Talk:Goths

RFC to move ahead on previous Intro and Origins proposals
--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ADDED 7 July 2021. I just note that I think the idea here, based on previous discussions, is to keep this discussion alive for a long period and not rush the final decision. Not sure how others see it or how long this should go.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on previous RFCs and discussions, may we now move ahead with the new Intro proposal of (4th column here, discussion here), and the new Origins section drafted by me (2nd column here) which would replace the current 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging. ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , feedback please.


 * Yes (as proposer). I think these two drafts correspond to the various opinions and ideas mentioned in previous RFCs and discussions. I have already agreed with Krakkos on his lead proposal. There was a clear consensus in previous RFCs that the 3 sections about possible "pre Goths" which will be compressed now can better be expanded upon in other articles, because they have a tendency to expand and become controversial and overwhelming on this large article. Tweaks are possible of course, but I recommend moving ahead. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Changes to the initial parts of the Goths (Origins) section are currently being discussed at an earlier RfC found at Talk:Goths. I doubt whether it is helpful to have two ongoing RfCs on essentially the same question. We should probably resolve the earlier RfC before we "move ahead" with its conclusions.


 * Concerning the proposed change to the Intro, i think we should get some feedback before we move ahead. Krakkos (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now requested the closure of three ongoing RfCs above which cover similar questions as this one. Krakkos (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that makes sense, formally at least. No rush, so no harm getting the details right. Thanks Krakkos. OTOH, do you have any concern about this RFC as such? I didn't see any problem at least starting to ask people to look at the two proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking people to look at proposals is alright. On the other hand, posting the same proposal in mulitple RfCs and sections leads to confusion and makes it harder to work out sensible solutions. Interconnected RfCs should be handled in a reasonable order one step at the time. Making a new RfC with a request to "move ahead" with a counter proposal to a proposal being discussed in a ongoing RfC is problematic. Regarding your counter proposal for the Origins section, i am concerned about its removal of many quality sources, its undue emphasis on the views of historians at the expense of philologists/linguists and archaeologists, and its lack of a coherent structure. Krakkos (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted one proposal in one RFC. This links the decisions about moving forward in two early parts of the article, and I think this is correct because these have clearly been linked discussions, also for other editors. (The shortening of the lead is also connected to the reduction of emphasis on "pre Goths".) There were no other open RFCs or running discussions. If you try to (re)open a second RFC that could then be problematic in the way you describe. The old RFC which led to my new Origins section proposal was clearly already useless as an RFC a month before it was terminated because it was no longer about one clear proposal. Many had been discussed and rejected. Mine is best considered a new one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Goths has now been closed with the conclusion that there is a consensus to trim the early history sections and use this proposal as a basis for trimming and further refinement. Are you alright with moving ahead with this previous proposal? Krakkos (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the new intro, drafted by you, the other part of this RFC is my draft of a shortened and united "Origins" section, to move ahead on a basis as described in that closure. During that previous RFC you proposed other ideas which all failed to create a concensus, so my draft is now the next one needing feedback. (We did not really need the closure because it was obvious what was agreed.) To quote the rest of the closure "There is a rough consensus to use the proposed text as a basis for further refinement. Whether the participants in this discussion believe such refinement should take place in a sandbox, in the article directly, or on this talk page is not clearly established below but can be determined through the normal editing process." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a rough consensus in the previous RfC to use my proposal as a basis for further refinement. Would you object to moving ahead with that? Krakkos (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal is clear, and is the basis of this RFC. This draft evolves from that same previous RFC as all your drafts, and that's how I suggest we go ahead. Other editors can say if they prefer your draft, or a mix of the two, or neither. But I suggest we leave these two drafts unchanged for a while now, and try to allow other editors to absorb them and comment. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not an improvement. This "Origins proposal" ignores key conclusions from previous RfCs and is less informative and balanced than the current version. The proposal may be appreciated due to its shortness, but content quality is of greater value than content shortness. Previous RfCs have reached consensus that this article should put less emphasis on dubious origin stories and more emphasis on archaeological, linguistic and contemporaneous historical evidence. Despite of this, the proposal maintains discussion on such origin stories while removing all references from linguists (Brink, Rübekeil, Andersson, Strid etc.), virtually all references to archaeologists (Kazanski, Kokowski etc.), and a large amount of essential references on contemporaneous historical evidence. Various sub-par sources are in turn introduced to support the minority viewpoint that "there is no Gothic history before the third century", while top-notch sources supporting the majority viewpoint are removed, ignored and/or misrepresented. It may also be noted that the proposal lacks a coherent structure, in contrast to the current version, which is at least chronologically structured. The History section of this article can certainly be improved and trimmed. Removing essential content and rewriting it in an incoherent manner in support of a minority viewpoint will put it on a weaker basis for such improvement. Krakkos (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * we've looked at the sources in previous discussions and you are misrepresenting them. That Gothic history starts in the third century is mainstream for historians, and history is the speciality of historians. Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that your draft proposal contains no discussion about some critical topics such as the mainstream idea that a small elite probably carried gothic/gothonic traditions between various places. So my draft actually ADDS critical information, which you've been hiding from our readers. Your draft is instead based on treating Jordanes as a fact, and there was a strong concensus that this article needs to get away from that. Thirdly, archaeologists are cited so much by you ONLY to defend your complete dependence upon Jordanes, but they are NOT Jordanes experts. I am all for Wikipedia having a better coverage of the archaeological discussions - but the main discussions should not be in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about Goths rather than Jordanes. We should therefore be citing Goths experts rather than Jordanes experts. Your proposal increases the weight given to Jordanes and Jordanes experts, and that is opposite of the clear consensus established in previous RfCs. The chief mainstream historians on Goths are Heather and Wolfram, but your proposal minimizes and misrepresents their views in order to push minority viewpoints as a matter of fact. That archaeological and linguistic evidence is of relevance to Gothic origins and early history is agreed upon both by mainstream scholars and by prior talk page consensus. Such evidence should be cited to archaeologists and linguists who are Goths experts, rather than Jordanes experts. That certain archaeological and linguistic evidence corroborates parts of Jordanes is not a valid argument for removing such evidence. Likewise, the addition of material about "gothic/gothonic traditions" does not necessate the misrepresentation of Heather and Wolfram and the complete removal of citations from archaeologists and linguists. Such misreprentation and removal of essential sources from experts on Goths reduces the quality of the article and puts it on a weaker basis for future improvement. Krakkos (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Other editors should compare my draft to yours and the current version in order to confirm the facts. My drafting page (and indeed the archives of this talk page also contain extensive evidence concerning what the sources say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness, I forgot to link to my older comments on the draft which I understand to still be your latest draft for a shorter pre-history section: . A major concern is cherry-picking of sources in order to promote the Jordanes story, while hiding what experts in the various fields really believe and write.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I see no reason to remove studies on archaeology, lingistics, and genetics surrounding the origin of the Goths, and especially since the origin of the Goths is a very notable and still controversial topic.--Berig (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps there is a misunderstanding. The previous RFCs made it clear that there was a consensus not to remove such information from Wikipedia, but to focus upon it more in other articles. There are already many articles related to this article, concerning linguistic, archaeological etc topics. None of these topics can be done justice here. This article focuses on the topic "Goths" as that term is used in sources. The various disputed proposals about "pre Goths" should be mentioned and linked to, but there has been a strong consensus expressed about concerns that these disputes continually take over this article and talk page. There was also a strong theme of the need to stop making Wikipedia treat Jordanes as the main source for all of this. I would add that we really must make it more clear that mainstream scholars these days make use of the Vienna school's concept of a small elite who carry traditions with them, not requiring a large movement of people. In my draft this is added, whereas previously it has been hidden from our readers. How can we justify this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging as reminder. The previous RFCs decided that the 3 controversial sections about possible Gothic origins before the 3rd century should be shortened, because the main discussion is for other articles. This is the current proposal, which actually covers reliably sourced topics currently excluded from our current article, despite being significantly shorter and simpler: (4th column)., , , , , , , , , , , , , . So far: (1) Krakkos has also linked above to his older proposal, and I linked to my analysis of that draft showing the problems. If I understand correctly Krakkos would however prefer that the previous RFCs never get acted upon. (2) Berig also prefers that the previous RFCs never get acted upon. (3) No one else who participated in the previous RFCs has commented on the present proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The key conclusions of the previous RfCs were to increase emphasis on archaeological, linguistic evidence, contemporaneous historical accounts and secondary sources, and to shorten existing material. Attempts to act on these RfCs have been proposed and supported by the wider community, but you have opposed these efforts. Your proposal constitutes a complete rewrite of key sections of this article, in which top sources are replaced with sub-par ones, and essential information on archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence is entirely removed. This is the opposite of the conclusions of the RfCs, and constitutes a significant reduction of article quality. For more than a year you have made essentially the same proposal here multiple times (Talk:Goths/Archive 6, Talk:Goths/Archive 8 etc.). Making the same proposals over and over again and pinging users endlessly until one gets the desired result is not a good approach. Krakkos (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. This RFC is my first proposal and it was made slowly, based on the RFCs and aiming to match the diverse comments of other editors, after very thoroughly reassessing the sources. It includes additional information and sources compared to your current controversial Jordanes-based version. There is at this stage no evidence at all that there is any opposition to my proposal apart from you and Berig. But that is not surprising because you are both clearly opposed to the decisions and opinions in the previous RFCs and want the opening of this article to continue to be tacitly Jordanes-based, in order to spread the word that Goths are Swedes (and DNA will prove Jordanes right one day, etc, etc). None of your proposals show any interest in archaeology, let alone linguistics or DNA. Editors should read my actual draft. Your previously rejected draft is still clearly linked to as well, and people can still say if they prefer it, or see bits they like better. BTW on my drafting page I have also shown extra sources that can be added to my version, but many editors may find my draft over-footnoted. I do not believe your approach to sourcing always matches our community norms, but I've tried to follow you part of the way due to the inevitability of the outrage which will be expressed if the footnotes are fewer or less long. There is also a table showing the problems which your draft has, including source distortion. Anyway, I have no problem with my draft being rejected after a proper discussed, but what is more important it to make sure the drafting discussion and feedback leads to clarification of what changes are needed. Please do not disrupt this discussion with misleading remarks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You made false remarks about me (and Berig) and then pinged a whole bunch of editors. Of course i have to respond to such which disrupt the discussion. This article should be based on the research on Goths by the foremost experts, including archaeolgists, historians and philologists. Your proposal involves the removal of the sources from these experts and their replacement with weaker ones which support the fringe viewpoint. Such removal is essentially what you have been proposing repeatedly for more than a year, using a supposed need for "simplicity" as justification. Krakkos (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid excuse. However, I'll agree with one thing:- The "Goths are Swedes" theory, which only comes from Jordanes, and features Berig, and which you have made the central theme of this article while pretending it is from modern archaeologists, is indeed a long term controversy among most editors of this article, and has indeed been raised before by me and others in different contexts before. You are right about that. But I repeat that this draft is a first attempt to make a quite carefully sourced compromise based on a wide range of editing opinions and a careful reassessment of the sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support  With the caveat that my knowledge and depth on this is insufficient for a thorough confident answer. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your feedback is precious. Are there any bits you throught particularly strong or weak?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was on the losing side of both RFCs. I do not share the community's view of how to make this article better or even of what is wrong with it. Therefore, I have no opinion on the implementation of the RFCs. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think the RFCs above are clear enough about details to say your position "lost", and I also can't believe that you would say the differences between the two proposals currently being made have no connection to the points you made. My draft was made after your rejection of the one made by Krakkos. I also looked at the way other editors all referenced your opinions (e.g. ). Could you double check what I am proposing? I suppose BTW you are referring to your two comments here: . Honestly I counted your opinions as having received a lot of support and I have tried to work to reduce "obsessive focus on origins", and the use of selected snippets about topics which can only be properly handled in dedicated article or articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a note and also responding to Andrew's question, the caveat in my post is because I have not taken the deep dive needed to thoroughly learn the article, proposed changes and situation well enough to give full-fledged opinions. If y'all think that extra input is needed, I'd be happy to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the more detailed feedback that can be given the better. Having a draft rejected is no problem but a more important aim is gathering feedback and new perspectives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I took a deeper dive. My first more detailed comment is on the half of the RFC dealing with the lead. I think that the specific question is substitution of the linked "column 4" for the current lead. IMO this would be a good move, with the understanding that this doesn't "lock in" the whole thing but leaves it open to tweaks. The lead should be a summary of the article. In comparison. the current lead is more of a blizzard of factoids that is hard to absorb and the column 4 looks like a easier-to-read summary. Since the lead should be a summary of the article, there should not be anything in the lead that is not in the article so removal of the old lead should not result in any loss of material. But you might want to double check that or possibly you did already. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that step forward. Krakkos made it, and so presumably would not be opposed to that step either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First, Srnec is a well-respected editor whose edits I've seen on many articles concerning historical topics on my watchlist. I can't remember that I've ever disagreed with an edit that he made, but if I did, I know that he would have a well-reasoned explanation of his thinking. I don't have time now to delve into this, but I know that Srnec's thoughts always deserve consideration—he is knowledgeable and expresses himself quite well.


 * One day years in the future some Wikipedian will do a forensic analysis of the voluminous discussion on this talk page and its continuing stasis. That person will be amazed and perhaps lose his or her sanity from contemplating all the ever-increasing gigabytes of argument. May he or she rest in peace—that's what I'm going to do.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose that in order to avoid problems with the undead, ignore the whole history of the talk page and just read the short and simple draft? Any kind of feedback might help. The proposal does not require a re-reading of every debate because this simple single change is easy and uncontroversial to summarize: (as  requested). The people who don't like it agree that this is what is doing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you have a sense of humor, Andrew. Please understand that I'm a bit zombified myself these days—I'm not quite running on all cylinders and just don't have much spare time. I read your shorter draft, compared it to the other, and find the short version to be much better—it's concise and less confusing, although I thought we had consensus that excessive footnoting with quotes from the referenced authors was not desirable. Carlstak (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good point about having a sense of humour. Helps a lot with this article, and I don't think it is just you but maybe even our whole community which is getting a bit tired of some types of work (and yes we are all getting older, and apparently we are not doing well recruiting young people). Just on the footnotes, as far as I am concerning all the direct quotes can be removed (or reduced), but realistically I kept them in for discussion of the draft because we have a long history on this article (like Germanic peoples) of a specific argument that reduction of this is un-sourced, or even "removing quality sources". How do we stop the bots from removing the RFC template while discussion is on-going?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ As you can see, I've added the "RFCBot Ignore Expired" tag to the page. Carlstak (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Resolve the earlier-opened RfC first, then, yes, let's get on with it ("it" being some combination of what's been proposed so far and whatever comes out of that other RfC). I think this is a good summary of the current consensus, based on past RfCs not counting that still-open one: "The previous RFCs decided that the 3 controversial sections about possible Gothic origins before the 3rd century should be shortened, because [they're covered in] other articles."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * which RFC do you say is open? Which question is unanswered? Please clarify. I am glad you agree with my summary, but don't quite follow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was responding to "Changes to the initial parts of the Goths (Origins) section are currently being discussed at an earlier RfC found at Talk:Goths. I doubt whether it is helpful to have two ongoing RfCs on essentially the same question. We should probably resolve the earlier RfC before we "move ahead" with its conclusions." If that's now also closed, then let's integrate the results of it with previous results.  I tend to agree with: "The previous RFCs made it clear that there was a consensus not to remove such information from Wikipedia, but to focus upon it more in other articles." But the devil is in the details of how to shift focus and narrow scope.  I tend to agree at least in spirit with this, too: "Interconnected RfCs should be handled in a reasonable order one step at the time. Making a new RfC with a request to "move ahead" with a counter proposal to a proposal being discussed in a ongoing RfC is problematic." But I'm not sure that's a 100% accurate description.  Regardless, I see enough blowback already to think that this new RfC is a bust.  It would probably be most productive to prepare a draft revision based on the previous RfCs and then see if it meets with approval.  Give us all something concrete to look at instead of more of the same arguments. They're getting hard to follow except for people really focused on this particular page.  When I say we should get on with it, I mean get on with improving the article, which is a content endeavor not more talk-page argument. PS: Talk:ByteDance is stuck at exactly the same stage of the same process: lots of discussion and "voting" about how to revise, but a need to just write the revision, with everyone's concerns in mind and balanced to the extent possible, then put that draft up and see if it sticks as the new base from which we'll work moving forward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't follow, and I think one of us is misunderstanding the situation. According to me you are referring to a closed RFC as open. Also you are proposing that the next logical step is that someone should propose a new draft. That is exactly what this RFC is? In terms of the older draft of Krakkos, Krakkos called in an admin to close all the older RFCs, not me, but I've continued to remind editors that this draft also still exists. (The result of this RFC could also be a hybrid or something based on new ideas.) I also don't understand your reference to blowback EXCEPT in the inevitable sense that Krakkos and Berig do not agree with the opinions of other editors in the previous RFCs (as per the summary you agree with) and would prefer the article to keep the Goths-are-Swedes theme of the controversial opening sections. That is of course a disagreement which goes back long before I ever worked on this article, and one where both editors believe ideology-driven academia is partly to blame, and are waiting for new DNA evidence to prove them right. We can't expect any consensus that will resolve that disagreement at this time? I believe however we can come to a happier compromise if the academic versions of the Swedish proposal can be properly discussed in a more specialized article. I think most of believe trying to fit the MAIN discussion of that here is just never going to really work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm misreading something, I'll just sit out for a while. Anyway, I don't think the present thread is going to come to an active consensus to do anything, and stick to my advice to work on a draft and try to get buy-in on it (taking editorial suggestions to work toward a compromise version).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread is meant to be an RFC about a specific draft. For any such draft RFC to work, indeed we need some feedback and "editorial suggestions". (That would also apply to any future draft.) So feedback is what is needed now. So far, this draft has had more positive feedback than the drafts of Krakkos in the previous RFC. The only criticism about my draft so far is from Krakkos who suggests my draft should have more footnotes. (Berig disagrees with the whole aim of shortening the origins discussions. That is not a criticism specific to any draft.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is far too much meta-discussion about my own input/viewpoint. I'm not in control of this discussion or any processes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can't really follow these occasional remarks, but the fact is that this RFC is now at a point where simple feedback (positive and/or negative) about the proposed draft is what would be most helpful. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can support the Krakkos lead, for its concision, and your Origins section, for its appropriate post-lead detail and sourcing, which is nevertheless more concise than what we started all this to revise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with SMcCandlish on these points; they are my sentiments exactly. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and . I am not 100% clear what "more concise than what we started all this to revise" means. Does mean you find my draft to be on the short side? As background, feedback from  on the previous drafts from Krakkos was pushing for a shorter version, as I understood it. Anything you think needs changing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that it's too short; rather, it is short enough [for me]. I.e., good job.  If Srnec and someone else want to tighten it even further, I don't object, but I like how source-dense it is for the amount of verbiage, and how much verbiage it leaves for other articles to get into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe one step towards simplification would be to do the change to the lead if there is a consensus or no objections. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

re-appearance of DNA section
I have removed the following which was added by what I understand to be a single topic IP editor with an interest in Swedish topics: After many previous discussions, similar material was previously removed by. Concerned raised included WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SCIRS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Archived discussions:, ,. The section being expanded this way is also recently agreed to be one needing trimming, because focus on such speculative topics about pre Goths has been a significant distraction from the main topic .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

But the large concentration around Rome is persistent with the Gothic sack of Rome. Over 15 per cent of I1 DNA in modern times. I1 only became dominant around 500 BC in Scandinavia. The fact that modern-day Romans have 15 per cent I1 is probably due to the Goths settling down in Rome. Before the migration period, modern-day Romans lacked I1 DNA. Know they have 15 per cent which is huge and do not indicate a small case migration of elite. The Goths buried in Rome also show Genetic affinity with modern-day Scandinavians with a dominant I1 gene not common in Germany Poland, or elsewhere. The DNA evidence suggests the Goths did migrate en mass from Scandinavia. Modern-day British populations also have 15 per cent I1 DNA thanks to the Vikings and Anglo Saxon migration from Scandinavia. Fifteen per cent around Rome is a very high number if you take into consideration 1500 years have passed and that modern-day Romans have so much Scandinavian heritage. Where did it come from if not the Goths? The German populations have 15 per cent so if they had sacked Rome the I1 spread would have been lower. For example, France or modern-day Frenchmen— conquered by the more German Franks have far less I1 DNA.

Only a pure Scandinavian group could have made Rome so incredibly Scandinavian. The Genetic evidence shows the Goths are almost identical to modern Swedes. Also the fact that the DNA

They also found almost all Goths remains buried in Italy being genetically related to Scandinavians. https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml
 * Eupedia and various discussion forums are the better places to discuss such speculative ideas. Here on Wikipedia we have a more boring aim, of just summarizing what holds fields agree upon, and/or what they are debating. Even that is complex enough. :) Individual research papers are can not be used to summarize a whole field, but for better or worse Wikipedia's community grudgingly accepts them to be reported in specialist articles on human population research, archaeology and so on. (Concerns about this have been posted regularly over the years.) This article is not one of those, because it has enough to do just covering the very rich topic of the Goths as known from history, but there are some related articles where we are reporting some of these things. However, a secondary problem we have had is that Wikipedians have been adding their own conclusions and not just giving a neutral report of these research papers. That is definitely against our core content policies, and something to do on other websites, not this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That proves the at least partial Scandinavian origins of the Goths. Is not better than to for example research something else about World war 2 or some other topic needing attention... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * When new publications appear which show something new, we look at those. That is how Wikipedia works. In the meantime, predicting what the new publications will show is for other types of websites. At this stage there is no body of published material with strong conclusions about Gothic origins, based on DNA. Eupedia is not a reliable source. And there is no publication at all which suggests sthat Rome is "incredibly Scandinavian"!! FWIW I1 is very widespread in Europe, and has a difficult distribution to make conclusions about because it is pre-agriculture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I1 is very Scandinavian it is true that the gene has been found before. But it was not until the late Nordic bronze age it started to get broadly spread. Also, it is only dominant in Scandinavia and Northern Germany. Also, Scandinavians have 35-40 per cent I1 DNA. So it is very Scandinavian even if it have old origins it was not dominant in any region in Europe until the late Scandinavian Bronze age. Also, the Lombards could be a source of I1 in Rome. So maybe the Goths were R1A or another haplogroup... But calling it a none Scandinavian gene is pretty ignorant. Lombards could be the source of I1 in Italy. It only became dominant around 500 BC for unknown reasons. It also spread to Germany when the Celts got weakened by the Ceasars invasion. All Germanic people groups originate in Scandinavia or Northern Germany. Ceasar's invasion of the Gaul weakened, them so the Germanic peoples could invade.

It is not dominant in any region except Scandinavia and Finland. The groups' origins are disputed but did not start to gain dominance until 500 before christ so all of its spread over the rest of Europe is contemporary history and all migrations that spread it is recorded in Southern European history. R1A also seem to be widespread in Italy so the Goths also had German ancestry. However, the Italian studies showed a great affinity with Scandinavians. In Gothic graves. For example, before the Anglo-Saxon invasion, no I1 was present in Britain. Ireland has no I1 except in Dublin due to it being founded by Norse settlers. Before that I1 was small or marginal. The clustered in Turkey comes from Varangian guards during medieval periods large swaths of Norse males migrated to the Byzantine empire to serve as guards. Northwestern Spain was the final refugee from the Islamic invasion. Sicily got I1 from Norman invasions. The cluster around Sankt Petersburg is due to Norse settlers using it as a trading hub. Laying the foundation for the Rus states. The Germanic migrations dispersed I1 lineages to Britain (Anglo-Saxons), Belgium (Franks, Saxons), France (Franks, Visigoths and Burgundians), South Germany (Franks, Alamanni, Suebi, Marcomanni, Thuringii and others), Switzerland (Alamanni, Suebi, Burgundians), Iberia (Visigoths, Suebi and Vandals), Italy (Goths, Vandals, Lombards), Austria and Slovenia (Ostrogoths, Lombards, Bavarians), Ukraine and Moldova (Goths), as well as around Hungary and northern Serbia (Gepids). The I1 found among the Poles (6%), Czechs (11%), Slovaks (6%) and Hungarians (8%) is also the result of centuries of influence from their German and Austrian neighbours. The relatively high frequency of I1 around Serbia and western Bulgaria (5% to 10%) could be owed to the Goths who settled in the Eastern Roman Empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries. In Turkey and Russia unlike Rome, England or Germany it was not a full-scale migration therefore I1 did not become widespread only some Varangian guardsmen acting as police in Greece and Russia and settled and married Greek or Russian women. The I1 spread is closely linked with recorded historical events. Sicily have a concentration probably due to Norrman settlers moving in taking the houses of Muslim Arabs after the Norman conquest. Also Vladimir the Great seem to have also been descended from the I1 subgroup.

But all this information in the article does not have to be written in the article of course. Just the fact that the origins lie in Scandinavia from I1 and that Goths probably were not intermixing that much with close by populations. Or it could be Lombards in the graveyard. The other things I mentioned about modern Rome citizens having a lot of I1 admixtures was just to prove my point.

Amorim, Carlos (2018-09-11). "Understanding 6th-century barbarian social organization and migration through paleogenomics". Nature Communications. 9 (1): 3547. Bibcode:2018NatCo...9.3547A. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06024-4. PMC 6134036. PMID 30206220.


 * The frequency of old Y haplogroups in regions is not a good predictor at all of where the haplogroup originally dispersed from, but in any case this is not the place to try to publish your personal speculations. This is not a forum. We just make articles which summarize what has been published in expert fields as a whole. This is not the place to present novel hypotheses based on primary research. It just isn't what Wikipedia is for. Please familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I took articles published by genetic experts in Poland thought. I just wanted to add the genetic research a team of 6 different DNA researchers from Poland concluded in their DNA analysis. I did never want to include this and also I1 is not an ancient genetic group. It developed during the Neolithic in Scandinavia and is not related to the I2 group. It is the only major DNA group in Europe with none Asiatic origins. The researchers concluded that the Goths females were married to or taken by neighbouring tribes. The gothic female genes are present among modern poles. But not male gothic DNA is not as common. Showing that the Goths kept for themselves for some reason. But that poles are also descended from them due to locals finding gothic women attractive. This was not my own conclusion this was based upon a polish team with 6 researchers. They concluded the Goths were partially Scandinavian or German in origin and that their women mixed with modern-day poles.

Inducing the I1 haplogroup into Poland. . Eastern European populations do not have patrilinear ancestry from the Goths. It is not old 4000 years old. It only started to become common 500 before Christ. The Eupedia article also states that I1 large spread across Europe is a result of the Germanic migration period. It was a dead genepool until it for, some reason, had evolutionary benefits and spread across Scandinavia and Germany. Italic researchers concluded the Gothic graveyard were genetically similar to modern-day Scandinavians. The spread of I1 across Europe can only be traced to Germanic migrations.

But if the editors do not want to include DNA research in the article let's ignore my edits. But they are consistent with what I read in a research paper published by six genetic experts. No DNA edits I get it. I Will not try it again.

The notion that genetic evidence should be excluded from this article, when it appears in so many others, strikes me as very peculiar, if not outright special pleading. The genetic evidence is solid evidence, not "speculative ideas" as you call it. -- Elphion (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but it is not quite that extreme. As a general rule on Wikipedia there is concern about the use of such research, but more about our ability to use it well. DNA information is concrete in a sense, but interpreting it is tricky because there are very few good secondary works which help us draw historical conclusions from isolated tests on skeletons here and there, and so we risk WP:SYNTH. Historically, on this article on others, editors including such material have based their historical conclusions almost entirely on the ideas of various online bloggers etc, despite superficially citing peer reviewed research reports which generally make very meagre comments about history or language. Typically what we therefore when apprioriate is list basic summaries of results from various articles, and keep it as neutral as possible, restraining ourselves from bringing in ideas from the blogosphere, no matter how interesting. If you follow the links I posted above I once proposed a way we could do that here but other editors preferred the current option, and I also agree with them. The OTHER issue here is not an opposition to DNA as such but the longer running discussion (see various RFCs) about trying to move coverage of Gothic origins to other articles (Gutones, Wielbark culture, Origin stories of the Goths etc). This does not only affect DNA, but also archaeology and discussions about Jordanes. I think I speak for a majority of editors (based on several RFCs) when I say that the space we dedicate to these topics on these articles is too little to be able to do justice to those topics, which are complex in their own right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elphion that the exclusion of genetic evidence from this article is unhelpful. Stolarek et al. (2019) did a genetic study which is directly relevant to the Goths:
 * That study found evidence of Gothic connections with Scandinavia. Andrew Lancaster is constantly seeking to remove such evidence, and is using all types of pretexts to justify such removal. One such pretext is to create POV forks like Gutones and Origin stories of the Goths, and then to advocate the transfer of evidence he doesn't like from this article to the POV forks. Another pretext are supposed concerns about citing genetic studies. Interestingly, Andrew Lancaster has been citing himself at Wikipedia articles on genetics. His concerns about genetic studies seem quite selective. I think this article has space for a sentence or two about the genetic studies on Goths that have been published so far. Krakkos (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you pretending a 2009 edit on another article is recent or relevant? I defer to my summary above for links to several past discussions about DNA relevant to THIS article, especially this one. The Stolarek 2019 article did mitochondrial DNA tests, which are useless for this purpose, and said the result was CONSISTENT with Goths coming from Sweden. The edit to remove it was made by and was also strongly agreed by others including  and . I also refer to recent RFCs for discussion about moving origins details out of this article, where the closing admin noted a "clear consensus".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you pretending a 2009 edit on another article is recent or relevant? I defer to my summary above for links to several past discussions about DNA relevant to THIS article, especially this one. The Stolarek 2019 article did mitochondrial DNA tests, which are useless for this purpose, and said the result was CONSISTENT with Goths coming from Sweden. The edit to remove it was made by and was also strongly agreed by others including  and . I also refer to recent RFCs for discussion about moving origins details out of this article, where the closing admin noted a "clear consensus".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought haplogroups were pretty consistent with ancestry. Especially when Genetic specialists in Poland agree they are true. Also, Goths had a central European or polish variant of R1A that also seem to be spread out along Spain and Italy in a similar cluster with I1. I also used an Italian source examining actual remains of Gothic warriors in Italian graveyards from 500 BP exactly after the sack of Rome by the Goths and Lombards. Taken from a Gothic burial in Rome. I1 at least seem to be the dominant group in the populations only in modern Swedes, Danes and in Norway I1 is dominant in Goths too... At least those found in the graveyards of Rome. Also one similar examination done by genetic experts in Italy 2020 seems to confirm the Scandinavian origins of the Goths done in 2020


 * Since we had some semblance of consensus not to delve too deeply into the origin stories, I think we should refrain from including the genetic discussion in the main body of the test. Krakkos was right that a sentence or two is merited about the recent genomic evidence, but let's make them informational notes, as the science of genetics is still very young and in transition. We don't need this page becoming politicized by focusing on a controversial area. To this end, Andrew's position seems the most in keeping with editorial consensus. --Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Haplogroups, types of DNA, obviously do have something to do with biological ancestry. But this article is not about biology, and mitochondrial DNA is a special small chunk of rarely mutating DNA that we only get from our mother, and these change very slowly and apparently (scientists have found) don't normally spread in a way which can be used to connection to language or ethnicity in smaller regions like Europe. If you've you've ever tracked your own mitochondrial DNA or, like me, worked with genealogists in large groups, you'll know how the closest mitochondrial matches of people with European ancestry tend to come from thousands of kilometres from their own known ancestors. This is why most well-known labs working on population history don't use mitochondrial DNA, at least not exclusively.
 * ALSO, Roberta Estes is an American blogger. The article she discusses about Roman DNA is comparing to Hungary, looking for evidence of Lombard movement, not Scandinavia, not looking at Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is not about Latin literature either. Does that mean we should purge the article of all references to Latin literature? Of course not. This article is about ancient people, and our understanding of ancient people is based on a combination of literary, linguistic, archaeological, genetic and other material. Genetic information can be used to get insight into many things, for example human migration and social organization. The mtDNA that we inherit from our mothers is one type of such useful genetic information. Stolarek et al. (2019) examined what they perceived to be Gothic mtDNA, and drew some conclusions from it. I think the addition of a neutral reference to Stolarek et al. (2019) would be helpful. This could be done through formulating a sentence or an informational note. Krakkos (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you will only find things neatly labelled as Goths in Latin and Greek literature. This article is about a historical people, i.e. known from the written record. All other types of investigation about them, such as archaeological or linguistic, start from the written record. But you won't find any neatly labelled Gothic DNA in the populations genetic literature. What you have published here in the past was not a neutral summary, but wishful thinking. You were the source. We can however say quite a lot about archaeological ideas concerning the origins of the Goths, but no version of this article or any other on WP has ever done a good job of that. (You've used archaeology sources only to sneak the Jordanes "Berig story" into "Wikipedia voice". Ironic! You use archaeologists as a proxy for a bit of Latin literature which is your indirect source for the "Goths are Swedes" myth you are continually trying to reinsert. You argue against citing experts on Jordanes, only because you know they all agree he can't be used this way. Using archaeologists as alternative non-expert sources for Jordanes appears to be the limit of your interest in archaeology.) The archaeology of Gothic origins deserves it's own article (Wielbark culture etc) and I think no one would have a problem with truly neutral summaries of articles like Stolarek's there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about Goths. Detailed coverage on Jordanes and Getica belongs at the articles Jordanes and Getica. This article should rely primarily on experts on Goths, as it currently does. The literature and archaeology of the Goths is indeed covered in detail at other articles. The Visigoths and Ostrogoths have also received detailed coverage elsewhere. This does not mean that we should purge this article of information about Gothic archaeology, Jordanes or the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. The scope of this article should be determined by the scope of the most relevant and reliable sources on the Goths, such as the works of Peter Heather, Herwig Wolfram and Michel Kazanski. These works provide substantial coverage of archaeological and linguistic evidence, which means that such evidence should also be covered here. Krakkos (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the clear decisions from the RFCs, the entire field or fields relevant to Goths all write in such a way that the appearance of Goths in Roman sources in the 3rd century, for the first time under that name, and for the first time north of the Danube, represents the start of (to say the least) a distinct era of Gothic history. It is clearly a very nicely separable topic!? I have already shown how Heather and Wolfram make this point very clearly, and how you have misunderstood and distorted their words. You are flogging a dead horse and over-dramatizing, in order to create talk page confusion again. No one except you is purging anything from any published expert source. What needs to be purged are fringe stories from internet trolls who like to see themselves as living Goths, and desperately want to continue the old Swedish claim over them. There was an RFC and discussion continues. It should be a normal discussion about where to put what (including genetics, archaeology etc). The fact is that you are continually working against what our fellow editors have said they want, and waiting to reinsert the Goths-are-Swedes story, as you did a few months ago. All your proposals have nothing at all to do with people like Heather, Wolfram or Kazanski, as I have shown many times now. For another example you continue to "purge" and de-emphasize all mention of the Vienna school's ideas about an elite migration which are accepted by all three of them. You only use cherry-picked words from those writers in ways to change their meanings, in order to give the old story of how Goths are Swedes, which is adapted from Jordanes, and would not exist without Jordanes. It is you that wants the troll-adapted Jordanes to quietly dominate this article: You want your modern troll-adapted version of the Jordanes Berig etc story to be the story which Wikipedia tells, using the names of modern scholars to hide the real sources. That is also the only way in which you have used archaeological and DNA sources, which you seem to have no interest in, or understanding of, outside of this use - just as you have no interest in the actual scholarly literature about Jordanes. Please stop it and be a bit more practical? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDHT. When you are exposed, this is what you do: post large irrelevant quotes, and always the same ones, and always pretending you forget previous discussions about removed bits where you have "". (You are sometimes joining bits that are pages apart or even in different chapters, and you always moving key qualifications. You also pick old books over new ones, questionable wordings from abstracts that disagree with the main bodies, compressed wordings from short dictionary articles instead of highly cited works by the same authors, and so on.) This is disruptive editing Krakkos. There is no other reason for you to be quoting the same large blocks of text over and over and over and over without any reference to previous discussion. Most importantly, these quotes are entirely irrelevant to the points made above. FWIW:
 * Wolfram, same work, p.44 says: p.44: the acculturation of the Goths to the Pontic area and their ethnogenesis "at the shores of the Black Sea" are simultaneous and mutually depent processes: In other words,

While none of this is relevant to the comment you were replying to, the cherry picking is stunning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from a series of personal attacks, your point above was that Wolfram and Heather believe Goths appear "for the first time" in Roman sources in the 3rd century AD. This is a false claim which you have made over and over again. Quoting their most authoritative sources directly helps set the record straight. As long as you continue to misrepresent the views of Wolfram, Heather and others on this talk page, i will continue to quote their works directly, so that the community can make up its own mind on the basis of the actual evidence. Krakkos (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No Krakkos, that was not my point, and it was not your point (and it is not even the point these scholars make, let alone the rest of the field; these two write about the name of the Goths but you twist their meaning all the time to write your fringe stuff about a single simple physical group of people). The point is that there was nothing wrong with the RFC decisions, and quotes like these can't be used to show they were wrong decisions, so please stop beating a dead horse. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997?fbclid=IwAR1334H3S4xx3NN8V3mFLdBnYJVGSwZs1jgnU4MzIEduN2YyoA08yh7Xb6I This new research paper published 2021 proves without any reasonable doubt that some Goths at least had a DNA structure similar to modern Swedes. Done by the University of Fribourg. But those Scandinavian guys living in Poland might be something else... But according to the poles doing this archaeology project they were considered to be archaeologically Gothic and a majority of Individuals have I1 or R1B haplogroup.

The Pla de l'Horta villa near Girona in Spain is located in close proximity to a necropolis with a series of tombs associated with the Visigoths. The grave goods and the typology of the tombs point to a Visigothic origin of the individuals. A small number of individuals buried at the site were sampled for DNA analysis in a 2019 study. One of the samples belonged to haplogroup I1.[50] This finding is in accordance with the common ancestral origin of the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths.

I read your article but your assumption is wrong your studying an ancient haplogroup but I1 is very new only 3500 years. The Visigothic royalty also had dominant I1 ancestry. According to studies done Spain by archaeologists in Spain. They DNA tested Visigothic nobles graves and they also had a dominant I1 groupings in 2019.

https://www.geni.com/projects/I-CTS6364-Y-DNA/36181

quote: "Current DNA research indicates that I1 was close to non-existent in most of Europe outside of Scandinavia and northern Germany before the Migration Period."

"The Pla de l'Horta villa near Girona in Spain is located in close proximity to a necropolis with a series of tombs associated with the Visigoths. The grave goods and the typology of the tombs point to a Visigothic origin of the individuals. A small number of individuals buried at the site were sampled for DNA analysis in a 2019 study. One of the samples belonged to haplogroup I1.[50] This finding is in accordance with the common ancestral origin of the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths."

I still watch this from a previous bot-invited RFC visit. So I don't have the depth & expertise here that y'all do and so my comments are from just a quick overview. I agree that it should be kept out. It looks like "somebody's research and interpretation of it" rather than something broad and solid enough (with secondary analysis) to be in an encyclopedia article. Various policies point out that type of a problem with this.North8000 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. The dubious genetic material shared by the IP should certainly be kept out. I'm open to including reliable material that is directly relevant to the Goths, but in such cases it should handled it carefully. In any case, the field of genetics is progressing rapidly, and more solid information will hopefully be available in the future. Krakkos (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you are also "forgetting" that the articles you want to reintroduce into this article were put into multiple Wikipedia articles, not just this one. (Also, in articles like this one it was reproduced in multiple versions throughout the article, and you did not cooperate with discussions to improve that!) So the only questions which have really been relevant are about the neutrality of the summaries, and (as per the RFCs) the decision to place the main discussions in archaeology articles about the material cultures whose DNA is being discussed. There has been no purge, and no purge is proposed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

collecting quotes to help future discussion about pre 3rd century "pre" Goths
Even if we come to some clear action plans soon, it seems this topic might come back again, either here or on related articles, and discussions has been anything-but-helped by lumping big quotes into the normal talk page. So I hope this workpage helps: Talk:Goths/Quotes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and started a new article: Origin of the Goths. There seems to be a clear enough agreement that any attempt to expand discussions of this topic needs to be done somewhere else, and I believe our explanations of the topic need expansion somewhere on Wikipedia if they are to be clear and accurate. Highly compressed versions are constantly going to be controversial distractions. From my work on this new article so far, a single independent article does seem possible. (I am open to other ideas about merging it to other Goth-related articles. Other relevant articles are Origin stories of the Goths, Wielbark culture, Name of the Goths, and Gutones but I think the overlap is OK at this point.) I really hope this helps us in the future. I truly believe it can.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

New section on warfare
, I think all or most of the material you've added is not specifically about Goths but about what we modern people call "Germanic peoples"? Ancient authors did provide distinct descriptions of the Goths, but I think you are using descriptions of other Germanic peoples? Roman authors repeatedly insisted that the Goths were a Scythian people in terms of their customs etc. For example, a major part of the new material is a block of text from Mauricius about the "Fair haired peoples" such as Franks and Lombards. These are western European groups who the Romans did not associate with the Goths. The Strategikon has a different section for discussion about Scythian peoples, and in Book IV this work makes clear that Goths, as in other works, are Scythian. Are you not using the wrong section of the Strategikon? To give an example of a difference, while the fair haired peoples can easily be drawn out of formation by simulated retreats, the Goths are experts in performing such simulated retreats. And rather than being happy to dismount, like the fair-haired peoples, this work claims that because they grow up on horseback, the Scythians are not happy walking around on foot. If on the other hand we say this is not explicitly enough about Goths, that's fine, but we can't use descriptions of western europeans as a stand-in, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are right for the Strategikon section, i will delete that. However, i know that the paragraph or two before that talks about weapons and armour explicitly for the Goths, so i wont delete that. :) --Joe Flats 123