Talk:Goths

---

Gothic migration

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status query

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

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

Etymology section: verification issue

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)

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

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

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

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

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

2 simple logical problems:

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

Suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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: Andersson, Thomas (1998), zu Namen und Deutungen. in Goten 1. Philologisches in RGA 2 vol. 12 pp.402-403. Google: https://books.google.be/books?id=bcwfZW_soyMC 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)

Goths = Gutones and similar assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our foremost sources on the Goths, Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, consider the Gutones ancestral to the Goths.[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)

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

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

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

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

Goths and Gutones again

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

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

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

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

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

I have modified the lead.[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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no interest in any WP:BATTLE. We recently had a bitter edit war at Germanic peoples,[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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supposed evidence from the Sagas

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

The relevance of the Gutasaga to the origins of the Goths is mentioned by Herwig Wolfram. I have moved the section in question down below those on archaeological, literary and genetic evidence.[14] Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

A missing topic or topics: how to fit

I will keep it simple, just to trigger thinking:

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

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

@Krakkos: please explain why you keep switching publication dates of your favoured sources to newer dates, even after I correct them? [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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

More examples.

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

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

Undue genetic conclusions?

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

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

There are actually two related articles in the bibliography:

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

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

These are recent studies, conducted by a team of qualified scholars, and published by Nature Research. The abstract of the study states that "the collected results seem to be consistent with the historical narrative that assumed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia".[18] It's not undue to mention that in this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Potentially useful sources?

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

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

describe where the Goths lived

@Krakkos:, seriously? [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)

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

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

Concerning the length of the lead etc please feel free of course to explain here honestly what you are talking about, but to me it is obvious that the opening of the article needs to connect a topic to reality for the reader. My edsum when adding these two simple sentences [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)

Poor sources for potential deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For editors who aren't used to you, in the small range of edit types you do, one is that you make articles for the sources you want to push, and not for the ones you don't like. Then you post links or red-links on talk pages when dispute arises, and try to imply that widely cited scholars are "no-ones". A good example was your disparagement of Andrew Gillett on Germanic peoples as a "self-styled independent scholar [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)

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)

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

The relevant paragraph on Jordanes in the lead says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

@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 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)

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)

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)

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]:

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

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

• Footnotes:

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

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

References

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

• Reply by Krakkos Per WP:FOOTQUOTE, it is useful to add quotes to sources when sources are "not easily accessible" or when one wants to "indicate precisely which information the source is supporting". WP:V further states that "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided". The sources quoted from are not all easily accessible, their claims have been contested, and your misrepresentation of these sources, as illustrated here, makes quoting them necessary. Your stacking of additional unnecessary sources to an already heavily cited sentence[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)

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

Reply by Krakkos Due weight is, according to Jimbo Wales, determined by coverage in "commonly accepted reference texts". The best reference texts on the Goths are written by Peter Heather and published by Oxford University Press. These sources have been contested and misrepresented by you innumerable times.[30][31][32] That makes it necessary to quote them. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reply by Krakkos Yes please click the example. You removed directly relevant English-language sources from Omeljan Pritsak and E. A. Thompson, while adding an only partially relevant German-language source by Walter Pohl.[33] Krakkos (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Reply by Krakkos You have a strong tendency to insert[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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply by Krakkos We have someone who might have been an assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen who published a book through Museum Tusculanum Press in 2002. Christensen is probably retired by now (he was born in 1945), meaning that he never made it past associate professor and never published any other noteworthy work except from this one. Peter Heather, who is Chairman of the Medieval History Department and Professor of Medieval History at King's College London, and considered the world's foremost authority on the Goths, has more recently written The Fall of Rome (2005) and Empires and Barbarians (2009). Empires and Barbarians contains no less than 842 references to "Goth", but flatly contradicts and makes no mention whatsoever of Christensen or his theories. Christensen's theories are flatly contradiced, and not even mentioned by any reliable reference work on the Goths. Michael Whitby, who is the former Head of the Ancient History department and Professor of Ancient History at the University of St Andrews, has dismissed Christensen's theories as "surely too extreme", "little more than a long footnote to Heather's work", and something "only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult".[38] I'm sorry, but this stuff isn't suitable for the lead. Krakkos (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

So to spell it out:

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

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

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

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

@Krakkos: your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which happen to defend Peter Heather!! [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 by Krakkos This is what Peter Heather says in 2009/2012 about the views of philologists on the name of the Goths:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steinacher's source for the prestige name bit is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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 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)

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)

"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 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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 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)

@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 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)

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)

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)

@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 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,[47] but you do not seem to be abiding by it. Krakkos (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[48] 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)

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)

• 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)

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)