If this is not correct, then the question arises as to why they are constantly being used on this article to imply that there is only one mainstream opinion.
• As already raised, it also seems that experts in the field never cite these articles as trusted authorities, but instead cite monograph works that have the explanations of debatable points etc.

In other words, at first sight these tertiary works just aren't suitable for Wikipedia use on any topic which potentially requires the handling of different viewpoints. Or else something strange is happening. I am asking for any explanation that might show otherwise, so we can move forward on a more rational basis. Is there something I misunderstand about these articles in "dictionaries"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The author at Ancient History Encyclopedia, Joshua J. Mark, is a former Professor of Philosophy and lecturer on history at Marist College. I disagree that he's a "poor source". His article on the Goths gives a neutral and up-to-date analysis of the various theories of Peter Heather, Walter Goffart, Herwig Wolfram etc. It is a useful source. Krakkos (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What is it adding to the other sources? Mark is clearly not a big name and we clearly have no shortage of better publications. Please explain. Are you saying it is because he reviews what other authors write? But we have other sources like this also (just not by Heather)? Why would we for example use him above Pohl, Christensen, and the RGA articles? Also you have not addressed the more general issue with this insistent use of short tertiary source articles in general which is perhaps also connected to the need to use Mark. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

RGA and Pohl are German-language sources. I have never said that we should use Mark "above" Christensen. When evaluating due weight however, i believe a 2018 work by Peter Heather in the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is more suitable than a 2002 work by Arne Søby Christensen from Museum Tusculanum Press. Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But you don't cite Heather for this?? Only Mark? And your explanation of why some scholars disagree is vague, unclear, too short, and I think inaccurate. The main concern is that the proposals are not proven, not that they are proven wrong. On the other hand there is also a complication of chronology you do not want to mention at all: Jordanes says the Goths left Scandinavia 2000 years earlier and were in Ukraine long before Tacitus. Wolfram etc all admit this to be an issue, and that means that while there probably WAS migration from Poland (based on archaeology and language, not Jordanes) the Gothic name may not have traveled in any strong connection to any large people. The Germanic peoples who eventually appear in records could have come from any number of Przeworsk or Wielbark or even other Germanic cultures. The best sources say this aspect is not clear. See Wolfram and Andersson and Steinacher.

On Wikipedia we look for sources with a reputation for reliability. A normal indicator is whether experts in a field commonly cite it. This is how I came to propose Christensen as an important source: he is widely cited (though relatively young). Short summaries in Oxford dictionaries are NOT good sources for WP because their reputation is less and also their mission is generally opposed to ours, because they do NOT report the latest differences of position but rather give the keys to famous academics, generally English.

We are of course writing about a field where everyone including Heather cites German-language sources very often. This does not mean Heather is a bad source. But his main specialist works on the Goths were in the 1980s and 1990s. It seems to me to be very convenient to have a problem with German language sources when your one-and-only hero source is from an older generation, and English language works being written in this century in a way which does not ignore newer work includes people you are trying to censor out of Wikipedia like Goffart. But also Pohl has published in English, if that is your real concern. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For editors who aren't used to you, in the small range of edit types you do, one is that you make articles for the sources you want to push, and not for the ones you don't like. Then you post links or red-links on talk pages when dispute arises, and try to imply that widely cited scholars are "no-ones". A good example was your disparagement of Andrew Gillett on Germanic peoples as a "self-styled independent scholar [20] though he is widely cited in a respectful way by experts, and clearly Associate professor at Monash University with an impressive international record in other institutions, conferences, editing collections of papers etc. It was another example where you misrepresented the field, got caught, and then kept doing it. [21]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A comment on the edit war

The lead as of this edit [[22]] (20:26, 26 February 2020‎ Andrew Lancaster) is good, with one exception: the controversy over the Scandinavian origin is relegated entirely to suspicions cast on the reliability of Jordanes. The casual reader will assume that no other, more modern evidence bears on this. The other obvious comment to make is that beyond the lead the article fragments badly into warring references (a natural result of the warring). The main competing scenarios should be clearly stated, with the evidence for and against each added under each one. -- Elphion (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The above-mentioned is issues with the lead are a result of a misrepresentation of the source which is used.

The relevant paragraph on Jordanes in the lead says this:

"As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland, where such languages are believed to have been spoken at this time. They are generally believed to have been documented much earlier by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living near the lower Vistula, where they are associated with the Wielbark culture.[2] In his book Getica, the Gothic historian Jordanes claimed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia more than 1000 years earlier, but his reliability is disputed.[2]"

What the source used for the above-mentioned text says is this:

"Goths, a Germanic people, who, according to Jordanes' Getica, originated in Scandinavia. The Cernjachov culture of the later 3rd and 4th cents. ad beside the Black Sea, and the Polish and Byelorussian Wielbark cultures of the 1st–3rd. cents. ad, provide evidence of a Gothic migration down the Vistula to the Black Sea, but no clear trail leads to Scandinavia." Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Reply by Krakkos There are additional issues with WP:OR in the lead, which should be fixed. Krakkos (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: your reply just raises the question once again of why you insist on using that specific tertiary source and no other sources, except for ones by the same author or people who agree with him. Of course this can never lead to a good stable article. Why do you keep ignoring this concern that I have raised over and over? See the various discussions above. Of course if you keep insisting on such sources then you can say that my edits do not match the "best sources". On my side I have explained other sources above, and tried to give you a chance to edit appropriately. You need to write in a way which reflects the field more broadly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, see the Steinacher and Andersson citations above which are far stronger sources and should be helpful. These are recently published specialist works, that get cited by other specialists, and which explain the diversity of the other literature. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Partially relevant German-language sources by Roland Steinacher and Thorsten Andersson are not "far stronger sources" than directly relevant English language sources by the world's foremost expert on the subject (Peter Heather). Krakkos (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why they are "partially" relevant and why language is an issue? They are certainly more up-to-date, more widely-cited, more focused particularly upon the topic, more able to cover competing opinions and debates and explain where the field is. These are the things relevant to WP:RS, and which would be discussed at WP:RSN for example. In contrast, WP has no policy against using German language publications. So your conclusions appear to be the opposite of the truth. Our WP community does however have standard concerns about using these types of tertiary works which don't discuss debates, at least for anything where a debate needs to be covered - which is precisely how you are using these ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos It would be nice if you could post these supposed quality sources here so that the community could examine them. Krakkos (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought of reminding that I posted summaries above, but thought it might just make my post too big, and was probably obvious. The summaries are at the bottom of the section here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos The section you're linking to is a complete mess. Which of these are "far stronger sources" than Herwig Wolfram, Peter Heather, the Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity? Krakkos (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the dictionaries has been explained over and over. How do you say the two sources now under discussion disagree with Wolfram? The way I understand it we have been asked to look at a specific sentence in the lead. Above, you took a position that the lead needed to say the same as a dictionary article by Heather, and no more. Correct? The way I read that, is that you are disputing that anything NOT in that dictionary sentence should NOT be in our article. For example, you have NOT actually for explained anything factually wrong, or unsourceable, in the sentence in the lead. So, I presumed you would agree that everything in the sentence posted above is sourceable to good sources. But you just don't want any other sources used. Not correct? Please review and explain what your point really was above, when you complained about the lead sentence which @Elphion: commented on. My proposal is/was that if there is something in it now which is not in Heather we can just add a bit more sourcing (or replace Heather with sourcing which covers it all).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Elphion: I certainly agree with the principle, but which other evidence is there for a Scandinavian origin, which is not somehow derived from Jordanes? Do you have any sources in mind, or wording proposals? Perhaps the closest I can think of in recent times would be something like the Andersson citation I have mentioned above, but I am not sure if this can be called fully independent of Jordanes. I suppose in that case the evidence is some name similarities (Gaut, Gotones, Goth) and this might be what you are referring to. But:

• If you search for other evidence to show how Jordanes might be right, then is that really an argument that is independent from Jordanes?
• In the case of Andersson and other expert authors in recent decades they normally are NOT really arguing that "the Goths" migrated en masse from Poland or Scandinavia, but only that there was an elite group who carried a tradition around. (The so-called Traditionskern approach.) Also see the Steinacher quote I explained above where he suggests the similar sounding names had a prestige value.
• In practice, how do we fit this in a lead. Should be possible if it is needed, but there should be consideration of which bits to put in the lead, and which down into the body.

(Keep in mind by the way, that I am trying to mainly write ideas up here on the talk page, given the on-going practical issues this article is having. So even if I made an edit to a sentence, it does not mean that is how I would have written it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Footnote concern

@Krakkos: Concerning footnotes, there have been similar discussions already on other articles especially Germanic peoples where your footnoting evolved to the point of having 14 footnotes per sentence, but apparently they need to be discussed anew on every article and you don't accept what others say? See just for example my edsum [23], and the revert [24]. Some basic normal aims:

• The number of footnotes should be kept to a minimum.
• As much as possible, footnotes should be at the ends of paragraphs, or ends of sentences. Footnotes in the middle of a sentence should be avoided if possible.
• Things which are uncontroversial, or which have already been sourced in the article, do not need to be sourced over and over, in every section and every paragraph and every sentence, or even several times per sentence. (For example, that the Goths spoke a Germanic language.)
• In most cases, it is not necessary to give many sources for one assertion. When this is needed, it implies there is a dispute, so best practice is to discuss with other editors how to avoid it. I don't think that is your concern though, because your uncompromising source choice (Peter Heather dictionary articles, almost always) is not exactly aimed at consensus or agreement, and easily could be improved without controversy.
• In most cases, it is not necessary to give long quotations to back up an exact wording. (This is only needed in cases where the interpretation of the original source might not be obvious.)

Instead what we are seeing is the same things being sourced over and over, using the same sources or sources all by one author. Also the quotations being inserted are not needed and are generally including many extra words not relevant to what needs sources. (Even if they are generally relevant to the article or talk page in some way.) I also note non-obvious SYNTH cases like this (from the case mentioned above) which are not even needed:

• Sentence to be sourced: They are today sometimes referred to as being Germani.
• Sentence being quoted: "Militarized freedmen among the Germani appear in sixth- and seventh-century Visigothic and Frankish law codes."

All of the above is based on the normal MOS etc guidelines. @Krakkos: why do you fight so hard against these norms, and why do you seem to want uncontroversial sentences to be overloaded like this? To me, looking at the extra words you keep in including, it seems the footnotes are kind of like a message to other editors about something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some more examples of quesitonable footnotes recently done:

• Sentence to be sourced: Roman historians write that the Gutones were in close contact with the Lugii and Vandals, and that they were at times in conflict with the Suebi.
• Irrelevant extra quote added:[25] A people of Scandza called the Gutae, possibly identical to the later Geats, are also mentioned, and it's possible that this people had close relations or even shared origins with the Gutones.

And over-sourcing [26]:

• Half sentence to be sourced: The Goths were Germanic-speaking,
• Footnotes:

• Second half-sentence: and are classified as a Germanic people by modern scholars.

• Footnotes:

Note that these two facts, the language and categorization, were already sourced in the lead. Look for example at the multiple uses of these footnotes all pointing to the same page, and yet cited together, over and over, sentence after sentence, already several times in the lead:

• <ref name="Heather_OCD">Heather 2012b, p. 623
• <ref name="Heather_OXLA">Heather 2018, p. 623

References

Can anyone give a justification for the insistence upon such things? (These are apparently not just random mistakes, because they are insisted upon and the same thing happens over and over and will be added to as in other articles.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reply by Krakkos Per WP:FOOTQUOTE, it is useful to add quotes to sources when sources are "not easily accessible" or when one wants to "indicate precisely which information the source is supporting". WP:V further states that "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided". The sources quoted from are not all easily accessible, their claims have been contested, and your misrepresentation of these sources, as illustrated here, makes quoting them necessary. Your stacking of additional unnecessary sources to an already heavily cited sentence[27] reveals that WP:OVERCITE is none of your concern. Your real concern is that this article contains sources contradicting your views. Krakkos (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Which claims have been disputed? And given how easy it would be to use an accessible source, why insist on using the Oxford sources which you happened to have access to via Wikipedia Library? Two simple answers requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Due weight is, according to Jimbo Wales, determined by coverage in "commonly accepted reference texts". The best reference texts on the Goths are written by Peter Heather and published by Oxford University Press. These sources have been contested and misrepresented by you innumerable times.[28][29][30] That makes it necessary to quote them. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have asked you many times how you can possible argue that a source which no experts cite is the "best reference text". You keep answering each time as if it were the first time. WP:IDHT. But how is this relevant here? Why do you keep just announcing that Heather's dictionary article is the best, all over this talk page? Concerning the examples you give of disputed claims, I do not see that any of them dispute the above sentences either? They seem irrelevant to this discussion? I do not see your reply as an answer. Can you please read again and look at the real examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC) To be specific, and spell it out, here are some obvious questions...

• Why do we need an extra source with a specific sentence about Gutes and Geats to back up a sentence about Vandals and Lugii and Suevi?
• Why do we three Heather citations every time where one would do?
• Why do we need to source that the Goths were Germanic speaking, which is not controversial, several times in the lead and then again and again in the body?
• What is Pritsak adding to Heather and Pohl in these cases?
• Why do we need to write out a whole text about "Militarized freedmen" when the sentence being sourced is only about the fact that Peter Heather uses the word Germani to refer to Goths?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW The example you give of my "stacking unnecessary sources" is a wonderful example of the shamelessly misleading way in which you write on talk pages. I hope everyone clicks on the example to see my adding of ONE reference by a person who is not named Peter Heather, and my clear explanation of why I understand it was needed to source our wording! Of course if you think it was not needed, then you could have explained this to me before, BTW.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Yes please click the example. You removed directly relevant English-language sources from Omeljan Pritsak and E. A. Thompson, while adding an only partially relevant German-language source by Walter Pohl.[31] Krakkos (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So you describe a reduction in footnotes as a stacking of footnotes, which proves, supposedly that I do not care about over-citation. Just to be clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: these [bulleted questions above] were the questions originally raised here in this section. Can you explain why the footnotes have the above characteristics? Please do not forget this concern, if you want to make a stable long-term version of the article. These are normal logical concerns which future editors will also see and act upon if they find them in the current state.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos You have a strong tendency to insert[32] unsourced information in the lead and even rewrite[33] information in the lead regardless of what the sources say. This makes adding sources with quotes necessary. Information on Goths being "Germanic speaking" was added by you to the lead (again regardless of what the source says).[34] Omeljan Pritsak has an article on the Goths in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. That source is much more relevant and useful than an only partially relevant German-language citation from Walter Pohl. That Peter Heather classifies the Goths as Germani is noteworthy. If it wasn't you wouldn't have been whining about it here. Krakkos (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The examples you show don't seem to show any problems at all (1 edit of already un-sourced information, 1 edit which did not change meaning). Whatever problems you claim I created anyway, they would not be helped by the problems described above. Your description of the sources is also wrong for the reasons explained elsewhere, and you can discuss elsewhere. But you are changing subject here. Please note the detailed examples mentioned above. Please either fix them or discuss here in a constructive way. These are basic, and pretty much indisputable. None of these specific bullets are about your quote length problem. Consider WP:IDNHT

• Why do we need an extra source with a specific sentence about Gutes and Geats to back up a sentence about Vandals and Lugii and Suevi? (If it was an error just say so.)
• Why do we three Heather citations every time where one would do? (The same author 3 times adds nothing in terms of any WP:SYNTH you might be trying to achieve about the field as a whole.)
• Why do we need to source that the Goths were Germanic speaking, which is not controversial, several times in the lead and then again and again in the body? (No, I have not disputed this, so please stop implying that I have.)
• What is Pritsak adding to Heather and Pohl in these cases? (We do not need multiple sources for such things, unless you are trying to achieve WP:SYNTH by counting how many writers agree with each other.)
• Why do we need to write out a whole text about "Militarized freedmen" when the sentence being sourced is only about the fact that Peter Heather uses the word Germani to refer to Goths? (If it was an error just say so.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Christensen example

(edit conflict) Here is an example which seems intended to be misleading, added yesterday [35]:

• Sentence to be sourced: The earliest possible mentions of the Goths are Roman sources of the 1st century AD, who refer to a people called the "Gutones" living along the lower Vistula.
• <<harvnb|Christensen|2002|pp=32-33, 38-39>>. "During the first century and a half AD, four authors mention a people also normally identified with 'the Goths'. They seem to appear for the first time in the writings of the geographer Strabo... It is normally assumed that [the Gutones] are identical with the Goths... It has been taken for granted that these Gotones were identical to the Goths... Finally, around 150, Klaudios Ptolemaios (or Ptolemy) writes of certain [Guthones] who are also normally identified with the 'the Goths'... Ptolemy lists the [Goutai], also identified by Gothic scholars with the Goths..."</>

Christensen, despite the number of words pasted in, is actually arguing against this identification in the past. (It was published in 2002.) While recent works tend to cite Christensen as an important work bringing this identification into doubt, we are apparently using him in the opposite way. When we later mention doubts, we do not cite Christensen, but a very poor source (Mark) and the wording is very vague. Will anyone justify this one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Christensen is not cited for that sentence. The sentence above is sourced from Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather. Christensen is cited in the next sentence. This "example" is dishonestly presented. Krakkos (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. It is very hard to dismantle these over-footnoted paragraphs and I have made an error, but the problem does not go away. The statement being sourced is "The Gutones are generally" [footnote placed here] considered ancestral or even identical to the later Goths." So the problem is still there, and effectively my point above is the same. Can you explain why Christensen is being used to say the opposite of what he says?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Christensen is cited for the opposite of what he believes, not the opposite of what he says. He says that the Gutones are "normally" identified with the Goths, and that "it has been taken for granted that these Gotones were identical to the Goths". This article says, citing Christensen, that "The Gutones are generally considered ancestral or even identical to the later Goths." There is no misrepresentation of Christensen. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No one reading the citation will be able to understand all that will they? They certainly won't be reading that already in 2002, this position being stated in our article was considered "taken for granted" IN THE PAST, and that the article we are citing is one of the main ones cited since, and DISAGREES with what used to be "taken for granted" IN THE PAST. To make it even worse, when you come to discuss disagreements below, you only cite Mark, and we only say some people disagree. In fact it would be more accurate to say that in the 21st century even supporters of Jordanes (such as Andersson in the RGA, explained above) no longer take it for granted. The RGA is a widely cited work, unlike your Oxford dictionaries. All of this is being censored and hidden from Wikipedia readers. Heather, in the meantime, has apparently not written any fresh research on this for a long time, and his stand points are often now out of line with people who have. For example his comments in the dictionaries you like do not even show awareness of more recent debates. Mind you, I suppose we do not really know when he wrote those little dictionary entries and what his instructions were. Those works are very long projects, and not designed to publish full explanations on all the latest debates. So, yes, Christensen, and the field generally, is being misrepresented.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Christensen writes that "it is normally assumed that" the Gutones "are identical with the Goths". Christensen is clearly not referring only to the past. Christensen's book is from 2002. The Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity are from 2012 and 2018 respectively, and thus more recent. As their articles on the Goths mentions no doubts about the equation between Gutones and Goths, this is still clearly a minority view, which should not be given undue weight in this article. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

How can you judge what a minority view is based on Oxford dictionary articles of unknown date and specifically not covering anything like differences of opinion? In contrast you knowingly insist on ignoring what RGA, Goffart, Edward James, Ian Wood, Pohl, Steinacher, Wolfram, etc etc etc all say. And YET, you cite a MUCH worse source, Mark, because you DO KNOW there is dispute. Strange no?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

...and unfortunately you distracted me successfully from the topic, which to remind, was: So, yes, Christensen, and the field generally, is being misrepresented. I think your answer basically confirms that you know this, because you've jumped straight to another argument to justify why you would block our readers from knowing this. And of course, by the way, Christensen was talking about the past. The reactions to Christensen's work show us what happened after 2002. And BTW Heather does not disagree I guess, he just does not mention it, as you would expect in a simplified little Oxford dictionary article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Who is Arne Søby Christensen anyway? Krakkos (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What is important to WP policy (WP:RS) is his reputation for reliability in the field of expertise, and this is shown by the extensive positive literature reviews and citations his work has gained. But he is I believe an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen. (This book was based on his Doctorate apparently. It seems Ian Wood and Lund were involved with his examination.) You should stop using red links as a way of avoiding real WP policy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos We have someone who might have been an assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen who published a book through Museum Tusculanum Press in 2002. Christensen is probably retired by now (he was born in 1945), meaning that he never made it past associate professor and never published any other noteworthy work except from this one. Peter Heather, who is Chairman of the Medieval History Department and Professor of Medieval History at King's College London, and considered the world's foremost authority on the Goths, has more recently written The Fall of Rome (2005) and Empires and Barbarians (2009). Empires and Barbarians contains no less than 842 references to "Goth", but flatly contradicts and makes no mention whatsoever of Christensen or his theories. Christensen's theories are flatly contradiced, and not even mentioned by any reliable reference work on the Goths. Michael Whitby, who is the former Head of the Ancient History department and Professor of Ancient History at the University of St Andrews, has dismissed Christensen's theories as "surely too extreme", "little more than a long footnote to Heather's work", and something "only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult".[36] I'm sorry, but this stuff isn't suitable for the lead. Krakkos (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: it does not matter what you proclaim to me. These insults which you throw around at scholars are silly. And surely you've been in WP long enough to understand the basics of our RS policy. On Wikipedia, it matters what the experts cite when they write their focused works on this topic, and if they wanted to all cite a tweet by Donald Trump, or the instagram account of Justin Bieber then that is up to them, and WP tells us to pay attention to them, when they are writing their most focused work. As far as I know, Heather has not written any new focused monographs on this topic in the 21st century, that would tell us what he thinks about the latest debates, or at least you and I have not found them? What we know is that those who have, such as Goffart, Halsall, James, Ian Wood, Steinacher, Matthias Springer, who are certainly of comparable stature to Heather, do mention Christensen as the latest person to have done a proper study the question of Jordanes and the migrations. I can see on google that Walter Pohl has cited him several times also but can't seem to find one I can access.

OTOH, Perhaps the closest I can find is a short footnote in his Afterword to Curta (ed.) where he complains about Goffart being "minimizing" about Jordanes and taking him as too "literary" and "deliberately misleading", but whatever all that means Heather also effectively says Goffart is correct that Jordanes and Paul the Deacon can be found to have "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [they] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence."

• Heather, Peter (2010), "Afterword", in Curta, Florin (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, vol. 32, p. 606

So to spell it out:

• You want to treat Heather as the only and "best" authority (which is absolutely the wrong approach according to WP policy) but anyway...
• Heather, when he wrote a relatively recent comment about recent people mentioned not Christensen, but Goffart. So will you cite Goffart? Again, your attitude to him is completely wrong according to WP policy, but anyway...
• Goffart cites Christensen. So Heather cites Goffart who cites Christensen. This is relevant to WP:RS, because it shows reputation on this topic.

Really this article will in the long run cite Goffart and Christensen and Gillett too, who is another frequently cited person for Jordanes. (Heather is not.) I can't imagine any version of this article which deliberately censors such references can be stable and lasting. If I were you I would edit in a way that at least contributes something to the longer term result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Nothing is being censored, but this article should not be defined and structured through non-mainstream theories. Goffart and Christensen are already mentioned in the article. Who is "Gillett"? Heather and Wolfram are the most cited scholars for Goths. That's what matters. This article is about Goths, not Jordanes. Krakkos (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But there are sections about Jordanes and in those sections... Why do I need to spell that out? Concerning Gillett, you must not have read my explanation about YOUR history of misrepresentations of scholars including Gillett, posted above. There are links there. I am guessing you probably never really carefully read what you were writing, or what answers were being given to you, the first time either. Despite your ridiculously strong comments about Gillett then, similar to your silly remarks more recently about Christensen. You are always too busy battling to actually carefully read sources, or other editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which happen to defend Peter Heather!! [37], [38] Do you realize how crude you sometimes appear? This is cherry picking from weak sources while you are STILL censoring the best known sources. The use of these reviews in this biased way is not something for a lasting and stable version. We are not writing an article about the beliefs of Peter Heather. We should not take his side on every issue, or censor or caricature any people who disagree with him. Similarly in the same section this strongly worded sentence is known by you to NOT be a consensus, and is thus an undue use of Wikipedia voice to agree with Heather: "Among philologists there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is the same as that of the Goths.[29]"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos This is what Peter Heather says in 2009/2012 about the views of philologists on the name of the Goths:

"In the period of Dacian and Sarmatian dominance, groups known as Goths – or perhaps 'Gothones' or 'Guthones' – inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century ad, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second, the latter explicitly among a number of groups said to inhabit the mouth of the River Vistula. River Vistula. Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century."Heather, Peter (2012a). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199892266. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Note that Arne Søby Christensen (as far as is known) is a historian, not a philologist. This is what top reviewers say about Christensen's theories:

"I think that Christensen has been too stringent in denying the existence of Gothic elements in the text. Wood, Ian N. (2003). "Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths" (PDF). Historisk Tidsskrift. 103 (2). Danish Historical Association: 465–484. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Christensen's conclusion... is therefore partly based on dubious reasoning, which does nothing to strenghten the central argument of the book." Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn (2004). "Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths". Scandinavian Journal of History. 29 (3–4). Taylor & Francis: 306–308. doi:10.1080/03468750410005719. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"This is surely too extreme... [T]he fact remains that this, even if very clearly presented and argued, is little more than a long footnote to Heather's work; only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult it." Whitby, Michael (October 2003). "A. S. Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth". The Classical Review. 53 (2). Classical Association: 498. doi:10.1093/cr/53.2.498. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Michael Whitby's reference to "real enthusiasts" was quite prophetic i must say. Krakkos (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not quite sure what you mean but if you are saying I am taking a side then I hope that is not true. The point is much simpler. Your quotes are going too far and into too much detail and even taking a side. What you are not quoting is reviews, which is unusual and not a strong source. This is something you would do if we have several sections on this debate. But as you mentioned before, this is not even an article about Jordanes, and so the debates just have to be mentioned. Maybe reviews can be cited, but not the colorful stuff which verges on insults. The aim should be more like "some people like Heather and Wolfram say A, and some people like Goffart and Christensen argue differently, because.... Also I tend to think that just the reviews in books are going to be more neutral and authoritative. If I were citing a review article (these tend to be more colorful) I would normally only do it with a bigger name reviewer. Maybe it is best if you just look at it yourself with my words in mind and think about future critics of this article and not me. Comments like " a long footnote to Heather" are not encyclopedic. Take your time on getting this balance right. That is what I suggest. BTW I think the reviews I have read show that there is sympathy for Goffart, Christensen, and Gillett in between the lines. Nearly everyone has moved their position a bit even if it annoys them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the remark about all philologists answered within the above, I think you also are missing the point. We are taking one sentence from one author which we know disagrees with everything else we are reading, for example Wolfram. Wolfram (like Andersson) is I think saying the Gutone and Gaut words might just have been related tribes - and that the connection is not actual mass migration. I think that is a really interesting and important trend in the field right? I am really enjoying Steinacher's style of explaining it also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Herwig Wolfram equates the Gutones with the Goths just as Heather does:

"Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them... The Gothic name appears for the first time between A.D. 16 and 18. We do not, however, find the strong form Guti but only the derivative form Gutones... Hereafter, whenever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. pp. 18, 20, 23. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Arne Søby Christensen writes, like Heather, that the equation of the Gutones with the Goths is supported by philologists/linguists:

"[L]inguists believe there is an indisputable connection." Christensen, Arne Søby (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Museum Tusculanum Press. p. 41. ISBN 9788772897103. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Trying to help by saying something simple. Almost the whole field might agree with this?

• Heather AGREES that the origins myths do not prove much. Is there any expert in this field saying "just trust Jordanes" any more?
• Actually the criticism of Jordanes etc also means that we need to look at the archaeological and linguistic evidence. And it is pretty strong in this case.
• HOWEVER, the new criticism means that the connection between the similar sounding names might not be a simple story of a large number of people moving from together with one unchanging name from Poland to Ukraine. The Traditionskern idea is ONE possible way that it might not have been that simple. Steinacher's comment about there being a "prestige name" is a similar idea. (Both could be true.) But in the end the point is that the details are uncertain. Maybe for us that is all we need to say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Steinacher's source for the prestige name bit is:

• Andersson, Thomas (1998), zu Namen und Deutungen. in Goten 1. Philologisches in RGA 2 vol. 12 pp.402-403. I am looking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Google: https://books.google.be/books?id=bcwfZW_soyMC --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think these points are still undeniably important for further editing:

• Criticism of Jordanes as a source, associated perhaps mostly with Goffart, Gillett, and Christensen, IS "mainstream", and those writers ARE mainstream and highly respected and cited as such, so we should do the same. As shown above Heather's main concern could be seen as trying to show readers that he already thought something similar in the 1990s. (The differences between these commentators and their critics like Heather, Liebeschuetz, etc are about details I think are articles are not even mentioning.)
• The manipulated Christensen quote as given above is misleading to a reader. That obviously has to be avoided, and would be easy to avoid in the case given just by avoiding the use of a manipulated long quote in the middle of a sentence.
• I refer also to concerns mentioned above about the over use of long quotes and lots of similar quotes, which is bad for many reasons and not seen as better in any way on WP. (It is normally something an experienced editor will see as a red flag that there is a POV pusher at work.) Using quantity of quotes to win a battle is also WP:SYNTH by the way.
• Over-reliance on any single author is never good, and this article currently has a worsening problem with this. It urgently needs to be moved in the opposite direction, of allowing more sources and more viewpoints.
• Allowing more viewpoints does NOT mean adding something like "some scholars disagree but they have been called illogical and biased in book reviews". Obviously.
• Use of short dictionary articles written to reflect the position of only one academic is bad, and should especially be totally avoided on any topic which involves a known debate or complexity in the field. These quite simply are NOT the best sources, and battling on and on about it is getting no where. This can be confirmed by community feedback at WP:RSN if necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Krakkos Criticism of Jordanes, and theories by Walter Goffart and Arne Søby Christensen, are already mentioned in the article. Christensen's theories are labelled "too extreme" by Michael Whitby, and neither him nor his theories are discussed in any way in our best secondary sources or reference works on the Goths. Regardless, this article is about Goths, it's not about Jordanes or Getica. Who is "Gillett", and why should his theories be given equal weight to those of Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram? Krakkos (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have answered who Andrew Gillett is above. You have written about him before in quite strong words that turned out to be ridiculous, which is an experience you should have learned from. The point about that is Krakkos, that IF Jordanes needs to be discussed, which surely seems to be the case, then Andrew Gillett is a recent and more specialized source than Heather. Your first sentence has ambiguous pronouns, but in any case Goffart, Christensen and Gillett ARE, undeniably, some of the "best secondary sources" on Jordanes and what he says about the Goths. Dictionary articles which don't discuss disputes are, in contrast, unsuitable for WP use on any discussions of debated points (WP:IDNHT). Heather and Wolfram, as authors, are clearly experts, but their main detailed publications were in the 1980s and 1990s. If they have not written about some recent publication in one of the recent short works, it basically proves nothing. But of course they DO both cite Goffart, and Goffart who has written in more detail more recently, cites more people. The implications for WP:RS can't be more clear. If we need to confirm community norms at WP:RSN let's just do it, but honestly you must already see that all roads will lead to the same result.

Concerning the article as a whole though, the above bullet list covers more real issues. The article is currently being dominated by Heather and anyone who agrees with him. In many parts of the article this has only gotten worse. That is not a long-run sustainable situation. This is not just a disagreement with one other editor who has a different "taste"; but a basic policy issue which there is no point banging your head against over and over and over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)