Talk:Goths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFC about the Name section[edit]

There is no consensus for the proposed changes.

Cunard (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • I agree, because I proposed it. A possible name for the section could be "Recorded name forms"? It could contain sub-sections or paragraphs which give ONE quick effective statement about each of : (a) the classical attestations and form variations (b) etymology discussions (c) the question of how the different peoples with these names were connected. It would set-up the rest of the article better for editors and readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Goths#Name covers the etymology of the Gothic name. Goths#Evidence from classical sources covers evidence from classical sources on the origin and early history of the Goths. These are quite distinct subtopics which should be treated in distinct sections. All Wikipedia articles on major ancient tribes, such as the Vandals, Burgundians, Suebi, Helvetii, Franks, Alemanni etc, have sections on name/etymology, and this article should have one too. Merging this name section into the history section will not improve the quality of this article. If there is overlap this should be dealt with by trimming overlapping content. Krakkos (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos, Ermenrich, and Carlstak: this is also a reasonable vision of a future article. But, it does not describe the current article. The bulk of "Name" is now a duplicate recitation of the classical evidence. So we might need an RFC about changing the Name section's content or title? I have no strong opinion except to try to reduce the relatively extreme duplication. My approach was intended to follow the logic of the existing content reality, and I assumed section names to be flexible. Anyway, the root cause of our "content reality" seems to be past editors needed to show the classical examples before explaining them? If you have other ideas on how to reduce the jarring duplication, we can already think ahead about those? Maybe just add a note to your vote if you only have simple remarks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Krakkos. Etymology is not history.—Ermenrich (talk)
  • Oppose per Krakkos' comments. Carlstak (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Andrew, I can appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I would also appreciate you not pinging me about every proposed change to be made to the text. I have this talk page on my watchlist, so it's not necessary to ping me. Please address me by my username if you want me to comment, I'll see it in good time when I'm on WP because I check my watchlist frequently. I operate a business, and have to apportion my time accordingly. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I also oppose any major rewrite of the article along the lines of the hatchet job based on a fringe source (Goffart) that @Andrew Lancaster: has just done on Heruli, which is what I suspect he intends to do here too. Unless he gets a clear support for it from other editors here first, of course. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That is what this RFC is for Thomas.W, so please be civil. I have requested discussion with you on the Heruli article, where I think your first ever edit there is a deletion of one third of the article and 6 good sources, reverting god knows how many edits, and then you have come here looking for blood? You've basically reverted to a version I also mainly wrote, mostly by 2016: [1]. Goffart is clearly not a fringe source, as has been discussed on this article and several others in the past, so if there are issues they need detailed discussion not a mass revert. You should post your explanation there now, and not make "revenge edits" on other articles of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
No, this RFC is only about whether certain existing sections should be merged or not, not about totally rewriting the history of all Germanic peoples based on a fringe source, like the hatchet job you did on Heruli. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You deleted Vienna school sources, Reallexicon sources etc., even a reference to Jacob Grimm, not only Goffart. On both this article and that one, I think you need to home in details so we can work out what can be done? You appear to be saying no to this rather boring section rearrangement RFC because of Goffart being cited on another article by me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Not everything is about you. I oppose this RFC because I share the views expressed by Krakkos and others here. Etymology and history do NOT belong in the same section. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, and as I said above that is a reasonable point but it raises other questions. (The "history" you mention is of course only a quick list of classical mentions. There is no section called "etymology". (I was suggesting splitting one out.) There is now a "Name" section and the bulk is a duplication of the classical mentions repeated just below.) We will find a way though, as long as we can have constructive conversation, and thanks. Next discussion: Heruli...? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Yes they should be combined. Idealigic (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Posted only at Heruli, though it is about Scirri, this appears to also be part of this same systematic work which is relevant to this article [3]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Just so we do not loose it: Main attempt to defend the Heruli revert by Thomas.W has been led by Krakkos at User_talk:Thomas.W#Heruli. It is certainly about Goffart, and involves the interpretation of Goffart and other sources which has been proposed on Wikipedia by Krakkos. The discussion leads me to feel concerned about edits being made on the articles of living scholars like Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Gapt versus Gaut[edit]

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

  • Green, Dennis (2007). Barnish; Marazzi (eds.). Linguistic and Literary Traces of the Ostrogoths, The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology. 7.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

Duplication on this article[edit]

Just some examples, I can not work on without agreement:

  • The probable related names Gutones and Gaut
  • Are the main subject of the repetitive and long Name section, which goes into great detail and is essentially already slipping in a case for this being evidence for Baltic origins. (Before all the context is explained.)
  • Are explained at length again in the introduction of the Origins and early history sub-section of the History section. (A sub-section which is very long and unstructured arguably not history.)
  • Are discussed again at length with all possible pre Black sea sightings in the Evidence from classical sources sub-sub-section of the above named sub-section. Arguably, this is not a History section unless "Name" is also. Arguably also, this listing should come before the Name section as context.
  • Is discussed again in "Evidence from etymology", adding nothing?
  • Genetic evidence. Has two sections. It all looks a bit undue.
  • Physical appearance. Has its own section, but is also the subject of a lonely sentence in "Other literary sources".
  • Literary evidence is divided into several sections. In this complex structure, Procopius is only mentioned for the physical appearance sentence. He is as important as Jordanes, who is a contemporary. The secondary sources often compare them.
  • Mentions of archaeology are also scattered and repeated.

Because of the broken structure and extreme duplication, it is hard to notice other issues. For example, we have a section on Evidence from historical parallels which is in fact a speculation built on a speculation and expanding upon a minor remark by only one author. So it seems quite WP:UNDUE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks, including outright removal of the historical parallels section. I can't do much about the duplication. Too hard. Srnec (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Srnec: another easy one should be the DNA sections. The first one should not exist because the word "support" is OR (original says "seem to be consistent with" as can be seen online). See the previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goths#Undue_genetic_conclusions? The second version should also be adapted to remove at least the most obvious OR and undue weight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Where does "History" really start?[edit]

Looking at this article a lot and it occurs to me one simple change might help editors and readers a lot to get their bearings (and to see how to fix things): "History" should only begin with "Early raids on the Roman Empire". The sub-sections and sub-sub-sections before that should perhaps be simply named "Pre-history"? Potentially, we could have an RFC, but I am not sure if that is necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

boranoi/boradoi doubts[edit]

Our article has In their first attested incursion into Thrace, the Goths were mentioned as Boranoi by Zosimus, and then as Boradoi by Gregory Thaumaturgus. Normally these people are described as Sarmatians, or people whose language group can not be identified. Here, for example, is Heather talking about the same two classical references, and also citing Wolfram as one of the authors who sees them as Sarmatian: https://books.google.be/books?id=m8p4SxNNk1YC&pg=PA3 They are also discussed, for example in this article: https://www.academia.edu/5079620/INSTITUT_ANTIQUITAS_ISTRO-PONTICA which says "In any event, they do not seem to have been of Germanic origin". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tried to fix. The source was definitely mishandled. No need to mention Sarmatians, which is as much a guess as Goths. Best to just lay bare our ignorance but make the Gothic connection (from Gregory) clear. Unless there are other sources I'm not aware of for these raids? Srnec (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! Concerning some of the raids at least, there is more discussion on the Heruli article, though that is more about the later ones. I have also added a bullet about it on Germanic peoples. Our article here is citing Kulikowski, but I don't have access to that exact page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the Origins 3.1 and Migration 3.2 sections be move out of History?[edit]

To structure this article better, is there any opposition to moving the pre-history sections (3.1) and (3.2) out of "History" (3) into their own section? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposer. Without such steps we can not begin to reduce the excessive duplication and give the article a logical structure going into future. The most important sub-sections needed are concerning textual and archaeological evidence. 3.2 can probably be used to make an intro to the section, and merged into the sub-sections wherever it contains extra details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak, Srnec, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, Yeowe, Berig, and Ermenrich: feedback please? Perhaps someone will see better solutions but it is clear the current article needs work. This proposal is a relatively simple one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  • No objection. Srnec (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our top sources (Peter Heather, Herwig Wolfram etc.) treat Gothic migration as part of Gothic history.[4][5] Splitting sections will not reduce duplication. If there is duplication, the appropriate measure is to merge duplicated sections. See WP:DUP. Krakkos (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: the two references you give clearly are not writing about what to call some sections in Wikipedia? Hopefully you are not just continuing to automatically oppose every edit or proposal I make? Also keep in mind that the key point of this proposal is not the name of the new section. It could be called "Origins" or something if that is the only concern?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per WP:NPOV articles should be based on the mainstream view, with views that deviate from the mainstream view mentioned in proportion to their support in reliable sources (as Andrew Lancaster very well knows, since I've told him so multiple times by now on other talk pages). And the "out of Scandinavia" theory is the mainstream view. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Your response implies (with a lot of AGF) that you did not read the proposal? Can you have a look at the original RFC? Maybe you can start a talk page section about whatever you are thinking concerning Scandinavia. It sounds like you are seeing Peter Heather (and many scholars)as fringe authors? If we have to see Peter Heather as a fringe source the article would require a lot of changes, so this would need a convincing explanation for all the normal editors of this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem with lede[edit]

In the intro the Scandinavian connection cannot be reduced to a mention of Jordanes and his unrelibility. To honest with the readers we need to show that we are aware of other sources of information that point to a Scandinavian origin, or at least a Scandinavian origin tradition.

  • Mausoleum of Theodoric, which appears to have been consciously decorated in a contemporary Scandinavian style so as to point to a living Gothic tradition of Scandinavian descent.
  • Polish archaeology (e.g. Scandinavian burial customs)
  • archaeogenetics (as recently published in Nature)
  • linguistics (certain shared traits between Gothic and Old Norse in general and Old Gutnish in particular)
  • Onamastics (Goths/Gutes/Geats, etc.)

This article is not restricted to historiography, and should not reduce the possible Scandinavian origin to a single source. This may look disengenuous to informed readers.-Berig (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berig, I am open to learn new things. I can only report what I have read so far:
  • Many scholars say that there never would have been efforts to find Scandinavian links in other types of evidence if it had not been for Jordanes. I have to take them seriously on that because I don't think I have found any source which disagrees with that. Do you know any?
  • Polish archaeology has shown a cultural connection between the Goths and the south Baltic, but the connection to Scandinavia is more tenuous? There are of course shared traits between all the cultures around the Baltic, but I have not seen any consensus of any which show a direction which has to come from Scandinavia to the Vistula? Can you mention any sources?
  • Genetics. I looked at the sources in our article and that is extremely tenuous evidence where our wording distorts the weaker wording in that report on very limited data. (There is also a bigger concern on WP about the use of individual reports of raw data like this.) Which source are you thinking of in Nature?
  • Linguistics. The way I understand the field, this line of argument has not gained much consensus? Again, can you bring some new sourcing?
  • Onomastics. This is now mentioned in the article. As noted in some of the authorities such as RGA this evidence does not give any indication of any specific direction of movement. Only Jordanes clearly mentions such a direction, and I keep seeing that pointed out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The Mausoleum of Theodoric was decorated in a Scandinavian style? How? It looks like a pretty standard late Roman/early Byzantine structure to me. What recent art historian makes such a claim? The UNESCO document says its construction may derive from Syrian influences [6]. New theory about the origin of the Goths?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
North Germanic (whence Old Norse) and Gothic do not form a single clade per current linguistic consensus. Old Norse is more closely related to West Germanic languages, with which it forms a single clade (Northwest Germanic). The only major shared innovation often mentioned when discussing possible links between Gothic and Old Norse is Verschärfung, but these processes are realized differently in both languages and likely arose independently. For the most part, similarities between the two languages not shared by West-Germanic represent shared retentions, not shared innovations. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
"consciously decorated in a contemporary Scandinavian style" - did they get it from Ikea or what? Where in Scandinavia is there anything at all like the Mausoleum of Theodoric, which has hardly any decoration at all? Why, if the Scandinavian origin claim is mainstream at all, does the 2018 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity make not a mention of Scandinavia anywhere in its entry on the Goths, which describes them as Germanic people first attested in the Baltic area in the 2nd century AD? GPinkerton (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for permission to reduce duplication[edit]

There have been complaints about duplication in certain sections of this article. I have made an attempt at reducing duplication through merging section 3.2 into sections 3.1 and 3.3. I have also fixed some chronological errors and added some citations from recent archaeological research. The proposed version can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths. The proposed edit will be like this.[7] Krakkos (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: over and over you reject proposals I make, and then propose something similar-sounding yourself? Hmmm. I will of course check and comment in a good faith way ASAP, but I wish you would demonstrate that you can do the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: is it possible to provide a diff which shows all the differences? Was any version of the draft on your page the same as the current article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The diff you're asking for is already provided above. Krakkos (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
So the 11:51 version there is the same as our current article? Sorry for asking twice, but you were clearly doing more edits before then, so I am wondering if this is really the case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the "11:51 version" is the same as our current article. Krakkos (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Some key changes of potential concern seem to relate to the way that two sources from the deleted section will over-write the other sections concerning the archaeological and genetic evidence for Scandinavian influence on the Wielbark culture. It creates a false impression of field certainty. This can be compared to the edits you made a month ago on the Wielbark culture article, where sourced comments about doubts were removed [8]. There are especially two sources being used for this:
  • Kokowski for the archaeology. I can not access the online version linked to, but it does not seem to represent a field consensus. For example it disagrees with Heather's reading of that field?
  • Stolarek for the genetics. I think our use of this source is unfortunately WP:UNDUE and verging on WP:OR. It is also used in 3 parts of our article still, in a way which gives an impression of far more studies than we are really reporting. This is WP:PRIMARY research data. These are basic reports of a tiny amount of mitochondrial data, which led to quite confusing results. Mitochondrial DNA is not even suitable for this type of work. (It used to be the only type of test possible. I presume this lab just does not have access to the newer technologies.) The author's comment about the results being consistent with Scandinavia comments (which use Jutland as a proxy for Scandinavia BTW, which makes it useless for the OR we are doing of trying to contrast Scandinavia with East Germany, as they are equally close) is made far stronger and taken out of context.
Can you consider whether there is any way to reduce those types of concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You should be able to access this link to Andrzej Kokowski's article. In his more recent works (Empires and Barbarians from 2009 for example), Peter Heather, approvingly cites Kokowski's work on the Wielbark culture. It does not appear that they disagree with each other to any major extent. I have fixed the draft in accordance with your concerns about the proposal.[9] The proposal does not touch upon Stolarek's articles in Nature Communications. If you want to remove citations from Stolarek you should make a separate proposal for that. The proposed edit will now be like this.[10] Is this an improvement from the current version? Krakkos (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Genetics. You have a point about leaving Stolarek for a later discussion, but I would strongly appeal to you Krakkos to please consider next steps on what to do with this 3-times described, and every-time exaggerated source. I feel it is a minor part of the article which is purely a WP creation. None of our good sources cite this, and we are taking the article way out of context. We should at least tame down the very strong claims made for this minor work and reduce the duplication? This is by the way no disrespect to the researchers who are just doing their jobs.
Archaeology. I am perhaps like Heather in also having no disrespect for archaeologists proposing Scandinavian links either. Sounds really interesting! I feel more uncomfortable about us not reporting other ideas. I find it a bit hard to believe that all all archaeologists you found were all claiming Scandinavian connections? Is that really your impression?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Historically, archaeologists such as Gustaf Kossinna, Eric Oxenstierna and Birger Nerman suggested that the Goths originated through a mass migration from Scandinavia. Then in the 1970s, Rolf Hachmann wrote an influential work suggesting that the Goths originated on the continent from the Przeworsk culture. The field of archaeology has changed a lot since then. For example, the Oksywie culture had not yet been discovered when Hachmann published his book. The most comprehensive recent works by archaeologists on this question appear to be by Andrzej Kokowski and Anders Kaliff. They both suggest Scandinavian influences on the Wielbark culture. If we find works of similar reliability and relevance which contradicts this, then we can of course add it, but that is a matter for future discussion. The same principle applies to Stolarek. Do you consider the proposed reduction of duplication an improvement to the current article? Krakkos (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
To be honest I am torn. I do not want to be too negative, but I feel each edit should move the article ahead. I hope others will comment.
Archaeology. You only mention pre 21st century sources, whereas one of your favourite sources is Peter Heather's more recent book, which, IIRC says that archaeology is not showing any evidence of a Scandinavia migration, as opposed to a migration from the Oder? Why wouldn't we mention such positions? The Wielbark edits are a worrying example also. I don't want to use Kossina as a bogeyman, but using him in your explanation also doesn't really make me feel like this is going a good direction.
Genetics. Stolarek is simpler. Based on normal objective criteria this is undue, and original research, and repeated 3 times in the article. It goes beyond what those two small mitochondrial reports can be used for.
I see no similarity between the archaeology and genetics sourcing discussions here, because whether something is "out of Scandinavia" or not is not my interest. With archaeology I am worried about balance, and missing sources, while with genetics I don't see an RS at all, only OR.
I will look again tomorrow and keep considering my opinion. Thanks for your responses so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A summary of some reading and checking of sources follows, but here are some key sentences in the draft that we are talking about. My conclusion is that it would be easy to avoid controversy on these, and so all indications are that the controversy is intended, and discussion will be resisted about changing anything after this merge goes through. See also what has happened on the Wielbark culture article:

  • Added, and still there in newest proposal [source=Kokowski, but given in WP voice]: Archaeological evidence suggests that the Wielbark culture probably emerged out of the preceding Oksywie culture under Scandinavian influences. This can not be verified, because Kokowski does NOT use archaeological evidence to come to this conclusion, and clearly knows he is not speaking for the field. His evidence is Jordanes.
  • Weakened [source=Heather, no longer given in WP voice]: there is no archaeological evidence for a mass migration from Scandinavia. -> according to Peter Heather there is no conclusive archaeological evidence for a mass migration from Scandinavia. This can not be verified because Heather's wording is much stronger, and he is also describing what archaeologists and other scholars think, which I have no reason to doubt (see collapsed box). See his page 39 (I am not sure why our article cites p.26): Archaeologists consider the Wielbark culture autochtonous. But since no one wants to claim that the Gutones as such migrated from Scandinavia, it is entirely possible they there was a Gutic immigration. [...] Does this mean, after all, that the Goths originated in Scandinavia? Reinhard Wenskus has already given an answer, which ought to be slightly modified: not entire peoples, but small successful clans, the bearers of prestigious traditions, emigrated and became the founders of new gentes.

In other words, Heather (like Wolfram, Pohl etc) takes a Vienna school position which does not assume any mass migration necessary. I feel we are misleading our readers.

TLDR. Some sources.
  • Kokowski. Firstly, in his 1999 work he makes it clear that his starting point for his belief in Scandinavian origins is Jordanes, and his second line of defense is a theory about place-names, not archaeological data. (As part of this he uses the example of Scotland, preserving the name of the Scots, apparently not realizing where the Scotti came from.) He also makes it clear that he knows his position is not universally agreed.
  • There are some interesting 21st century comments by Dennis Howard Green concerning Kowkowski's position, calling it a hornet's nest, telling Kowkowski that he may be subject to criticism with his position https://books.google.be/books?id=M0WnZ2vDfEkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA239 . You can see Kokowski's own 21st century response which emphasizes, again, his commitment to the Jordanes legend.
  • Green made a similar 21st century comment in an article and subsequent published discussion with Schwarcz who clearly feels even stronger about it https://books.google.be/books?id=4MADmH2eaGIC&lpg=PA41&pg=PA32 . Green quips that Scandinavians all like the idea, but can't agree on where in Scandinavia.
  • Schwarcz, like Heather, points out that the Gutones were part of an old Roman ethnographic literature which places them on the continent too early to have come from Scandinavia at the time when Wielbark begins.
  • Green also, like Wolfram and everyone else, clearly takes the attitude that everything before the Vistula is a very different type of discussion in any case (a hornet's next), which is also how I have proposed WP should structure its discussion.

Concerning mitochondrial DNA and its uselessness for pinpointing origins within Europe, especially when there is only a small number of samples, it is convenient to just point to our own article which has some sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#Matrilineal_studies (But we report Storalek's article misleadingly anyway.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: The chief source by Andrzej Kokowski is from 2011. A 2011 source is a 21st century source. Kokowski is one of Poland's most distinguished archaeologists, and an expert on early Gothic archaeology. His works on this subject are cited approvingly by both Peter Heather and Andreas Schwarcz. Kokowski bases his conclusions on archaeological evidence; Jordanes is not mentioned in his article. Kokowski in fact dismisses Jordanes' story of a single mass migration.[11] I have now added citations from more archaeologists on the discussion of Scandinavian influences on the Wielbark culture.[12] Would you now permit me to reduce duplication and add the suggested fixes to the article? Krakkos (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I see that during the discussion we've switched from his 1999 book to a later article but that is only one aspect of the concern. Also, that Kowkowski is citeable etc is not the issue either of course. Once again, I'll look asap, but can you confirm that the above link is a comparison of the current article and the draft? (Or if not, what does it show?) If I understand correctly, you've tweaked on archaeology but not on genetics? I think this new sentence in WP voice would not be adding anything if it were not meant to imply more than it should be: The archaeological evidence nevertheless indicates that while his work is thought to be unreliable, Jordanes' story was based on an oral tradition with some basis in fact Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This diff compares the current version of the article with the draft.[13] The draft makes no changes to genetic information. The sentence you're quoting (which has since been tweaked) is a direct citation from the Swedish professor of archaeology Anders Kaliff. Krakkos (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I would be comfortable with the edit only if the following changes (or something equivalent) could be made. If these are controversial, then that would itself raise big questions about why:

  • Removal of the new sentence by Kaliff, added in during this discussion. Just because a sourced sentence was good in its original context does not mean it has the same implication when placed into a new context, in Wikipedia voice. Anyone who disagrees that it implies something more than the sentences already there, should logically also believe that the sentence is adding nothing, and so the change should be uncontroversial.
  • We should remove this short citation from the poor source Mark which now disagrees with everything else we have from good sources in the article: Jordanes' account of Gothic settlement in modern-day Poland is widely accepted. Just for example consider the remarks of Dennis H. Green describing this same scholarship as a "hornet's nest" - remark made in at least two carefully worked-up published places, and already discussed above.
  • The creation of a strong statement from Heather by using a book review not written by him (Sønnesyn, 2004) is a straight-forwardly inappropriate way of citing Heather, and needs to be replaced or removed. Obviously if this sentence survives this detailed discussion it will not be because we are in a rush, or had no real quotes from Heather. An example of what Heather really believes is that Jordanes has "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [Jordanes or Paul the Deacon] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence." (Full citation for those is on this talk page already.) The period where Heather thinks Jordanes might sometimes be useful is clearly NOT the one we are implying. (I am not sure the sentence would add much if it was made more accurate?)

Genetics:

  • Stolorek summary: Now we have - A 2019 genetic study published in Scientific Reports examined the remains of individuals identified with the Wielbark culture and the Goths. Close genetic relations to populations of Iron Age Scandinavia and modern Norwegians and Swedes were detected.[112] The authors of the study cited this as supporting the theory of a Scandinavian origin of the Goths.[36] I believe this should be Studies of mitochondrial DNA from two Wielbark cemeteries showed a close relationship to mitochondrial DNA found in Iron Age Jutland, and similarity to the mitochondrial DNA found today in modern populations including Norway and Sweden. The author described this as consistent with a Scandinavian origin of the Goths.
We certainly need to switch "supports" wording to "consistent with" wording, which is a wording Stolarek uses more often in both reports, which need to be more clearly explained as two reports. In contrast to the impression we are giving, the one occasion where "supports" is used is NOT comparing the hypothesis to any named competing hypothesis (it looks a bit like they were trying to write it that way and gave up trying to name any theory with which their extremely limited data would not be consistent). There is a similar problem with their one and only mention of Norwegians and Swedes, which is part of a bigger description of their more informative tables and graphs which show the normal mitochondrial pattern of all modern Eurasians populations close to each other and hard to pull apart on a geographical basis. Our readers can not, as usual, do see the original context, but we know that it shows "consistent with".
  • Järve summary: The results appeared to confirm the theory that the Chernyakhov culture emerged as a result of a Gothic migration from the north. As per the article's own summary I think this should say The results appeared to confirm that the Chernyakhov culture emerged partly as a result of a new non-Scythian population, with a higher amount of Near Eastern ancestry.

The genetics passages really deserve more discussion. For one thing there is obvious duplication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Most of these demands (Stolarek, Sønnesyn, Mark, Järve etc.) are not about proposed changes in the draft. Blocking other editors from improving an article unless they agree to remove other information is not a constructive approach. Anders Kaliff is a distinguished Swedish archaeologist who has written widely on early Gothic archaeology and removing his conclusions is not helpful. In Empires and Barbarians (2010), Peter Heather cites archaeological evidence for his belief that Jordanes' Getica partially reflects Gothic oral histories.[14] The longer this discussion becomes, and the more sweeping the changes in the draft becomes, the harder it will be for the community to agree on improvements to this article. But perhaps that is your aim? One is left with the impression that you are more concerned with removing citations on Gothic connections with Scandinavia than you are about removing duplication. This discussions appears to be never ending. Final question: Do you want to preserve the current version with its extensive duplication or do you support adding the fixes in the draft? Krakkos (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: merges are not necessarily neutral because they are merges, and snippets of words from good sources are not necessarily uncontroversial when placed in a completely new context. Furthermore, due to your own actions, you and I are in a special situation on this article where we can't just handle details later in any easy way. But there is a solution. By their very nature, the small tweaks I request should not be controversial at all for anyone who simply wants the article to be better, and does not want to distort what the sources are saying. So it should be easy to move ahead quickly now if you want to. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for permission to reduce duplication and improve article[edit]

There have been complaints about duplication and chronological errors in this article. I have made an attempt at fixing those issues through merging section 3.2 into sections 3.1 and 3.3. I've also attempted to fix the chronology at Goths#Archaeological evidence and added some more recent citations. The proposed version can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths. The proposed edit would be like this.[15] An earlier version of the proposal was discussed here, but I've created a new section for the new proposal in order provide more clarity. Permission from the community is required for the improvements to be added. Krakkos (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Andrew Lancaster, Ermenrich, Mnemosientje, Berig, Thomas.W, Srnec, Sirfurboy, Elphion and Carlstak, who have participated in previous discussions at this talk page. Krakkos (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • My "vote" [to re-cap]: can proceed with small simple tweaks proposed above in your first section about this same major drafting proposal [16]: (1) removal of one new sentence you added; (2) removal or replacement of two obviously inappropriately sourced sentences which conflict with the rest of the proposed text (and Heather and Green etc); (3) necessary tweaks to genetics sub-section (which probably should be removed entirely, being an undue OR duplicate section that your duplication reduction proposal leaves in place, but at least it should report the sources properly). Hard to understand a good faith reason anyone would fight so hard to avoid those.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I should note that you've made changes on your drafting page and my comments were based on the draft diff you gave above. I have no idea what the differences are with the new one, because it is difficult to follow. (This is a complex proposal you are making.) Hopefully you can "translate" and my proposal for conditional acceptance is clear. (As a general remark, the citations of Mark which have indeed been tagged by other editors are all a concern. We don't need to cite Mark for any normal editing reason?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE. Discussed below [17]. TLDR: This duplication reduction proposal moved some things around, but was mainly an expansion proposal with a strong POV change. The request was a bit misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

In our section Goths#Ostrogoths, we have this opening definition in two sentences: "After the Hunnic invasion, many Goths became subjects of the Huns. These would become known as the Ostrogoths.". We should change to something like this: "After the collapse of the Hunnic empire of Attila, the Amal clan, who had been prominent in one of at least three Gothic factions under Attila, established themselves as leaders of a Gothic kingdom in Pannonia, in the north of the Roman Balkans. They eventually also took control of a Thracian group of Goths. These Amal-led Goths came to be known as the Ostrogoths.

TLDR. We cite Peter Heather but our definition is apparently based on Jordanes, and clearly disagrees with Peter Heather. We are equating the Ostrogoths to all Goths who did not enter the Roman empire, but became part of the Hunnic community, and equating these in a simple way to Theoderic's kingdom. Specifically it cites the following short dictionary entry by Heather, which is not ideal to begin with, but which does make it clear that we are using the source wrongly:

More extended discussions can be found in better publications by Heather:

Just to be clear, I have also given some consideration of the question of whether Heather's position really represents a field consensus. It might be possible to dispute that, but on this particular point Heather is at least not taking an extreme position, and the wording chosen tries to avoid any major issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sentence in question in accordance with your request.[18] Keep in mind that we also have the article Ostrogoths. Detailed speculations on Ostrogothic origins and identity are better suited for that article. Krakkos (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and I agree, but this was a sentence already in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request Visigoths[edit]

I think we need to make certain minimum changes to the opening of our Visigoths section:

  • The term Visigoths should be switched to Goths in at least the first two paragraphs.
  • The sentence about Alaric being elected should be removed, and probably the source being cited should also be removed. All better sources show that there is uncertainty about exactly when and how Alaric came to be called king. (Some like Kulikowski perhaps doubt whether it ever happened at all?)
  • The opening should be possible for readers to understand, so it needs to define the term and explain what the "treaty" is.

Luckily we have a good source which not only argues one well-known historian's position but explains what he believes would be agreed to by most of his colleagues:

[ADD quote --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

p.47: The Visigoths of Aquitaine were a new political unit largely put together during the reign of Alaric (ca 395-411). [Then names five different sources of these people.] Alaric may have had other sources of recruits besides, but the basic pattern is clear enough. The Visigoths settled in Aquitaine in 418 were a new creation. [Following page starts with a look back at what was just summarized: This much, I think, would command consensus, although it is certainly worth stressing. While specialists are well aware of the point, handbooks continue to talk about 'Visigoths' before 376.]
now proposed
Following Theodosius' treaty, Visigoths received prominent positions in the Roman army.[171] Relations with Roman civilians were sometimes uneasy; in 391, Gothic soldiers, with the blessing of Theodosius I, massacred thousands of Roman spectators at the Hippodrome in Thessalonica as vengeance for the lynching of the Gothic general Butheric.[172]

The Visigoths suffered heavy losses while serving Theodosius in the civil war of 394 against Eugenius and Arbogast.[173] In 395, following the death of Theodosius I, the Visigoths elected Alaric I as their king[158] and invaded Greece, where they sacked Piraeus (the port of Athens) and destroyed Corinth, Megara, Argos, and Sparta.[174][175] Athens was spared by paying a large bribe, and the Eastern emperor Flavius Arcadius subsequently appointed Alaric magister militum ("master of the soldiers") in Illyricum in 397.[175]

The Visigoths were a new gothic political unit brought together during the career of their first leader, Alaric I, who eventually came to be called their king.[cite Heather, pp.47-48]

Following a major settlement of goths in the Balkans made by Theodosius in 382, goths received prominent positions in the Roman army.[171] Relations with Roman civilians were sometimes uneasy. In 391, Gothic soldiers, with the blessing of Theodosius I, massacred thousands of Roman spectators at the Hippodrome in Thessalonica as vengeance for the lynching of the Gothic general Butheric.[172]

Gothic soldiers suffered heavy losses while serving Theodosius in the civil war of 394 against Eugenius and Arbogast.[173] In 395, following the death of Theodosius I, Alaric and his Balkan goths invaded Greece, where they sacked Piraeus, the port of Athens, and destroyed Corinth, Megara, Argos, and Sparta.[174][175] Athens itself was spared by paying a large bribe, and the Eastern emperor Flavius Arcadius subsequently appointed Alaric as magister militum ("master of the soldiers") in Illyricum in 397.[175]

These changes seem to be necessary and uncontroversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC) I have colored the changes to show how small they are: one introductory sentence, some changes of the term "Visigoth" from the period before they definitely existed, the implied "election" date removed, and a few punctuation tweaks (which can be ignored if necessary). For anyone who has doubts the clickable link to Peter Heather's summary of what scholars all agree upon should be easy to absorb, and is very "to the point". Bottom of p.47 and top of p.48. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Perhaps I should add a source for the lack of consensus about when Alaric became a king. A good recent summary is by Halsall, who keeps open to various possibilities, but seems to favor the proposal of Burns, based on Jordanes. He names 3 antique sources which all give different answers:

p.202: Traditionally, in 'people on the move' theories, he was simply king of the Goths, although his elevation is associated with his rebellion in 395
p.203: But was Alaric a king of the Goths? T.S. Burns makes much of the fact that, writing 150 years later, Jordanes said that Alaric took the title of king in the year of the consulate of Stilicho and Aurelianus - 400.
p.206: In the second quarter of the sixth century, Marcellinus Comes pushed Alaric's kingship back to his first appearance in 395 and in the early seventh century Isidore of Seville completed the process by linking it to the Gothic submission in 382.
p.206: Jordanes' statement might apply to the first time this expedient was used, in particular circumstances in 400/1. It would appear that it only (and gradually) became an important feature of western politics after that date. Athaulf was possibly the first to imply it regularly.

It would be strange for us to willfully ignore that our article is wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Goths should be capitalized. "eventually came to be called" is very weak. Called by whom? When? Other than that, no objection. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. I took a minimal approach to the king bit. Potentially something more in line with Halsall's uncertain comments could be added back in somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: sentences which use poor sources to "explain" good sources[edit]

It should be obvious that it is bad practice to cite an unknown source in order to give a certain impression about our stronger sources. We have also already had discussion about some such cases on this specific article (let alone related ones such as Germanic peoples) and I believe there is strong agreement with this principle. I therefore propose deleting the following 2 sentences, which in the best case scenario add nothing, and in the worst case scenario are being used to create false impressions of sources who we already can and do cite directly...

1. In the section Goths#Jordanes and Getica we currently close with this: Jordanes' account of Gothic settlement in modern-day Poland is widely accepted.[49] It has a footnote Mark 2014. "Historians such as Peter Heather have identified Gothiscandza with Gdansk in modern Poland, and this theory is generally supported..." Mark 2014 refers to a paywall educational tools website...

Actually the sentence in our text is saying something quite different to the footnote quote, and implying a lot more besides that (such as settlement having come from Scandinavia, which Heather sees no evidence for). What Heather really thinks can be found in many of his writings including this well-known one in our biography

  • Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199892266., for example pp.104-107, or p.157.
  • p.104: it is now generally accepted that the Wielbark culture incoporated areas that, in the first two centuries AD, were dominated by Goths, Rugi and other Germani, even if its population had not originally been
  • p.105: It is also unclear how we should envisage the human history behind the expansion of the Wielbark system.
  • p.157: The sixth-century Jordanes describes third-century Gothic migration into the Black Sea region as one 'people' on the move, when the reality portrayed by more contemporary sources was much more complex.

2. This sentence: Heather also suggests that Getica is partially based on authentic Gothic tradition. cites our footnote which uses a book review which is not even a book review of Heather: 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."

  • Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn (2004). "Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths". Scandinavian Journal of History. Taylor & Francis. 29 (3–4): 306–308. doi:10.1080/03468750410005719.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • An example of what Heather really believes is that Jordanes has "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [Jordanes or Paul the Deacon] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence." *The only reason this sentence seems to be added, is for the message being given to readers in its footnote?
  • Heather, Peter (2010), "Afterword", in Curta, Florin (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 32

=>Can we delete these two sentences, with their footnotes please? As far as I can see they actually add nothing in the best case scenario.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with your proposal, but we should add Liebescheutz in place of Heather as one who believes the Getica to be based on authentic oral tradition. Srnec (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Srnec: what I have done for a first step is remove both footnotes, but only the sentence citing Mark. The remaining sentence is less concerning than the footnote text it was attached to. You are right that it could be added to or modified to make it more worthy of remaining in the article. For now, without that footnote it is vague, but at least less controversial. Looking to what we can add: the thing about Heather and Liebeschuetz and others, is that I think no-one at all accepts everything Jordanes says, though many historians such as Heather and Liebeschuetz think we should not automatically assume nothing in Jordanes before the 4th century can be trusted. But our current wording makes no refined distinctions about this. Any ideas? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Srnec I have added a Heather citation for the Heather sentence (instead of deleting it) and tweaked a word or 2 in order to remove the implication that Heather agrees with Wolfram in the previous sentence. Do you have any citation to add from Liebeschuetz? Also, note that I do not have access to Heather's Goths and Romans, which might be a better source for many of these things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster I have access to Goths and Romans, which has a whole 30-page chapter on Jordanes, where towards the end he says: (p.66)...apart from recounting the story of Gothic origins on the ‘island’ of Scandinavia, Jordanes also mentions other legends ‘which tell of [the Goths’] subjection to slavery in Britain or in some other island, or of their redemption by a certain man at the cost of a horse’ (5. 38). There was thus more than one version of Gothic origins current in the sixth century. Jordanes, as we have seen, made his choice because he found written confirmation of it, but this is hardly authoritative: the Scandinavian origin of the Goths would seem to have been one sixth-century guess among several. It is also striking that Jordanes’ variants all contained islands: Scandinavia, Britain, ‘or some other island’. In one strand of Graeco-Roman ethnographic and geographic tradition, Britain, Thule, and Scandinavia are all mysterious northern islands rather than geographical localities. ‘Britain’ and ‘Scandinavia’ may well represent interpretative deductions on the part of whoever it was that recorded the myths. The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. The Scandinavian origin-tale would thus be (p.67) similar to much else in the Getica, depending upon a complex mixture of material from Gothic oral and Graeco-Roman literary sources. If something particular is needed I can look it up. GPinkerton (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkteron: thanks! The new version of the sentences in our article was done by Krakkos after discussion above also with Srnec. Perhaps you can check what you think of our paragraph?
Jordanes' account is controversial, and certainly contains many inaccuracies.[52] It has not been possible to confirm archaeologically his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia.[1] Herwig Wolfram considers Getica to be a work of indispensable value to Gothic history and a relic of Gothic oral tradition.[53] Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz also suggest that Getica is probably partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[54][55][56] Walter Goffart, on the other hand, claims that the Getica's account of Gothic origins is a literary fabricated with no foundation in oral tradition.[57] Arne Christensen argues that Jordanes borrowed the legend from Cassiodorus, who had conflated the Goths with the Geats.[58]
My concern with this flow of sentences is that it is being implied that Wolfram, Liebeshuetz, and Heather not only think bits of Getica might reflect verbal traditions, but also that (a) these traditions might based on the truth (implied by "of indispensable value" and "also") and (b) we are specifically implying in this section that the Scandinavian story is among the real and valuable traditions as far as Heather etc are concerned. I am thinking that Heather especially makes it clear that he does not think this? Can anyone tweak the wording to make sure we do not imply this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Good point regarding distinguishing the authenticity of the traditions (if that's what they are) from their accuracy. My understanding is that Wolfram and Liebeschuetz do believe they contain a kernel of truth. Perhaps GPinkerton can alter the reference to Heather to better reflect his views. My understanding is that he does not accept the accuracy of the Scandinavian tradition but does accept at least its possible authenticity (as an oral tradition). Srnec (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is also my reading. I think Heather does believe there might be things based on the truth (not just Gothic traditions) in Jordanes, but NOT the early material and specifically not the Scandinavia section. Concerning what Wolfram and Liebeschuetz think, I am am also not certain we have it right, even though both of them clearly believe that Getica contains some bits of truth, and contains some bits of Gothic tradition. The question is which bits are which?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not read the other historians' work so I'm loathe to edit myself but from what I understand, the discussion of whoever argues the Goths really did come from Scandinavia and the lack of archaeological corroboration thereof should come only after the conclusions of Heather: Jordanes possibly preserved some late antique notion of the Goths' own as to their origins, but this "information" amounted to "the Goths thought they came from a faraway (is)land unknown to the Romans and some myth of theirs involved something about a horse"; the Roman/literate transcriber of the late antique tradition among the Goths, or Jordanes himself, interpolated the names of Scandinavia and Britain as suitably exotic and remote-sounding names for the Graeco-Roman literati to understand, while not conflicting with the already sanctified-by-tradition geographical works of the ancients, which fail to discuss the Goths but could nonetheless not have been in error. The last two footnotes of Heather's chapter discuss his position in relation to others: (n. 82) Goffart, Narrators, 88 ff. I agree with Goffart 88–96 that these paragraphs are not straightforward Gothic oral history, and in finding the mention of Scandinavia suspicious. He is also surely right in seeing Jordanes as concerned to refute rumours that the Goths originated in Britain. Much less convincing is the suggestion that Jordanes was really arguing—against Procopius’ account of Herules who had returned to ‘Thule’ (Wars 6. 14–15)—that Goths could not be got rid of back to the far north. Nothing suggests that Procopius was advocating the act of the Herules as a general solution to the barbarian problem. The wealth of detail and involvement of Justinian’s court show that this is a piece of history, not (Goffart, 99) ‘a beguiling evocation of barbarians who set off for the distant north’. Belisarius did offer Britain to the Goths in 538 during the siege of Rome (Wars 6. 6. 28–9), but this was clearly not meant seriously and the Goths ignored it. It was simply another way of saying that the emperor was not interested in a compromise peace, the substance of the rest of Belisarius’ remarks. (n. 83) Hachmann, Goten und Skandinavien, shows that there is no archaeological or philological evidence that the Goths really came from Scandinavia. But for those who view Gothic oral history in Jordanes as a window into the authentic past, Scandinavian names at Getica 3. 21–4 and the Berig story nevertheless guarantee the Goths’ Scandinavian origins: e.g. Wolfram, 21 ff. I understand this as: Heather: "little authenticity, no accuracy"; Goffart: "basically no authenticity, no accuracy"; Wolfram: "some authenticity, basically accurate". GPinkerton (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the quotations provided by GPinkerton, i don't think our section misrepresents Heather. We could of course add more material on his views. Heather apparently writes an extensive account on Gothic origins in his book The Goths (1996). Page 26 of the 1998 version of that book is cited in our article, but i don't have access to it. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff sums up Heather's theory on Gothic origins like this:

"Heather writes that we can probably speak of a limited migration of a few aristocratic clans from Scandinavia (Heather 1996, 26) that may have organized the local population and given it their name, similar to what the Vikings accomplished in Russia and Normandy a thousand years later." - Bell-Fialkoff, Andrew (2000). "Early Germanic Migrations". The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe. Macmillan. p. 122. ISBN 9781349618378.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

In his Empires and Barbarians (2009), Heather makes another noteworthy observation on Jordanes', which might be useful:

"All his accounts of Gothic migration incorporate a strong motif of sociopolitical fragmentation. In the Filimer migration a bridge falls down, parting some of the Goths from the main body. Elsewhere, he tells the story of a previous Gothic migration in three ships from Scandinavia. In that case too, one of the ships lags behind, and out of this separation, so Jordanes tells us, were born the Gepids. Despite the extreme scepticism in vogue in some quarters, there is actually a good chance that both of these stories echo, if at some remove, Gothic oral histories. If so, those histories, while tending to describe migration in terms of kings and peoples, nonetheless preserved something of the deeper reality – that political discontinuity, rather than the uncomplicated transfer of entire pre-existing social units from point A to point B, was a central feature of the action. On one very simple level, the archaeological evidence also reflects this basic fact." - * Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 124. ISBN 9780199892266.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

As cited in our article, Walter Goffart writes that all "experts in Germanic literature" (Germanic philologists) consider Jordanes' account of Gothic origins to be authentic. It is also worth mentioning that several prominent modern archaeologists specializing in Gothic archaeology, such Andrzej Kokowski, Anders Kaliff and Michel Kazanski, consider Jordanes' account of Gothic origins in Scandinavia to be at least partially supported by archaeological evidence. Adding a sentence or two on the views of archaeologists and philogists to Goths#Jordanes and Getica would be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you talking past the point? We can see what Heather wrote, by reading what Heather wrote, not what other people think he should have written? Not only Heather, but also other authors, constantly cite the 1991 book which GPinkerton has quoted from (and sometimes the 1996 book you mention) as his most detailed explanation. I really don't see any room for doubt about what he believes, and therefore what we should write when we explain his position. We must carefully distinguish between believing Getica contains real "tradition", and believing it is true, and we must also distinguish both these things for all different parts of Getica; and the text you have placed in the article is written to imply that we are talking about Scandinavian migration. So yes, we ARE misrepresenting Heather. Concerning that subject in Getica Heather believes it is neither tradition nor true. We should remove any implication that he thinks otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Heather has written three dictionary entries on the Goths this century. There's the 2010 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome:

The Germanic-speaking Goths lived close to the Baltic in northern Poland in the first two centuries ce, and they were firmly tied to the amber trade. Iron Age farmers, they lived in small family groups. The settlements increased in number each generation but also moved periodically. Cemeteries, however, were used much longer. ¶ From circa 170, Gothic groups spread first relatively slowly south within Poland, then much more dramatically into the northern Pontus, where by about 300 they had established their domination from the Danube to the Don. There were up to half a dozen separate Gothic political entities, ...

The 2012 Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.):

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. In the mid-3rd. cent. ad, Goths from the Black Sea region (see Heruli) launched heavy attacks upon Asia Minor and the Roman Balkans.

and the 2018 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity

A Germanic tribe whose name means ‘the people’, first attested immediately south of the Baltic Sea in the first two centuries ad.

The fact that Heather only mentions Scandinavia in the context of "according to Jordanes", and only once across three entries, strongly suggests he thinks there is no truth to the idea they really came from Scandinavia, or even that the Goths really believed that they did. The earlier Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium has the same basic Baltic-Vistula basin story, and omits Scandinavia altogether:

(Γότθοι), a Germanic people who, according to Jordanes, migrated from the Vistula region to Oium, between the Dniester and the Don. Archaeological remains of the Černjachovo culture have been tentatively identified with them. From 238 onward, the Goths harried the Danubian provinces, Greece, and Asia Minor, and ca.273 Emp. Aurelian yielded Dacia to them.

as does the (very concise) Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2 ed.), which merely says: "Germanic peoples originating in the Baltic area in the 4th century ad and divided into two groups, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths.". On the basis of all these tertiary sources, the whole Scandinavia idea should be clearly labelled as a minority view reliant on Jordanes alone. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to make guesses based on those dictionary articles? We know what Heather thinks from his more detailed works, such as the two already cited in the article (currently 54 and 56) or (even better) the citations above on this talk page. Heather thinks Jordanes' Scandinavia story might reflect a real Gothic tradition, but unlike the migration from the Vistula, he does not think we should see the Scandanavia tradition as accurate in terms of reality, or in terms of reflecting the original Gothic myth. He thinks the original Gothic tradition was probably much less specific and did not mention Scandinavia specifically. As quoted above: The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. Surely we need to tweak this sentence: "his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia [...] Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz also suggest that Getica is probably partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[54][55][56]". I think I can tweak this uncontroversially to save time, so that it will at least be a bit better. If there are concerns we can go back of course, but what concerns would they be? Here is my tweak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island" does not make Heather's position sound strong. Putting "perhaps" and "mysterious" in the main text only causes the reader to throw up his hands. Srnec (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Well in my opinion that would mean the reader is getting the correct impression, and we could be proud of avoiding the temptation to make the story more clear and simple than it is. But I guess it would be easy to replace the quote with simpler words that we chose such as:
  • Peter Heather believes that the original Gothic myths "perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island" which a later interpreter concluded to be Scandinavia.
  • Peter Heather believes that the original Gothic myths probably mentioned a "mysterious island" without naming it, and a later interpreter concluded it was Scandinavia.

Better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"later interpreter" is perhaps too vague; I would say explicitly the interpreter is Jordanes himself or some other late antique Roman writer trying to make sense of the Gothic tales: "The Goths are known to have inhabited the Baltic coast and Vistula valley in the 1st&2nd centuries. Heather accepts that Jordanes' material might preserve genuine traditions among the Goths of their origins in an island to the north, but argues the identification of the Goths' mythic homeland as Scandinavia is a "guess" interpolated by Jordanes or his Roman sources. X, y, and z argue for p, q, r, s more literal interpretation, but archaeology says no ..." GPinkerton (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes the reason for that word choice was that there is always the idea in the background that Cassiodorus was the source. Does Heather not also say it that way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC) @GPinkerton:

@GPinkerton: I will tweak to...

  • Peter Heather believes that the original Gothic myths probably mentioned a "mysterious island" without naming it, and Jordanes or another later interpreter such as Cassiodorus concluded it was Scandinavia.

If anyone sees a problem, please let me know, or change appropriately of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Christensen citation[edit]

Another case where context changes meaning. We currently have, in the context of a paragraph about what different authors think about the Jordanes myth of Goths sailing from Scandinavia:

Arne Christensen argues that Jordanes borrowed the legend from Cassiodorus, who had conflated the Goths with the Geats.<ref>{{harvnb|Christensen|2002|p=346}}: "[Cassiodorus] had found out about this island [of Scandza] by reading works by Ptolemy and by listening to reports from people who had come to Ravenna from those regions. . . [He] knew ... that this island was home to a people whose name was strongly reminiscent of the name of the Goths. They were called Gauts, however, and had nothing at all to do with the Goths.".</ref>

This implies, to a general reader, that there is a people called the Geats who were known to have migrated from Scandinavia, and I think more generally we are not letting the reader understand what Christensen actually says. The footnote helps, but then (a) if the text in a footnote is needed for comprehended a passage, it should not be in a footnote, and (b) some missing words from the same passage (also going on to p.137) are important:

  • Christensen says that the story that "the Goths originate on an island in the far north" was an "innovative element in Cassiodorus's work".
  • "The Goths were naturally unable to assist him in the matter, for they did not know of the island. Isidore of Seville's failure to mention the Gothic origins in Scandza provide the final proof that Cassiodorus himself invented that part of the story. Had it been part of a living Gothic tradition in their carmina prisca, Isidore would have been familiar with the story."

PROPOSAL would make it slightly longer:

Arne Christensen argues that the story that "the Goths originate on an island in the far north" was an "innovative element in Cassiodorus's work" which Jordanes used as a source. He argues that Cassiodorus based his idea of Scandza upon a reading of the 2nd-century Geography of Ptolemy which mentions a people living there, the "Goutai", "whose name was strongly reminiscent of the name of the Goths". Furthermore, Christensen believes that the Gothic traditions can not have included this story, or else Isidore of Seville would also have reported it.

Can we go ahead with this? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Why can't we just add "of Scandinavia" after Geats? who had conflated the Goths with the Geats of Scandinavia. I don't see how the text as it stands implies a Geatish migration. It is short because the article is already long and we aren't presenting everybody's interpretation of Jordanes in a separate paragraph. Srnec (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with that proposal, because it would also be an improvement. I will do it. But I think it would be a further improvement to move at least some of our footnote into the article. I am not seeing any length problem, especially given that we already have such a long footnote? I think the references to Ptolemy and Isidore need to be connected to this discussion eventually, at some point in the future of the article. (A bigger length concern is coming from duplication/ illogical structure. But we've seen it is difficult to propose changes to that.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Better source needed tag: Gdansk[edit]

Noting a tag in the Jordanes section, which I agree with (or perhaps I put it there):

Although the exact location of Gothiscandza is unclear, it is generally believed to have somewhere near Gdańsk.[49 = Mark 2014. "Historians such as Peter Heather have identified Gothiscandza with Gdansk in modern Poland, and this theory is generally supported..."][better source needed]
  • Dennis H Green is a better source, being a philologist: p.17 although he reports it as an old theory with some doubts.
  • Green, Dennis (1999). "Linguistic and Literary Traces for the Early Migrations of the Goths". In Heather, Peter (ed.). The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. ISBN 9781843830337.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Herwig Wolfram in History of the Goths p.21 also reports it as an old theory: "The historian reads such timeless reports from the past only with detached interest but must consider them impossible to interpret scholarly" [sic].
  • I do not find any reference to the theory yet in Heather. GPinkerton can you have a look in your book for any reference to Gdansk?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Goths and Romans doesn't seem to mention Gothiscandza or Gdansk (or Gothiscandia or Danzig), but the book is nearly 30 years old, so the reference might be a newer paper. GPinkerton (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sub-section title[edit]

When making another edit I changed a section heading. [19]

  • Evidence from classical sources -> Goth-related names in early Baltic

I think it is a no-brainer, because there are other sections about the Goths in classical sources, but this one is NOT one of them. But if there is a real concern please mention it here first, and we can potentially revert it or change it to something else. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This was not an improvement. It sounds like it is about early Baltic languages, or records from the Baltic region. It is all about classical sources, so why do you say it is not? Srnec (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
They are all records about the Baltic region though, and they are not records mentioning Goths (except in an extended sense, but that needs extra discussion). OTOH there are other sections which DO discuss classical sources which mention actual Goths. The mismatch between the title and content was striking and confuses all discussion on this talk page. I think you might not have realized it. Please have a look. I removed the term classical sources just for length but I am open to other ideas. The section is really about classical mentions of the sometimes-claimed early Baltic region Goths, or "Goth relatives" who were chronologically recorded before the Goths themselves were. What should it be called?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"Early history" GPinkerton (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Has the virtue of simplicity. There are two discussion points which us lead to other issues:
  • It is a "POSSIBLE/PROBABLE" early history section, at least as far as most historians would be concerned. Gutones and Goutoi have a related name to the Goths, say our sources, and very likely some sort of connection. But do our readers understand that this is all we want to say - if we simply call them Goths?
  • It is only one sub-section in an "Early History" section which already exists. Have a look. There are even THREE of these sub-sections about written records. Worst case is poor Procopius, whose origins theory is not mentioned at all, but instead just a comment leading to blond hair and blue eyes. (Similar crap to what we can find duplicated over and over in many Wikipedia articles about this period in history.)
How do we divide Early/Pre History and History more clearly and get this section into some type of order? As a side remark showing how we really do have a lot of work to do, this whole sub-section is pre-empted by a section above it called "Name", which is more than 50% about the same early history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I have gone with "Possible references in classical sources". @Andrew Lancaster: I am completely confused by your comment The mismatch between the title and content was striking. The heading used to be "Evidence from classical sources". The only contestable word there is "evidence", which I have replaced. I don't understand what else the objection could be. The Goths aren't synonymous with their name. It is possible for them to have existed long before their name was recorded or to have existed under a different name. Saying recorded before the Goths themselves were is question-begging when talking about this section, which is about the possibility that these earlier references are to the Goths. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Srnec: & @Andrew Lancaster: I would recommend hiving off all the exegetical material and speculation on the mystic origins, archaeology, "possible" passing classical references, and so on to a point far further down the article. There should be a clear History section beginning in the second or third century at earliest and talking about what we actually know about the actual Goths of Late Antiquity, unencumbered by this relentless analysis and scholarly dot-joining with Iron Age Scandinavia. What the late antique Graeco-Romans wrote, what the Goths did, the battles, the cities the provinces, the emperors, the kings, the bishops. This preoccupation with where they came from way back in the misty before-time is colouring the whole article and it's really a historiographical issue with a history of its own, and not one everyone needs to know all about every paragraph in a general history of the Goths. As for anything relating to genetics, that can be banished altogether - I doubt most of the articles cited so much as mention the Goths and where genuinely relevant archaeologically they can be discussed in the relevant articles. In any case the Goths are cultural-linguistic group(s) and genetics tells you very little about culture or nationality or Gothic identity, whatever that was. GPinkerton (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hear, hear. It's confusing to have all the speculative exegesis in the "Origins and early history" section and its subsections preceding the actual history. I agree that the "Genetic evidence" section should be dispensed with as well. Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Srnec: thanks. That is better than what we had. But the comments of GPinkerton and Carlstak reflect what I also think: the changes needed are really much bigger, and speculation is being deliberately confused with more concrete information. The distinction between Goths and POSSIBLE related peoples is an important distinction don't you think? IMHO it is the duplication and confusing title names which are making it difficult to discuss, just as we had on Germanic peoples. For example, just looking at this section, in effect it is a better explanation of the same evidence which has since been inserted into the "Name" section ABOVE it [20], and now makes up most of that section. (With discussion of the actual word Goth, difficult to find and separate!) The titles in this case HAVE certainly made discussion or improvement difficult, as can be seen in this discussion and also previous attempts to get agreement on this talk page [21], [22], which have led to nothing. Please have a look at that?
  • @GPinkteron and Carlstak: I agree in principle (the practical details of such restructuring could be complicated) but I personally can not make such changes without clear pre-agreement. This is because Krakkos made great efforts to appeal all over Wikipedia to stop me fixing such problems like I did on Germanic peoples, until an admin gave a warning to both of us to only edit with a clear consensus on this article. That is why I am working on smaller and less controversial proposals, bit by bit. Others can edit more easily. I am confident any experienced and competent editor who looks through this article will see similar problems. If it seems worth it, I can of course make (or discuss) bigger proposals here on the talk page or a draft page.

In summary, removal of duplication and a more logical structure could really be important for making this article easier for everyone to edit in the future, and easier to see what is a good edit or a bad one. It is a hump to get over, and it could go wrong if done badly. I will start a small new section addressing your specific remarks about genetics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Ian.thomson EdJohnston not only barred us from making "any change at all" "without a prior consensus on the talk page",[23] but also warned you specifically against making personal attacks against me.[24] I have previously made attempts at reducing duplication and making a more logical structure, but you opposed this.[25][26] I would love to participate in the reduction of duplication of this article, but now is not the right time for me. Why the urgency? The article Germanic peoples that you're linking to has even more issues with structure and duplication than this one. I would ask you to fix those issues before you embark on a wholesale rewrite of this one. Krakkos (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: Please don't insult EdJohnston by getting him confused with me. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. For some reason i tend to mix you guys up. Krakkos (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: your post contains several misrepresentations. To avoid distraction I will reply on your talk page. But I am not pushing any urgent rush, and I'm fine with working slow if need be. However, bigger structural problems were brought up by other editors in discussion about a smaller edit, and I have simply agreed and showed in more detail how, indeed, certain harder-to-fix background problems are also making it hard to fix, discuss, and visualize solutions for the smaller problems. I am happy to help anyone working on this article however I can, and I did not ever reject all your proposals. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: just for clarity, your proposals to reduce duplication so far were not only proposals to reduce duplication. Moving sentences around is not removing duplication, and you insisted on new material. All your proposals effectively moved emphasis to cherry-picked sentences from less well-known sources such as Kaliff, with clear POV implications. Here was the latest proposal. Example change The exact origins of the Goths are unclear and disputed.->The exact origins of the Goths are unclear and the subject of much controversy, often for political reasons. I see nothing like this in our main sources on this topic, but it looks very similar to political agenda remarks you like to emphasize in other articles, for example about scholars?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Genetics sections: remove? reduce?[edit]

@GPinkteron, Carlstak, and Srnec: We currently have three sections/discussions [27][28][29] about the same 3 small published reports, and all of them distort these sources and give them undue weight. I would have no argument against deleting all of them, so feel free as far as I am concerned. But I have already made some simple compromise proposal above, which has gone nowhere so far. We could remove the first two, and shorten the text in the one at the end to:

Studies of mitochondrial DNA from two Wielbark cemeteries showed a close relationship to mitochondrial DNA found in Iron Age Jutland, and similarity to the mitochondrial DNA found today in modern populations including Norway and Sweden. The author described this as consistent with a Scandinavian origin of the Goths. [Citation: Storalek 2018 and 2019] A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in 2019 examined the mtDNA of three Gothic females from the Chernyakhov culture. The results appeared to confirm that the Chernyakhov culture emerged partly as a result of a new non-Scythian population, with a higher amount of Near Eastern ancestry. [citation: Järve 2019] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I think these articles belong under the relevant articles for Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures. The words "mtDNA of three Gothic females from the Chernyakhov culture" should not appear anywhere. It presupposes that the human remains analysed were "Gothic" and representative of the Chernyakhov culture, and that these things identities were the same, and that culture has some relationship with mitochondrial DNA. mtDNA can prove sod all about culture and precious little about actual ancestry, given that it records only matrilinear females and ignores all other ancestors, not least the wandering male warriors that we know the historical sources called "the Goths". As we know, the identification of these archaeological cultures with the historical Goths is tenuous at best and Wikipedia should be treating them as interchangeable. I say delete from the article and no separate genetics section. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not personally against deletion, but foreseeing that not everyone might agree, it would be possible to remove that word "Gothic". These types of genetics reports are reported in multiple articles all over Wikipedia each time they appear. The archaeological articles you mention have way more, but that raises other issues on those articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Certainly the rubbish about modern populations in Scandinavia has no place anywhere. "consistent with a Scandinavian origin of the Goths" is also "consistent with a Gothic origin of modern Scandinavians". Comparisons with modern people prove absolutely nothing about the relationships of ancient peoples to one another, given the millennia of prior and subsequent mixing in both directions. GPinkerton (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, given that Stolarek's proxy for Southern Scandinavia is Jutland, it is also consistent with a Jastorf origin, as opposed to Swedish. I would say OTOH that as a side issue, you might be underestimating what can be done by comparing modern people and a few ancient people in the right kind of study. But mitochondrial DNA is infamously difficult to use this way. People in Siberia can have closest mitochondrial matches in North Africa. A random selection of 3 people's mitochondrial DNA can not be placed geographically because it is too well mixed. You can run an algorithm and make a graph but it means almost nothing. So I am NOT against ALL genetics sections in such articles. I am concerned about this specific one for specific reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, a lot of scholars use 'Southern Scandinavian' when they mean 'Denmark/Jutland' (it is not wrong technically, but we should use less ambivalent terms in articles). Azerty82 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Jarve et al. is very much being misused. It stresses repeatedly the multi-ethnic nature of the Chernyakhov culture and says the three samples represent that it had a "Gothic component" and most of the article is anyway about the genetics of the Scythians. It cannot be used to prove a Gothic origin of the Chernyakhov culture or vice versa and really has no place in this article; it belongs in Scythians or Chernyakhov culture. It says that Jordanes's "state of Ermanaric" might have been a Chernyakhov culture polity, but that it disappeared in the Huns' time. It says: The Chernyakhiv culture was likely an ethnically heterogeneous mix based on Goths (Germanic tribes) but also including Sarmatians, Alans, Slavs, late Scythians, Dacians and the antique population of the northern coast of the Black Sea and From the reign of Constantine I the Goths, who were part of the Chernyakhiv culture, became federates (military allies) of the Empire. The word Scandinavia appears nowhere in Jarve et al and presently the article here is worded as though Jarve et al. supports that narrative and it doesn't. GPinkerton (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: do you have access to the Järve article? I don't. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: yes I do. GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd be interested to find a copy. I only saw a version behind paywall so far. Is there any other url?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster:, here's the free download page for the article pdf on Researchgate. I say remove the genetics section—it's not essential, and such as this are magnets for dispute and tend to destabilize whatever articles they appear in, at least in my experience. Carlstak (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Carlstak: thanks. For anyone wanting more remarks on this article (which still appears on other WP articles) in addition to the summary I gave above, here the two small bits relative to Goths:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The higher proportion of Near Eastern and (according to CP/NNLS) lower proportion of eastern ancestry in the Chernyakhiv culture samples were mirrored by f4 analyses, where Chern showed lower affinity to Han compared to Scy_Ukr (Zscore3.097) and to EHG compared to Ukr_BA (Zscore 3.643), as well as higher Near Eastern (Levant_N and Anatolia_N) affinity than Scy_Ukr (Zscores 4.696 and 3.933, respectively; DataS1). It is plausible to assume that this excess Near Eastern ancestry in Chern is related to European populations whose Near Eastern proportion has exceeded that in the steppe since the Neolithic expansion of early farmers. This is further confirmed by the qpAdm and CP/NNLS proximal models, in which the Chern samples were characterized by a high proportion (18%–45%) of Central European Middle Neolithic (Data S1). Although the Chernyakhiv culture was likely ethnically heterogeneous[24–27], the three samples in our Chern group appear to represent its Gothic component.
after the end of the Scythian period in the western Eurasian Steppe, the Chernyakhiv culture samples have higher Near Eastern affinity compared to the Scythians preceding them, agreeing with the Gothic component in the multi-ethnic mix of the Chernyakhiv culture[24–27], although no such post-Scythian genetic shift is detected further east, in Late Sarmatians [2] from the Southern Urals.
Basically they found an east-west gradient in some of the ancestral contributions to various Steppe peoples, and the 3 Chernyakov individuals fit reasonably well in that, but the authors feel there is a case could be made for some westernizing of the DNA in the Chernyakov region (using 3 samples) - implying immigration from somewhere like, Central Europe. (See also Hungary on their chart.) No mention of Poland or Scandinavia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Azerty82: it is a funny case here, but not so untypical for these short standard reports by geneticists. The author actually starts to suggest that he has determined that there are two competing historical theories. It is really nice when a geneticist had a good set of hypotheses to test from other disciplines, but this was clearly not the case here. First he mentions that one is origins in Scandinavia, by which we know the debate would be about southern Sweden, or Gotland. But then the author simply forgets to mention the competing theory. We know it would be southern Jutland and neighbouring areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the sections on genetics per WP:SCIRS §2.2, which obtained broad consensus here. WP consensus seems to be that such genetic studies as cited are primary sources. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but as the bot saw, you left the worst one (because the one with the strongest simplest, least qualified, wording): [30]. Also thanks for the WP:SCIRS link. I knew that existed but forgot the name, and had been thinking about it during the discussion.
These are articles and many similar ones have been placed on many non-genetics article in Wikipedia lately. Krakkos since discussion started on this article I notice there was even a burst of such propagation [31]? Relevant to this article are some specific archaeological articles such as Wielbark culture#Genetics and Chernyakhov culture#Genetics. The Chernyakhov article has a short paragraph only, but Wielbark is worth looking at by more people if anyone is interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The two "physical appearance" sections[edit]

What do other editors think about these? Given that we have been looking at the genetics sections, another controversial type of section which has been added en masse into this and many other similar articles are the so-called "physical appearance" sections, which might better be called the "blonde hair blue eyes" sections. This article has two references to physical appearance. As I noted in a previous summary of duplications on this article [32]:

  • Physical appearance. Has its own section, but is also the subject of a lonely sentence in "Other literary sources".

Apart from the special section for this topic [33], under "Other literary sources" for "Origins and early history" we have: Procopius noted that the Goths, Gepids and Vandals were physically and culturally identical.[77] This is, disappointingly, the ONLY bit of information our article gives about Procopius' discussions relevant to Gothic origins (despite the length of discussion we have about possible Gothic origins, and the fact that Procopius should actually be one of the main classical sources for this topic). We should also look at what Procopius actually wrote about the origins topic, but that can be done separately. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Speculative origins: The too much too early concern[edit]

@GPinkerton and Carlstak: you made a sort of non-detailed proposal above, I would like to separate out. Genetics and Appearance sections have already been separated out in other sections, but apart from these you both mentioned a concern with too much, too early of:

"exegetical material and speculation on the mystic origins, archaeology, "possible" passing classical references" [34]
"all the speculative exegesis in the "Origins and early history" section and its subsections preceding the actual history" [35]

Some notes for future work, for whoever wants to work on it:

  • I personally would be open to alternative approaches, but there is a sort of tradition both on WP and in many publications, of starting with a short summary of (1) Name forms/etymology proposals, and (2) something which at least describes the kinds of evidence/debates for early origins.
  • Name. Azerty82 has been working on such Name sections recently, and has now started on this article.
  • Goths is a topic where the name discussion has to at least mention the Gutones, Gutes and Geats as probable related names. Azerty seems to be doing the correct thing by dividing them into sections. I hope that Azerty will also reduce duplication and move speculative bits to a later section.
  • Origins. Azerty's approach to the Name section - finding a way to break it up more logically - could also help shorten the origins section or sections. I feel that by doing this properly, these sections would also naturally be shorter and easier to read (currently 6 sections: 3.1.1-3.1.5, and 3.2).
  • An example approach would be for the initial origins discussion to consist of a short discussion mentioning Vistula proposal and Scandinavia proposal, as two separate topics relevant to Goths. (These should not be mixed up as if they stand and fall together.)
  • Whether the main detailed discussions about those proposals should be in this article (and if so where) or another (apart from the Wielbark article, for example we currently have no Gutones article) is something which could be done various ways.
  • I can see an argument for waiting to see what a less duplicated and better structured version of 3.1/3.2 would look like. I think it could be much shorter and less frustrating. 3.1.2 and 3.1.5 could mostly be merged up into the Name section Azerty is re-working for example. The name evidence is repeated over and over now.
  • Obviously if we are looking for a separable chunk which might be proposed for moving out to a more detailed discussion somewhere it is worth mentioning the special subject of Jordanes. Perhaps another is archaeology. Both could be mentioned in a more summarized way in the opening sections of this article.

Hope this makes sense, and can help others develop concrete actions. I hope Azerty will look into it already while working on the Name section, because the results of that should make it much easier to visualize what can be done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to be rude, Andrew, but since you pinged me—I really don't have time for this obsessive wrangling; besides, dealing with this never-ending discussion would drive me crazy. Azerty has a way of cutting through the miasma, and I'm sure he's more than capable of sorting things out. I have total confidence in him, if he wants to take this on. Carlstak (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Carlstak: That's fine, but it was not self-evident. I wanted to make sure that you had a chance to add any remarks, and see what complications are likely, in the context that Azerty is now working on at least one of the parts of the article relevant to your recent remarks. (Or your agreement with GPinkerton's remarks.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Carlstak, Andrew Lancaster, I'll write a draft to summarize and better organize the debates on the etymology of 'Goths' and their ethnogenesis. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: no worries, I just have a low tolerance for endless discussion on talk pages;-). @Azerty82: that's great news.

Alcaios (formerly Azerty82) Please note below new announcement by Krakkos below [36] that after the above discussion, Krakkos made a new article called Name of the Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that Krakkos was working on a new version, that's why I did not propose a draft. That's a great and welcomed work! Alcaios (talk)
@Alcaios: see below section. To be honest, I would suggest keeping coordination discussions between editors on wiki.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I meant that I noticed from Krakkos' list of contributions that he/she was working on the article. I didn't have the time to review the new article to be honest, but it is still a welcomed article. Alcaios (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

change publication date proposals[edit]

Simple practical proposal. The following are very heavily cited and important works. The authors themselves, in later works, and other authors citing them, all seem to use the same years, but different years than us, as follows:

  • 1991 instead of 1994 (which however does seems to be the most recent printing edition).
@Andrew Lancaster: Heather 1991 and Heather 1994 are different books and will have different pagination (probably) - the references need to be to the correct edition unless it's certain the information is on the same page in the more recent editions. Goths and Romans was published in 1991, but so were several other Heather works. GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 1988 instead of 1990

Changing them would make it much easier for editors or readers to cross check and verify this article. Can we make those changes? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: The proper thing I think would be to add the original publication year (1979) and the original language, the latest (2nd) German edition (1980), the original publication year in English (1988), and the reprint year of the actual book cited (1990). Something like, which I'll change it to now:

Wolfram, Herwig (1990) [1979]. Geschichte der Goten [History of the Goths]. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. 1988 (1980 2nd German ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press [Munich: C. H. Beck'she]. ISBN 978-0-520-06983-1. GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkterton: I think in reality most of us have been using the 1991 and 1988 versions respectively. (I think they are also the versions on Google Books.) I guess things get fuzzy when all of us have different editions, but in this case all our secondary sources also keep using the same dates, and following them makes sense to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have an ISBN, the year must align with it. That ISBN corresponds to 1990. I think the title should be English, since the version cited has an English title. Of course, the German and English versions have totally different paginations. So if we are citing from both, we need two entries in the bibliography. Srnec (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
We could change the isbn though? I can see that we've probably used the Oxford page which gives the latest print, but no one else uses that reference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce duplication and restructure the History section[edit]

I have now made a proposal at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths with the aim of eliminating duplication and having a more simplified structure of the history section. This article already exceeds recommended article size, and the Goths#Culture section is underdeveloped. I have therefore transferred nearly all information about the Gothic name to the article Name of the Goths. I believe the name is a notable topic which cannot be covered comprehensively within this article without taking up too much space. I have given the history section a simplified chronological structure based upon the works on Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather. I have also tried to make the prose less exegetic by transferring some disputes into the notelist. The proposed edit will look like this.[37] This is of course not a perfect version nor a final version, but i believe it gives the article a better basis for future improvement. If the community considers the proposal an improvement over the current version, permission to implement the edit would be much appreciated. Krakkos (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Even "origins of the Goths" would be worthwhile to go together with the names in an article of their own. GPinkerton (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos and GPinkerton: this is certainly a surprising way to split the article, because it means structuring the whole article around a special (and confusing) wording choice which only one scholar, Wolfram, likes, but the article is not even explaining what Wolfram really means by it. A more typical approach on WP might be to create a Gutones article for example. (We already have articles for Gutes and Geats.) There must be many other more conventional possibilities, but I am not sure we need any of them. I thought we were going to wait while Azerty82 worked on tidying up the Name related sections first? I believe the current version of this article can be compressed enormously without much problem, so we should do that first? The proposal for this article removes critical discussion of Jordanes I guess, but it does it by just treating him as reliable instead? I am not sure GPinkerton and Carlstak had that in mind? I feel it is obvious that this article should not be shortened by just accepting Jordanes was a reliable source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Jordanes does not contribute much to the question with his legendary account indeed. The modern debate is principally fed by archeology and historical linguistics. Alcaios (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
No that is also not really correct. Jordanes is still described by many scholars as the main/only source of the original idea, which some archaeologists and philologists have tried to prove right. Some scholars might argue that without Jordanes they would have come to the same conclusion, but not all. So we can't just delete/censor this. If there is a controversy in a field we have to report it neutrally, and in such situations articles splits should be done carefully and with regard to consensus and neutrality, making sure we do not simply create POVFORKS or delete/censor bits that some people don't like. For example if we really want to get rid of all origins controversies then we would need this article to start in the 3rd century. If we are not going to do that, then we need to be careful about how to handle it. In my opinion nothing so dramatic was needed, because the excessive duplication and de-structuring of this article should be fixed first. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
ADD: "the original idea" should be split into two: the migration from Vistula idea, and the migration from Scandinavia to Vistula idea. The split-up of scholars for these two would be quite different. But both originally come from Jordanes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Where did I say that Jordanes should be censored or removed? He doesn't contribute much to the modern debate since he is not regarded as reliable by the majority of scholars. Alcaios (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Under the current proposal, in any case, he becomes the basis of the structure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
To clarify: Jordanes is certainly important for the historiography, but he is not really relevant to the modern debate. Either you can prove the Scandinavian origin of the Goths by scientific means, regardless of what Jordaness wrote, or you cannot. Alcaios (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, and scholars do not agree on whether you can or not, especially for the Scandinavian theory, but also for the Vistula proposal. That is why it needs a careful solution. I think Jordanes needs to be mentioned early (Vistula aspect and Scandinavia aspect, separately), but I think this can be done MUCH more quickly, and not in such a way that the whole discussion is structured around it. Indeed, I felt very good about the similar approach you started to take in the name section, where you broke apart the amorphous "the Goth name" discussion. Now instead we have a whole new article which insists again on the concept of "the Goth name" whereby it deliberately mixes Geats, Gutes, Gotones and Goths, Scandinavians, Vistula-dwellers and people living in the Ukraine. So that seems a step backwards in the Name section, as well as for the Origins sections. I really liked the sectioning. I believe it was leading naturally to a shortening. Now we have lengthening again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Alcaios and Krakkos: If I understand correctly, based on discussion on the new article talk page, we go back to something like the consensus we had last night: Alcaios (former Azerty) is going to look at how the Name and Origin sections in THIS article should/could be changed (now with the new article taken into account), and make proposals for discussion. Correct? Krakkos has made proposals, and I have expressed preferences (such as my strong preference for the breaking up the geographically completely different cases in both the Name and Origin sections, rather than deliberately confusing them). I appreciate it both of you, as long as I understand it correctly.
I do think the new article creates dilemmas, though I am trying to keep an open mind and wait to see what proposals come. For example in the proposal of Krakkos, the Swedish and Polish "Goths" are just a fact now [in both articles], with discussion about doubts and debates and the original reasoning very censored and mixed up. We would then use what I would call a wrong understanding of Wolfram and Jordanes. I am very concerned about that direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A question for the community[edit]

There are been almost daily complaints from a certain editor about duplication and the exegetical prose and structure of the history section of this article. I'm partially responsible for these issues and i would very much like to clean up my own mess. I have made a proposed solution at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths. I'm tempted to implement the proposal here. Are there any editors who would instead prefer to keep the current version? Krakkos (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: you are referring to me, but you misrepresent me. The "exegetical" remarks came from two other editors. And secondly I don't think the proposals and concerns I have tried to discuss should be described as the whole "History" section. Gothic history starts in the 3rd century (something you don't want the article to state clearly). The main concerns (and I think many other editors) are specifically about the 6 sections which currently cover periods BEFORE the 3rd century.
Concerning your proposal, as mentioned above I thought there was an agreement, which had much better consensus, for Alcaios to continue re-working at least the Name section first, so that we can then see better what else needs to be done?
One important difference between your approach and the one Alcaios started is that your draft is structured around Jordanes as a default account of Gothic "history" starting in Scandinavia, whereas Alcaios was breaking up the different types of evidence into small logical sections. Also in the Origins (pre 3rd century) sections there are different types of evidence, doubts, debates. Because you build around Jordanes, no reader could get the following out of our current article and even less out of your draft, but it should be the starting for explaining why/how some people argue there is something like a "history" before the 3rd century...
Scholars do not agree about whether these Goths had an identifiable and continuous history and identity which stretched before the third century. Steinacher p.50: Bei der historischen Beurteilung ist nun entscheidend, welche Rolle man den Wanderungsberichten in den Getica des Jordanes zugesteht, bzw. ob man eine gotische Identität und damit Geschichte schon vor dem 3. Jahrhunderd annimmt. In diesen Fragen ist sich die Forschung nicht einig. This is a good short recent (2017) review of the field with a long endnote giving examples of the diversity in the field, citing Kazanski, Bierbrauer, Wolfram, Heather, Kulikowski and Goffart. We should at least be consistent with such remarks?
To the extent you let readers know that things might not be so simple, there are strange jarring sentences in your draft like this The equation between Gutones and later Goths is disputed by Arne Søby Christensen implying that there is only one scholar who doubts it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: The proposal is structured around the works of Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, not Jordanes. If you want to add German-language analysis by this Steinacher then you should do that as a separate proposal. During the last week, you've been complaining almost daily about duplication and poor structure on this article. You have been flooding this talk page, my talk page and the talk pages of others with repeated complaints about this issue. My proposal simplifies the structure and eliminates the duplication entirely. Do you prefer to keep the current version instead of my proposal? Krakkos (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
And your proposals always come within hours of other people posting proposals. I still prefer the plan which was being agreed hours before you made your proposal. Alcaios was going to continue restructuring the Name section first.
I think the Steinacher quote is an example which is very consistent with the works of Wolfram and Heather and many other scholarly works, but very different from what you keep putting into Wikipedia.
I think your position, and your way of explaining, is very different from Wolfram and Heather. The sources you name are generally not your real sources. Hardly a sentence you write can be verified, even though you often show quotes. Unfortunately most editors don't have time to check all your footnotes and see this. Another example from your draft: The authencity [sic] and accuracy of Jordanes' claim of Gothic origins in Scandianvia [sic] is disputed among historians.[25][26][27][28][29] Germanic philologists assent that the story is authentic.[30] Amazingly, this 2nd sentence is supposedly justified by a critical general remark about a type of argument: Goffart 2005, pp. 379–380. "Experts in Germanic literature, who instantly discount reports of Trojan or Scythian or Noachic origins as being fabulous, solemnly assent: emigration from Scandinavia is an authentic 'tribal memory'..." This is just one example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It unfortunately seems now that Alcaios has been discouraged from working on this topic [38]. So there goes my preferred option. My second option would either be you allowing some tweaks, or else someone else needs to write a proposal (or more likely we will have to do it bit by bit). I want to do my best to once again propose an easy compromise:

  • Remove the wrongly worded and sourced sentence mentioned above.
  • The Origins section in your draft is only about Jordanes, and it starts the whole history section. I therefore believe it should have a different title (e.g. "Jordanes and Scandza") and ALSO ...
  • There should be a short intro paragraph to the history section, giving the context: Roman authors first mention the Goths in the third century. Scholars do not agree about whether these Goths had an identifiable and continuous history and identity which stretched before then. However several lines of evidence exist which point to an origin near the Vistula river, and possibly also connections to Scandinavia.
  • Given the above, the "Early History" section could probably best be changed also. (e.g. "Vistula region evidence")
  • This sentence should be tweaked to avoid implying there is only one scholar who has doubts: The equation between Gutones and later Goths is disputed by Arne Søby Christensen.[51] I believe Goffart, Kulikowski, and Halsall all have doubts?

What do you think? The proposal does not mean I have no other concerns, but these changes would help reduce specifically connected to your draft. I am not sure what other editors think, but I have tried hard to find something you should be able to accept? Tweaks to my tweaks also can be discussed, of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now implemented the proposal in accordance with your compromise suggestion.[39] I don't think the titles Goths#Jordanes and Scandza and Goths#Vistula region evidence are optimal for those sections, but i'm sure the community will be able to come up with better alternatives. Krakkos (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: OK thanks, and yes, editing never stops for any part of the article, but IMHO those tweaked titles are at least more accurate, and that can at least help others think about any eventual better titles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Crucial[edit]

"has played a crucial role" is not the same thing as "is a crucial source". Suggest rewording to emphasis the uniqueness of Jordanes rather than his (disputed) value for early Gothic history. Srnec (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial to me. Why not just make the wording more like the quoted text from Heather?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Have made Origin stories of the Goths[edit]

@GPinkerton, Krakkos, Srnec, and Alcaios: thinking about recent discussions and the proposal of GPinkerton, I suppose that while I would split articles less quickly than most people there is still a good case for this one, so I made it. I see no problematic overlaps (I've been looking), and I do think it can help take the load off several other articles, including talk page load. The idea kept coming back in different discussions including not only the new Names of the Goths but also today at Oium. See Origin stories of the Goths. I have started with Christensen only because he has a simple listing which was a good place to start. I should receive a copy of Heather "1991"? soon, and of course the first phase of editing should be pretty easy. Note this particular article is about a type of literature, NOT primarily about archaeological evidence, because we already have that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that Goffart strenuously denies that there ever was an origo gentis genre. I think the bigger question is whether we should have an article on the origin stories alone or on all origin theories, ancient and modern, i.e., an origins of the Goths article. Srnec (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster and Srnec: Origins of the Goths is what I was recommending before, not "origin stories of the Goths" - there's not enough there! GPinkerton (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: good point about Goffart's criticism. I see that is also mentioned on Origo Gentis.
@GPinkerton: I feel comfortable there is a lot of material available. There are several books which spend a lot of time on it, and some well-known debates.
Apart from that, we should also avoid too much overlap with Chernyakhov culture and Wielbark culture and this article. Concerning this article, I see the aim as deferring the "exegesis" to specialist article(s), but I don't think this article can avoid having a simplified summary of some of the opinions in play.
OTOH, of course as with the archaeology articles, it is inevitable that an article about the literature must at least touch upon whether it corresponds to reality. And the title and weighting of the article could be more about that if necessary. (Or we could just see how it evolves and potentially decide to change it later?)
I am open to dropping it as well if it seems wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I will open an article name discussion on that new page, as it exists now. I presume that it will probably continue to exist, but it might change into "Origin(s) of the Goths". I am comfortable with either name/focus, and I think the only idea I would be uncomfortable with would be having two different articles (because I can't see a way for that level of overlap to make sense). So I will also create a redirect from one to the other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

minor edit requests on section headings and "See" templates[edit]

Any concerns with these minor house-keeping proposals? Can someone either do them or give a clear go ahead?

3.1 Jordanes and Scandza -> Add "See" (or See also) template linking to Scandza
3.2 Vistula region evidence [No proposal yet, but I hope to make a Gutones article soon.]
3.3 Movement towards the Black Sea -> Move "See also" for Oium here from Co-existence with the Roman Empire.
4.1 Early raids on the Roman Empire -> Add (3rd century) to section title or similar to show chronological logic.
Also consider whether the See "Gothic Wars" template should be refined to one of the sub-articles, or moved to the History section heading.
4.2 Co-existence with the Roman Empire -> Add (300-375) or similar to show chronological logic.
4.3 Arrival of the Huns -> Add (about 375).
4.4 The Gothic War -> Add (376–382).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I assume no opposition to these minor and logical proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully no concerns with that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New article Gutones[edit]

After suggesting it several times here I have finally made it. It is clearly justified as Germanic peoples with much less notability have articles, including the Gutes and Gauts. The article implies some tweaking to links etc on this article which I can not do. It also should eventually help reduce the size or detail of those introductory sections more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)