Talk:Goths/Archive 10

The Goths in Ancient History (2020) by David M. Gwynn
David M. Gwynn is Reader in Ancient and Late Antique History at Royal Holloway, University of London and author of the monograph The Goths (2018). He has recently written the article The Goths in Ancient History (2020). It is probably the most up-to-date overview of Gothic history available at the moment. He cites historians such as Heather and Goffart and also some archaeological evidence. Here are some extracts which may be helpful in determining how the history sections of this article should be structured and focused:
 * You are not listening. I asked a very specific question about the priority given to a mythic narrative in the prehistory section over the archaeological material, the way that whole section is framed in terms of one highly contested line in Jordanes. As earlier, all you do in response is cite another book that buttresses your position. The result is a strawman.
 * David Gwynn is a classicist, and here concentrates on the accounts of Goths in late Greek and Roman history. As the above quote shows, he skates fluently over all the minefields and jumps the obstacles raised by Germanic specialists, and just tosses in his hat, with minimal reservations, into the ring with his view that Jordanes was a Goth (challenged), that he was privy to oral traditions (challenged), and that his Scandza legend material conserves an authentic memory (challenged). By the way he didn't write a monograph. That work for Reaktion Books is a popularization of Gothic history. Compare the quote you just make from an outsider's overview, endorsing the Scandza legend, with the quote from Christensen. The conclusions are diametrically opposed, from total acceptance of the Scandza core historicity to total dismissal. merely adding quotes for one side is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave you a very specific reply in the section where you raised your question, stating that i believe our overview of Gothic prehistory should be framed on the basis of how our most reliable and relevant secondary and tertiary sources frame it. In that reply i also made a very specific proposal for how to secure that the section is better framed as such. That proposal has not been replied to. It would have been helpful if you could highlight which "Germanic specialists" that have raised obstacles, and which "archaeological material" that you think should be given more priority.
 * I am as entitled to share quotes from the work of Gwynn (published by Cambridge University Press in 2020) as you are to share quotes from the work of Christensen (published by Museum Tusculanum Press in 2002). Christensen, who is a classicist like Gwynn but only an associate professor, intentionally ignores archaeological evidence on Gothic origins (p. 40), and deals mostly with mythic narratives. As Christensen himself has admitted, his work is more of a deconstruction of the origin stories of the Goths than a history of the Goths. His book (a translation of his Danish-language Ph.D. thesis) has been described by Michael Whitby as "surely too extreme" and "little more than a long footnote" to what has been published by Peter Heather and others on the Goths. It is certainly not an as influential, relevant or frequently cited work on Goths than those of fellow historians like Heather or Herwig Wolfram.
 * I sense a bit of hostility in your comment. I hope you understand that many Wikipedians are wary of hostile editing environments, and that such conditions may result in driving editors away. Krakkos (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not hostile to any editor who, like yourself, obviously rolls up his sleeves to the armpits. That is relatively rare. I'm stringent. I've no pretension to have anywhere near your depth of reading on this where I have only a general knowledge. But, I am rather good in my own estimation, on questions of historical method, and that's what makes my approach somewhat stringent. No hostility intended. Strong disagreement need not be taken as antipathy. Most of the people we quote are colleagues, who are not known to have left their meet-ups at conferences with something like the scenary of Kill Bill's more boring episodes.
 * If you replied to me, I can't see it. The quote from Gwynn tells us just where Gwynn an outsider, places himself in the spectrum of Germanic scholarship's contradictory conclusions about Jordanes. I am saying that the mythic skerrick re Scandza merits a line or two here, not a paragraph on controversies about Jordanes's reliability. This place is so disjointed that all sequence is lost (at least on me). I won't repeat myself.The prehistory section needs one or two sentences on Jordanes's Scandza, and the rest of the material should go into sister pages, where any editor can expatiate at length on the infinite distinctions and niceties of a long scholarly squabble.
 * If you replied to me, I can't see it. The quote from Gwynn tells us just where Gwynn an outsider, places himself in the spectrum of Germanic scholarship's contradictory conclusions about Jordanes. I am saying that the mythic skerrick re Scandza merits a line or two here, not a paragraph on controversies about Jordanes's reliability. This place is so disjointed that all sequence is lost (at least on me). I won't repeat myself.The prehistory section needs one or two sentences on Jordanes's Scandza, and the rest of the material should go into sister pages, where any editor can expatiate at length on the infinite distinctions and niceties of a long scholarly squabble.


 * As to my background, first classics and then the ideology of cultural and ethnic classifications, the Goths attracts me because it is a good example of what Roland Steinacher writes about, perhaps with undue dismissiveness. But large numbers of of these ancient ethnonyms are problematical descriptors. One can quote bits from all of the varied sources one desires on general views, but if one doesn't begin by interrogating those texts on what Goths we are describing, then much of what follows will be nonsense. How do sources square Procopius's 'Γοτθικὰ ἔθνη πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα πρότερόν τε  ἦν καὶ τανῦν ἔστι,'(De Bellis 3:2.2)- a good witness for the polyvalency of the word 'Goth', with the various uses of Goths in Jordanes  (Gothi minores at Getica 267). Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Commendations to the comments made by here as they essentially echo my sentiments exactly. Like I have stated before and will reiterate here: we are writing an Encyclopedia and not within the confines of a specialized academic journal so AUDIENCE is of primary importance. Polemical disagreements from scholars should not occupy much of the content (mentionable, yes — exhaustively elaborated upon, no).--Obenritter (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. Krakkos has done very important work, and, like me for one, is fascinated by scholarly details. I think we should, rather than exclude on principle the intricacies of academic disputes over details, distinguish between general articles, like this, and retain whatever is far too complex for the general reader by the use of sister-articles for the specific details. Wiki is primarily read by a general global readership wanting a quick digest of the general picture: but, the lack of esteem it once 'enjoyed' by teachers and scholars, for the way its generalities might skew complex issues, is somewhat waning as sub article pages that rush into the thickets of disciplinary method and controversy are created.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my experience with  has been very much positive. While we've disagreed on minor details here or there, I have only respect for this editor. But your points were well-made. We can highlight differences of opinion and cite page numbers, we can also create offshoot articles when needed as opposed to encumbering a general knowledge page with such details for the ease of reader comprehension. --Obenritter (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nishidani and Obenritter for your kind words. I strongly agree with your emphasis on the importance of making our articles valuable for the general reader. Would you (or Andrew Lancaster or anyone else) be fine with it if i added these two sources to this article?
 * I don't intend to do any changes at all to the actual text of the article, but merely add them to the reflist and citations when appropriate. The article for the Oxford encyclopedia by Peter Heather could probably serve as a model for our encyclopedia article, particularly when it comes to the History section. Interestingly enough, Heather makes no mention of Jordanes at all. Krakkos (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't offer you any advice, other than that you keep a sharp eye out for any edits (justified in their own rights) which remove sources you have introduced, and make sure that this varied material is rather conserved by transfer to sister pages. Hard work should not be lost. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome . You've been an invaluable Wikipedia editor over the years and so has Andrew. With respect to sources, I think Heather will show up quite a bit, as he should. Mainstream scholars of antiquity and early medieval history (linguists, historians, archaeologists) should be our guiding lights in this regard. Concurring with, anything that gets removed as a result of this lengthy discourse should be preserved on any offshoot pages that develop. You've got experience with that from the Germanic peoples page, when you salvaged some of that page's deleted content elsewhere (Early Germanic culture) for posterity. ;-)--Obenritter (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the reason for wanting to add those sources if they are not going to be used for any specific addition? We have so many sources already. I think there is a tendency to oversource on this article, with too many footnotes on sentences, often lesser quality sources such as tertiary sources, or asides in lesser-known articles. We've had a lot of cases where this has in effect added up to synth. In any case, in practice too many footnotes makes verification difficult for editors to judge what is going on. What's more we have Heather's secondary works covering all his most carefully considered proposals. I don't see any reason to cite Gwynn at all. You've brought in him into the discussion above in a "cherry picking" way because he disagrees with much better known authorities, and to be completely honest that has me uncomfortable. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome . You've been an invaluable Wikipedia editor over the years and so has Andrew. With respect to sources, I think Heather will show up quite a bit, as he should. Mainstream scholars of antiquity and early medieval history (linguists, historians, archaeologists) should be our guiding lights in this regard. Concurring with, anything that gets removed as a result of this lengthy discourse should be preserved on any offshoot pages that develop. You've got experience with that from the Germanic peoples page, when you salvaged some of that page's deleted content elsewhere (Early Germanic culture) for posterity. ;-)--Obenritter (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the reason for wanting to add those sources if they are not going to be used for any specific addition? We have so many sources already. I think there is a tendency to oversource on this article, with too many footnotes on sentences, often lesser quality sources such as tertiary sources, or asides in lesser-known articles. We've had a lot of cases where this has in effect added up to synth. In any case, in practice too many footnotes makes verification difficult for editors to judge what is going on. What's more we have Heather's secondary works covering all his most carefully considered proposals. I don't see any reason to cite Gwynn at all. You've brought in him into the discussion above in a "cherry picking" way because he disagrees with much better known authorities, and to be completely honest that has me uncomfortable. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Review of new proposal by Krakkos 31 March 2021
As discussed above, I will review the new draft proposal of Krakkos by comparing it to the version of March 18, which had a consensus history. I will try to limit myself a bit, and break it into sections. In some cases, we can consider reverting a whole section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead
, as an update: Do you both agree? Anyone else have any comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. This was fully deleted from the lead and should be replaced because we need to clearly state where the Goths are first uncontroversially known from in written history. This is an article about a people from written history. They were first definitely reported by Graeco-Roman authors in the 3rd century AD, living north of the Danube in what is now Ukraine, Moldova and Romania. Later, many moved into the Roman Empire, or settled west of the Carpathians near what is now Hungary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2. New weasel words trying to under-state things: "the accuracy of this account is unclear". These replaced "but his reliability is disputed". The original was much better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3. Krakkos proposal: "From the 2nd century, the Wielbark culture expanded southwards towards the Black Sea in what has been associated with Gothic migration, and by the late 3rd century it contributed to the formation of the Chernyakhov culture." I think this wording needs tweaking, such as "From the 2nd century, the Wielbark culture expanded southwards towards the Black Sea, contributing, in turn to the Chernyakhov culture further south, which is associated with the classical-era Goths." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I still strongly believe the first paragraph in lead should have a basic description that a non-expert can understand, explaining where these people lived.
 * 2. I still believe we are misrepresenting the field with "unclear". Example: just about every scholarly analysis of the Getica has rejected its account of the Goths’ Scandinavian origins from Guy Halsall, "Ethnicity and early medieval cemeteries / Etnicidad y cementerios altomedievales" in Archaeology and ethnicity. Reassessing the “Visigothic necropoleis”, dossier a cura di Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo, in “Arquelogía y territorio medieval”, 18 (2011), pp. 15-27 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/141655686.pdf
 * 3. Awkward sentence.
 * 4. (New.) Based on the RFCs I believe the second paragraph of the lead should be completely reduced, re-written and moved to the bottom of the lead. The new paragraph should still mention Jordanes, but then quickly make it clear there is on-going scholarly debate. Details should not be argued out in the lead.
 * I disagree strongly that the second pagraph of the lead, which covers the early history of the Goths, "should be completely reduced, re-written and moved to the bottom of the lead". Our outline of Gothic history in the lead should be chronological and clear, and modeled upon how experts would write such outlines. The current outline in the lead closely follow the outline of Gothic history by Peter Heather in the following in the reliable and highly relevant works:
 * Krakkos (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are WP:tertiary sources all by one author, who we happen to know disagrees with many of his colleagues. Most of us can not read them, but their very short texts have been analysed on this talk page in the past, and these are completely different types of reference works to this one (WP). We do not have to make decisions like this based on short entries in dictionaries. We have to split topics up based on our own editing decisions, and of course this has to be reviewed periodically. The fact is that this is the Goths article. Pre-Goths are a more advanced topic and the RFCs show strong agreement with the idea that for whatever reason (editor interests edtc) the pre-Goths are taking over the article and making it confusing. Wolfram p.13: The Goths of the third century were considered a new people to whom the old Scythian name applied. No ancient ethnographer made a connection between the Goths and the Gutones. The Gutonic immigrants became Goths the very moment the Mediterranean world considered them Scythians. What about points 1, 2, and 3?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are WP:tertiary sources all by one author, who we happen to know disagrees with many of his colleagues. Most of us can not read them, but their very short texts have been analysed on this talk page in the past, and these are completely different types of reference works to this one (WP). We do not have to make decisions like this based on short entries in dictionaries. We have to split topics up based on our own editing decisions, and of course this has to be reviewed periodically. The fact is that this is the Goths article. Pre-Goths are a more advanced topic and the RFCs show strong agreement with the idea that for whatever reason (editor interests edtc) the pre-Goths are taking over the article and making it confusing. Wolfram p.13: The Goths of the third century were considered a new people to whom the old Scythian name applied. No ancient ethnographer made a connection between the Goths and the Gutones. The Gutonic immigrants became Goths the very moment the Mediterranean world considered them Scythians. What about points 1, 2, and 3?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are WP:tertiary sources all by one author, who we happen to know disagrees with many of his colleagues. Most of us can not read them, but their very short texts have been analysed on this talk page in the past, and these are completely different types of reference works to this one (WP). We do not have to make decisions like this based on short entries in dictionaries. We have to split topics up based on our own editing decisions, and of course this has to be reviewed periodically. The fact is that this is the Goths article. Pre-Goths are a more advanced topic and the RFCs show strong agreement with the idea that for whatever reason (editor interests edtc) the pre-Goths are taking over the article and making it confusing. Wolfram p.13: The Goths of the third century were considered a new people to whom the old Scythian name applied. No ancient ethnographer made a connection between the Goths and the Gutones. The Gutonic immigrants became Goths the very moment the Mediterranean world considered them Scythians. What about points 1, 2, and 3?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Classification section
As it currently stands the new proposal, and the current article, are totally unacceptable, not only for the normal reasona but also because OR has now been introduced (second paragraph). To be honest, the old version was also controversial, because the last two sentences gave a confusing impression which seems intended to mislead readers. See discussion above. A simple revert is one option, and I have also proposed two possible new versions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Maybe this helps:


 * The March 18 consensus version strikes me as better. I see no improvement in the later versionsNishidani (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed version (by me):
 * The Goths are classified as a Germanic people in modern scholarship, in the sense of being speakers of a Germanic language. Along with the Burgundians, Vandals and others they are more specifically classified as being among the East Germanic peoples. The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, were however never considered Germani by ancient Roman authors, who consistently categorized them among the "Scythians" or other peoples who had historically inhabited the area.

Note:. There is NO scholar who argues against this. Optional sentence to try to support the thinking behind the OR, without going too far:
 * The earlier Gutones, reported by first and second century authors Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Ptolemy as living near the mouth of the Vistula, were described as Germani in that period, and as will be discussed below, they are possibly ancestors of the later Goths who lived in what is now the Ukraine.

I think either the short or long version would resolve a lot of issues which are otherwise going to permanently mar this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These are good proposals, subject to tweaking. I think some consideration should be given to sorting out the Getae/Gepid/Gutones/Goth issue in classical languages, not only Latin, but also Greek. But it is too early for me to make a considered set of suggestions.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So between the March 18 version and my proposal, any preference?
 * Concerning Getae and Gepids, keep in mind the importance of balancing between this article and specialist articles. I'd say the Getae identification is not taken very seriously, so it is more for the specialist articles. Concerning the Gepids, you raised a point somewhere about the plural Gothic peoples, as in Procopius. THIS article is probably the article which could best handle the bigger Gothic peoples concept. It is something this article could focus on more clearly if we get rid of some of the distractions. I had not thought of it being relevant to this section, but you might be right, given that comment of Procopius. I suppose this will lead to a complication. I can't immediately remember academic comments but I presume we'll need to be thoughtful about how to associate, but not equate, this concept with East Germanic speakers (i.e. a linguistic definition of an ethnic group)? Something for later?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer a better version, but if no-one has time to consider improvements beyond the 18th March consensus version, which had sources placed there by Krakkos (who now seems to forget any knowledge of any such sources) I believe we at least need to revert to that version. FWIW here are the old sources on the original first sentence, which show why our new version is totally unacceptable. If any thinks we need more or better ones, please say so, but please be clear about what is needed and why. (I did not select these. I don't see the relevance of 13 for example.) Will someone please fix this section, or does this seriously need an RFC? (As a side note, these remarks show how academics do NOT simply equate Goths and Gutones.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 11. Halsall 2014, p. 519 "Goths, who have in recent decades become something of a paradigm for 'Germanic migrations', spoke a Germanic language but they were not considered Germani by Graeco-Roman authors, who usually saw them as 'Scythians' or as descendants of other peoples recorded in the same region like the Getae."
 * 12. Goffart 1989, p. 112. "Goths, Vandals, and Gepids, among others, never called themselves German or were regarded as such by late Roman observers."
 * 13. Goffart 2010, p. 5 "The use of "German" waned sharply in late antiquity, when, for example, it was mainly reserved by Roman authors as an alternative to "Franks" and never applied to Goths or the other peoples living in their vicinity at the eastern end of the Danube."
 * 14. Wolfram 2005, p. 5. "Goths, Vandals, and other East Germanic tribes were differentiated from the Germans and were referred to as Scythians, Goths, or some other special names."

The 18 March version is very problematic for several reasons. The only source for the claim that Goths were never considered Germani is Halsall, who has not written much on Goths. Your Wolfram quote is taken out of context. Both he and Goffart are talking about late antiquity here, rather than all of classical antiquity. Halsall's claim of the Goths never being called Germani is attributed to Wolfram (pp. 28-29) and Kulikowski (pp. 14-15). As neither of those pages Halsall cites discuss the Germanicness of the Goths, Halsall is making a false attribution here. The idea that Goths are solely considered Germanic for linguistic reasons is also unsourced. In addition, none of the sources above refer to "East Germanic-speakers" (Wolfram talks of East Germanic tribes), and none of the sources say that Vandals were never considered Germani. Pliny and Tacitus are both usually believed to have mentioned Vandals and Goths, and both clearly classified them as Germani. Compared to the 18th March version, the current version includes additional sources which i think should be kept. Below is a proposal for the classification section which is true to the sources and uncontroversial: I think you are overloading this talk page here for no good reason. Did you have to paste more than 800 words of references? In any case: These are major and obvious problems, and you changed this section knowing full-well that you were slipping in a strongly anti-consensus wording. The current version of this section had no consensus and needs to be changed ASAP. All versions which continue to insist on the above three arguments are totally unacceptable of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely wrong to say that we only have Halsall as a source. Even on the March 18 version we also have Wolfram and Goffart, who are mentioned in the post you replied, and even in the footnotes you now propose for the new draft! Previously we've discussed Pohl and so on. These are grade A sources, and they all say the same thing. You also have ZERO sources saying the opposite. There is no evidence of any controversy here. This is low hanging fruit: a field consensus! Why are you pretending to forget all these sources all the time? We have been over this many times over more than a year of discussions! For goodness sake!
 * You are the only source for the conclusion that classical authors called Goths "Germani". It is one of the clearest cases of WP:SYNTH I've ever seen. Our scholarly sources do NOT (like you) deliberately confuse their readers by simply equating the Gutones and Goths EVEN when they argue that one was ancestral to the other, like Heather. (A precursor is not an ancestor though BTW.)
 * Even worse, your proposal that Wikipedia should say that Romans didn't call Goths Germani because they were using the word less in late antiquity is pure cynical WP:OR. It literally disagrees diametrically with the scholars you cite for this.
 * PS, I would also be interested to see if can propose a better version, or indeed anyone who can chip in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have implemented the proposed change because it is clearly an improvement. When the Gothi as such appear in the sources, they are distinct from the Germani. I also reworded the second sentence, which was awkward. It now reads The Goths are classified as a Germanic people in modern scholarship. Along with the Burgundians, Vandals and others they belong to the East Germanic group. The link is to East Germanic, a linguistic classification. I think it is clear from the first sentence that we are talking about scholarly classifications. I left the sentence In modern scholarship the Goths are sometimes referred to as being Germani, although I think it's kind of silly. How modern scholars idiosyncratically use a classical Latin word seems a tad uninteresting. It is reasonable to point out that the Gothic–Germanic disjunction is not paralleled by an earlier Gutonic–Germanic disjunction. It would be nice to have a source that addresses this fact directly. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Srnec, I think I agree with all those remarks, and your edit is an improvement. Maybe I'd put your last sentence above in stronger terms though. I don't think we may imply anything about the Gutones being identical to Goths in the classification section, unless we have a clear source. As discussed above, if we want to discuss Gutones in the classification section, which is not impossible to imagine, I believe it requires a more complete laying out of who they were, and why they would be relevant. For example I gave the example above of a sentence like this: The earlier Gutones, reported by first and second century authors Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Ptolemy as living near the mouth of the Vistula, were described as Germani in that period, and as will be discussed below, they are possibly ancestors of the later Goths who lived in what is now the Ukraine. If we don't lay it out like that then I don't see how that is consistent with WP:NOR. I still believe that the first sentence in the section would be better if it informed our readers that this particular classification was language-based, and that we did not imply it was the only classification. Not only Goffart, but also Walter Pohl and his followers, do not follow this classification. This is why I proposed, The Goths are classified as a Germanic people in modern scholarship, in the sense of being speakers of a Germanic language. I can't see any policy-consistent way to argue that we should tell our readers there is only one scholarly classification possibility if there is not. OTOH I don't propose that this section needs a full discussion of those scholarly debates, of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "were a Germanic people" means nothing more than "spoke a Germanic language", but we need a source to say so. Whatever we do, we should avoid "as will be discussed below"-type statements in Wikipedia, since they are liable to become outdated. I do think we should probably add a statement about the Goths' classification as barbarians in the Greco-Roman terminology of the time, since that is the classification that some modern scholars favour over Germanic. Srnec (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable statements. Concerning the source question we've of course already got several in the article being used for similar purposes to this new specific question, and there are some more on Germanic peoples. Halsall's "Two Worlds become One" article is currently our footnote 18. BTW can you make sure we also have the version on academia.edu? https://www.academia.edu/24215604/Two_Worlds_Become_One_A_Counter_Intuitive_View_of_the_Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_Migration . Concerning the quesiton of how the Goths came to be called Germanic we of course have Goffart, but I believe it is also discussed by Todd, Heather, Liebeschuetz etc in various places. One of the strongest sources is Pohl, though I think his clearest comments are in German.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Prehistory
Lots to look at here unfortunately. I will add, bit by bit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This section has been turned into a sub-section of "History". That's a bit grating to me, just because it is illogical. Not sure what others think. The rhetorical purpose is pretty clear: it stops readers from feeling any caution about equating the "Ukrainian" Goths to the "Polish" Gutones. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC) ADDED: the effect on readers in this case is not likely to be enormous, I would guess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from that, this is a relatively large and complex section, which had 4 sub-sections. These have been converted into two sections: Prehistory and Early History. Early History is now a section about the Gutones, based on the sub-section previously called "Vistula region evidence". I believe that is a change which is not in line with NPOV, and a deliberate movement away from a neutral description.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC) ADDED: I think the potential for readers to be misled by this title is unfortunately reasonably big. I am opposed to anything which simply equates Gutones to Goths, even though I understand why people want to do it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * are you sure Hachmann and Bierbrauer were on the same side of the debate about Scandinavia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably the most potential for controversy is about the wording issues discussed in sections above, including comments by Nishidani. At first sight it looks like the proposal is avoiding the concerns raised, but I hope others will look. It is such a complicated situation now, that I might be missing something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have boldly edited this section to tighten it up and make its development more logical, plus copyediting. Here is what I did:
 * Specified that Scandza is an island, a useful tip-off as to why Jordanes' accuracy might be questionable.
 * Removed as redundant to Historians are not in agreement on the authencity and accuracy of this account, while keeping both Christensen quotations.
 * Removed reference to the Gutasaga as pointless and counterproductive.
 * Removed because it tells us nothing but that skeptics of Scandianvian origins are skeptical of Scandianvian origins, which we already knew.
 * Removed as drifting off-topic. We have articles for Gothiscandza and the Wielbark culture.
 * Everything else was re-arranging, I believe. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Srnec. I think this is a substantial improvement. Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I also see no problems at first sight. It seems good. I wonder if either of you checked the recent drafting of Krakkos to see if that gives any more ideas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Problems in first paragraph of Prehistory section
We have: A crucial source on Gothic history is the Getica of the 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes.[24][25] Getica claims to be based on an earlier lost work by Cassiodorus, which also made use of an even earlier work by the Gothic historian Ablabius.[26] Many scholars believe that Jordanes' account on Gothic origins is at least partially derived from Gothic tribal tradition and accurate on certain details.[27][28][29][30] Problems: Can someone at least fix the second sentence?
 * I find the first sentence very unclear when we compare to the clear statements in the sources which say that "Modern approaches to the history of the Goths have been decisively shaped" by Jordanes. (Many sources could be found to back this statement, not just Heather.) Can our readers really get this out of our wording?
 * The second sentence fails verification. Footnote 26, by chance, is a book (Heather 1994, Goths and Romans, which is the most carefully worded book by Heather, constantly cited by his own later books (and dictionary entries), as well as other scholars) I own and I did not think any other editors had a copy? On the named page 5, it really says, of the Getica, that it drew "on the Gothic histories of Ablabius and Cassiodorus" (my emphasis). I believe furthermore that we should be reporting these as sources Jordanes himself said he used, because not all scholars trust Jordanes on this as much as Heather does.
 * Less problematic, I think the third sentence could usefully also mention that Jordanes himself mentioned "old songs" (carmina prisca) "that were almost historical in nature".
 * I suggest: The Getica, by the 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, has had a strong influence on modern historical understandings of the origins of the Goths. Jordanes described his work as drawing upon on an earlier lost history by Cassiodorus, an otherwise unknown Gothic historian named Ablabius, and old Gothic songs which were "almost historical in fasion" (pene storicu ritu). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If needed, for Ablabius see for example Gillett: https://www.academia.edu/18189601/Jordanes_and_Ablabius . --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Side note: my proposal above is clearly ignoring the above discussion about reviewing the whole Prehistory and Early history sections which are not about the Goths as such, and which are currently written in terms of trying to compare everything to Jordanes. The aim is a quick fix of a relatively clear problem. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the sentence about Ablabius. Srnec (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts from a visitor
While this article seems to be mired down in debates, to me the situation looks a lot brighter than a typical article with such an issue. First, we don't have a situation where it reflects some sort of real-world contest where the article is a mere tool in that battle. Second, although it has got a bit heated, such heat does not seem to be driving the situation. So the editors' agenda seems to be to be just to simply make the best article but there is disagreement on how to do that. Despite the challenges, this is pretty good / cool. I think that the current (unintended) approach of editing an article by detailed RFC's is not up to the task. My suggestion, is to identify and decide the key disputed questions and then everybody just follow 100% with whatever is decided which I think is possible for this particular situation. If y'all wish, I would be willing to help organize such a process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the perspective North. I agree this article's talk page makes it look worse that it is, and as a topic it is not one where there should be no hope. (That is a point of frustration.) This topic is blessed with lots of writers who are into explaining their agreements and disagreements. I honestly feel that the problems of summarizing those have been exaggerated a bit over a long period. On your second point, the idea of following anyone 100% on anything sounds scary! But maybe you can explain more or show an example of the process you mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to help, North. I fully agree on the necessity of identifying key disputed questions and reaching a consensus on them. Two of the key disputed questions for this article are the extent to which the article should rely and discuss Jordanes and other origin stories of the Goths, and what the focus of this article should be. Those two questions are being discussed at Talk:Goths and Talk:Goths respectively. I think the best way forward is to concentrate discussions of such key questions in the RfCs where they are originally discussed. Once a consensus is reached on these fundamental questions we can ask for administrative closure from EdJohnston, and move forward with solving additional key questions and improving this article. Krakkos (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But don't the first two RFCs show a clear consensus already? In fact I believe all three RFCs are very unlikely to change much now. This is why I think we need to determine if there are still more detailed points of disagreement (Such as whether Wikipedia should simply equate Guthones to Goths with no qualifications, making uncertain things into a certainty) that need discussion. But I can imagine there might be several different ideas on how to approach things, and I am interested to hear ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfCs are still young, and would benefit from more input. There seems to be a consensus to reduce emphasis on origin stories like Jordanes' Getica and Roman perspectives on things, and to increase emphasis on the archaeological, historical and linguistic perspectives of modern scholars. The current version of your draft at User:Andrew Lancaster/Goths seems to go against this consensus, with its dramatically increased emphasis on dubious origin stories and Roman perspectives. RfCs with administrative closure prevents consensus from being ignored, which is extremely important. Rather than hammering this page with new proposals on a daily basis, i recommend you to work on your draft. Hammering the talk page only results in driving editors away. Through comparing your draft with the current version of the article we will be better qualified to identify key disputed questions that need to be answered. Once you feel satisfied with your draft you can post an RfC asking for permission from the community to replace this article with your draft. Much of this article was written a long time ago and there are lots of improvements i would like to make, and i may also make a draft so that the community gets an opportunity to look at alternatives. Krakkos (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps our drafts will become more similar if we give constructive criticism to each other. Please feel free to post notes on the talk page of that draft. Neither of our versions is likely to be a good way forward if they are not based on the principle of listening to the concerns of other editors. In my case I have remarked above about some "red line" issues as far as I am concerned, and I believe other editors agree with all or some of them, so please don't ignore them. Concerning my draft I accept that it is not "compressed" and the strategy is to start by covering all potential components, and then trying to get feedback about which should be removed, once they can see how it might look. The sketch by Obenritter was specific about mentioning that Jordanes was not the only origins story, and other editors seem to feel that sketch is a reasonable starting point. I agree, and I've opened my draft based on that. I think it is very difficult for people to understand this topic if it is basically all structured around the idea that Jordanes is the starting point for all discussion. This is also what our modern scholars of Jordanes are telling us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we archive the first 10 sections?
A practical point of order. I suggest we do an early archive for all the recent talk page sections which now seem closed. Does anyone have a problem archiving all of the ones before the current number 11,	"Review of new proposal by Krakkos 31 March 2021"? I also see no problem archiving 12 "AGF or WTF". I only want to be cautious because in a way those discussions lead to discussions still open, but my feeling as one of the main participants in those discussions is that they don't need to be on this live page any more. If no one mentions a serious issue then I believe we can go ahead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Special ping to . I just noticed you might for example consider the current section 10 to be open.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can postpone archiving for the moment. There are still some issues that need to be worked out on this article and the earlier discussions may be helpful for doing that. Krakkos (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't we archive any of them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC) What would be a good reason for that, so that I can find a way to AGF? It looks like you want this talk page to be hard to follow? Let's try to close as many as possible?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to propose once again that we archive the first 9 or 10 sections, and the 12th, plus, if we are doing it, this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

AGF or WTF
how should other editors of this article understand the "good faith" situation here when you have now posted a misleading call for action here on the talk page of another article: "It could be of interest to editors active here that the closely related article Goths may be on the brink of being rewritten in the style of Germanic peoples" ? That seems like a deliberate misrepresentation (you recently made major changes to this article, and you are against reverting back to the old consensus version, not resisting ideas for new changes) and a deliberate attempt to reconfigure these discussions into a battle between some types of factions? I think that was a very bad idea, and unhelpful to the good faith efforts everyone is making to try to understand your concerns, find ways to represent them, and work with you. Why do you do these things just when everything looks friendlier?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 'In the style of the Germanic peoples' article? I, for one, haven't even read that page so as one of the ostensible cabal, I can hardly be inspired by it as a model.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The dog whistle words which Krakkos has been using to try to make people literally angry at me, with some success clearly, are "" and "". This has succeeded on several articles (also for example on Heruli) to create significant disruption to making an encyclopedia via proxies, and IMHO I also believe Krakkos is contacting people off-wiki pro-actively to make them angry, as I have explained before in various places.
 * It is just ridiculous that this is still happening. And ironically Krakkos always ends up exposed and feeling more defensive, which also then indirectly hurts Wikipedia even more. Why not stop trying this BS! Sheeesh.
 * STATEMENT: Concerning Goffart, I feel a similar respect to Heather, Halsall, Pohl or any of these authors. It is a great debate which I was not really very aware of before getting involved in trying to work these articles out. I truly enjoy reading such authors, and do not believe myself the superior to any of them, as Krakkos apparently does. The sourcing questions on both articles are actually pretty bloody clear for anyone who understands WP's core policy rules. This is nowhere near the difficulty level some less-studied ethnic topics face.
 * Whatever the details of the case may be off-wiki, it is totally "not cricket" to try to create any kind of angry faction (Goffart or anti-Goffart) in order to score points in a simple content dispute! It seems to me to be a moment where I am not even being too strong if I use the words "for goodness sake".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you have already been warned by admins several times against making personal attacks against me. Your post has a strong touch of psychological projection. This is a talk page to discuss Goths and how to improve it. Personal attacks against me should me posted elsewhere, ideally at my talk page. People are tired of Talk:Goths being flooded with pointless squabbling. Krakkos (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * first of all, you are answering this a week later (and after a lot of words including appeals to work better together etc) and even after you refused to let me early-archive it, as I proposed! So this very much looks like a deliberate attempt to create anger and confusion again, just like in the case which my post reports. Secondly, accusing people of psychological stuff is generally not seen as acceptable here on WP. Thirdly I stand by what I've reported above, concerning your call-to-battle post which other people can go see for themselves. I even stand by the strong words "not cricket" and "goodness sake". Indeed, I think these words can also be applied with full force to this incredibly silly post Krakkos. LOL. What are you thinking when you do things like this? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are doing here is projecting your behavior onto others. Wikipedia calls that psychological projection. It's a very common thing, i may even be guilty of it myself at times. I suggest you spend more time reading up and less time attacking others. It would probably help both you and those around you. If you still decide to keep on attacking, the attacks should be posted somewhere else. This talk page is flooded with enough irrelevant nonsense already. Krakkos (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)