Talk:Goths/Archive 11

RfC on re-focusing the lead
Yes, no or other: we should focus the lead on the Goths by (1) reinstating the removed words (or similar) which defined (until March 18 version) when and where they initially lived, which are the normal way we focus an article about an historical ethnic group, and (2) shifting the 2nd paragraph about Jordanes and origins debates (Goth precursors) to the end of the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging same list as previous RFC Berig, Andrew Lancaster, Nishidani, Obenritter, Peter K Burian, Bloodofox, Ermenrich, Srnec, Carlstak, Mnemosientje, SMcCandlish, Yngvadottir, Alcaios, Pfold, North8000, Krakkos


 * A simple Yes. (As proposer.) I think this is low-hanging fruit, because it is standard procedure for setting up a clearly defined article for a topic like this, and it also matches the recent RFCs perfectly. Technically speaking the removal of the standard type of article-scope-defining sentence in the first paragraph was also against editing restrictions placed on the editor who did it, because it involved the removal of an old consensus wording with no new pre-agreed consensus. The removal was clearly meant to broaden the scope of the article, as per long running debates on this talk page. Similarly, the theme of the current second paragraph, while not irrelevant to this topic, takes over the early parts of the article, and we've agreed that it covers topics that are better being summary carefully here, (without creating any artificial implications of scholarly consensus) and handled in more detail in other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC) In contrast, the explicit reasoning for placing this origins topic first is to present the proposed Goth precursors as the start of the chronology of the Goths themselves. Even Heather, who would be the main source this this, present this as his argument, and does not write as if Gutones = Goths. See recent discussion relevant to this RFC: . I believe that is exactly what we agreed not to do: making an uncertain thing seem certain. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the body of our article on the Goths on the basis of how reliable sources summarize the Goths Krakkos (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that is the basic principle behind the proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I do not believe there are any other functioning RFCs open. We have had two RFCs with clear results, and one RFC which had basically become a talk page section with changing RFC definitions and no tendency to a consensus. I think it is unusual to say this is "too many" RFCs? Perhaps you think a different RFC would be better? (Such as maybe specifically asking if the Gutones are Goths simply and/or should have their main article here.) I respect and understand the point you raised, but I don't see how we can move forward now. Please advise if you have any ideas. Also:
 * On an administration note please also keep in mind that Krakkos and I have literally been told by admin not to edit on this article without a pre-agreed consensus, and advised to use RFCs in order to do this.
 * The starting of parallel discussion sections and threads also contributes to the overloading of this talk page and I believe we should do an early archiving of at least the first 9 talk page sections, if that overloading is your main concern. (As discussed above.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Use RfCs to do this" does not mean "abuse a firehose of redundant RfCs to do this". Someone else is doing this at another page as we speak (on a fungus-related topic), has sparked a discussion to implement new explicit RfC rules to prevent someone opening a string of back-to-back RfCs on the same page, and is now at ANI being considered for a topic ban.  This could easily head the same direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First, don't get me wrong. I am honestly trying to work with a situation that basically seems designed to be impossible to me, so I am not saying I want to work this way. This RFC seemed very straightforward, and in fact it would naturally continue the process of refining the consensus about the article focus. Secondly, I honestly see no open and functioning RFC on this page now. I think the first two previous RFCs were fairly smooth and clear, but the third is not a real RFC anymore, if it ever was. You can't just change the proposal after replies start coming in? And it is clear no one is able to simply agree with it, because it was never written to be aligned with the previous RFCs. Everyone thinks it needs more work? But now we can't do a new one? I honestly need help following the logic, so I can try to follow it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Seems designed to be impossible" is essentially an assumption of bad faith (it translates to "some particular editor or editors seems to be designing this to be impossible", since no external forces design anything here). And no one else appears to have this perception, and are content to work toward resolution.  WP:THEREISNODEADLINE.  RfCs run for a month on average for a reason.  "I'm not getting the results I want" does not equate to "These RfCs are not open or functional".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, my wording reflects my understanding that the failed intention of the sanctions was to slow down editing, while the frustrating reality has been that only I have respected the sanctions in spirit or letter, and non-consensus editing has continued to happen in large, rapid, multi-section edits which are in effect impossible to reverse, adjust, analyze, discuss, or retrace any rationale for, despite them clearly being in conflict with consensus and sources. With your new demand for no new RFCs it gets even harder to imagine how this article can ever become a stable consensus article.
 * Coming to the specific subject of RFCs, and also similar less formal edit proposals, the reality on this article has been different than what you and I think is normal. I do not like that, but that is the fact. I invite you to look at how quickly (within hours) any proposals by me over the last year have been met by the creation of new parallel discussion threads containing proposals which effectively take the discussion backwards. If you are interested, you will also be able to see how the edits are then done (sometimes within minutes) after the first sign of any level of agreement at all by any one person, even if others clearly disagree. More recently, after 18 March, major edits were done with no pre-discussion of what edits would be done at all. This included the above-mentioned removal of the long-discussed opening sentences which helped define the article scope and which clearly still represent the majority position. In contrast (see above for examples) my proposals often get at least one person calling them good to go, but I tend not to make quick edits based on the opinion of one person, especially if there is a clear counter argument from someone else going on. Any such discussion of proposals by me is however going to be swamped with urgency. The supposedly still relevant RFC started by Krakkos proposed a draft which was made rapidly after Nishidani proposed that I try writing a draft, and I decided to start trying ideas . You have to realize this type of rapid response happens every time, unless outside editors contribute. I am not sure how you can judge whether other's also perceive this, because I am explaining my own personal perception which you questioned, and not a normal topic of talk page discussion. I doubt anyone cares enough to even look into it, though the article suffers because of it.
 * Please understand that there are also quite a few more obvious issues on this article which need discussion, but are being left un-discussed. The current talk page is being filled up with incredible circular discussions, about points which should be no-brainers, while large anti-consensus changes are made which have no pre-discussion. For example, the simple equation in the lead (many of my concerns about simple equations) of the Goths who defeated the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 with the Visigoths; or the simple equation of the Goths under Hunnic rule with the Goths who established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy. In many cases, more cautious scholarly wording would make a major improvement. How do we get those done? These two simple equations in the lead have for example been discussed before here.
 * My apologies for the long answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit that the no edits without RfCs strategy, understandably imposed, appears to have had unilateral consequences, creating for one of the two parties a catch22 type of dilemma, that in turn drives frustration that, to passing eyes, lend themselves to creating an impression Andrew is hammering the page, when he strikes me as only asking for balance. I can't make an objective call because the matter is huge, but if one of the two goes rapidly ahead, ever tweaking, with edits on the basis of RfCs that are still underway, that looks like gaming, even if it isn't. My own view is that some sections can't be tweaked back to health. They have to be rewritten, or rather drafted in toto on the talk page consensually before the article is altered in bits and pieces. This is technically necessary because any one tweak is not just to a phrase, or sentence, but affects the whole passage, and WP:Undue/due can only kick in when one looks at the section as a whole. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is arguably worse than that. The RFC-only set-up previously made it a race to always propose before me, or to quickly swamp what I propose. But now, if we accept the new proposal of one RFC at a time, and giving each a month or more, it effectively means no RFCs for me at all either. We know what happens when discussion dies down: Look at the edits after March 18. OTOH, I can't really see that the re-drafting of a whole section can ever continue past 2 drafts, unless the tweaks are very straightforward, so why wait a month? We already have unanimity that the 2 drafts are appreciated but not good enough, and the threaded discussions show this is due to multiple "big" issues that are not going to be resolved in a bulleted thread, with the current stances. I don't see what waiting a month will achieve. We know some of the dividing issues, (some simple equations are concerns), and it seems natural to me that we should shift discussion to one of those? Having said that I'd be happy to go with whatever everyone agrees on (within reason). Maybe I am wrong. I fear though, that if we wait one month, then all these discussions, which showed a LOT of shared opinions, will be for nothing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, when the Shakespeare Authorship Question was stuck in a tremendous POV bog for years, admins suggested each of us write our version of the said page: a big task given the number of sources and complexity of the topic. The now permabanned third party didn't offer anything, so I worked for some months on a draft, which the Tom Reedy then rewrote with his magisterial concision and superior knowledge of the topic. This was then tweaked by several strong editors consensually, and dropped at the FA page, where again we were asked to refine it.  It is now FA. Essentially though, it was for several months worked on in a sandbox by just two editors, in sequence, and then together, before the community vetted it, and agreed this result met the highest standards. Had we just continued to hav e RfCs on everything, with endless talk page longueurs, all well intended, it would still be just a slightly improved  version of the mess it was for several years.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an approach similar to what happened on Germanic Peoples, which Krakkos consistently refers to as the disaster precedent guiding the furious efforts being made here to block me from writing anything on this article or even on the talk page if possible. And indeed, I've spent many hours writing drafts for this article over the last year, but if you look at the history you'll notice that draft texts written by me do not get into this article. The best I've been able to hope for is guiding the work of others to some extent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Andrew Lancaster, do you think Ed Johnston would lift his sanction provisionally so that you and Krakkos could try editing in collaboration, with the provision that at the first sign of edit-warring the sanction be reimposed? You say it worked at other potentially contentious articles that weren't under this sanction. Sorry if you've already answered somewhere else—I can't keep track of all this. Carlstak (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Either can I :) I have recently proposed that to EdJohnston. I suppose the question is open, but Krakkos seems to be clear there will be no real cooperation with me. (It would be great to hear otherwise!) My understandings is that Krakkos wrongly thinks this is a good situation, where infringements of the consensus-first rule give no problems at all, and I am stupid enough not to do the same. I honestly think our different opinions on how great this is are partly due to differences in our range of Wikipedia experiences. But put simply, Krakkos is currently the uninterrupted effective main editor of this article, and has repeatedly made battle-cries about keeping me from changing this article, like other articles I've worked on. Example a few days ago: . IMHO opinion this special consensus-first regime creates all the worst possible incentives in this case. So I am in a position where I can only beg and whine, post sourcing concerns which no one can follow because they get swamped, and/or work on my own draft page again, like seems to suggest.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See this threatening message Andrew Lancaster sent me after EdJohnston imposed the restrictions, in which Andrew threatens my "exit from Wikipedia" and the "removal of all" my edits. Andrew removed my (and User:Obenritter's) edits at Germanic peoples through editing warring without regard for consensus, and he's trying to do the same thing at Goths. There is a clear consensus that the Germanic peoples article he wrote is in bad shape, but Andrew is doing nothing to address those concerns, and is instead trying to rewrite Goths. The fact that a consensus is required for that to happen makes things difficult. Ever since the restrictions were imposed he has sought to have them abolished. He has been flooding this talk page with comments and sought to obstruct attempts to improve this article, in what appears to be an attempt at making the restrictions more problematic than they need to be. SMcCandlish has described it as an attempt to "skirt the others from coming to consensus" and i think he may be right. By abolishing the editing restrictions we will be rewarding such problematic behavior and enable this article to be poorly rewritten regardless of consensus. I'm happy to work with Andrew Lancaster, and such work should be done on the basis of consensus building rather than edit warring. The framework established by EdJohnston is currently the best way to ensure that cooperation happens in a constructive and consensus-based manner. Krakkos (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than dwell on what happened in the heat of the moment back when, I'm just going to comment on the heat happening in moment. What I'm seeing is a lot of complaint and remonstrances from Andrew Lancaster (and some invitation to collaborate at a drafting page in his userpace), and some input from Nishidani that he may have some legit concerns, but I see this overwhelmed by hyperbole and accusations and grandstanding and so forth, and that is never going to produce compromise and collaboration.  (And by the same token, there's cognitive dissonance between Krokkos's "I'm happy to work with Andrew Lancaster" versus previous characterizations in the same paragraph, like "edit warring without regard for consensus", and so forth.  I don't think this bodes well.  Everyone needs to agree to a ceasefire. Drop past slights and grudges, assumptions of motives, predictions of disaster, etc. Focus on the content. Pretend you've never encountered each other before. Forget the "win by out-RfCing each other" game; all that's doing is pissing off everyone who isn't an original party to the dispute.  And be committed to this taking some time.  I invite you to look at the recent overhaul of MOS:GENDERID.  Just start skimming from the top of WT:MOSBIO and look at the amount of discussion (yes, sometimes heated argument), drafting, re-drafting, re-re-drafting, etc., required to get to the language that was put in place the other day – and realize that what you're seeing is only part two, with the earlier RfCs already archived. And all of that together is just the latest chapter in debates, from article talk pages to ANI to VPPOL to WT:MOS and back again, about this stuff, for a decade (especially heated for the last 5 years). It's a process.  Nishidani's correct that, for an article, it's apt to eventually come down to a couple of people willing to do the work, in good faith with each other and with the community, to produce something not to satisfy their own WP:WINNING urge, but to satisfy the WP:GAN and eventually WP:FAC processes. It does you no good at all to get "your version" and then have that never progress past B class, until you get bored and wander off and someone[s] else overhaul it completely and go GA and FA with it.  And of course remember that we're really here to all this for the readers, not for our own egos or for our ideologies.  I know it can be frustrating and even seem impossible.  I've had such a long and drawn-out conflict with another pair of editors that I very nearly quit Wikipedia over it. Today those squabbles seem petty and distant; I get along well with one of them, and the other we just stay out of each other's way. The sky did not fall. The articles did not turn out crappy. No one's blood pressure go so high they had a heart attack.  Anyway, I just wanted to say all this as a chill-out plea, rather than focus on getting my own personal content viewpoint jammed into here. :-) I've learned over time that the calmer the discussion and editing are, the more likely one's concerns are to be integrated. If a big fight is on, no one wants to accept anything or listen to anyone. [end preacher mode]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * are you really going to go back down to that level again? This is very disappointing. How can I convince you that these battles you keep fighting are not going to make you happy or give you the ownership you want over articles? You seem to be very confident that cherry picking words from fellow editors and distorting what they are saying, and then repeating it over and over, just like you do with sources, is a great trick that no-one else can follow. Fact is, other people actually choose not to. This type of deliberate attempt to get people angry at each other using misrepresentations is a big cause of problems we keep seeing here, displayed here in a nutshell. I'm not going to try replying in detail, but I'll just state that your post is deliberately misrepresenting many things in very serious ways, and this gives a very bad impression of you. The whole point of my old angry post you love to quote to admins (which only makes you look silly) is that on Germanic peoples, by taking extreme POV positions, and working so completely ridiculously against fellow editors, you win nothing and make your editing experience very difficult. If your obsession is to achieve POV wording and not a stable consensus, you can only score short-term Pyrhhic victories against individuals like me, and then someone else will come. There is no point blaming one single Wikipedian for the fact that you can not own articles. I honestly wish I could help you understand things better, but you seem completely closed to it. You are too dedicated to trying to find "tricky" ways to stop me being part of the group of editors working on this article, just like you tried on Germanic peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your emphasis on the scoring of "short-term Pyrhhic victories" says it all. No need to say more. Krakkos (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * everything you say sounds reasonable at least in a general way. But I'd like to move on to the question of what we can actually do in practice. :) The reality is that discussions between Krakkos and myself are so circular that even simple issues like Gutones and Goths are impossible to discuss. Some of these circles have been going since January 2020. It is always all or nothing, and scholars are continually cherry-picked and twisted to keep the argument going in a circle. Either we accept they are identical or else we're supposedly disagreeing with scholars. I think as long as any of us do something like this over and over, there is no nice solution. Don't we otherwise have to consider new RFCs about things like the Gutones and Goths? Not sure what North has in mind...
 * I've also mentioned above that I find it difficult to see how drafting is possible within an RFC format once we get past two drafts and everyone agrees more work is needed. (Which is where we have gotten to.) On the side, as you know, I've re-started work on drafting myself. I have no idea if that draft will contains elements others like yet, but if something seems of real interest (or perhaps particularly controversial) I suggest people can even start a new talk page section here. Do you see any problem with that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * seriously? Either you are misreading me deliberately or you seriously can't parse what I wrote. We keep seeing the same thing, with WP policies, with diffs of other editors or admins, and with sources. Slow down and get yourself out of attack mode please. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should both do that? Krakkos (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact I have no interest at all in attacking you. You attacked me Krakkos, and misrepresented me and other people in order to give a false impression. And unfortunately this is not just old history, but routine. On the Germanic peoples talk page you called for people to come battle me on this article a few days ago, and you took part in a ridiculous coordinated slander attack on EdJohnston's talk page a few days before that. This is all part and parcel of the battling style of discussion which blocks proper discussion of even the most obvious topics. To be frank, this is all one method for handling content disagreements. You are defending problematic materials using attacks. If you are seriously offering to stop all of that, then that would be wonderful, and I can assure you I would try to support you as much as possible. When I keep telling you that the current way of working will not lead to lasting articles, it is my honest good faith advice, and I really want you to have better success on these bigger more complex articles where you have had difficulty finding consensus with others. The other bit of advice I really think I need to repeat is that you need to read both the sources, and what people write on WP, MUCH more carefully. This has not changed much since the terrible discussions on Germanic peoples in 2019, which involved many editors. I fear you are sometimes rushing into extreme positions which end-up becoming embarassing and then, as a result, confrontational. One type of mistake I think has happened quite often is that you use google to find isolated words but don't read the context, occasionally even leading you to quote people for the opposite of their own opinion (Malcolm Todd was a example in early 2020, recently we have the case with Kasperski, or your attempt to use Goffart in recent days). You have to look at the context whenever you quote people, but especially if you are taking a strong position on something. Honestly, I wish you good luck.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding misrepresentation of sources and personal attacks, i recommend you to take a good look in the mirror. Kasperski and Goffart were cited for their assessments of the views of other scholars, which are not necessarily views they themselves agree with. That does not mean that they have been misrepresented. If i accurately cite a published source from Richard Dawkins (a believer in evolution) for the claim that many people don't believe in evolution, that does not mean that Dawkins has been misrepresented. Accusing others of misrepresenting sources is a serious charge, Andrew, a charge which should be substantiated. Could you substantiate the accusation that i have misrepresented Malcolm Todd? I wish you good luck. Krakkos (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

it has been pointed out by others (and me) that you really should stop posting links to irrelevant comments a year ago, especially if it is (apparently) just to fire things up or wikilawyer. Please understand that I completely agree that we can cite people for their descriptions of what the field thinks even when they disagree with it. (For example, we can quote Liebeschuetz for the fact that "post Wenskus" historians have become more sceptical of the Germanic peoples concept than the already sceptical Vienna position of Wenskus, which he personally finds reasonable, meaning that he also does not believe we need to assert there where simple mass migrations.) However, with Kasperski and Goffart you distorted them in quite clear ways. It was effectively OR. I am happy to try to explain this again, and willing to believe this is an error of understanding (but it has gone on for a very long time). I very much hope you can take this in good faith this time:
 * With Kasperski you used wording from an abstract which gives a completely different impression than the main text. This was discussed in recent days. Nishidani has been quite clear about why this is wrong.  And you responded (to him of course, not to me) with a new version.
 * Concerning Goffart you have taken one sentence and developed your own theory that he is saying Goths weren't called Germani only because the word went out of fashion. This is obviously both factually wrong (the Goths appear from the 3rd century and are contrasted to Germani) and not what he believes. This was discussed in recent days. and eventually Srnec has reverted the OR.
 * Concerning Malcolm Todd, over many posts in 2020 you cited a passage where he was reciting what other people think. You ignored the words such as "the case [of at least some of the new conservatives arguing against the post WW2 scepticism which has supposedly gone too far] does not carry conviction". You added his name to a list of people that you posted over and over in bold (see this talk page section) who you believed agreed with Liebeschuetz and should be treated as a field consensus, despite Liebeschuetz's own comments to the contrary. (This was the long campaign where you also repeatedly slandered the Monash professor Andrew Gillett as a non academic, not RS, probably because you only looked at an academia.edu description, again completely ignoring what Liebeschuetz actually said about him being an example of a whole new generation of scholars.) The lesson should be that you need to read more carefully, especially when making strong claims, and you have to avoid locking yourself into immovable positions to work on these bigger articles. Please believe me Krakkos, I do not like reminding you of these things. I am not trying to make you look silly, and I tried to avoid it then too. In fact, looking back on it, maybe I tried to be too gentle in the post where I quietly pointed out your mistake to you. It is in everyone's interests though that you review what really happened in cases like these, and try to avoid the problems which have repeatedly occurred.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The abstract of Kasperski says that "Most scholars argue that it Getica is a part of the Gothic tribal tradition", and he was cited for that statement. Even if Kasperski disagrees with most scholars, we can still cite him as a source on what most scholars think. Goffart says Goths were not considered Germani in late antiquity and was cited as such. This sentence citing Goffart was further improved by Srnec upon my request. Your "evidence" that i misrepresented Todd is very confusing, and should be presented more clearly. Here is an example on how to present evidence of source misrepresentation in a clear manner:
 * On 17 February 2020 at Goths, you reclassified the Goths as a "Germanic-speaking" rather than a "Germanic", despite the fact that all of the cited sources classified them as Germanic.
 * Your outright removal of relevant and reliable sources at article such as Goths, Gepids and Burgundians are also concerning. As i have said before, you should look yourself in the mirror and gather presentable evidence before leveling accusations against others. I'm fed up with constantly having to defend myself against unsubstantiated accusations from you. It is also my impression that the community is fed up with this wrangling. Let's just stop it. Krakkos (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  To remind you of what you accepted when Nishidani said it, we don't cite abstracts. The author's article says "some" not "most", and also describes a divided field. Goffart says, over and over, that Goths were NEVER called Germani, and we also have other sources which agree. Read more carefully, for goodness sake! I was about to propose that we collapse this discussion, but unfortunately your reply shows you are once again "doubling down", and "playing dumb", rather than admitting any mistakes, reading more carefully, or admitting any need to consider the concerns raised by me, or the sources I bring here (unless they are indirectly proposed by other editors like recently Srnec or Nishidani). Continually pretending that points made by other editors are not connected to points made by me, and studiously rejecting everything I say, even if you've agreed with them when presented by other editors, is just crazy. Continually refusing to understand basic points like the ones concerning Goffart and Kasperski is clearly extremely tendentious. Similarly, concerning Gepids and Burgundians, you know that your habit of using too many footnotes in leads is an old concern (sourcing should go in the body for undisputed things), and when it's been explained by editors, you've accepted such changes also.
 * Your post defines why these discussions go in circles, and is as good an example as any from the past. What are you thinking? I thought you said you were willing to work in a less confrontational, more consensus building way with me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly ready to work in a less confrontational way, but i cannot let unsubstantiated attacks remain unanswered. Krakkos (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is confrontational surely? There was no attack, you demanded evidence and insisted I was not telling the truth, or that you did not know what I was talking about, so I posted evidence. Are you now insisting the diffs I posted are not showing what I said? You don't even admit being wrong about Goffart and Kasperski (discussions relevant to the article right now)? Krakkos, the way to end a discussion like this with a display of you genuine good faith intentions would be to say "we all make mistakes", or "let's do better in the future" or something like that, not to double down, imply your colleague is a liar, or play dumb. Why do you do this all the time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As can be seen above, i made a suggestion that we both "slow down" and get ourselves "out of attack mode". You responded with an affirmative, but then proceeded to level additional unsubstantiated and false attacks against me. That is confrontational. Answering such attacks is not. We all make mistakes. Let's do better in the future. I'm through with this discussion. Krakkos (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the points you have now doubled down on are not just zombie debates. The issues with Goffart and Kasperki were very recent discussions where you had actually seemed to accept there were some things to fix. It is not looking good that you now announce that you've not accepted even these clear-cut cases. Does it mean you intend to reverse things later, when no one is looking, as you have recently done after March 18 on several issues? Krakkos, please tell us where you stand on these two points now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no misrepresentation of Goffart and Kasperski, as i have firmly shown in the comments above. Your accusations are unsubstantiated and untrue. My stand is that we should stop this pointless wrangling about the past and work towards creating a better future Wikipedia. By the way, in a recent edit you seem to suggest that Peter Heather has argued that the resemblence between the names Gutones and Goths is an "accidental resemblance". This is the opposite of what Heather says, and may be interpreted as a misrepresentation of the source. Krakkos (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What? No, that is not what the edit you have linked to reports that Heather said at all. It is unbelievable that in a discussion about misreadings you make, you keep making more, and insisting on them, and holding them in mind into the future, to the extent that you are apparently constantly in a state of readiness to pounce a year later and reinsert your old positions into articles. Honestly you seem to have serious problems analysing complex statements, and incredible difficulty handling advice from fellow editors (or at least me). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC) To be clear: should our current footnote 20 be removed, and should we add "Scholars have pointed out that" to footnote 19?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kasperski's own peer-reviewed text says "Some" not "Most". Can you please confirm that you see the difference and understand that it means this source was being used wrongly in the Classification section?
 * You are giving a meaning to the mention of late antiquity in that one cherry-picked quote from Goffart which Goffart did not intend. You know that as can be shown by numerous discussions you've posted over time about Goffart. Late antiquity is just the period under discussion on p. 112 (which you cite), because it is the period of barbarian invasions. There is no hint that he thinks the terminology changed, because he makes it clear throughout that book (and other works) that the Goths were NEVER called Germani. In fact, the sentence you've excerpted makes it clear that Goffart is describing what "scholars" have said. (He is pointing out that scholars of late antiquity, the barbarian migrations, know they are using the term German(ic) anachronistically - a very common theme in his writings which you know very well he is very commonly cited for, and always by people who agree with him on this.) We have to look at the contexts, always! Goffart's fn 7 on p. 113 tells us he believes the first Goths to be called German were the Visigoths in the 8th century.
 * Kasperski has never been cited in the classification section. Kasperski writes in his abstract that "Most scholars argue that it [Getica] is a part of the Gothic tribal tradition." Later in the article he writes that "some researchers claim that the source of his inspiration was an original Gothic tribal saga." Kasperski was not cited for what most scholars think was "the source of inspiration" of Jordanes', he was cited for the statement that most scholars think Getica is a partially derived from Gothic tradition. That is a correct citation. There was no misrepresentation. Krakkos (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So you decided to disagree with about citing abstracts? I thought you had agreed? Anyway, I honestly think (same as Nishidani) that it is not correct to cite an abstract, especially if we know it's wording differs from the article. The article is the peer-reviewed work, not the abstract. I can't remember a policy which actually says this, but I think it is basically something which would be a community consensus, and also standard practice in reputable publications. If you really think I'm wrong on this, then of course please explain why, but if not, can you accept my advice on this little thing, and chalk it up as a small agreement to move forward?
 * Anyway, I don't believe we would have strong enough evidence to claim anything about what most scholars think (which is a very strong claim) but on the other hand why should we spend so much time on it? We agree it is not universally accepted, but it is an important and common claim. And one archetypical (and very highly cited and respected) source for this, I feel, is Heather in his 1990s books, which was in a sense an updated version of some of the arguments from Wolfram and Wenskus. I actually tried to collect the "surviving" arguments which are still used today, with what I think may be the best sources, on my drafting page (lower down). It is only a draft, so please feel free to suggest changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sketches for an origins section
Based on the suggestion of, whose presence here is very helpful, I'll just start by trying to sketch some sentences I think would fit in a short origins section of the future: Have fun. I hope it helps. I've deliberately not added too many footnotes, which is what I have been leaving to my drafting page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Although many scholars [Goffart, Kulikowski] are sceptical about the possibilities of reconstructing the origins of the Goths before they begin to be mentioned in Roman sources in the third century, many others agree that evidence such as the language, name and culture of the Goths links them to the first century Gutones, mentioned by Roman writers as living on the lower Vistula river, now in Poland.
 * Historian Peter Heather points out that the name similarity is harder to dismiss as an accidental resemblance, when it is considered that the names of at least two other 1st-century Germanic peoples from the Polish region, the Vandals and the Rugii, are also found transferred south of the Carpathians by the 3rd century.
 * Archaeological evidence also provides evidence of links. The Goths represent a significant, and possibly dominant, part of the Černjachov / Sîntana de Mureș group of material cultures stretching from Kharkov to modern Romania [Curta's correction of Halsall's description], while the Vistula Gutones are understood to be one of the groups within the contemporary but older Wielbark material culture around the lower Vistula, and these two material cultures show signs of interconnectedness.
 * The Getica, written by Jordanes in the 6th century, claimed that the entire population of the Goths migrated from the Vistula to the Black Sea region in the very distant past. While this has traditionally been very influential upon historians, especially before World War II, this migration story is no longer considered reliable by commentators of this text.[Heather, Christensen, Goffart, use Halsall quote from Kazanski review?]
 * On the other hand, many scholars still believe the migration stories reflected real events somehow. Since World War II, and the work of Richard Wenskus, scholars have increasingly proposed that instead of a simple migration, there was movement of small groups and cultural influences, possibly spaced out along the important Amber trade routes.[select from: Wolfram, Heather, Pohl, Halsall, Kaliff, Steinacher etc]
 * It is proposed by scholars who accept Wenskus's model that the name Goths and Gutones must have had a particular "prestige", leading to its transfer to new amalgamations of peoples in the Black Sea region, dominated by the carriers of the tradition connected to this name (Traditionskern).
 * Looking further back in time, evidence is less certain, and there is more debate among scholars. Jordanes described a migration about 1500 BCE which went from Scandza, which is understood to have been Scandinavia, to the Vistula. This now strongly-doubted migration story, like the other, has been a major influence upon historiography.
 * Apart from the account of Jordanes however, while the Wielbark culture evolved from previous local cultures, archaeologists find evidence that the material cultures of Scandinavia and the Baltic islands are among those which influenced its formation.
 * Linguists and philologists have also proposed that another form of the Goth or Gutones name can be found in Scandinavia, in the form of the Gutoi, reported by Ptolemy in the 2nd century, who are also associated with the medieval Geats and/or Gutes.
 * Apart from the account of Jordanes however, while the Wielbark culture evolved from previous local cultures, archaeologists find evidence that the material cultures of Scandinavia and the Baltic islands are among those which influenced its formation.
 * Linguists and philologists have also proposed that another form of the Goth or Gutones name can be found in Scandinavia, in the form of the Gutoi, reported by Ptolemy in the 2nd century, who are also associated with the medieval Geats and/or Gutes.
 * I'll keep playing with this for a while until replies build up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Note that a proposal for the section on Gothic origins and early history is currently being discussed at Talk:Goths. Krakkos (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, and we also have drafting pages which I think everyone interested know they can refer to. It is a bit complicated, but hopefully not too complicated. For now, I see the above as a supporting text, which editors (including you of course) can compare to other ideas, and use if they want. I think Nishidani is also thinking that it can help general drafting discussion. Maybe Nishdani and others can pick and choose good and bad bits and synthesize a better version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS, just to remind, I think the "early history" of the Goths starts in the 3rd century. We are not denying arguments for "earlier" Goths, but there is a straightforward normal way to refer to Goths as Goths, and Gutones as Gutones. I believe the best name for this new section is clearly Origins.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Wikipedia articles should however be based on the thoughts expressed in reliable sources. Scholars normally assume that the Gutones are identical to Goths. Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, the foremost authorities on Gothic history, both begin their accounts on Gothic history in the 1st century. Heather does not distinguish between Gutones and Goths at all. We should of course mention that the Gutones-Goths equation is not universally accepted:
 * Most of our best scholarly works on Gothic history begin with the 1st century, and i think this article should follow such works, while also giving credit to minority viewpoints. Material from possible earlier periods could be placed in an origins section. Krakkos (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for registering this concern again. It is clearly one that needs to be considered. Given the aim of getting feedback, I hope other editors will get a chance to use this particular talk page section, and comment about that issue and any others. Trying to be brief: we can ignore the 3 compressed tertiary sources which have the same author as the first source, who has a strong position. I want to point to a gorilla in the room: both of these quotes use two different words in various places, Goths and Gutones, even while they talk about the possible connection between the two. Same happens in all our sources, including Heather and Wolfram who tend to treat the equation as a relatively straightforward one (which not all scholars like). This makes sense because scholars do not see the connection between the two groups as what our readers would ever understand as simply being the same people. Most notably, neither Heather nor Wolfram believe the Gutones are necessarily the biological ancestors of the Goths in any simple straightforward way, and if we imply that, we'll be misleading our readers, as well as using unusual terminology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of our best scholarly works on Gothic history begin with the 1st century, and i think this article should follow such works, while also giving credit to minority viewpoints. Material from possible earlier periods could be placed in an origins section. Krakkos (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for registering this concern again. It is clearly one that needs to be considered. Given the aim of getting feedback, I hope other editors will get a chance to use this particular talk page section, and comment about that issue and any others. Trying to be brief: we can ignore the 3 compressed tertiary sources which have the same author as the first source, who has a strong position. I want to point to a gorilla in the room: both of these quotes use two different words in various places, Goths and Gutones, even while they talk about the possible connection between the two. Same happens in all our sources, including Heather and Wolfram who tend to treat the equation as a relatively straightforward one (which not all scholars like). This makes sense because scholars do not see the connection between the two groups as what our readers would ever understand as simply being the same people. Most notably, neither Heather nor Wolfram believe the Gutones are necessarily the biological ancestors of the Goths in any simple straightforward way, and if we imply that, we'll be misleading our readers, as well as using unusual terminology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of our best scholarly works on Gothic history begin with the 1st century, and i think this article should follow such works, while also giving credit to minority viewpoints. Material from possible earlier periods could be placed in an origins section. Krakkos (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for registering this concern again. It is clearly one that needs to be considered. Given the aim of getting feedback, I hope other editors will get a chance to use this particular talk page section, and comment about that issue and any others. Trying to be brief: we can ignore the 3 compressed tertiary sources which have the same author as the first source, who has a strong position. I want to point to a gorilla in the room: both of these quotes use two different words in various places, Goths and Gutones, even while they talk about the possible connection between the two. Same happens in all our sources, including Heather and Wolfram who tend to treat the equation as a relatively straightforward one (which not all scholars like). This makes sense because scholars do not see the connection between the two groups as what our readers would ever understand as simply being the same people. Most notably, neither Heather nor Wolfram believe the Gutones are necessarily the biological ancestors of the Goths in any simple straightforward way, and if we imply that, we'll be misleading our readers, as well as using unusual terminology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for registering this concern again. It is clearly one that needs to be considered. Given the aim of getting feedback, I hope other editors will get a chance to use this particular talk page section, and comment about that issue and any others. Trying to be brief: we can ignore the 3 compressed tertiary sources which have the same author as the first source, who has a strong position. I want to point to a gorilla in the room: both of these quotes use two different words in various places, Goths and Gutones, even while they talk about the possible connection between the two. Same happens in all our sources, including Heather and Wolfram who tend to treat the equation as a relatively straightforward one (which not all scholars like). This makes sense because scholars do not see the connection between the two groups as what our readers would ever understand as simply being the same people. Most notably, neither Heather nor Wolfram believe the Gutones are necessarily the biological ancestors of the Goths in any simple straightforward way, and if we imply that, we'll be misleading our readers, as well as using unusual terminology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)