Jump to content

Talk:Goths

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ashokharsana (talk | contribs) at 10:57, 15 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
@Krakkos: Just checking if you are still on it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, and please take your time. I will complete the review in the meantime then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dear Jens Lallensack, i have now amended the article in accordance with your recommendations.[1] Krakkos (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Just to register here: related discussions relevant to the GA review, [3], [4], [5] .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Etymology section: verification issue

NOTE: the section is currently called "Name"

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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]

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)[reply]
This is similar, of course to a whole series of "I am going to draw a red line and fight" posts you have written, effectively saying that we only need Heather's dictionary articles because they are the be all and end all, even if they say nothing at all about 21st century authors or anyone who ever disagreed with Heather. Well, please give up on that strategy. Let's get back to this etymology section "Name" [6], and try to be practical. Here is the current section which will need to be worked on, because it almost unreadable, and will be read as containing conflicting and repetitive statements:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Red and green notes by Andrew Lancaster, added at will as a drafting/discussion table

Note possibly useful source for below discussion, already posted here earlier by Andrew Lancaster:

The name "Goths" means "men"[6] or "the people".[4] For our readers this is pretty unclear. Our sources are less bad, but often also a little vague. They cite other sources. Andersson in RGA, one such source, says that the name seems to be an ethnocentric "tribal" concept which describes this people as ejaculating men - perhaps comparing them to stallions or breeding stock! This is because the verb that these words look like in Germanic (they are assuming it is Germanic) means something like "pouring". I see around the internet that the Prussians might have a similar etymology.
[6]= Wolfram 1990, p. 12.
[4]= Heather 2018, p. 673.
In the Gothic language of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy, the Goths were called the *Gut-þiuda "Gothic people" (attested as dative singular Gut-þiudai).[7]
[7]= Lehmann 1986, pp. 163–164.
The simplex variant of this name, *Gutans, or possibly *Gutôs, is inferred from a presumed genitive plural form gutani in the Pietroassa inscription. The Demonym is also attested in Greek as γόθοι, γότθοι, γόθθοι and in Latin as Gothi.[8]
[8]= Braune, Wilhelm (1912). Gotische Grammatik [Gothic Grammar] (in German). V. Niemeyer. <I take it that you can not read this, right @Krakkos:? It would be better to have a newer source though, like Thomas Andersson, above. Also, the defender of this passage Krakkos does not understand what it is saying, even in English, so how will our readers handle it?>
The word "Goths" derives from the stem Gutan-. <actually I understand there are two parts. -an- is clearly a separable part which does NOT appear in "Goths"/Goti.>
This stem produces the singular *Gutô, plural *Gutaniz in Proto-Germanic. It survives in the modern Scandinavian tribal name Gutes, which is what the inhabitants of the present-day Swedish island Gotland in Baltic Sea call themselves (In Gutnish - Gutar, in Swedish "Gotlänningar").
[9]= Wolfram 1990, pp. 19-24.
Another modern Scandinavian tribal name, Geats (in Swedish "Götar"), which is what the (original) inhabitants of present-day Götaland call themselves, derives from a related Proto-Germanic word, *Gautaz (plural *Gautôz). Both *Gautaz and *Gutô relate to the Proto-Germanic verb *geutaną, meaning "to pour".[7][10] <Any normal reader is now going to wonder if the above explanation was wrong, or what the connection to this new completely different looking explanation.>
[10] = Compare modern Swedish gjuta (pour, perfuse, found), modern Dutch gieten, modern German gießen, Gothic giutan, old Scandinavian giota, old English geotan all cognate with Latin fondere "to pour" and old Greek cheo "I pour". <Do we need this in an article about Goths, and if we do then why only in a footnote?>
The Proto-Indo-European root of the word "geutan" and its cognates in other language is *gʰewd-.[11]
[11] = "gheu-". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Retrieved 18 September 2019. <This whole section starts vague and then disintegrates into high school notes.>
This same root may be connected to the name of a river that flows through Västergötland in Sweden, the Göta älv, which drains Lake Vänern into the Kattegat[9] at the city of Gothenburg.
[9]= Wolfram 1990, pp. 19-24.
It is plausible that a flowing river would be given a name that describes it as "pouring", and that, if the original home of the Goths was near that river, they would choose an ethnonym that described them as living by the river. Another possibility is that the name of the "Geats" developed independently from that of the Gutar/Goths.[12] Seems like a paywall article. I have doubts about whether WP should be giving this speculation.
[12]="Götar". Nationalencyklopedin. Retrieved 18 September 2019. Link given: https://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/g%C3%B6tar
The name "Goths" would eventually come to be applied to a large number of non-Gothic peoples, including Burgundians, Vandals, Gepids, Rugii, Scirii and even the non-Germanic Iranian Alans. On the basis of linguistics, these peoples, with the exception of the Alans, are often referred to as East Germanic peoples.[13]
[13]=Wolfram 1990, pp. 19-20.

@Krakkos: I believe that the Rübekeil source named above gives the smoothest linking up of the concepts which have been patched together in our present section. Also BTW this is in English. This is a real linguistic source such as the ones Wolfram and Heather defer to. p.603 (as cited above): https://books.google.be/books?id=PBKxhq2p0PgC

The etymological kinship between the name stems *Gutan- and *Gauta- is as much beyond doubt as is their relation to the Gmc verb *geuta- 'pour' (OWN góta, OHG giozan).
[...Jordanes...]
The linguistic data must therefore be interpreted with some caution. *Gutan- can not be derived from *Gauta-, *Gutan- is a primary (deverbal) agentive formation, probably meaning '(sperm-) pourer' = 'men'.

I think this should help structure this section better in future. I have not copied everything which might be useful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Concerning origins narratives, Christensen, cited below, has a very detailed analysis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our foremost sources on the Goths, Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, consider the Gutones ancestral to the Goths.[7][8] In his 2018 entry on the Goths in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Heather classifies the Goths as a "Germanic tribe".[9] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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:

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

I have modified the lead.[10] 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.[11]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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,[12] 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,[13] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Perhaps useful. Shows an example of Christensen being cited as important in a "reference work"; 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)[reply]

There is a large ethnic group in South Asia called Gojar or Gujar. I am also a part of this group. This group has ruled a large part of Asia in past and are Aryans by way of their Physical attributes, Genes and Lifestyle, language etc.

We were contacted by someone from this Gojar village of Granada in Spain and were told that there are Gojar or Gujar people in Spain as well. These people are purely Spanish by Genetic and physical attributes and claim to be the descendants of the great VisiGoths. The visi-Goths were Goths who were called Gutar or Guadar (there wasn’t any “J” alphabet in English or Greek until 15th Century and it was written as D or T or G. Most of the Royalties of Europe hail their origin to the Goths.

The country of Georgia was also interestingly called Gurjiya (land of Gurjars or Gujars) and there are people who are in contact with us and call themselves Gujaraidze (progeny of Gujar). They are also genetically purely Georgians. They claim to be the descendants of Gugark tribe (that named the province of Gugark) who were called Gargarians by Greeks (J written as G).

It might be worth researching on this point to unearth some great connection between the past heroes that ruled Europe and Asia (the total then known World). The Real Rana (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[14] Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Reply by Krakkos The sentence you're quoting cites page 23. Why are you falsely insinuating that it's page 37? Is this deliberate? Here is what page 23 "really writes":

"The similarity of the name of the Gothic people and that of the island of Gotland seems to support the migration legend of the Origo Gothica. This area was also the home of the medieval Gutasaga." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. p. 23. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Krakkos (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and THAT page shows that the Gutasaga is not the proof but a possible relevant side remark, as I explained above. My reason for ALSO citing page 37 is that it is from the same book and helps confirm how this writer really thinks, which is direct conflict with how you are reporting his opinions and using him as a source. Please remove this sentence which implies that the Gutasaga is part of a chain of reasoning leading to a conclusion. It is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? [15][16]. 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? [17]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Krakkos: I think we should get this one looked at by the greater community now unless you have any new position or information to report. To summarize before acting, please check the following:

  • The publisher website says 2009, all copies on google books with a visible title page say 2009, all copies known to us users (such as my copy) are also published in 2009.
  • The version which the google summary gives as "2012" says 2009 on its title page.
  • The 2009 version has the same number of pages which you say the "2012" version has.
  • 2010 is mentioned on one google copy which is however not open-able.
  • I contend that google summaries are often hastily created and contain errors.

Correct? (I will wait a bit, and then assume this is correct if there is no response.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More examples.

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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".[18] It's not undue to mention that in this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Potentially useful sources?

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

describe where the Goths lived

@Krakkos:, seriously? [19] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [20] 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)[reply]

@Krakkos: this sentence is still in the lead, but unsourced. I am not sure if it needs a source according to you? (Above you make it seem otherwise.) Of course you have created a Catch 22 demand but it is one you can perhaps resolve for us?

  • You are currently demanding that the only sources you can accept here are ones behind a paywall only you can read.
  • None of us know apart from you how those sources describe the Gothic homeland, and whether their remarks cover these fairly simple and common geographical descriptions.
  • Alternatively, of course it should not be hard to find another source, but until we get your special demands about the paywall dictionaries resolved...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [21] 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. [22]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: I think you removed Jarus as suggested, but Mark is playing an ever increasing role in the article despite the clear lack of consensus about his suitability. Let's now make sure your position is clear and then call for opinions from the community.

  • One obvious concern I have mentioned in detailed discussions with you about specific section is that he is being used to say crudely positive things about Heather and negative things about Goffart.
  • Otherwise he seems to add nothing at all to what more authoritative sources can easily be used for?
  • Perhaps a side issue, but I note from other discussions that you have taken an arguably extreme position about the importance of sources being accessible for readers, and thus not in German. Surely it therefore seems odd that your recent editing has moved all sourcing towards the almost exclusive use of materials behind a paywall which you can access because of Wikipedia Library? I don't think the general public has such access. I do think a lot of people can read German.

Can you just confirm that is more or less correct? Once we have the position defined we can move ahead. If I receive no answer I will assume the above is OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) UPDATE. An RSN discussion has been started about removing these sources, which are currently only used to support Heather and ridicule Christensen and Goffart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Part_2--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A paywall online educational website:

A book review of Christensen:

Another book review of Christensen:

A comment on the edit war

The lead as of this edit [[23]] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]


@Krakkos: back to the subject, please explain what "partially" relevant means and why language is an issue?. We clearly need to get back to this because you also today referred to Walter Pohl with identical terminology. What is it all about please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOENG: "[B]ecause this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Walter Pohl's book is from 2004, in German, and about "Germanen". Peter Heather's article is from 2018, in English and directly about the Goths. The citation from Pohl is of lower quality, less relevance and not even in English. It is redundant. Krakkos (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are still not explaining what "partially relevant" means.
  • You are only commenting on 1 of the 3 sources you have described this way.
  • You are clearly using NOENG wrongly. These 3 sources are chosen because they are referenced to by experts including the ones you like. German happens to be one of the main languages used for this specific topic, and so the fact that some sources are only in German is no problem according to NOENG.
  • You are continuing to ignore the problem which has been explained to you dozens of times with using short summary articles from dictionaries - specifically for any topic where the field has debates, and where the tertiary work is neither cited by the field, nor written in a way to discuss differing opinions in the field. The status of the author and the publication year of the WHOLE dictionary are not the most important points which over-ride those concerns in such cases. WP:IDNHT.
  • Please justify your 2 claims of "lower quality" and "less relevance"? How have you judged the quality and relevance of the widely cited reference work by Pohl? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elphion and Krakkos: The above went in circles a bit, but in effect I think what Elphion proposed would be covered by a simple sentence added into the lead as follows:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new sentence in Green by Andrew Lancaster, drafting

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, which is believed to have been at least partly Germanic-speaking.[1][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.[1] Another possible indicator of connections is the presence in classical times of similarly named "Goutai" in Scandinavia and "Gutones" near the Vistula.<can be sourced to; see discussions about how the topic should be sourced in body text, for example here.> The Wielbark culture expanded southwards towards the Black Sea, where by the late 3rd century AD it contributed to the formation of the Chernyakhov culture, which is associated with the Goths who were in frequent conflict and contact with the Roman Empire.[1][3] By the 4th century AD at the latest, several groups were distinguishable, among whom the Thervingi and Greuthungi were the most powerful.[4] During this time, Ulfilas began the conversion of Goths to Arianism.[3]

  • [1]= Heather 2012b, p. 623. "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."
  • [2]= Heather 2018, p. 673. "Goths. A Germanic *tribe whose name means ‘the people’, first attested immediately south of the Baltic Sea in the first two centuries."
  • [3]= Pritsak 2005.
  • [4]= Heather 2018, p. 673.
Reply by Krakkos The lead is already long enough as it is, and contains too much original research already. Adding more original research would not be an improvement. The proper remedy would be to get rid of the original research and stick to what reliable reference works on the Goths say. I believe what Peter Heather writes on Jordanes in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2012b) addresses Elphion's concerns.. Theories that are not mentioned in any reference work on the Goths doesn't belong in the lead of Wikipedia's article on the Goths. Krakkos (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: You can't seriously be calling this original research because you have yourself written/edited such comments in the body of this same article, and I just more-or-less based it off that. Please double check your thoughts here, and confirm whether you made a mistake making this claim, or indeed if I made a mistake.
Concerning your "reference work" proclamation, can you define this so we can get it discussed now? Which sources are you accepting as "reference works"? Only this one dictionary entry?
Can you state any WP policy or anything similar which actually says that anything NOT mentioned in such a dictionary entry should not be included in leads of articles? Or should we describe this as a rule proposed by one editor?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos Edit warring over the content and structure of the lead has been a big problem at this article ever since you decided to edit it a few days ago. This has resulted in the lead at times becoming confusing and excessively long.[24] Recent reference works from The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity and the Oxford Classical Dictionary on Goths, written by the world's foremost expert on the Goths (Peter Heather), provide us with excellent summaries on the Goths. If everyone is permitted to insert cherry-picked information from sub-par secondary sources in the lead, edit warring will continue forever. I think this should be avoided. Modeling the lead upon our best reference works serves as an efficient antidote to further edit warring, not only for the lead, but for the entire article. But it seems like you want the edit warring to continue. Krakkos (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, please confirm your claims or proposals:
  • There are TWO "references" as per this rule or proposal (both short "dictionary" articles, and by the same author). Only those two right?
  • The proposed rule is that only these two sources can be used now, in the lead. Correct?
  • And any topic not in the lead will not be allowed in the entire article, I now read. Correct reading? (So the article will be entirely structured based on those dictionary articles.)
  • The source of this rule is not WP policy, but you Krakkos.
Let me know if there are any misunderstandings.
Please also let's make sure I understand how to describe this fairly. Shall we call it a proposal, demand, vision, etc ...or do you say it is just policy for example? (If it is policy or similar I'd again like to ask for a citation to explain where it is from.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: I am presuming the above definition of the demand/proposal is now more-or-less accurate? Please make sure it is, so we can then move to getting a fair discussion on it, step by step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. A post has now been made at WP:RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_the_Goths_article --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 [25], and the revert [26]. 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)[reply]

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:[27] 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 [28]:
  • Second half-sentence: and are classified as a Germanic people by modern scholars.

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 harvnb error: multiple targets (5×): CITEREFHeather2012b (help)
  • <ref name="Heather_OXLA">Heather 2018, p. 623 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHeather2018 (help)
  • [7]

References

  1. ^ Heather 2007, p. 467. "Goths – Germanic-speaking group first encountered in northern Poland in the first century AD."
  2. ^ Heather 2018, p. 623 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHeather2018 (help). "Goths. A Germanic *tribe whose name means ‘the people’, first attested immediately south of the Baltic Sea in the first two centuries."
  3. ^ Heather 2012b, p. 623 harvnb error: multiple targets (5×): CITEREFHeather2012b (help). "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."
  4. ^ Pritsak 2005. Goths... a Germanic people..."
  5. ^ Thompson 1973, p. 609. "Goths, a Germanic people described by Roman authors of the 1st century a.d. as living in the neighbourhood of the mouth of the Vistula river."
  6. ^ Pohl 2004, p. 24.
  7. ^ Heather 2018, p. 673. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHeather2018 (help)

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]

  • 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[29] 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)[reply]
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]
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.[30][31][32] That makes it necessary to quote them. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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...[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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]
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.[33] Krakkos (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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]

Reply by Krakkos You have a strong tendency to insert[34] unsourced information in the lead and even rewrite[35] 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).[36] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Krakkos: I think the above concerns (footnote examples) are really pretty striking, and would be seen as difficult to follow by almost anyone. So I really do think you should make a constructive attempt to explain why you insist upon, what you insist upon. Honestly it is very difficult to see any good rationale. (I can think of some reasons editors sometimes push for such things, but those are not good reasons.) Anyone who edits this article in the future, and wants to avoid problems with you forum shopping to admins, will need to understand and be able to predict what is acceptable to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christensen example

(edit conflict) Here is an example which seems intended to be misleading, added yesterday [37]:
  • 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]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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]
Reply by Krakkos Who is Arne Søby Christensen anyway? Krakkos (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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".[38] I'm sorry, but this stuff isn't suitable for the lead. Krakkos (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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!! [39], [40] 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]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
Steinacher's source for the prestige name bit is:

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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Krakkos: here are the two places you have focused on Christensen in the article. I hope the problems are obvious to you.

Origins and early history [one sentence which started this discussion, but has only gotten worse]
The Gutones are generally[29][30][31] considered ancestral or even identical to the later Goths,[28][5][4] but not everyone accepts this.[32]

<Just to consider how bad the above is, it flat out disagrees with Wolfram. He is presumably included in "everyone".> Proposal: A simpler sentence would be uncontroversial and would not need all these SYNTH sources. EG: "The Vistula Gutones are generally considered to have a connection to the later Ukraine Goths, and to share an etymologically related name."[28][29][31]

Evidence from classical sources
Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the Gutones and similarly named peoples mentioned by early Roman authors were possibly not identical to the Goths, but concedes that such an equation is generally accepted and makes sense chronologically.[30][32] Christensen's theories have rejected as "based on dubious reasoning" and "surely too extreme" by other historians such as Michael Whitby, who considers them "little more than a long footnote" to what has already been published on the subject by Peter Heather and others.[70][undue weight? – discuss][71][undue weight? – discuss][72] Among philologists and linguists, there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is the same as that of the Goths.[29][31]

Proposal: Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the Gutones mentioned by early Graeco-Roman authors were possibly not identical to the Goths, though it has been "taken for granted" by many scholars.[30][32] Among philologists and linguists, there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is based upon the same etymological word root as that of the Goths.[29][31]

Footnotes
  • 30 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 Butones/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 [Gutones/Gythones] who are also normally identified with the 'the Goths'... Ptolemy lists the [Gutae], also identified by Gothic scholars with the Goths..."
  • 31 Christensen 2002, p. 41. "However, linguists believe there is an indisputable connection." i.e. between the WORDS, not the WHOLE POPULATIONS. BTW as an example Christensen cites Wolfram and quotes him, so the meaning is 100% clearly different from our sentence
  • 32 Christensen 2002, p. 343. "They might possibly have been mentioned in some geographical and ethnographical works dating from the first century AD, but the similarity in the names is not significant... [Missing words include: ..., and no antique author later considers them to be the forefathers of the Goths. No one tells us how the <peoples named by Strabo, Pliny etc> wandered southwards and became the fearsome Gothi. No one sees this connection, even during the Great Migration] Chronologically it would, of course, be quite a realistic possibility..." <Missing:>...since we have demonstrated that Jordanes's account of the battle between Goths and Romans during the reign of Emperor Domitian, in the first century, had nothing to do with Gothic history. <Christensen is pointing out that it is possible not that it "makes sense"! The specific context is showing that different accepted theories conflict with each other, and it is clear "makes sense" is not the intended meaning.
  • 70 Whitby 2003, p. 498. "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." <prososal: remove this source, an unknown book review, entirely from the whole article>
  • 71 Sønnesyn 2004, p. 308. "Christensen's conclusion... is therefore partly based on dubious reasoning, which does nothing to strenghten the central argument of the book." <prososal: remove this source, an unknown book review, entirely from the whole article>
  • 72 Wood 2003, p. 484. "I think that Christensen has been too stringent in denying the existence of Gothic elements in the text."

I don't think this is acceptable balanced writing, and accurate use of our sources. The cherry picking of words and careful removals of key bits to change the meaning are stunning. In fact, what scholars agree, and what Christensen is referring to is the connection between the WORDS, not the peoples. Wolfram etc are NOT arguing the words equate to whole peoples, but only to small culturally significant elites.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This subsequent edit makes it worse, more clearly misrepresents Wolfram and others [41]. The connection is between words, not whole peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos

"[W]henever 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. p. 23. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Krakkos (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have yourself been citing other remarks by Wolfram, including from more recent works, which show why this quote is not giving an accurate impression of what he believes. Not even close and there is no way you can deny that you know this, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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". (Wolfram 1990 p.37)

Apparently as a battling pointy edit, you've now added to the front of the paragraph so as to emphasize controversial aspects of your work and show you are not going to pay any attention to the concerns of other editors: [42][43] "All philologists and linguists consider them to be the same names." How is that encyclopedic writing and a balanced accurate use of a range of sources?
What are you trying to achieve with this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos

"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 (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Krakkos (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, to spell it out and go through one more step, please remove the word "All". It is not in the source, and it goes beyond the source and even if one source said this, we are not here to represent one writer.
...and then there are the numerous obvious distortions shown above, which need to be fixed please...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made two proposed new texts for the two distorted paragraphs above. They show, honestly, that it is very easy to avoid the unnecessary controversy and source synthesis within thickets of footnotes which seem to keep thickening. Can we use the proposed green sentences?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos Using the proposals in the green text would involve the removal of quality sources and the misrepresentations of remaining sources. This is unhelpful and i'm opposed to it. The article Germanic peoples, which you have recently completely rewritten, contains HUGE amounts of unsourced text. Why can't you instead work on improving your own poor articles? Why can't you just leave me alone? Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am already giving you a LOT of leeway and taking a much softer approach than many Wikipedians would. What you are insisting upon above is a deliberate distortion of our reporting of individual authors, works and the field as a whole. The problem with your way of thinking is that I do not own and articles, and neither do you. We are part of a community which has a lot of "rules" or norms. Secondly these are not just proposals above, but also a careful explanation of problems, where you are, I think quite knowingly, ignoring and working against the community norms. If my concerns are mistaken, then you can explain. If you have other ways of addressing them, then fine. But just trying to bully and push other editors in circles is not going to work Krakkos. If you can't accept the community way of working then you need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article). Maybe you should develop your own website or work on one of those less strict ones where more original research is allowed? Personally I work on different websites or other types of publication when I feel like doing different types of work - and I think many Wikipedians do. Anyway, your response is nonsensical in terms of WP norms, and the concerns raised above are relatively serious (because your own posts seem to shown this is deliberately fraudulent, not just naive synth and misreading) and need a solution ASAP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: so do I take it you are adamantly refusing to make any sorts of edits to correct the obvious problems shown above? I am still hoping YOU will CHOOSE to fix them, but let me know if this is a foolish hope.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caricatures of Walter Goffart

Note added later: censoring WP to block mention of Goffart and several other normal authorities was also a theme of problems on Germanic peoples, where @Krakkos: found himself in opposition with all other editors. I should therefore link to some example discussions, which also involve, like on this article, attempts to censor sources including anything published in German: [44],[45],[46].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I write, here are all the mentions of Walter Goffart, and these are being added to and made worse today. Maybe I should just let them speak for themselves. They are clearly a travesty of biased writing. This can not be depicted as an attempt to give a fair summary of the field. It also completely distorts the "favoured" authors like Heather who are made to look as crude as Krakkos! Heather (and Goffart) do sometimes use overblown rhetoric, but using it selectively like this is shameful, without exaggeration, to see in Wikipedia.

Andrew Lancaster comments in red and green
Jordanes and Getica:
Jordanes' account is controversial, and certainly contains many inaccuracies.[45]<1994 source despite so many newer ones??> It has not been possible to confirm archaeologically his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia.[1] Walter Goffart claims that the Getica is an entirely fabricated propaganda piece produced as part of a political conspiracy, with no foundation in oral tradition.[46] <1994 source despite so many newer ones??> Critics of Jordanes typically argue that since his work contains certain obvious errors, it must be entirely unreliable.[47] Because he considers Jordanes completely unreliable, Goffart further charges that all archaeological evidence on the early Goths is unreliable, as this evidence is connected to Jordanes.[48]<using weak source for crude wording, instead of citing Goffart himself; sentence should be removed> Goffart's theories on Getica has by Peter Heather been rejected as a "flawed" and "unconvincing" conspiracy theory.[49][50]<we do not need to, we may not, sycophanticlly imitate all the rhetorical colour which makes more sense outside of an encyclopedic context of course> Herwig Wolfram considers Getica to be a work of indispensable value to Gothic history. He considers it a relic of Gothic oral tradition, and believes that the Gothic elite originated in Scandinavia.[51]<1994 source but Heather seems to have shifted position since then and no longer writes so strongly?> Heather also suggests that Getica is partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[52] Jordanes' account of Gothic settlement in modern-day Poland is considered accurate by most historians.[30]<weak source for crude strong wording. This sentence should be removed.>
Archaeological evidence <this paragraph now removed entirely by Srnec w/ edsum "this paragraph as written is useless">[47]
Certain scholars, such as Walter Goffart, completely ignore archaeological evidence on the Goths.[83] <striking source distortion [83] and no attempt to cite the actual author. see fn note [83] below> They contend that archaeological evidence on the Goths is largely derived from Jordanes, and because they consider Jordanes unreliable, this makes archaeological evidence on the Goths unreliable as well.[24] <this minor book review [24] is not the right way to cite Goffart. read Goffart instead>
Footnotes:
  • 24. Mark 2014. <prososal: remove this source, a paywall online educational webpage, entirely from the whole article>
  • 30. Mark 2014. "Historians such as Peter Heather have identified Gothiscandza with Gdansk in modern Poland, and this theory is generally supported..." <prososal: remove this source, a paywall online educational webpage, entirely from the whole article>
  • 45 Heather 1994, p. 3.<1994 source but Heather seems to have shifted position since then and no longer writes so strongly?>
  • 46 Heather 1994, p. 40.<1994 source but Heather seems to have shifted position since then and no longer writes so strongly?>
  • 47 Whitby 2003, p. 498. <prososal: remove this source, an unknown book review, entirely from the whole article>
  • 48 Mark. <prososal: remove this source, a paywall online educational webpage, entirely from the whole article>
  • 49 Heather 1994, pp. 43, 45.<1994 source but Heather seems to have shifted position since then and no longer writes so strongly?>
  • 50 Heather 2012a, p. 667. "In my view, the textual evidence indeed suggests that Jordanes worked using Cassiodorus' text (as he claims) and I find the various conspiracy theories that have been offered against this unconvincing."
  • 51 Heather 1994, p. 7.<1994 source but Heather seems to have shifted position since then and no longer writes so strongly?>
  • 52 Sønnesyn 2004, p. 308. "Peter Heather has argued that Jordanes' account of the genealogy of the Amal family may in part be based on a Gothic tradition. This claim is opposed by Christensen with something looking suspiciously like circular argumentation." <prososal: remove this source, an unknown book review, entirely from the whole article>
  • 83. Heather 2012a, p. 650. <Really? Heather really wrote "Goffart ... objects to old-style assumptions, based on the famous Jordanes, Getica 26-32, that Scandinavia in particular and Germania in general was a womb of nations, endlessly producing future invaders of the Roman Empire until was overwhelmed. As a comment on old-fashioned historiography, this is fair enough, though his work does not engage with the detailed archaeological evidence". What a difference!! Also the footnote number should be cited, because we are citing a note here!>
We should take a step back as judges of the whole field to consider whether Heather is an archaeologist? No. Is he more "archaeological"? Well, here some context. One of his most recent papers on Gothic origins matters was his afterword to Florin Curta's book of paper's mainly archaeological:
  • Heather, Peter (2010), "Afterword", in Curta, Florin (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, vol. 32
Let us then consider Curta's MORE recent paper which is quite relevant on this:
  • Curta, Florin (2020), "Migrations in the Archaeology of Eastern and Southeastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages (Some Comments on the Current State of Research)", in Preiser-Kappeler, Johannes; Reinfandt, Lucian; Stouraitis, Ioannis (eds.), Migration History of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone, pp. 101–138

The idea that the Goths migrated out of northern Europe to the fringes of the Empire rests “mainly on the evidence of a single ancient source, the Getica of Jordanes, around which complicated structures of scholarly hypothesis have been built”.5 One could argue in principle that the Sântana de Mureş Černjachov culture came into being “because of a migration out of the Wielbark regions, but one might equally argue that it was an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic, and Dacian cultures”.6 Peter Heather, however, is skeptical about skepticism. To him, there can be no doubt that the Wielbark people morphed into the Sântana de Mureş Černjachov people, who became Goths in the course of a century-long migration across Eastern Europe, from the Baltic to the Black Sea.7 [...] The lack of archaeological evidence in support of such a model of early medieval migration is gleefully dismissed etc. [and it goes on, showing that Heather is ignorant of various types of work that have been done]

So if this is what an archaeology-connected collaborator with the right specialization thinks of Heather on this exact type of topic, can someone give any reason to treat Heather as the only source we need for Gothic archaeology? I am thinking that is a mistaken methodology which @Krakkos: should not insist upon any more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: really? As a specific recommendation on one detail I believe Mark, Whitby, and Sønnesyn are weak sources being used inappropriately and add nothing to this article. They should be removed entirely as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Krakkos Walter Goffart does consider Jordanes completely unreliable, and he does ignore archaeological evidence on the Goths because he considers such evidence as derived from Jordanes. These aren't caricatures, but facts. Whitby and Sønnesyn aren't cited for Goffart's theories. This is a misrepresentation by you. Krakkos (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a misrepresentation of what said about Whitby and Sønnesyn. And yes, Goffart said various things, but the above PRESENTATION of him as an authority is a ridiculous crude caricature. If you can not understand that balancing sources requires a certain style of presentation you should not be editing Wikipedia. Why do you keep trying to push things like this, which are so obviously inappropriate and never going to be accepted by this community?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of Goffart connects to other problems with the way of using sources...

Andrew Lancaster comments in red and green

The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, eventually came to live outside of Germania, <No, not all of them did, which means this is wrong> and were thereafter <misleading word! they never had been...> never considered Germani by ancient Roman authors <Except Apollinarus Sidonius and the Burgundians, but this is far from relevant here, but it makes this text wrong>, who consistently categorized them among the "Scythians" or other peoples who had historically inhabited the area.[14][15][16][17] PROPOSAL: The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, were never called "Germani" (Germanic peoples) by Graeco-Roman authors, who consistently categorized them as "Scythians" and associated their ancestry with other Danubian and steppe peoples such as Getians, Huns and Sarmatians.

  • 15. Goffart 1989, p. 112. "Goths, Vandals, and Gepids, among others, never called themselves German or were regarded as such by late Roman observers."
  • 16. Goffart 2010, p. 5 "The use of “German” waned sharply in late antiquity, when, for example, it was mainly reserved by Roman authors as an alternative to “Franks” and never applied to Goths or the other peoples living in their vicinity at the eastern end of the Danube." <actually this footnote is irrelevant to this article, it is about the OTHER "real" Germani. The term was NEVER used for the East Germanic speakers>
  • 17 Wolfram 2005, p. 5. "Goths, Vandals, and other East Germanic tribes were differentiated from the Germans and were referred to as Scythians, Goths, or some other special names."
  • 18. Heather 2007, p. 467. "Goths – Germanic-speaking group first encountered in northern Poland in the first century AD."I presume this work, not much used on this article, was cited here instead of the "best" most recent Heather works, because the wording was handy for POV?>
Reply by Krakkos Herwig Wolfram writes (correctly) that the Vandals and Goths were initially considered Germani. None of the sources used say that Roman writers associated Gothic ancestry with "Huns and Sarmatians." This proposal will amount to a misrepresentation of the sources and original research. I don't consider it an improvement. You recently completely rewrote the article Germanic peoples, and that article still contains huge amounts of unsourced text and other issues. Why can't you instead work on improving that article, and permit me to work in peace on this one together with Jens Lallensack? Why can't you just leave me alone? Krakkos (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: really? If we need to add more sources to make your point then we just do that. Indeed your must have other sources in mind it seems because now you mention Herwig Wolfram saying something which is NOT cited above. So clearly adding a source when it is really needed, (I don't normally need to oversource because I am not a controversial editor pushing POVs), is something we both understand and know how to do. Can you please give the Wolfram citation now?? Let's see what he really said. But I think "Goths" were NEVER called Germani, and that is what our sources say. You know this. I think this can direction of explanation will just go in circles and end up at the same conclusion: the sentence needs to be changed. It is deliberately misleading and deliberately distorts what authors, publications and the field says.
Did Jens Lallensack offer to work on the content of the article BTW? In answer to your question of why I don't want to "leave you alone", this is WP. It is a joint effort by a community.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos The fact that Wikipdia is a community effort does not entitle you to hound other editors. Jens Lallensack has come up with a solution,[48] but you do not seem to be abiding by it. Krakkos (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should have learned by now NOT to continually twist the words of others, including other Wikipedians, sources, policies etc. This might feel like it is working when you are laying low and working on unknown articles and categories, but this is not something you should keep taking for granted now. I have indeed been trying to mainly post my concerns on this talk page, rather than editing, giving you a chance to show good faith. Having made that major concession your edits and talk page posts show absolutely no concern at all for such concerns. I have limited myself to commenting a small % of the mass of POV edits you are making, and you are seeing that as a signal to do even more. This is highly problematic because it is very difficult to come back later and retrace all the source distortions for example. So your bad faith behavior is where the problem is. If you just accepted to fix some of the obvious problems I point to instead of throwing up surreal smoke screens and parent-shopping all the time, imagine what that would be like...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: I presume you will not be bringing any source to the table which shows Wolfram or anyone else demonstrating that Goths were EVER called Germani or Germanic peoples before modern times. (As per discussion above.) If I misunderstand, here is where to post!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos

"[A]lready in late antiquity the Germanic name was limited first to the Alamanni and then to the Franks as the dominant tribal groups in traditional Germania. While the Gutones, the Pomeranian precursors of the Goths, and the Vandili, the Silesian ancestors of the Vandals, were still considered part of Tacitean Germania, the later Goths, Vandals, and other East Germanic tribes were differentiated from the Germans and were referred to as Scythians, Goths, or some other special names. The sole exception are the Burgundians, who were considered German because they came to Gaul via Germania." Wolfram, Herwig (1997). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. University of California Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0520085114. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Archaeologists equate the earliest history of the Goths with the artifacts of a culture named after the East Prussian town Willenberg-Wielbark... In any case, the Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them - were initially under foreign domination... [W]henever 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. 12, 23. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"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 (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Beyond the Ligii are the Gothones, who are ruled by kings, a little more strictly than the other German tribes." Tacitus (1876). Germania. Translated by Church, Alfred John; Brodribb, William Jackson. p. XLIV. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Krakkos (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... So to be clear, Wolfram does NOT say that the Romans or Greeks called Goths Germani or Germanic peoples. He does, unsurprisingly given our understanding of his proposals say that the "precursors" were called Germani. Consider (1) WP:SYNTH WP:OR and (2) as shown above recently, Wolfram's most recent understanding of precursor means only that there is some kind of cultural/elite connection between the two peoples with similar names (so we have to explain to our readers that "same people" here means "people with related elites" or something like that? (To be clear, he has specifically noted, as you know, that the Goths can NOT be the Gutones of Tacitus in a literal sense) and (3) we know that even in this weak form the field is not in a consensus. Heather and his fans prefer to talk about how the archaeological data shows a general movement in the right direction, though it tells us no exact tribal histories and names. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Krakkos In view of what is cited above, i don't think there is any reason to rewrite Goths#Classification. I'll leave it up to the rest of the community to make up their opinion. Krakkos (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Classification, I've noted the multiple factual mistakes of wording above in red and putting aside the way you need to synthesize several sources to defend yourself on ONE of those factual mistakes, when we report the field consensus in Wikipedia voice we can not be choosing our favorite position and censoring or ridiculing all the others. The uncontroversial baseline is what most experts would agree with, and then differences between them need to be explained neutrally as a next step. Neutrally, of course, does not mean looking for sycophantic minor book reviews to explain the positions of the people we don't like in a ridiculing way, instead of citing the authors and their supporters in a fair way themselves, which shows their arguments in their best (and most interesting) forms.

As usual, after writing out the normal common sense approach on WP to such matters, I ask myself why I constantly have to explain such obvious things for one special WP editor, over and over and over. And indeed why bother. Krakkos listens to no one.

There are also the other two sections above, Jordanes and Getica, and Archaeological evidence? To be really clear about what I have demonstrated above, given that euphemisms clearly win me nothing, they are deliberate tabloid quality partisanship. @Krakkos: you've made great "efforts" (appealing to admins etc) to get this far in these efforts, but this BS can't remain. This style makes WP into a sycophantic bully boy for your favorite author, crudely attacking other authorities that the author in question, not known for being soft himself, would never be so dishonest to do in a similar way. It is surreal to see something like this on WP. If you see any way of explaining why that should be acceptable, then please do explain. I think my position is clear unless new information changes it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a drafting table

To save space here, and keep discussions hopefully more compressed and easy to connect I am making a table of drafting remarks for the article, on a drafting page on my userspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting (It can be moved to here or somewhere else.) One aim is to have links to any relevant past discussions. I have started by breaking up the lead and adding some basic remarks. There is a third column where short notes can perhaps be added... . Feedback welcome, or indeed called-for. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it is not a very long lead? (This has been raised recently as a concern.) Having said that, I think it would be great to keep a similar length if possible. It is just that I would not see it as such a problem that we need to delete anything or avoid adding anything anyone is really concerned about? Feedback anyone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead contains certain information not mentioned in the cited text. I think these source falsifications should be removed per WP:OR. There are also issues with repetition and the chronology is at times confusing. I think the lead was better before the edit warring.[49] It was in accordance with the cited sources, more concise and clear, yet covered all the essentials. Krakkos (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we fix those problems if you refuse to explain them...
  • Which "source falsifications" are you referring to?
  • Please also describe the issues with repetition and chronology. You mean there is repetition in the lead?
Hopefully you are not just going to keep saying "my version was better", "all your changes are mutilations" and hopefully you are not going to continue to abuse your Wikipedia Library access to Oxford dictionaries behind a paywall, which we can't see. Please be constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: it would still be good for you to define the sourcing, repetition and chronology problems. Which bits are you referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, at least the prose is better in the original version of the lead compared to the current one. A sentence like "As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland" let me wonder – what is a "dominant class of Goths", and why does the Germanic language speak for an origin in modern Poland? This does not make sense to a reader new to the topic. And to be fair Andrew Lancaster, implying other editors of "abusing" something is not "constructive" in any way as well. Unless Wikipedia:No personal attacks is strictly followed, I will not get involved in this discussion any further; it just isn't fun. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens, your remark makes sense if you have not been watching the discussions, but frankly I was not implying. The abuse can be pointed to, and I was merely saying I hope you won't keep repeating the same unconstructive things over and over. I invite you to read more of the talk page, and I'd be very happy to discuss this. (I think a different thread though.)
More to the point, concerning the issue you remark upon with that sentence I do not remember all the steps, so could you give an example of a version you like better? Of course the challenge will be that anything I propose at the moment will almost certainly be rejected by Krakkos, because he will say his Oxford dictionary won't accept it, but let's go through the process optimistically, and see what happens. Once we get a nicer sentence, that is already something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and related pages carefully. It is irrelevant whether or not an alleged abuse can be demonstrated. End of discussion from my side. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let us indeed both consider the words "Comment on content, not on the contributor". :) Now back to this content: please can you show me which version of that sentence you preferred? I would be very happy to see it and try to learn from it. :) If we do not try, then we will not know what was possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack:, I see Srnec has edited the sentence in question. [50] To me this seems better, and possibly it also seems better to you? I will put the new sentence in the lead draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to work out whether this causes any problem, I suppose the fact which is no longer mentioned is about "Germanic languages". Perhaps this could be mentioned in a different place. Personally, I think the opening line itself could be changed, for example:

"were an early Germanic people" -> "were an early Germanic-speaking people"

As explained on our Germanic peoples article "Germanic peoples" can have different definitions and one of those is "Germanic-speaking peoples" which means that the above change is just being more specific. Even more specific would be:

"were an early East Germanic-speaking people" <"early" becomes optional then because the whole language family is extinct.>

More specific is arguably better? And if we can get this information all just by using the right adjective it is also not to difficult to read? To be clear, I am just throwing ideas around, and not taking a strong position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should base this article upon what is written in reliable sources rather than what is currently written at Germanic peoples. Our reliable sources on the Goths classify them as a Germanic people/tribe (check the sources in the lead), and i see no justifiable reason why this article should do otherwise. You are of course free to make an RfC about it if you wish to do so. Krakkos (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: are you saying, honestly, that reliable sources deny that Gothic peoples were Germanic peoples in the sense of being Germanic-speaking peoples? Over the last 2 months you and have discussed, at long length, passage in Halsall, Heather and others, which makes this very clear, so I feel very certain you know this to be verifiable. Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you used this exact quote many times in the articles and on talk pages at both Germanic peoples and your short-lived POV fork article Germani:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Halsall (2014, p. 520), using the Gothic peoples as an example wrote: "Linguistically, we can justify a grouping on the basis that all these peoples spoke a related form of Indo-European language, whether East, West or North Germanic. Such a modern definition, however, does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani."

I don't think it matters much whether we say Germanic-speaking, East Germanic-speaking or Germanic (since each of those is accurate). Our page at Germanic peoples should cover and explain whatever it means in the context of Late Antiquity, so that is why I left it as is. I removed "early" since the Goths are basically the opposite of early in the context of ancient Germanic peoples. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is also fine by me, though I have a slight preference for that extra bit of accuracy given the obvious difficulties people have with seeing that there are different ways the term can apply. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) [TLDR: If no one objects to the rationale I just gave, my answer is yes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)][reply]

RfC on publication date

Should we take our publication year Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather 2009 or 2012 (or something else)? See [51]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2009, according to me. I posted the RFC. The publisher website says 2009, all copies on google books with a visible title page say 2009, all copies known to us users (such as my copy) are also published in 2009. The version which the google summary gives as "2012" says 2009 on its title page. I contend that google summaries are often hastily created and contain errors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who have edited recently on this article: @Carlstak, Srnec, Orenburg1, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Narky Blert, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Cobaltcigs, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion. Outside my area; I think my only contribution has been to fix a link to a DAB page, I hope uncontroversially. Narky Blert (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should state the publication (not copyright) date of the edition being cited. There are three editions of this work. The first by Macmillan from 2009 has a different subtitle ([52]). The first Oxford printing is from 2010. (Look up reviews on GScholar to see how it is cited.) The Oxford paperback edition is from 2012. I believe the contents are identical and probably the pagination is too. The date should be that of the edition being cited and if it is GBooks then that should be determined from the scans and not the metadata. I suspect that the correct date for the version Krakkos was using is 2010, but only he can confirm that. We could add the orig-year= variable to the citation template to keep 2009 there in any case. Since the 2009 edition had a different subtitle, however, the current format is certainly wrong. Srnec (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I should have made it more clear that in the discussion (see diff) the google book version linked to said 2009 on the scanned title page. That was in any case my best understanding. (One reason for this RfC was that I could not get a clear rationale.)
FWIW, BTW, My own copy is paperback and I would call it 2009, and wouldn't have thought of upping the date. I always consider new print runs, especially in the 21st century, and especially when we have many people presumably all using different copies, to be relevant only when they include a re-setting? Wouldn't that obviously lead to strange situations?
FWIW, the position of Krakkos is different in two ways to yours: "They aren't identical. Wikipedia should use the most recent version"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't "upping" the date, you are giving the date of publication (not copyright). See WP:CITE. I tend to agree that the original date seems most useful when dealing with mere reprints without any changes to the text or pagination, but that is not standard practice. Standard practice says cite the edition you are using. Note that in this case the first OUP edition is a reprint of an earlier Macmillan edition. So having OUP and 2009 in the same citation is a little strange, no? There was also a subtitle change. So while the 2012 and 2010 editions may be identical, the 2009 one is a little different. How we handle this in a collaborative project in which different editors have different editions of the same work is a good question. So long as they are identical texts, I think using both the year= and orig-year= parameters will suffice. It looks like there is even a 2018 edition of this work! Srnec (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I am 99% sure that multiple versions have been consulted by various editors. So theoretically this leads to the need for having 3 or 4 entries in the bibliography, for each of the more popular books with several editions? I think the reason I've never had this discussion before is because normally editors just come to some friendly compromise, or just don't notice the issue or bother with it. In this case when I corrected one in good faith a complaint was filed against me for edit warring. The reason I don't just ignore it was that several works which were involved in content dispute concerning their up-to-dateness, seemed to all get adjusted upwards. Note again the wording chosen by Krakkos to explain this in their own words implies always picking the highest year, so that is why I wrote "upping".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Srnec per his comments above. The American 2009 version published by Macmillan is subtitled Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe. As he says, the date used should be that of the edition being cited. If the "orig-year=" parameter is used, the applicable subtitle must be indicated somehow. Carlstak (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec and Carlstak: I think we don't yet have one clear leading proposal? I agree copyright date would not be correct if it was not a publication date, but normally it is the first publication year; and as previously advised I checked the OUP website and they say "Published: 05 March 2009". Thanks for reminding me to use google scholar, but it seems to also show wide use of 2009 by scholars. In any case to me it sounds like the choice is between having multiple entries, or choosing between 2009 and 2010, and the reason for 2010 is the changed subtitle? (But this means we would be disputing the implication of OUP that they published in 2009?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think Srnec's comment is reasonable. The scan of the edition of Empires and Barbarians used in this article says 2010. I think we could add 2010 as publication date and 2009 as orig-year. This must certainly have been discussed at Wikipedia before? Krakkos (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I doubt such discussions do happen often. This type of thing does not normally happen even during disputes: [53]. But just to be sure: are we all really sure Oxford really did no 2009 edition, despite what they say on their website? (As long as we work based on a common sense consistent principle, and don't use different rules to make different works look newer or older, I have no strong opinion. So my priority is getting the rationale clear.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec and Carlstak: one of you guys have time to flip a coin, post a quick note about a rationale, and do the deed? I doubt we will get much more feedback.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 2010. Seems resolved. If you think the original year needs mentioning (I don't), you should add a note indicating the title and publisher of the 2009 edition. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, posting two years does not seem to be the best way to work in such cases. @Srnec: my main concern is whether we now have a clear rationale on record that we can use the same way for all sources. I think we are using the first publication year for the main "version" we are using. In other words, we are not using 2009 because you are saying there was no 2009 publication of the Oxford version (which I have doubts about, but that is a minor issue). Does that sound about right to everyone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some specific tweak proposals in lead

I will use my table format. My suggestions are in green. Feedback requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

current comments proposal
In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths fell under Hunnic rule, while others migrated into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. 1. fell under, or joined? e.g. Wolfram 1990 p123ff ; 2. who is they? In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.[*1] In the aftermath of this event, many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved into the Roman Empire. When a large group of Tervingi crossed the Danube, tensions rose and they were joined by more Goths, Alans, and Huns to inflict a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.[*2]
These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Oversimplification Within the empire, Goths such as Alaric, possibly a Tervingian, led large barbarian military forces for Rome, with their families attached.[*3] Unable to confirm his position in the Roman hierarchy, Alaric's people became the Visigoths, and with Alaric as king, they moved to Aquitania, and generations later, a Visigothic Kingdom was established in Spain at Toledo.[*4]
Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, and eventually became known as the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[5] I can not check that source behind a paywall but it would be strange if it did not say something like this... Meanwhile, the Hunnic alliance split up in the 5th century, leading to the splitting out of different components, most importantly the Amal-led Ostrogoths.[*5] Under their king Theodoric the Great, and supported by the eastern emperor Zeno, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[*6]
[5]=Heather 2012b, p. 623. [*1] Wolfram p.123; Heather (20xx) pp.208-221; Halsall p.170. [*2] Halsall pp.175-180; Wolfram p.124; Heather (20xx) pp.151-153. [*3] Halsall pp.189-194; Wolfram pp.89-101; Heather (20xx) pp.189-201. [*4] Wolfram pp.272-275; Halsall pp.296-300. [*5] Heather (20xx), pp.221-224,246-250 ; Wolfram p.140; Halsall pp.286. [*6] Wolfram pp.199-203; Halsall p.287.
2012b is behind paywall and only a dictionary entry Heather 20xx means "Empires and Barbarians".
Stuffing the lead with all of these selective details and sources is not an improvement in my opinion. There are also factual inaccuracies in this proposal. For example, Alaric I died in Calabria, Italy in 410 AD, long before Goths settled in Aquitania. I have strong doubts that any of the sources above contain such an inaccuracy, suggesting that this proposal is at least partially based on original research. Peter Heather's entry on the Goths in the 2012 Oxford Classical Dictionary is easily accessible, and removing such a source is not an improvement.
Let's stick to limiting the lead to the basics, which are covered in reference works. Additional information can be covered in the body. That will be an effective measure against edit warring. Krakkos (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krakkos, please remember WP:ASPERSIONS yourself sometimes...
  • Aspersion and misrepresentation #1. This is not a significant change of length, and details are not "selective" but explained as corrections. The present text really does seem to contain errors. You could have said that my explanations are wrong, but instead you only cast aspersions.
  • Aspersion and misrepresentation #2. You accuse me of inserting factual inaccuracies. Again, no attempt to give evidence.
  • Aspersion and misrepresentation #3. You accuse me of fraudulently misreporting the sources and inserting original research under the name of these sources. Again, no attempt to give evidence.
  • Aspersion and misrepresentation #4. As you surely must know, you have access to OUP via Wikipedia Library, as shown on your userpage. The dictionary is behind a paywall. Below, you have suggested that the paywall is my only concern with this source, but you know this is not the case. See WP:RSN.
I invite you to actually read the text with an open mind, actually look at the sources, etc, and then post a constructive comment about the proposals. I would be very happy to explain my concerns in more detail also, concerning the errors I believe are in the current text.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: Just for clarity the words which you point to as inaccurate, implying that Alaric led one single migration that went to Spain, are from the current version, and yes they should be fixed. To the extent they are in my version that is because it is adapted from the older version. But part of the problem here, honestly, is this constant reference to single migrations, which did not happen like that. I compromised too much about that in my draft. There was no such single migration was there?
I am going to say this too: I find it a shame that after posting a pretty crude misrepresentation of my draft here, you immediately started a new sub-section about EXACTLY the same paragraph with no reference to this topic which had just been posted. How should others interpret this "style"? Please think about it. Can you you explain to yourself or anyone else what this is intended to achieve?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster has repeatedly complained that the following sources are behind a paywall:

On this basis he has advocated the removal of these sources from this article. I have found links of these sources which are not behind a paywall. If it's alright with the community, i would like to insert those links into the article, so that the sources become accessible to everyone. Krakkos (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Krakkos but just to be clear, that is not the only concern with these sources, or the way that they have been used. I will comment on WP:RSN where this is being discussed. Hopefully one of the other editors watching can insert those links.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just to confirm, these links do not work for me. I presume that you can open them because of the OUP access mentioned on your Userbox?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Lancaster, do i have your permission to switch the links so that it will work for your too? Krakkos (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the links here on the talk page do not work for me. Do I misunderstand something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: Here are the sources with freely accessible links:
Free links are accessible through clicking the book titles, which were previously wikilinks but are now urls. Do i have your permission to replace these new links with the old ones? Krakkos (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that I tried this (now several times) and no, these links go to OUP and a paywall? I am not sure why you keep responding as if you did not read my comment. The older of the two works does have pages on google books https://books.google.be/books?id=bVWcAQAAQBAJ which would be better. I would like to hear from other editors. Is there any rush?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: In the source, you must click on the book rather than the article in order to get to the freely accessible link. If i insert the links into the article you will understand. Do i have your permission add the free links? Krakkos (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: I am not sure what is behind this and why you want to rush this, and I am not sure if I really should be deciding it, but from my point of view based on your explanation you could try it. But if this does not work, then will you please change back to google for the one which at least has a google book link? Remember the paywall is a side issue in the discussions about relative source strength. I only mentioned it in order to compare to your comments about German sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you tried it, so I tested it. By clicking on the book link I can get to the google preview of the 2018 book, though unfortunately at least for me the Goths article does not seem to be in the preview. It will be interesting to hear what other editors see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos. You are in no way obliged to change them.

"Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf", see WP:VERIFY.

Complaining that sources are hard to access is not a valid objection.--Berig (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berig: just to be clear, because I am concerned about the large number of misleading remarks being made and the attention they draw, that the paywall is also clearly not the main concern that I raised about these sources, and the highly unusual ways in which they are being used in terms of rationales for excluding other sources. Krakkos misrepresented my concerns above. I also noted this immediately above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to paragraph 3 in the lead

Paragraph 3 in the lead reads currently as follows:

In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths fell under Hunnic rule, while others migrated into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, and eventually became known as the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.

I would like to add the following tweaks, with proposed changes marked in bold.

In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic rule, while others migrated across the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they eventually inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.

Feedback welcome. Krakkos (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks Krakkos. I hope you don't mind me placing the proposal here, which I made just a few hours earlier.[reply]

In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.[*1] In the aftermath of this event, many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved into the Roman Empire. When a large group of Tervingi crossed the Danube, tensions rose and they were joined by more Goths, Alans, and Huns to inflict a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.[*2] Within the empire, Goths such as Alaric, possibly a Tervingian, led large barbarian military forces for Rome, with their families attached.[*3] Unable to confirm his position in the Roman hierarchy, Alaric's people became the Visigoths, and with Alaric as king, they moved to Aquitania, and generations later, a Visigothic Kingdom was established in Spain at Toledo.[*4] Meanwhile, the Hunnic alliance split up in the 5th century, leading to the splitting out of different components, most importantly the Amal-led Ostrogoths.[*5] Under their king Theodoric the Great, and supported by the eastern emperor Zeno, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[*6]
@Andrew Lancaster: Certain issues with this proposal has already been explained above. Krakkos (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are remarks about my reasons. Perhaps you and others will find better solutions!

  • The Goths did not simply become subjects of a Hunnish state. I think Wolfram, Goffart, Heather and Halsall would all more or less agree that (a) there was no single Hunnish central "rule" and (b) some of the Goths probably entered into the "alliance" as equal partners. So I think, just to be clear, the current wording disagrees with Heather for example.
  • I propose the word "migration" is being used too much in the paragraph, and I think the word over-simplifies. I switched to the more neutral "moved". "Migration" gives the impression of a simple continuous movement of fixed groups of people. This is inaccurate here IMHO.
  • The present paragraph makes a simple equation of the people who crossed the Danube in 376 (Tervingi) with (a) the whole category of Goths who moved into the empire and (b) the winners in 378 at Adrianople. Actually both these implications are quite wrong. (a) There were Goths entering the empire before and after, and in significant amounts. (b) The winners at Adrianople included SOME of those who had crossed, and some who came over especially perhaps, for the fight. There were Huns at Adrianople as I understand it. It is all a bit messier than we are making it - even in Heather, who is I think in a minority concerning sticking to the old simple equations as much as he does (but not as much as we are doing).
  • I don't see evidence of any of the authors I was just checking this morning, including Heather, agree with the simple equation of Adrianople Goths = Visigoths. Perhaps the short text in a dictionary could give that impression somehow but in longer explanations Heather seems to clearly disagree with our present text.
  • "under their king Alaric I". This implies that Alaric was always seen as a king. It invents a continuity which we do not know from the real evidence. What we do know, that he was part of the Roman military, is what we are NOT saying. Our sources do debate ideas about what is likely to have been the case, but none of them write quite like this.
  • Again the word migration. There was not one single migration from the Balkans to Spain, but that is what our text is quite wrongly suggesting.
  • "regained their freedom" Again, I don't see any of our authors including Heather describing the Ostrogoths as slaves of the Huns. Ostrogoths were a powerful part of the Hunnic alliance.

So, I think there are some mistakes that do need fixes, and these are not yet covered in your proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster: My proposal above is largely based upon your ideas. Do you consider the proposal an improvement or not? Krakkos (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether that was your intention or not, thanks for switching to that kind of wording. Still not sure why we started a new section or what was wrong with just answering what I wrote already though. Commenting on your draft, which proposes much smaller changes than mine:

  • fell->came. No strong opinion. But of course I have in effect explained why I fear both are wrong. I think a bigger change is needed. They chose the "Hunnic alternative" according to Wolfram.
  • into the Roman-Empire->across the Danube. No strong opinion. Again linking to my bigger explanation, which I really beg you to read, I am thinking a bigger change is needed. The implication of the sentence now is that ALL Goths who entered the empire did so together at one time and place, and then this exact same group was the Gothic side at Adrianople. That is of course wrong, and not just a simplification.
  • addition: eventually. Same as last bullet. But also the Tervingi crossed the Danube 376 and Adrianople was 378 so I can't really see what "eventually" is adding as those two particular events were reasonably rapid, and so for this case I'm actually against it at least until I understand better why this should be added.
  • "most importantly the Ostrogoths" ("gained their freedom"). The wording change does not make it worse, so no problem, but again a bigger problem is covered in my longer post already. For example "gained their freedom" needs to be reviewed.

Maybe a crazy proposal, but just to consider: on my draft table above I added some page citations to 3 books I think you have access to. Why don't we look at those? One of them is by Heather. (Of course I will remind us both of the need to check for which points might be ones where Heather might be in the minority.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Goths coming under Hunnic rule, and Gothic refugees winning the Battle of Adrianople and becoming Visigoths under Alaric I is described by Peter Heather in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is now freely accessible. Would this be an improvement?
In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic rule, while others migrated across the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their independence in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna. Krakkos (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Still some bits to look at:
  • others migrated ... they inflicted. I can see that Heather in that very brief dictionary article has "two separate Gothic groups crossed the Danube in 376, their victory at Hadrianople in 378...". I will put aside differences between Heather and other authors on this for now, and also differences with Heather's more detailed works, but STILL, we are saying ALL Goths who EVER came over the Danube were involved in 378. So we are not even following this one source you like.
  • These Goths became known as the Visigoths. Here Heather is arguably a minority source in his simplification and assumptions, but again putting all that aside for later, just looking at "your" abbreviated source, Heather says "only after being joined by...". So there were other Goths.
  • regained their independence. Maybe a bit better. But it still means they wanted "independence". They were big boys in a big power, and they lost that. Consistent with what I am saying, Heather choose the word "hegemony" in that little summary, not "rule" or "empire" or "dominance".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of some differences between recent experts by Halsall, who writes p.190:

The nature of Alaric's forces has been much debated. Some see them as the Gothic tribe or people who had entered the Empire in 376 <cites Heather>. This is difficult to square with the sheer profusion of Gothic groups around 400. Others have therefore advanced the opinion that Attila's force and those of the other Gothic leaders were warbands or armies recruited by Rome, probably, on a short-term basis, in the aftermath of Adrianople. Although led by Goths these were polyglot in composition.<cites Liebeschuetz> A third, more radical view envisages the troops commanded by Alaric (and the others) as Goths recruited into regular auxiliary units of the Roman army of a new, if not unrecognisable, type.<cites Burns 1994> It has also been argued that this 'nation or army' debate is incapable of resolution on the basis of the evidence as we have it.<Kulikowski>

On p.191:

I have tended towards the interpretation of Alaric's followers as a military force rather than a tribe or people. Their emergence from formal units of the eastern army seems clear enough.

@Krakkos: have a look perhaps at more of these longer works again? On this particular word choice thing, I don't see any big dramatic problem at least in the lead. I think authors are not light years from each other and unlike you might think, they are not denying that the differences between them are in areas where it is difficult to ever be really 100% certain. So we just have to avoid being certain at the wrong moments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: strikes me part of the problem is partly coming from compressing things until they are wrong. So, as the person with the lead length concern, maybe you need to consider whether for example these are the key facts you want to fit. Or which should be removed or added?

  • In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.
  • Many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved south into the Roman Empire, or east into the Carpathian and Middle Danube regions.
  • After a major Danube crossing in 376, Goths and their allies inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.
  • Goths quickly became a major part of the Roman military.
  • Two major kingdoms of Goths formed within the Roman empire itself.
  • First, the Visigoths, acquired a semi-independent were the people led by their king Alaric, who started as a Romanized military leader.
  • Later, an Ostrogothic kingdom formed under the control of the Amal dynasty, who had been part of the Hun alliance. With support of the eastern emperor they took over the kingdom of Italy which had been created by Odoacer.

I have written each in a way that contains what I think is more-or-less what the sources would describe. I did this looking again at Heather, to try to make sure I also remove anything from Halsall which might not be a field consensus. I hope this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster: Would this be an improvement?
In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic domination or migrated further west, while others crossed the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their independence in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.
Krakkos (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it basically the same?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: There are substantial differences. Do you consider the proposal an improvement? Krakkos (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any changes in any of these proposals which seem to respond to the concerns I am mentioning in every round of this discussion? Unless "further west" is meant to refer to the Pannonian region? But how is that west of the Roman empire? It does not seem a good addition. For the rest it seems you are not interested in my concerns listed several times above. I guess there is not point listing them again, but they are there now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: The proposal responds to several of the suggestions you have made. "Further west" means west of the lands were the Goths lived (Chernyakhov culture/Oium) before the Hunnic invasion. Do i have your permission to implement the proposal? Krakkos (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your drafts take no account of the concerns I have noted, time after time. All my notes are above. I also gave sources you can consider, above. So to me this proposal makes no sense, and the discussion is strange. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: The proposal is largely inspired by your suggestions. Do you consider it an improvement or not? Do i have your permission to implement this proposal? Krakkos (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer. I think that is a very strange description of the proposal. And we have already gone in circles many times. This is not a useful proposal, though it is clear that the sentence will need to be rebuilt according to the sources and explanations previously advised. On the other hand I remain open to further discussion if there are genuinely new ideas available that take more account of the advised concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's handy reference here is a "key" to the easy-to-solve/impossible-to-solve problems in the latest proposal in short form, as per more detailed discussions above...

  • Goths came under Hunnic domination [Heather version] =questionably because=> some of these became key players in a loose alliance [Halsall etc] =more neutral=> simple remove words like "under" and pass no judgement: they became part of Attila's Hunnic group.
  • or migrated further west =but this is not worth saying like this because=> its a very unclear description apparently referring to the Hungarian region
  • others crossed the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat =nope because=> Just because a Goth went over the Danube does not meant they fought at Adrianople
  • These Goths became known [came to be known?] as the Visigoths =nope because=> just because you fought at Adrianople does not mean you were in Alaric's group
  • Meanwhile =is a chronological terms which is, in this context=> unclear
  • Goths under Hunnic rule regained their independence =not really=> some were more powerful as "Huns", and working for Rome was not "freedom". They gave them power and then destroyed them. [ADDED: Correction. This is consistent with Halsall, Heather and Wolfram. My mistake.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)][reply]

I think all my concerns except the first are in agreement with Heather when read properly in a proper detailed work? And, by the way we are certainly "allowed" to use such books, despite what Krakkos has tried to enforce.[54]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third-century migration was not remotely as simple Jordanes' formula - one king, one people, one move - might suggest. (Heather, Empires and Barbarians, p.124.)

if, as is customary, the term [Ostrogoths] is reserved for the group which Theoderic the Amal led to Italy in 489, then the Ostrogoths were in fact a new political unit of Goths whose ethnogenesis occured in several phases in the course of two political generations (Heather, Ostrogoths entry in the 2018 dictionary)

Using a different device I could see this, the [so-called] "reference". (There is no mention at all of Adrianople, and the article is one column only with 3 citations, 2 of which to Heather himself)...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several different Gothic groups made there way onto Roman soil (Heather, Goths dictionary article 2018, p.673)

Paragraph 3, which is being discussed here, cites Heather 2012, p. 623 rather than Heather 2018, p. 673. Heather 2012, p. 623 mentions Adrianople:

"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... Visigoths and Ostrogoths were actually the product of a later convulsion occasioned by the inroads of the Huns. As a direct result, two separate Gothic groups crossed the Danube in 376, their victory at Hadrianople in 378 paving the way for a more ordered coexistence with Roman power after 382. These two groups were definitively united by Alaric (395–411) to create the Visigoths... Gothic groups who had either fled to the Romans after c.400 or survived Hunnic hegemony, were united in various stages between c.450 and 484 behind the family of Theoderic (1) to create the Ostrogoths..." 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)

Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal for paragraph 3 in the lead

Andrew Lancaster - I have formulated an improved version of paragraph 3 of the lead, largely based upon your suggestions:

In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic domination, while others migrated further west or sought refuge inside the Roman Empire. Goths who entered the empire by crossing the Danube inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths would form the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, eventually establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule gained their independence in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.

Is this an improvement compared to the current version? Do i have your permission to implement the proposal? Krakkos (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight this is a clear improvement and would therefore be a edit worth doing. I personally do not object to you or anyone else putting this in the article, but I am not sure if this is necessary, or if it can cause any problems. In any case thank you for making the changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More Editors

Krakkos (talk · contribs), and Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs), I occasionally visit the is page but do not feel I have expertise on the subject to offer so have not edited it. However, I just need to point out that in the last couple of weeks, this talk page has gained 30,000 words. We are between a half and a quarter of the way to a novel here! This is almost certainly crowding out any participation from other editors, who simply cannot keep up with all the discussion and proposals. I am on the verge of unwatching it myself. I think discussion needs to be more succinct, and slowed down to allow for wider participation. RFC may be called for if there is a point of particular contention. This will bring in more editors.

I am also a little dismayed that a lead that did not feel the need to cite anything in the past (as recently as 1 January) now has multiple repeat citations. I think the Good Article review process would have picked these up and would have suggested moving the information to the main and then using the lead to summarise. Adding more citations to the lead just takes this article further from good article status. Yes, you know I have a thing about that ;) But I also note that this exact point was made in the HomeopathyGreta Thunberg good article review process recently.-- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I'm sorry for this, though i do not consider myself primarily responsible for the convolution. The lead as of 1 January was good. I have no problem with restoring it. However, in February, after the GA review was begun, radical changes were being made to the lead, resulting in it becoming long and confusing just like this talk page has become.[55] Repeat citations were introduced as a way to put limitations on the size and confused nature of the lead.[56] I think we are dealing with a situation in which there are no perfect solutions, with downsides to all alternatives. Krakkos (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos and Sirfurboy: as on Germanic peoples, Krakkos sees footnotes as something like a defense system. I have also been proposing (please see above) that this is not a good thing. As far as I can make out Krakkos believes(?) that I forced him to do this by attempting to edit the article?
Concerning the talk page though, what else can we do? I can not edit, so BRD, which is fast, is impossible. Krakkos has now over-reacted and escalated after every attempt I have made to edit the article, reporting "edit warring" (using misleading diffs) twice until we were both blocked on this article. Every discussion here, once started, has also been stretched and painful. EG I attempted to reduce the effect using tables, which I have used in difficult drafting environments before, but you can see above what happened and how much space it now takes.
@Srnec: also happened to mention the footnoting in the preface very recently on WP:RSN where I tried to get one of the other points here discussed.
I have to say that the reaction of Krakkos, denying responsibility, and offering to revert all content as a solution(!), as if that was your request, is not giving me great hope, and shows very little concern with this article's quality. There are actually mistakes and obvious fixes which have been done in this article by me and others, and many which still need to be done.
FYI Krakkos has put much more energy into parent shopping and dramatizing than editing. Currently he is going for a personal interaction ban on Arbcom: Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks. So at least I've had a chance to leave working notes for others! LOL --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec and Sirfurboy: just a thought, but quite honestly I think talk page circles are happening BECAUSE there are ONLY two people. More voices and the circles would break and the talk page will be better. OTOH I believe I have given some good citations, and shown some areas on the article which need tweaking, which I may not do. I'd be happy to quickly cross-check sources etc on any questions. It would be so nice to have a non-circular content discussion. Since January when I committed to work on the Germanic subject I have been doing a lot of reading and invested in new books etc. All dressed up but no place to go.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why are there only two people? And Krakkos has not been saying much. I suggest you shorten your talk page comments. Krakkos put forward a simple and straightforward proposal in a new section at "Proposed changes to paragraph 3 in the lead", but before anybody else could chime in you had put up 750 words. People just won't interact in that level of detail on Wiki talk pages. Even in this section, compare the length of your comments (plural) to that of the rest of us. I suggest using RFCs (no more than two open at a time) to address the issues. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I can see why it might look that way, and indeed there is a lot of effort going into making things confusing. I'll point to 3 obvious things:
  • You don't seem to realize that the section you refer to was started immediately after, and clearly in reaction to, the more compressed and source-based, to-the-point, section I posted [57]. That section shows that Krakkos reacted quickly negatively to the use of more sources, then started a new section which ignored all the source-based concerns mentioned by me.
  • You really have to look at the section you mention to see that it consists of Krakkos asking me to comment, over and over, to what were essentially the same proposals, over and over. So I am stupid for doing that in good faith I guess. If you really read through that discussion there is no way to call it straightforward.
  • Another obvious thing: one "good faith" reason I had a small list of mistakes to explain so quickly is because I have spent the last two months reading on this topic with the aim of editing. Indeed, I had just posted my own draft, which Krakkos was successfully trying to drown.
In the meantime, my various posts above point to basic problems such as source misrepresentations that simply need fixing, in various sections. If I could edit, I would not be posting here. Fact is that right now I've got time to do research and post it somewhere, but clearly the efforts being made to block me using it are going to go for a long time, so there is no point just trying to remember what I read and wait. All of this could be ameliorated if there were more active editors helping break the deadlock. Of course I admit this is not an attractive invitation, the way it looks, but I am suggesting it might quickly improve.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just to remind us all of the real cause of these problems, as per RSN discussions here are at least 13 occasions when the same incredible argument was used, this being just ONE such strategy that is being repeated over and over, burying this talk page: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. Any of these could easily have been the last one, if other editors had entered the discussion and not allowed it to be seen as a reasonable discussion between similarly strong good faith positions. Without having that, I believe I did the right thing trying to reply to these posts, and not allowing them to stand as any kind of "consensus"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Names section

The discussion about this section (Etymology) got messy. In that section you will see discussion of two extra sources I proposed. The section itself, is also in the end mainly just needing organization. I think it is a collection of different notes added at different times. I do not want to fill this talk page too much so I started drafting on my page again [71]. It is just a start to get a structure and not complete. I should be a bit careful to avoid too much duplication in with other sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permission to rewrite section Goths#Name

Complaints have been raised about possible original research and use of poor sources in section Goths#Name. That section was indeed of insufficient quality. I have therefore made an attempt at rewriting it entirely, based upon citations from Herwig Wolfram, Winfred P. Lehmann, Ludwig Rübekeil and Anders Kaliff. The proposed new section can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths#Name. The proposed edit will be like this.[72] Krakkos (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a little pointy, verging on deliberately disruptive, that you have once again made a new section in reaction to mine posted above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning comments. I presume we may comment on the talk page of the draft?
A first general remark about method: you are still picking individual positions from selected authors and then stating them in Wikipedia voice as facts. This won't lead to a stable consensus version. A better method is to identify first:
  • What positions are consensus positions and which are disputed, and which are minority positions among the experts? For example, your preference for saying that the Gutones simply ARE the Goths is not a consensus, and the way you write it, it is also not the Vienna position.
  • Which are more recent, and therefore have more likely taken older works into account, whereas the older ones can't take the newer ones into account? In this case for example, some of the works you cite are very old.
  • Which ones are by the most specialized writers on the exact topic? So in this case that means the philology and linguistic authorities such as Rübekeil and Thomas Andersson. In my draft I gave their explanation which seems to be the source for people like Heather, and you can read how very different Heather's "people" is from every other modern work, but seems to just be his tweak on "men". Of people though, only men ejaculate. Or have you located some place where he explains that no, he really does DISAGREE with the ejaculating "men" idea for some reason?
Don't get me wrong. I am not supporting any particular theory. But we should not mix and match, and we have to be careful how we use "Wikipedia voice". More often, IMHO, you need to use attribution and terms which express something less than the absolute certainty some authors like to use when they (unlike us) are debating for one specific position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft will soon be updated with additional sources from Stefan Brink, Jan Paul Strid and Herwig Wolfram. Krakkos (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some constructive comments
  1. I'd remove the See also. If relevant, the links should appear in the text.
  2. I'd mention Pytheas' Guiones directly.
  3. Christensen has an extended discussion and yet is only cited for one quotation ("linguists believe there is an indisputable connection"). On the same page (41) he gives the following four classical forms with primary source: Goutones (Strabo), Gutones (Pliny), Gotones (Tacitus), Guthones (Ptolemy). This is useful information.
  4. The proposal also removes reference to the actually attested Gothic form (Gut-þiudai), which is a step backwards.
  5. It does not make sense to suggest that it means "people" up front and then later on that it is "doubtlessly related to the Proto-Germanic [for] 'to pour'." Indeed, by the time we get to doubtlessly we've already hedged the claim a few sentences earlier with a generally thought.
  6. Too many asterisks in the third paragraph for the general reader. Indeed, when all the foreign words are asterisked you have to wonder what actual words lie behind them. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the remarks of Srnec make sense to me and I tend to think that we can assume most experienced editors would agree. @Krakkos:, concerning the response to me, I don't want to write another long post but please do consider previous remarks made by many editors to you about the fact about adding footnotes. Adding extra sourcing does not make contested content any less-contested. It normally just means that there is some kind of problem (and indeed any future GA reviewer, if they are experienced, should see it as a red flag that the article is not actually stable). Best is to first try to get all the source material organized in your own brain, and then try to write out something which reflects the whole field and is uncontroversial. Sourcing should be then easy and should not need disputes and masses of footnotes.
To everyone: I was wondering in fact if this name section, which is now getting long, should somehow be merged with the section I worked on about classical sources? I have mentioned before that I don't myself have a final proposal on exactly where that material should be in the article. Also, in my draft there was some stuff which might be helpful:
"There are two possible attestations of the Gothic name for themselves:
  • Most securely, an Italian palimpset calendar estimated to be from the fifth century, has "Gut-þiudai" as a dative singular form of a word for the Gothic people (þ here represents a letter for the "th" sound). This implies a nominative form of "Gut-þiuda".
  • The form gutani is found in the inscription in the Ring of Pietroassa, a ring of the second half of the 4th century, found in Romania. Although this is generally agreed to be a Gothic word, related to their name for themselves, the exact form and meaning is uncertain, and subject to several proposals."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again quickly perhaps the classical sources section is fine where it is but the section about the Gutones uncertainty at the end probably needs to be somewhere else. It is at least good that this is mentioned now in the lead, but a stable version of this article will need one single stable discussion of it in the body too. Maybe even in the Name section, or perhaps a short section just after it? And there is currently a second section about other classical sources (Orosius etc) which I guess should be merged into the first one and also I think what is being said about Orosius needs re-checking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated version of Goths#Name

I have updated the draft for Goths#Name by taking the suggestions above into account and by adding citations from Stefan Brink, Jan Paul Strid and Herwig Wolfram. The updated draft can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths#Name. I'm requesting permission to replace the current version in this article (largely written by me as well), with the one from the draft. Krakkos (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: if we were doing an RFC this is not a vote. I can see you've put work into this. It is a difficult section. I want to look again. I don't think it is perfect, but perhaps a more important question is how it sets up the article for future editors. I am also a bit worried it is growing too much and maybe taking over the roles of other sections. Or maybe it should become several sections. I think in any case it is important for more editors than me to commenting. A good stable Goths article would be a nice thing to have, but stable means lots of people can agree with it and understand it. Recently for example on this article/talk we have had @Srnec, Carlstak, Berig, Sirfurboy, Orenburg1, Davemck, Mnemosientje, DASDBILL2, and Jens Lallensack:. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to you putting it into the article, but there are changes I would make:
  1. The last four paragraphs ("On the basis of...", "The name Goths...", "From at least..." and "For a time...") seem tacked on and somewhat tangential to the issue of the name. They could be dropped without loss. (Some of them may belong in other sections.)
  2. I think "of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy" can be dropped.
  3. The Wolfram citation does not seem to support the assertion that "this equation is nevertheless generally accepted". The section might make it clearer that while the etymological link between these various names is generally accepted (far as I know), the identity (=equivalence) of the different peoples referred to is much more contested.
  4. Old Norse is overlinked. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: I guess you know it, but for the benefit of others I have put some specific notes on the talk page of the sandbox draft. I think some of the issues Srnec points to might be coming from trying to make the Name section do more than discuss the name. There might need to be other sections, or discussions within other sections, for things like the Gutones=Goths question where there is no consensus concerning the details of what the exact connection is between them. Possibly also the concept of "Gothic peoples" and the question of what made a tribe Gothic, deserves discussion somewhere in the article. (The Tervingi, for example, first seem to appear in history in a panegyric which distinguishes them from the Goths. See Christensen.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krakkos I see you edited anyway. I expressed clear discomfort with some of your proposals, both here and on your draft, and I see no response to those? That's not really a "prior consensus" (as per EdJohnston) is it? Very directly opposed to the spirit of the ruling by EdJohnston is also your repeated strategy of immediately beginning a new section about the same topic every time I try to propose something ([73]->[74]; [75]->[76]). Because of the nature of EdJohnston's "solution", and your own habitual tendency to always push every situation to a limit, it is hard for me to ignore this, which would be my preference. Please show some concern for real consensus, and please don't try to test the limits of things all the time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of Goths#Name takes into account several of your suggestions. Is it not an improvement? My impression is that Srnec approved of it. I interpreted that as a consensus. I will not respond to every single one of your comments, because that will only invoke another long counter-response from you, leading to yet more flooding of this talk page, and the discouraging of non-involved editors from participating in the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I will not respond to every single one of your comments" sounds, like I said, to be a complete rejection of the whole concept of seeking consensus - especially in the light of the practical reality, which is that you are not responding at all, and doing everything possible to add length to discussions (see above), and you've not used your sandbox talkbox as suggested, to avoid filling this one. Your edit takes no account of some sources I have given you. Just take your second sentence concerning the Ring of Pietroassa where I have given you Andersson's and Rübekeil's remarks about this interpretation no longer being seen as certain (which indeed you have fuzzily referred to in another place). But I could fill a page with more comments, and I'd be happy to say "OK, maybe it was a misunderstanding" (which I doubt) and do that. But what do I read? There you are again saying that because I write about details, you can use that as a rationale to not count me in any consensus you have to worry about. So you have created an awkward situation again. What would you do if you were me? Please remember, I did not create this situation and I personally think it is ridiculous, and I am not pushing any specific POV. It is obvious that if you pick and choose your favorite "reference" authority (now you are suddenly following Wolfram against Heather in this section) you are not going for a stable consensus. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW in this bizarre system of working it is actually difficult to track whether you large complex edit in several sections only involves changes which have been discussed at all on this talk page, but as only one section was discussed here, it seems to difficult to imagine that it can possibly be described that way??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this quote, I am not saying it is right, and certainly not saying it is a field consensus, but it is clearly not the type of position we should ignore. In other words we should not write as if there is no dispute about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, no one has offered any real evidence that Gauts and Goths are linguistically or ethnically related. Consequently the name Gautigoth cannot serve as proof that the Goths once live on the island of Scandza. What the Gautar name may do, however, is to help explain the beginnings of the idea that the Goths could come from Scandza. (Christensen, p.291)

Rübekeil (again I don't say this is a field consensus, but this is a source cited by others as an authority, so who are we to act as if this position does not exist?):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The linguistic data must therefore be interpreted with some caution. *Gutan- can not be derived from *Gauta-. [...] Theoretically Gauta- could have the same meaning. In this case, however, we would be dealing with semantic competitors, not with lexical variants. (p.603)

This one I feel is very judicious and was written recently and with someone who clearly has sympathy for the positions of many of the big names in the field including Wolfram:

Sicher ist nur, dass der Goten/Gutonen/Gauten- ebenso wie der Rugiername prestigeträchtig und prominent war, Unterschiedliche Verbände könnten sich solcher alter Namen bedient haben. [para] Die Archäologie ist sich groben Zügen darüber einig, dass ab der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts materielle Kultur und Bestattungsbräuche aus dem Weichselgebiet Ähnlichkeiten mit jenen vom nördlichen Rand der pontischen Steppenzone aufweisen. Umstritten ist, ob die Gründe für diese Parallelen in der Möbilität kleiner mobiler Verbände, grösseren Migrationsbewegungen (wie man früher allgemein annahm) oder schlicht in Kulturtransfer zu finden sind. Für die traditionelle Vorstellung spielt dabei insbesondere der spätantike Gechichtsentwurf des Jordanes aus dem 6. Jahrhundert eine Rolle... Rough trans: The only thing sure is that the Goten/Gutonen/Gauten, as with the Rugii name, carried prestige and was prominent. Different groups may have decided to use such old names. 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. Steinacher, Roland (2017), Rom und die Barbaren. Völker im Alpen- und Donauraum (300-600), p. 48

Cases in the major new edit where it appears Wolfram proposals which did not catch on are being reported as simply true in WP voice:

  • Gutones may have meant "young" Goths or "great" Goths.
  • Visigoths means the "good" or "noble" Goths, while Ostrogoths means "Goths of the rising sun" or "East Goths".

We also now have a new section called "Evidence from etymology" which essentially repeats some things from the other section, and within the Name section some points are covered several times and even with different information. This is clearly not finished work, but now needs copy-editing, so this is not a good way to work when every edit needs consensus to be recorded first. But furthermore, duplication of favored theories into multiple sections was also a major controversy in the editing of Germanic peoples. It led to sections which disagreed with each other, and the destructuring of articles means it is easiest to slip in POV or wrong material, and harder for good editors to improve the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Gaut and Goth are not considered identical, although they are considered to related in meaning, being derived from a root for "pour". Any source written by an actual linguist should confirm this. However, "Got" in Gotland is etymologically identical to "Goth", both being derived from an original *gutoniz. In fact the "-n-" in *gutoniz is preserved in the local adjective for Gotland - gutnisk. When dealing with the origin of the word Goth, I prefer if we avoid references to historians , as they unfortunately tend to dig deep the trench warfare of their own academic world separate from both archaeology and linguistics. Let us refer to linguistic works instead. .Berig (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good points IMHO. I tend to think one "tool" Krakkos needs is a way of saying two words are not "the same" but have the same root, are etymologically connected, or something like that. I have seem some debate about that -n-. Do we need to into all details when the basic idea of an etymological connection is in any case pretty much a consensus? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the derivations of Goths/Got(landers) and Gauts/Geats are straightforward and in my experience a matter of consensus. The derivations (processes of evolution of names and words) in Indo-European languages is a field that is very well-studied.-Berig (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berig: I propose that that "The Gothic name", used 4 times in the Name section should be tweaked something like my proposal below, at least in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cases. (In the first case I suggested a way of writing "a Gothic name".) What do you think? BTW in terms of what I personally think, I like Steinacher's relatively cautious attempt to summarize something which everyone can agree with. (Quoted just before your post.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what Steinacher wrote is relevant and accurate.-Berig (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berig: yes, and one point from it is that many of the Scandinavia proponents for now (and yes this may change with more archaeology and genetics) are not arguing for one simple massive movement of people with one un-changing tribal name, but about a more complex history, where several options are still possible. It is a useful "review" comment in my mind. PRACTICAL: Do you agree with describing calling e.g. "Gutones" as something like "a" Gothic name instead of "the" Gothic name?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Herwig Wolfram refers to Gutones as "the Gothic name".[77] Peter Heather refers to it as "the same group name".[78] I think this article should use the descriptions used in our best sources. Krakkos (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: [Deleted my own previous post] Looking at your citations: Wolfram and Heather's explanations are in conflict with yours, and show Steinacher to be giving a good summary. You must have misread. Both authors make it clear there are different name forms. Wolfram specifies that that they were used by different peoples in different places with different ethnogeneses. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposals to change the hastily added new Name section

Many of these were already proposed by me, but ignored. Nevertheless, I will start in the 3rd paragraph. I believe the first sentences are maybe better moved around and tweaked a bit. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the proposal below, mainly reordering sentences: Using the word "certainly" is not a clear way of say there might be earlier sightings. Easier to just be more chronological. Strabo is normally called a geographer. Does anyone see a problem with this reasoning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "illegal edit" is carefully written in accordance with what our best sources say. This "tweak proposal" appears to be largely written independently of what the sources say. It also largely duplicates what is written at Goths#Evidence from classical sources. Overall, i don't think this "tweak proposal" is an improvement. Krakkos (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: what? These are the same sentences moved around!! Please look again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But concerning duplication I do agree that your sentences should perhaps be removed from this section and not just moved around. This is why I suggest moving a listing of classical mentions BEFORE the name section. See below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: is there any chance you can confirm a misreading of my proposal on this one? Please give a new comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: will you confirm that you misunderstood the below proposal and give an answer relative to what it actually contains please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General remark: there are too many footnotes, and certainly too many within sentences. These sentences should not be controversial?
Krakkos "illegal edit" Tweak proposal
The name Gutones is certainly recorded by Pliny[12][13][14] in the 1st century AD, and by Ptolemy[15][16][17] in the 2nd century AD.[18][19] Pliny mentions that the 4th century BC traveler Pytheas reported a people called the Guiones,[20][21] while the early 1st century ethnographer Strabo mentions a people called the Butones,[22][23][24] and the late 1st century historian Tacitus mentions the Gotones/Gothones.[25][26][27][28][19] These names mentioned by Pytheas, Strabo and Tacitus are often equated with the name Gutones.[18][29] Gutones may have meant "young" Goths or "great" Goths.[7] The two earliest possible attestations of a Gothic name are uncertain: Pliny mentions that the 4th century BC traveler Pytheas reported a northern people called the Guiones,[20][21] while the early 1st century geographer Strabo mentioned a people called the Butones.[22][23][24] The name "Gutones" is certainly recorded by Pliny[12][13][14] in the 1st century AD. Some decades later, the historian Tacitus mentions the Gotones/Gothones in two of his works.[25][26][27]. None of these are given an exact location, but Ptolemy[15][16][17] in the 2nd century AD[18][19] mentions not only the Gutones near the Vistula, but also a people of Scandia called Goutai/Guti,[30][16][19][17] who are generally equated with the Geats/Gauts (Old English: gēatas; Old Norse: gautar; Swedish: götar) of southern Sweden.[7][18][9][19]
I am going to concur with the observation that there are too many footnotes. Please take a look at WP:OVERCITE. That is an essay, not policy, but it is good advice. In general one citation is needed for one claim. I note that almost all of the citations are used more than once so a quick way to trim them is to removed the repeat citation in each case. I could have a go at this, but again I am not familiar with the source material, so it would be better if someone who knows this stuff thinks carefully about which source is best at each point. WP:CITETRIM in the above essay is especially helpful. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: You are right in pointing out that there is an excess amount of citations in Goths#Name. This section is written by me, so i am familiar with the source material. All of the primary sources and most of the citations from historians are also in Goths#Evidence from classical sources. I think these can be removed from Goths#Name. With your permission, i would be glad to perform the removal. Krakkos (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, thanks. That is all fine with me. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos and Sirfurboy: But doesn't this raise the question which indeed I have already raised of whether those two sections should BOTH exist? @Krakkos: I am not sure exactly what you just proposed. This is messy. What is the change you think you just got "consensus" for? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krakkos said that excess citations could be removed from Goths#Name, and as the editor who wrote that section, this makes sense and that is what I indicated I was happy for. This is simply dealing with overcitation and should be uncontroversial. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: to be clear, actually I said that not Krakkos, and then you agreed, and then Krakkos wrote as if you proposed it. I only mention this in order to register that this pattern of making new posts about topics I raise, and not referring to mine, is being repeated all over this talk page by Krakkos and it is creating a mess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: I was attempting to be concise. Yes, to be clear, you said there were too many citations, I agreed, and Krakkos then consented to removing some of the overcitation. This happened and I think this is an improvement, but unlike Berig, I am not, and do not claim to be any kind of authority on the subject. I visit this page to learn about the Goths. Regarding your concerns that the citations may not be balanced, I would suggest that it is not the role of the citations to be balanced, it is the role of the text of the page. Citations are there for verification of the text, and readers of the page will read the lead first, and then they may read the text, but very few will follow up the citations. If you want to present information to the reader in a balanced matter, it is the text that must be balanced. When sources disagree, don't cite strings of all the sources - find a balanced way to cover the matter and cite one appropriate source (two if particularly controversial). In this way the reader will be informed, and should they have a desire to verify a statement, they only have one or at the most, two citations to follow up. Finally, primary sources should generally be avoided (except when sourcing quotes or other such matters). See WP:PRIMARY. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that except about the primary sources, but I think you are talking about something different and I think Krakkos understood me and agrees. I am talking about the illustrative use of primary sources. For their meaning we should use experts. The point it seems we really should be talking about is the duplication of the recitation of classical mentionings. I see it more as an editorial than factual issue, so please can you have a look and comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some of the excess citations in Goths#Name. These were either primary sources or sources from non-linguists that are already cited in Goths#Evidence from classical sources. There is potential to remove additional sources, but although that would make the text visually more appealing, it would at the same time make it less informative in my opinion. Krakkos (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos and Sirfurboy: interestingly similar case? So soon. [79]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having been summoned by ping, I made a few edits to remove unnecessary refs from the lead per MOS:LEADCITE but the citations updated in the main are a definite improvement there. Thanks, Krakkos (talk · contribs) for replacing the use of efn with harv referencing. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned it here because it seems to show the "agreement" we seemed to have about leads and footnotes here does not seem to have really convinced Krakkos. That has a relevance to this article and others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Sirfurboy: Technically, Krakkos was saying ALL sources will be removed? Is that the best solution? In any case should it just be "whatever you want"? I think it is very important to explain which citations, and also to explain what is going to happen to the other overlapping section which was mentioned in the discussion (Evidence from classical sources). You understandably think it is obvious and common sense, I guess, but if you examine the last edit Krakkos did, there is an enormous difference between the talk page discussion and the eventual edit. I am also quite concerned based on past experience that (1) we should avoid having duplicate sections which argue which other (POV forks), especially if one of them is now going to have NO sources and the other will. That sounds like the kind of thing which can definitely go wrong. (2) When we move to less sources, which is indeed something I proposed, this should not be done by removing all the ones that Krakkos sees as opposed to Peter Heather for example, but in a balanced way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: so you have removed ALL references to the primary sources and Christensen, and now we treated Kaliff and Strid as the two main authorities? I do not feel this was balanced at all, and I don't see any pre-discussion of this. The aim of having fewer sources was discussed but actually there are still a lot, just now worse balanced. Primary sources are informative to readers in a different way in articles like this, and in my opinion irreplaceable. The section you refer to is AFTER this one, so it does not help the readers. At first sight I also can't see any reason to see Kaliff or Strid as particularly strong sources? What is your reasoning concerning those two sources, and concerning your continuing POV censorship of Christensen, Goffart, anyone who writes in German, etc?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody has a POV. I have followed this article on and off for 17 or 18 years, and I have always doubted that this article can ever become a stable good article. There are too many who are interested in a Scandinavian origin of the Goths, and too many who can't accept any such notion at all. The challenge for both of you is to write something that you both can live with, because it will only become relatively stable if you both manage to write something that you can agree on. I honestly, hope that you can, because this article would benefit from it.-Berig (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC) @Berig: But this article is not the most difficult case ever and a stable version should be very doable. Even a little bit of occasional commenting from interested editors such as yourself can make a BIG difference. Please remember to give your opinions on proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, would be more inclined to comment if this page weren't a seething cauldron of disputatious verbiage filled with hard-to-follow, complex walls of text about often abstruse points. I'm sure I'm not the only editor scared away by it. Carlstak (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak:, yes that is the reason I wish more people would nevertheless post. While it is only one person + Krakkos, then conversations will go in useless circles, such as the 13 times Krakkos's answer to everything was that if something is not in Peter Heather's 3 paragraph dictionary article it should not be in our article. Even a small amount of extra input can stop that happening, and has done so in recent days. Another major artificial cause of this is that because of Krakkos's escalations, Krakkos and myself MUST now check that we have consensus before any edit on this article. Krakkos is not doing this, but I have stupidly been making efforts to explain everything, because Krakkos has a history of screaming "edit war" even even for technical edits. It is a truly awful "solution", when no action was appropriate, and which takes no account of the situation. As a result of such micromanagement, and the fight-to-the-death on every edit approach of Krakkos, we had to have an RFC just to get a publication year fixed. This would all be much less easy to get away with if there were more editors. Maybe just look at the last few sections?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per your complaints, i have removed citations from Anders Kaliff (except his citation of linguist Elias Wessén) from Goths#Name. Arne Søby Kristensen is/was (presumably) an assistant professor of history. Jan Paul Strid was a full professor of linguistics. Strid is therefore a stronger source on etymology than Kristensen. Kristensen and the primary sources are much more relevant for the section Goths#Evidence from classical sources, where they are cited extensively. Krakkos (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So your rationale is based on your own judgement of their status at the Universities they work at? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight Strid seems to have been selected because he is an unusual case of someone still pushing the Scandinavia theory in a simple strong form? That also matches your preferences right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Still pushing the Scandinavia theory"? Recent discoveries in genetics, published in the respected Nature (journal), seem to support that theory. Let's be open-minded about the future, here, or other editors may question your ambitions concerning NPOV.-Berig (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berig: In the end, should this Name section really be used a place to slip statement of this theory in early? I think it needs its own discussion. BTW I am personally open-minded about it, but I am not a source. The DNA source you mention is only "consistent with" the Scandinavia theory, and certainly not a game changer. See discussion about that section above. (Perhaps comment there.) The theory is, our sources all agree, actually based on Jordanes. It would not even exist otherwise. The main authorities on whether we can trust Jordanes are happily quite clear: Heather, Christensen, and Goffart. Funnily enough, whereas Heather was the only reference we need in the lead, according to Krakkos, Heather is being trimmed back in this section and Wolfram's old book is being used as the only source we need. Concerning Strid, if we wanted the linguists and if we were letting this section just be about the name, then Rübekeil and Thomas Andersson (in RGA) are more cited?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the Name section should clearly come after the summary of classical mentions, at least if it depends on first listing them, which it currently does. Also the "Other literary evidence" should be added to that classical sources section. Then all three sections can be can be trimmed and focused. Do others agree, or what am I missing here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is speculating about the future by referring to theories with the word "still", it is good to keep in mind that genetic and archaelogical studies are more likely to have an impact on future discussions than the personal judgement of the historians you mention.-Berig (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berig: That sounds true. What do you think of in any case bringing the article's two discussions of old texts together? Because I don't want to get stuck on Strid or whatever. My main concern is that having two competing sections is, from experience, something that will work against the aim of a stable article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favor of merging Goths#Name and Goths#Evidence from classical sources. The origins and meaning of the Gothic name is a very important question, and the section dealing with this question should be kept. Likewise, evidence from classical sources is of major importance to early Gothic history. Both sections should be kept. If there is overlap, then this overlap should be trimmed from both sections. Nevertheless, a certain degree of overlap is acceptable on Wikipedia per WP:RELART. Merging these two quite distinct sections will certainly not contribute to making this article more stable. Krakkos (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: RELART is about duplication between different articles, as I already reminded you. Please stop posting deliberately misleading information. In any case the other option is to remove the over-complete listing of all classical mentions from the Name section. Please consider and comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard practice at Wikipedia to have the name/etymology section as the first section of an article. I'm not in favor of merging Goths#Name and Goths#Evidence from classical sources. The first section deals with etymology, and the second deals with history. Rather than merging them, we should make sure to limit the overlap between them. A certain degree of overlap is however hard to avoid and nevertheless acceptable per WP:RELART. Krakkos (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The classical mentions are ALREADY being almost fully discussed in this "standard" nomenclature section, which is in fact "non standard" in length. Maybe they should be removed. But I am saying, I can sort of see why that has to be in the case of this subject, and I am suggesting how to reduce the duplication. I am suggesting that the "mentions" sub-topic IS (already) part of the naming topic, and we just need to work according to that reality. So the nomenclature section would have several sub-sections. Please consider. As far as I can see this is consistent with your own preferences?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC) BTW you should look at RELART again. It is clearly NOT about duplication in one WP article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more problems with the expanded name section

In effect the section's long second and third paragraphs are covering things handled in other sections, and make lots of side remarks. To discuss the NAME, we don't need much of it. Strangely, the discussion about the etymology is still scattered here and there and impossible to put back together. Here are some specifics:

  • Wrong: "Jordanes writes that the ancestor of the Goths was named Gaut". He called him Gapt, also according to Rübekeil who is being cited.
  • Undue/for another section: The Geats/Gauts and royal Lombards and Anglo-Saxons claimed descent from Gaut.[21]
  • Undue Repetition: last 4 sentences of 4th paragraph.
  • Gautigoths in Jordanes are a subject of uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Stefan Brink and Ludwig Rübekeil, Gapt is an alternate spelling of the Proto-Germanic *Gaut. The last four sentences in paragraph four introduce the views of Herwig Wolfram and Elias Wessén on the meaning of the Gothic name. I don't think this is "undue repetition". Rübekeil and Brink equates Geats with the Gautigoths. Krakkos (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Jordanes said Gapt. The proposals that this is equivalent to Gaut are certainly common and respectable. But we should not say that he wrote something he did not write. Our sources also don't do that. Concerning Gautigoths, Christensen gives a much more detailed discussion than the two sources you mention and shows that, to put it in my own neutral terms, there is at least good reason to see this as not completely certain. It is by the way a genuinely interesting bit to read as it mentions other Goth-like terms I think you are not aware of. I wonder what Heather wrote? I think the undue repetition problem is obvious, and clearly a POV pushing thing. That particular bit is not a stable long term approach and certainly not a consensus seeking approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, if "gapt" is generally assumed to be a misspelling for "gaut" it is relevant here, because these manuscripts are not known for their perfect spelling. If scholars followed a letter by letter approach like the one you advocate with old manuscripts they would have to talk about discovering new romance languages, or simply consider them illegible. Let's present "gapt" according to how scholars do it.-Berig (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berig: I do not think it is universally assumed to have been a misspelling. It is just a common proposal that it is a kind of variant. Again, we are NOT reflecting the way our secondary sources present things. OTOH, in the situation you describe I would still always want to avoid wordings which literally say that the word in the text is Gaut. Why would we do that if it is easy to indicate that it "is interpreted to be a variant of Gaut" without making our text significantly longer? Does this make sense to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failure requiring tweaks: please comment

@Carlstak, Srnec, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe: Can I (or someone else) please fix the following? This has been discussed at more length above, more than once. We currently have, for example in the classical sources section:

"Ancient authors do not identify the Gutones with the Goths.[74][40] Their equivalence is nevertheless supported by Herwig Wolfram[37] and Peter Heather,[12] among scholars in general.[50] According to Heather and Christensen, philologists and linguists consider it indisputable that they are the same.[12][39]"

The sources pointed to are really saying, very specifically, that the two name forms, Gothi and Gutones, are indisputably from the same etymological root. This is not a fine point. Wolfram and his Vienna School (Steinacher, Pohl etc) specify that they are not arguing that these are identical peoples in any simple sense, but rather culturally-connected peoples (mobile tradition bearing elites, the name must have carried prestige etc). So our article is strongly distorting its sources. Confusing the issue, also please consider and comment:

  • Such statements, or wordings implying such positions, have been duplicated in many sections throughout the article, and that duplication should be reduced so that a stable article with one explanation can be developed.
  • In some cases the citations of what Heather, etc thinks are not be sourced from the authors, but from the article by Mark on an educational website. I think this source confuses all discussion and adds nothing positive. It should be removed from the article IMHO.
  • Concerning the real position of the Vienna school, which is very prominent, we are not even explaining it in our article even though we cite Wolfram and imply a different position. Maybe this needs another discussion.

As far as I can see this is a simple verification failure? Can we at least start by tweaking sentences like the named example or are there serious counter arguments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather do indeed consider Gutones and Goths to be the same people. Please read the sources. This is what these sources say:

"Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them... The Gutonic immigrants became Goths the very moment the Mediterranean world considered them "Scythians"... 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. 12–13, 20, 23. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Goths – Germanic-speaking group first encountered in northern Poland in the first century AD." Heather, Peter (2007). The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. p. 467. ISBN 9780195325416. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"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... Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name..." Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266. {{cite book}}: 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)

Your above post is very misleading. You accuse the paragraph in question of "strongly distorting" sources from Steinacher and Pohl, but the paragraph actually cites neither of them. Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: I see that you have doubled down and made a "WP:pointy" "battling" edit [80] which is the opposite of consensus-based. This and other recent seems to be in direct conflict with the restrictions placed upon us by EdJohnston. In fact, by the definition implied in your last AN3 case this edit can perhaps even be called "edit warring"?
You also deliberately deleted one of the relevant authorities for understanding this field, the much cited Christensen book, and replaced that citation with another citation to the controversial unknown source, Mark.
The wording style you insist upon is deliberately misleading our readers and censoring what the Vienna school really believe (see the discussion with Berig above and the recent summary written by Steinbacher, whose Doctorate was promoted by Wolfram). You are also censoring information about the big variations in what "scholars in general" really believe in general, by synthesizing your own version of what the field believes using individual quotes from chosen authors. This is of course consistent with the surreal POV edits you have made recently to WP articles about the Vienna school and its scholars, such as Walter Pohl, who should be cited, despite your fighting against the use of German language sources above. Relevant: WP:NPOV--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third-century migration was not remotely as simple Jordanes' formula - one king, one people, one move - might suggest. (Heather, Empires and Barbarians, p.124.)

formations of Gothic tribes were possible only because they were based on this saga, which was kept alive by "nuclei of tradition" like the Amal clan. It was these nuclei who preserved the Gothic name. (Wolfram, p.37 of the same book cited by Krakkos)

Given your history of deliberate misrepresentation, I also need to protest that your description of which sources I called distorted is obviously untrue. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You requested someone to tweak this paragraph[81] and i tweaked it in accordance with your wishes. I did not remove Christensen and i did not replace him with Mark. See the edit again.[82] Krakkos (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. You are indeed correct about that side issue in your second sentence. I was fooled by the moving around of the sources. But the bigger issues remain the same. This was absolutely not a consensus edit. Quite the opposite, and the edsum is misleading. Your first response above shows you never agreed with the change I asked for. Or are there any more errors or misunderstandings you can point to (or admit to)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: here is a more specific proposal based on the NEW version. If you don't know the right sources, let me know. I strongly suggest responding and not directly editing again:

The equivalence between the Gutones and the Goths is supported by Herwig Wolfram,[37] Peter Heather,[12] and scholars in general.[50] Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the Gutones and similarly named peoples mentioned by early Roman authors were possibly not identical to the Goths, but concedes that such an equation is generally accepted and is chronologically a "realistic possibility".[38][40]
A connection between the Gutones and the Goths is commonly accepted, though the nature of that connection is uncertain. Peter Heather, for example, argues for a straightforward equation of the Gutones and Goths, though he is sceptical of the "simple formula" implied by Jordanes, "one king, one people, one move". Herwig Wolfram and the Vienna school, in contrast, propose that smaller elite groups, such as the Amal clan, transmitted traditions such as prestigious names, founding new Gothic tribes in different places. Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the connection has been "taken for granted" although it remains a realistic possibility.

This is of course now longer, but at least accurate. Should it even be in this section, when the same thing is discussed several times in other sections? In reality we should be moving all the discussions about this topic to one place. How can we have a sensible discussion about that? I still propose that the Nomenclature section should have sub-sections: classical examples of Gothic names, then the etymological theories, and then something like the above discussion of the question of how many Gothic tribes there were and how they were connected. If you have proposals, can you please discuss first though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same people

@Srnec: concerning this edit, it equates the position of Heather and Wolfram on a particular point: "That the Gutones and the Goths were the same people is supported by Herwig Wolfram<> and Peter Heather.<>" As I've been trying to show with quotations above though, the only way a normal reader is going to understand this, will be wrong. While it is not quite clear how critical Heather is of the idea of a simple migration of one unmixed tribe (he certainly leaves space) with Wolfram and the Vienna school it is quite clear, despite certain "the Goths" wordings here and there, that "the Goths" were probably re-founded several times, with the only continuity being provided by a mobile group of tradition carriers. I don't think our wording even allows a reader to think this could be a possibility for what Wolfram believes? See my various proposals above. I still the explanation of Steinbacher to be a good clear one as explained to Berig above. Wolfram was Steinbacher's Doctoral promoter (bad translation, but I can't think of a better one) and his explanation is explicitly intended to explain the new way of thinking developed by the elders of the Vienna school. I am not sure if it is visible for you on GBooks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to re: Steinbacher. Note that what you are suggesting also means that we cannot take "the Goths" at time A to be the same people as "the Goths" at time B. There is a sense in which this is true, of course, but I think normal people will understand it regardless. Srnec (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: "Steinacher" (no "b" sorry). You should be able to see the quote on this page (which I don't want to overload) just by using the browser page search - now that you have the spelling. But Wolfram and others are relatively clear about it too, as long as we read several pages rather than selected search-term words (e.g. "the Gothic name"), which is I suppose how many parts of our article were made. I am not confident of readers getting it. Our own editors seem to have a problem with this point, and our readers are not even being given good clear hints, let alone all the material our editors have looked at. Also, I think small tweaks can allow us to just report what Wolfram meant, more accurately.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Steinacher writes is not controversial. Are you saying that you do not think Wolfram would agree that the Gutones are the Goths at an earlier time? Even Goffart in his 1982 review of Wolfram seems to accept that Goths are mentioned in the works of Pliny et al. My point above was that everything you are saying would be equally true if Pliny said Gothi. For that reason, I think the nature of Gothic identity over time is a separate matter from the Gothic name as it appears in foreign sources across time. And I agree that we cannot take the Gutones/Gothi equivalence for granted just because of the etymology—that's a different kind of equivalence. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds reasonable to me. So coming back to our text: do our readers get this message? I am thinking not. I also don't think we need to deliberately imply something just because Wolfram, for example, also uses confusing wordings. After all, with Wolfram, you just have to read several pages and then you will see what he means. But we don't have that luxury, and trying to chose words which leave open the possibility of peoples being connected but not truly identical seems a worthy challenge for us?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: PS as an example, I put a draft sentence change in the section immediately above this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about the Name section

Should the "Name", "classical sources", and "literary sources" sections be combined to reduce duplication and improve overall quality?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC) @Carlstak, Srnec, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, Yeowe, and Berig:[reply]

  • I agree, because I proposed it. A possible name for the section could be "Recorded name forms"? It could contain sub-sections or paragraphs which give ONE quick effective statement about each of : (a) the classical attestations and form variations (b) etymology discussions (c) the question of how the different peoples with these names were connected. It would set-up the rest of the article better for editors and readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Goths#Name covers the etymology of the Gothic name. Goths#Evidence from classical sources covers evidence from classical sources on the origin and early history of the Goths. These are quite distinct subtopics which should be treated in distinct sections. All Wikipedia articles on major ancient tribes, such as the Vandals, Burgundians, Suebi, Helvetii, Franks, Alemanni etc, have sections on name/etymology, and this article should have one too. Merging this name section into the history section will not improve the quality of this article. If there is overlap this should be dealt with by trimming overlapping content. Krakkos (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos, Ermenrich, and Carlstak: this is also a reasonable vision of a future article. But, it does not describe the current article. The bulk of "Name" is now a duplicate recitation of the classical evidence. So we might need an RFC about changing the Name section's content or title? I have no strong opinion except to try to reduce the relatively extreme duplication. My approach was intended to follow the logic of the existing content reality, and I assumed section names to be flexible. Anyway, the root cause of our "content reality" seems to be past editors needed to show the classical examples before explaining them? If you have other ideas on how to reduce the jarring duplication, we can already think ahead about those? Maybe just add a note to your vote if you only have simple remarks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I can appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I would also appreciate you not pinging me about every proposed change to be made to the text. I have this talk page on my watchlist, so it's not necessary to ping me. Please address me by my username if you want me to comment, I'll see it in good time when I'm on WP because I check my watchlist frequently. I operate a business, and have to apportion my time accordingly. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I also oppose any major rewrite of the article along the lines of the hatchet job based on a fringe source (Goffart) that @Andrew Lancaster: has just done on Heruli, which is what I suspect he intends to do here too. Unless he gets a clear support for it from other editors here first, of course. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is what this RFC is for Thomas.W, so please be civil. I have requested discussion with you on the Heruli article, where I think your first ever edit there is a deletion of one third of the article and 6 good sources, reverting god knows how many edits, and then you have come here looking for blood? You've basically reverted to a version I also mainly wrote, mostly by 2016: [83]. Goffart is clearly not a fringe source, as has been discussed on this article and several others in the past, so if there are issues they need detailed discussion not a mass revert. You should post your explanation there now, and not make "revenge edits" on other articles of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this RFC is only about whether certain existing sections should be merged or not, not about totally rewriting the history of all Germanic peoples based on a fringe source, like the hatchet job you did on Heruli. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted Vienna school sources, Reallexicon sources etc., even a reference to Jacob Grimm, not only Goffart. On both this article and that one, I think you need to home in details so we can work out what can be done? You appear to be saying no to this rather boring section rearrangement RFC because of Goffart being cited on another article by me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything is about you. I oppose this RFC because I share the views expressed by Krakkos and others here. Etymology and history do NOT belong in the same section. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and as I said above that is a reasonable point but it raises other questions. (The "history" you mention is of course only a quick list of classical mentions. There is no section called "etymology". (I was suggesting splitting one out.) There is now a "Name" section and the bulk is a duplication of the classical mentions repeated just below.) We will find a way though, as long as we can have constructive conversation, and thanks. Next discussion: Heruli...? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relevant to this article, on less watched article. Topics include Walter Goffart as source.

As Heruli is not much watched, it would be good to get more community input on events there which certainly involve sources relevant to this article. In short: (1) approximately 1 third of the article including 6 sources was deleted in a major revert, [84]; (2) the only clear rationale given so far is that Walter Goffart was mentioned as a source in some of the new material. (But Goffart is not one of the 6 sources deleted, and was already in the article, and still is.) That issue has clearly come up here before also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted only at Heruli, though it is about Scirri, this appears to also be part of this same systematic work which is relevant to this article [85]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we do not loose it: Main attempt to defend the Heruli revert by Thomas.W has been led by Krakkos at User_talk:Thomas.W#Heruli. It is certainly about Goffart, and involves the interpretation of Goffart and other sources which has been proposed on Wikipedia by Krakkos. The discussion leads me to feel concerned about edits being made on the articles of living scholars like Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gapt versus Gaut

We have discussed above whether our readers should simply be told that the ancestor of the Goths was called Gaut when the classical text said Gapt. I can add to that discussion that Peter Heather argues against the equation which we have been putting in WP voice, and there were no variants. See p. 415 of ...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goths&oldid=945658505"