Talk:Goths/Archive 4

Gothic migration
This article could probably do with some critical notes inserted from books such as Christensen's 2002 study of the Getica, Kulikowksi's writings on Gothic origins from his Rome's Gothic Wars, and so forth. The Scandinavian-origins narrative is not nearly as uncontroversial as this article currently seems to suggest. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't been keeping up with my barbarian origin theories, but I was under the impression that a large number of scholars today reject the notion of migrating Germanic tribes entirely, following attacks by Walter Goffart, among others. In this reading Scandinavian orgins are given to the Goths by the Romans because its far away and makes them Barbaric and later peoples are given Scandinavian origins because it becomes a trope.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Truthfully it's probably one of the most contested issues at the moment. The most I will venture to say is that there is evidence from the Gothic language that the Gothic language community - whether that is identical with the Goths as a supposed ethnic group or not I will leave aside for now - moved around quite a bit in its prehistory. Certainly the Gothic language did not originate in the Balkan/northwestern Pontic area where the Goths first appear (leaving aside earlier uncertain references; cf. Christensen 2002) in the historical record during the third century and where the Gothic Bible translation was created. Where it did originate is problematic. The language shares both features unique to North Germanic and features only found in West-Germanic and Gothic. It features loanwords from Proto-Slavic, but also Celtic loanwords not found in any other Germanic language. Gothic prehistory is mysterious as hell. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this discussion above is some months old, but the same topic was being raised more widely and I have been modifying Germanic Peoples and going over the literature. To put it on record here, the Gothic case is not necessarily the same as some of the other ones. (Indeed one of the concerns of scholars is the lumping together of "Germanic peoples" as if they all did the same thing. Some points:
 * The place where Goths live in contemporary sources was roughly the Ukraine.
 * The idea that they came from the north is something we need to balance carefully: (1) In reality it comes from the much later work of Jordanes, who also mentions ancient Egypt and Amazons. (2) OTOH archaeological and linguistic evidence is consistent with the idea that they came from the direction of the Baltic sea. (3) They certainly might descend from the Gutones of the Vistula estuary, but I don't think this can be called proven. (4) That they moved to the from Sweden is I think something which comes only from Jordanes and word games. It should be attributed and not reported as a known fact.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section: verification issue

 * NOTE: the section is currently called "Name"

The current etymology section cites Wolfram 1990 p.21, where he does mention the theory Wikipedia is currently giving in its own voice. However, it mentions other options, and specifically says that to pick one as a winner would be arbitrary. A quick summary of Wolfram would be that we do not know for sure what the etymology is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is still a clear verification failure. There are clearly several etymology proposals, and WP should not be picking a winner.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * we now have several theories, all different, but all stated as facts in "Wikipedia voice". This is clearly a case where Wikipedia should be explaining that there is no conclusive consensus, only several proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Still a problem. Getting worse even. If there are several theories then we can not report them all and say they are all true. Obviously.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

2 simple logical problems: Suggestions: I think everything I've written can be sourced from your normal sources, but if not perhaps I can help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are avoiding mentioning that for example the Alans are also normally included in such lists, including the one of Wolfram which is being cited.
 * YOUR strong preference for OVER-emphasizing "linguistic" definitions of ethnicities does not work here. It is not just a problem of the Alans probably not being Germanic-speaking but also that we have basically no evidence for the smaller peoples you mention.
 * I think Peter Heather's approach is more appropriate in such cases, and I know you are familiar with the way in which he writes of "Germanic [speaking] dominated" peoples or groups of peoples.
 * Many of the sources, including the ones you allow, use the genuine classical term "Gothic peoples" (found in Latin in Ammianus Marcellinus, and Greek in Procopius for example). This can perhaps help distinguish when we write about this broader concept. (But you are correct to mention that the simple term "Goths" also applies to the broad group, and that should be mentioned at least in passing.)
 * Reply by Krakkos We are in a fortunate situation because Peter Heather has recently written reference works on the Goths. He classifies them as a Germanic people/tribe:
 * Wikipedia should classify the Goths and deal with them as a concept like the world's most foremost expert on the Goths does. Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is similar, of course to a whole series of "I am going to draw a red line and fight" posts you have written, effectively saying that we only need Heather's dictionary articles because they are the be all and end all, even if they say nothing at all about 21st century authors or anyone who ever disagreed with Heather. Well, please give up on that strategy. Let's get back to this etymology section "Name", and try to be practical. Here is the current section which will need to be worked on, because it almost unreadable, and will be read as containing conflicting and repetitive statements:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should classify the Goths and deal with them as a concept like the world's most foremost expert on the Goths does. Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is similar, of course to a whole series of "I am going to draw a red line and fight" posts you have written, effectively saying that we only need Heather's dictionary articles because they are the be all and end all, even if they say nothing at all about 21st century authors or anyone who ever disagreed with Heather. Well, please give up on that strategy. Let's get back to this etymology section "Name", and try to be practical. Here is the current section which will need to be worked on, because it almost unreadable, and will be read as containing conflicting and repetitive statements:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the Rübekeil source named above gives the smoothest linking up of the concepts which have been patched together in our present section. Also BTW this is in English. This is a real linguistic source such as the ones Wolfram and Heather defer to. p.603 (as cited above): https://books.google.be/books?id=PBKxhq2p0PgC
 * The etymological kinship between the name stems *Gutan- and *Gauta- is as much beyond doubt as is their relation to the Gmc verb *geuta- 'pour' (OWN góta, OHG giozan).
 * [...Jordanes...]
 * The linguistic data must therefore be interpreted with some caution. *Gutan- can not be derived from *Gauta-, *Gutan- is a primary (deverbal) agentive formation, probably meaning '(sperm-) pourer' = 'men'.

I think this should help structure this section better in future. I have not copied everything which might be useful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Goths = Gutones and similar assumptions

 * The lead jumps straight into making a simple equation between the Gutones in Tacitus, living on the Vistula, and the Goths in the Ukraine centuries later. This simple equation is not how our better sources explain it, and in fact this is uncertain.
 * The etymology section has apparently been written to back this up with mention of a Gutone-like form on an inscription. You only need to read the WP article to see that this inscription is also uncertain.
 * Missing the uncertainty also means missing some of the colour. Our better sources describe the Goths as a mixed people. We also seem to be missing the whole concept of "Gothic peoples" which existed (i.e. Goths plus similar peoples, some of whom probably did not speak Germanic languages).
 * Another result of simplification is that lead treats the Visi/Ostro distinction as something which already existed in the Ukraine or even Poland. Did it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this is a bit of a confused article, could benefit from a thorough and critical rewrite. Small note though regarding the second bullet point - it is important to note that the part of the Pietroassa inscription that is uncertain is not really the gutan- part, it's mainly the -iowi- part hailag, too, is fairly unambiguous). The link with gutthiuda is also not particularly problematic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But still, it seems at least one proposal disagrees? Do do this well we ideally need sources which not only give proposals (there might be hundreds) but which also help explain what the current consensus or majority opinion in. Not always possible, but if you know of any...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Peter Heather says about one issue in this article (Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 199):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * the immigrants had come across the Danube in two separate groups: Tervingi and Greuthungi. This distinction disappeared, in my view, by 395, in another by 408. But the date is a matter of detail. North of the Danube, the Greuthungi and Tervingi had been entirely separate political entities. Within a generation of crossing the Danube, the distinction disappeared.

Another example of the pattern of misleading/hidden content in this article is the way in which the Hlöðskviða is treated as straightforward history in this article, and fitted together with Ammianus Marcellinus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this, but to be clear, one concern here is that I would understand it the events in the saga can not simply be dated and connected to a single real conflict? That is what the inclusion of this material in the section where it now is, would seem to imply though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it. But it will take some time. Krakkos (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning origins myths, they should of course be mentioned. But apart from Jordanes and his Gutones story there were also other parts of Jordanes. And there were also Procopius and Isidor of Seville, who had things to say about the origins of the Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning origins narratives, Christensen, cited below, has a very detailed analysis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Our foremost sources on the Goths, Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, consider the Gutones ancestral to the Goths. In his 2018 entry on the Goths in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Heather classifies the Goths as a "Germanic tribe". Divisions among the Goths are first attested in the 3rd century AD, and this article reflects this. The article doesn't discusses divisions into Visigoths and Ostrogoths until after the Hunnic invasion in the late 4th century, which is in accordance with reliable sources such as Heather. Krakkos (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that dictionary is not a "foremost source", and what are you talking about? It would be ridiculous to base this article on that source only, and the community won't allow that way of working. Please be more reasonable and practical. There are several significant content-based content concerns listed above. Please address them in a practical, constructive and policy-based way rather than trying to trump them with some artificial concept of a "foremost source" that no other editor has recognized.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To help you understand how RS discussions work, for example on RSN. Can you name any respectable source in this field which cites The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity as an authority? Does Heather himself ever do it? Wolfram? Pohl? Goffart? Liebeschuetz? Halsall? You have to be able to show a practical and effective reputation. Goffart is on the other hand cited respectfully by everyone. If you want an example of an encyclopedic source in this field which is treated with respect, there is of course the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, which cites all of the above types of chaps, and also, BTW, Christensen, and Rübekeil. That is how we work on Wikipedia when we write articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * your editing today has gone even further in the direction of basing all sourcing on one preferred author. You have written quite a lot about how you know that there are quite a lot of scholars who disagree with that author. Obviously the article's content is controversial while it stays like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * and today also, despite everything, the article becomes more and more just based short dictionary articles by Peter Heather - one author who has not yet written about a lot of widely cited works in the 21st century on this topic, and whose specialist works on this topic, at least that we've found so far, were in the 1980s and 1990s. Instead, the article needs broader sourcing, reflecting the whole field. Your edits are deliberately going in this direction, as shown by you various comments about Goffart etc, so the word "censorship" really does come to mind in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Goths and Gutones again
The new second sentence still states as a simple fact, in effect, that the Goths were the Gutones, with no mention of controversy:
 * They are first documented by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living along the lower Vistula

This is obviously referring to the Goths=Gutones theory. (There is a citation to Heather, but with no page number, and also the sentence has two parts. In any case I think Heather and Wolfram are indeed authors who accept this theory to some extent, even if they also might not agree with the wording we have.) Most write-ups of this theory are more cautious than Heather and Wolfram, but both of them are arguably also more cautious than our sentence. Examples of stronger criticism of this theory, which are certainly not rare or limited to any small group of scholars: I think the wording should therefore be modified.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rübekeil also gives a different etymology than WP.
 * Long and positive review by Ian Wood which goes into many details: http://www.dendanskehistoriskeforening.dk//pdf_histtid/103_2/465.pdf
 * Long and positive review by Ian Wood which goes into many details: http://www.dendanskehistoriskeforening.dk//pdf_histtid/103_2/465.pdf
 * Long and positive review by Ian Wood which goes into many details: http://www.dendanskehistoriskeforening.dk//pdf_histtid/103_2/465.pdf
 * I have modified the lead. However, Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram are certainly more reliable sources on the Goths than Rübekeil and Christensen. In his 2018 article on the Goths for The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Heather mentions no doubts about the equation between the Goths and Gutones.
 * I don't see how you can say Heather and Wolfram somehow trump Rübekeil and Christensen on this particular topic? Both Heather and Wolfram on this topic defer to the field, and talk about what "philologists" etc, think. Rübekeil and Christensen are people who get cited for specialist works on it (and there are not many) so the type of people the other two are deferring to.
 * Anyway, even if they were "better", it would make no difference: WP sourcing is not "winner take all" and we must NOT pick winners, when we know there is significant controversy.
 * Concerning the Oxford book, as mentioned many times tertiary works are generally not the best sources for resolving how to write up a subject where there is a controversy - especially, of course, when they are the type which does not mention controversies, because, to say it again, on WP we MUST report controversies. (In contrast, some of the German resources on topics like this give very detailed literature reviews concerning all the latest debates.)
 * In summary, the WP norms on this type of issue are really indisputable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This issue is a question of WP:DUE. As Jimbo Wales has phrased it, due weight is best determined through references from "commonly accepted reference texts". The highest-quality reference text on the Goths is Peter Heather's article on them in the 2018 edition of the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. No high-quality reference texts mention any doubts about the connection between the Gutones and Goths, and such doubts should therefore not be given much weight in the lead. Krakkos (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No you are apparently misunderstanding the normal policy interpretations and community consensus, either WP:DUE or WP:RS. Secondly, you have not at all shown that Heather's Dictionary article is the "commonly accepted reference work" or the "highest quality". The articles by Rübekeil and Christensen are widely cited by various expert writers as specialists on this specific topic, at the very highest level of writing. Experts in this field OTOH do NOT generally cite Oxford, Cambridge or Britannica reference articles. And consider WP:TERTIARY. Heather and Wolfram are bigger in sales and have a high status overall, but in the sections you are citing they defer to the specialists. We can get community feedback from WP:RSN if necessary but honestly there is no doubt about this IMHO.
 * OTOH, thirdly the most important general point to please understand is that the threshold for saying that a whole group of strong sources are worse enough than some others to not be mentioned at all is also much higher than just saying that the source is a bit less strong in terms of book sales or University positions or whatever. Rübekeil and Christensen are certainly not WP:FRINGE, which is what you seem to be arguing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, I only gave two sources just to save time. I honestly did not think anyone would argue like this, given that WP is really even being written much more strongly than Wolfram or Heather to begin with. For one of the sources I even gave a review article, to confirm its status, but I also could have given more examples of reviews and comments especially about the Christensen article, and I could have given more sources which agree with a similar position. How far do we need to take this discussion? Consider also WP:WPVOICE. You are not proposing a mere "balancing question" but the total censorship of a very highly discussed and respected position (similar to your arguments about Goffart). Honestly, you will not be able to make any stable articles if you continually try insisting on something so extreme. It is very far from the norms of this community. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating any "total censorship", but minority positions should not be given undue weight, particularly not in the lead. The theory that the Gutones and the Wielbark culture are unconnected to the Goths is contradicted by our best sources on the subject (Heather, Wolfram), and isn't mentioned at all in any of our best reference works (Heather, Pritsak, Thompson). These sources flatly equate the Gutones/Wielbark culture with the Goths, and thus take a stronger position than this article does. We are not "experts in the field", but volunteers writing an encyclopedia, and must therefore take due weight into account, which as Jimbo has said, is best determined through examining "commonly accepted reference texts." Krakkos (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, you are really advocating that due weight means "all or nothing" and really that would be censorship (zero mention) of the less popular opinion, no matter who cites it. That is really, really not going to work on WP if you keep trying this, and mentioning Jimbo is ridiculous to be honest. No normal editor on Wikipedia will agree with this approach, and neither will Jimbo. Get over it. Please make sure you mention the respectable minority positions whenever you write any article. If not, then it will just be a very long and hard process which will never work out well.
 * But secondly, what would be a policy-based argument that your preferred sources are better than the ones which disagree? None. You have given no such policy-based argument. You have none. If it were really all or nothing, many of your favourite theories would be up for deletion. You seem to just see WP as a WP:BATTLE where you have to push out other opinions and get yours to dominate. Why do you say Heather is number one, and Goffart, for example, can be ignored? Such a position makes not policy sense at all. If you have a rational argument, explain it. Goffart is surely in the running for being the most prominent writer in this whole subject area, and your way of writing about him has nothing to do with that of your favorites Heather or Wolfram or Liebeschuetz, who are clearly all heavily influenced by him. Nor have we even gone into the subject of what the German sources say, and your sources all cite the German sources.
 * Thirdly on a point of detail, the question we are discussing is not about the relevance of Wielbark and archaeology. I don't see much dissent about the archaeological evidence, but more about whether we can specifically say that Goths=Guthones. Wielbark is not the name of a people. It is an archaeological material culture. The way you equate languages and material cultures and peoples is definitely something no serious author in the 21st century is doing any more.
 * ...Let me know if you insist on any of these points and then we can try to word a question together for one of the community discussion groups. If you were right though, we would then have to start deleting a lot of things you are writing into the articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to use more sources and reflect what the field says. You can't just cite one source all the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This article cites plenty of diverse sources, with weight given to the WP:BESTSOURCES. Check the reflist.
 * If Walter Goffart is the preeminent scholar on the Goths, it seems strange that none of our best reference works mention his theories or list him as a source.
 * That the Wielbark culture is to be equated with the Goths and related Germanic groups is the consensus of opinion in scholarship:
 * I have no interest in any WP:BATTLE. We recently had a bitter edit war at Germanic peoples, and as soon as i backed down you completely rewrote the article. That article still has serious issues with original research, lack of sourcing and neutrality as a result of your editing. Instead of fixing the serious issues of that article, you have instead followed me to this one, an article which you have never edited before, and which is in the midst of a GA review. It seems clear that you're the one who has a WP:GRUDGE. Krakkos (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing answer avoidance. Again, you can't just name your favorite dictionary article as a "reference work". Has anyone ever cited it? Does any other Wikipedian even see it as an authority? Rule of thumb based on WP:RS which can help avoid battles and create table articles....


 * Publications which are never cited by anyone (outside WP) are not normally reference works or authorities.
 * Publications which are commonly cited by experts, are not the types of articles you should ever be censoring. Make sure you mention their positions in a fair and balanced way, and certainly do not ever delete all mention of them.
 * Also: I am watching a lot of articles connected to Germanic peoples now. Logical. Of course your own posts have constantly pointed out to me that there are other WP articles that you work on, which all have similarities. Some are split off from Germanic peoples. I think it is logical that groups of articles should be coordinated and not have completely different approaches. OTOH If you can explain any problems about my work on Germanic peoples, in terms of real policy, sourcing, logic, grammar, spelling, etc, that other people can understand, do so, on that talk page. Constructive feedback would be great. Last I heard your position was that what you think of as Goffart's opinions should not be mentioned there. In general your approach there was not constructive but a WP:BATTLE.-Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and your Heather quote does not mention Gutones. Remember to read what you are replying to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather doesn't mention the Gutones, because he obviously equates them with the Goths. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is certainly a reliable source. I'm not advocating any "censorship", but we must take WP:DUE into account when writing articles. What exactly are the changes you are proposing? Krakkos (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that this Oxford Dict is not reliable for anything, but it is a very big and serious call to be saying that a very commonly held scholarly position (doubt about Goths = Gutones) should be not mentioned at all (so yes, censored). And this source you keep mentioning is not only un-cited by anyone, it does not even discuss the question.
 * ...So it clearly can not justify a censorship of other positions. So evidently these doubts need to be discussed in our article. By the way, not many specialist authors have addressed the Gutones equation in any detail since 2002. I think Christensen is the last book really focused on this, unless you count Goffart. Goffart describes it as the latest work on the topic (Barbarian Tides p.265 ). Christensen has been cited and reviewed quite a few times, and I have not yet found any which brought counter arguments on this specific issue - not by Heather or Wolfram either?
 * And to repeat, these doubts do not necessarily deny a connection to the Wielbark culture, but only the very over-exact story based on Jordanes's version, which even Wolfram admits to be chronologically impossible (which is why he says there must have been several related tribes with similar names, and that the movements of peoples were small elite groups). As I have mentioned a few times, your combative way of pushing your preferred sources actually makes you write things up very differently (more extreme, less cautious, over-simplified) than the scholars you agree with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

One more source I own, and have been reading, which was published after Christensen, cites him, and does discuss the question here: On page 48, roughly summarizing, he says that historians now dare to ask how and in which way the Gutones, starting in the 3rd century, might have been related to the so called Gothic peoples. Names and groups who used them should not be treated as the same without critical examination. The continuities and connections between the Wielbark culture and the Goths of the 4th century accepted, the relationships were more complex. The only thing sure is that the Goten/Gutonen/Gauten, as with the Rugii name, carried prestige and was prominent. Archaeology is basically in agreement that in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, culture and funeral norms from the Vistula area were similar to those from the northern edge of the pontic Steppe zone. What is debated is whether the reason for these parallels is the mobility of small bands, or large migration movements (as used to be generally accepted), or simply a culture transfer. For the traditional account, Jordanes plays a role. Archaeology can help? He then discusses the archaeological evidence, and concludes that the Goths show a lot of older local traditions along with influence of BOTH Wielbark and Przeworsk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW I am wondering if our article is not downplaying Przeworsk (possibly Vandals) too much as a possible vector of cultural transmission.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also surprised we are using this source, and in fact using it quite a bit for quite unusual wording compared to what the real doubts of scholars are (like Goffart and Christensen):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


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

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

Supposed evidence from the Sagas
It seems concerning that WP is not only stating as a simple fact that the Goths appear in Norse Gutasaga, which is not clear at all, but that this is being given as the FIRST bit of evidence concerning the origins of the Goths, before Graeco-Roman literature and archaeology?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the Gutasaga to the origins of the Goths is mentioned by Herwig Wolfram. I have moved the section in question down below those on archaeological, literary and genetic evidence. Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say "possible relevance" but indeed I am not suggesting removing all mention, just re-sequencing it. I realize you are working on these sections bit by bit anyway, and I am making notes here on that basis. (I have edited one sub-section about classical authors you did not get to yet and added more sources to it, etc. Hopefully that will help integrate it into whatever structure you come up with. Actually I am not sure if the classical authors should be before or after Jordanes and the other origo writers. Readers need to consider them together in a sense?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding additional primary sources from Strabo, Tacitus and Ptolemy. I think the separation of Jordanes from the sections including earlier classical writers is fine. Jordanes deals with information on Gothic origins, while the classical writers write on contemporary affairs. Krakkos (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but discussions about whether to believe anything in Jordanes revolve around those old authors, and discussions about whether the old authors say anything clearly relevant to the later Goths revolve around Jordanes. I am not saying the two sections need to be mixed though, only that the two sections should be written with an eye to the other. Probably they should be next to each other?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I think our readers are having this point censored from them. Your use of your favourite citations, as has been pointed out to you many times, distorts and caricatures them, and is clearly intended to give our readers a completely different impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos The sentence you're quoting cites page 23. Why are you falsely insinuating that it's page 37? Is this deliberate? Here is what page 23 "really writes":
 * Krakkos (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, and THAT page shows that the Gutasaga is not the proof but a possible relevant side remark, as I explained above. My reason for ALSO citing page 37 is that it is from the same book and helps confirm how this writer really thinks, which is direct conflict with how you are reporting his opinions and using him as a source. Please remove this sentence which implies that the Gutasaga is part of a chain of reasoning leading to a conclusion. It is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, and THAT page shows that the Gutasaga is not the proof but a possible relevant side remark, as I explained above. My reason for ALSO citing page 37 is that it is from the same book and helps confirm how this writer really thinks, which is direct conflict with how you are reporting his opinions and using him as a source. Please remove this sentence which implies that the Gutasaga is part of a chain of reasoning leading to a conclusion. It is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

why all the wrong publication dates and even edit warring about it?
please explain why you keep switching publication dates of your favoured sources to newer dates, even after I correct them? . I think my edsum explains the problem, but you mixed your revert in with other edits and did not mention it. Is this by error? But you keep making similar errors? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I have not reverted your 2009->2012a revert, so if this is an error, perhaps you will fix it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The version of Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather which is cited in this article is the 2012 reprint by Oxford University Press. There is nothing wrong with the publication dates. Krakkos (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A reprint date is not a publication date, and everyone calls this a 2009 book, including the publisher and other authors citing this work. The online versions are also showing 2009, despite you writing a misleading edsum. (Was there even a 2012 reprint?) Please fix it, and please do NOT use reprint dates. There is not good faith way to interpret your insistence on this silliness. Perhaps the biggest on-going debate on this and other articles concerning your editing is that you systematically favour older authors, older theories and older books. Every one of these errors is one where you make one of your favourites look more recent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2012 version is at 734 pages, while the 2010 version is at 752 to pages. They aren't identical. Wikipedia should use the most recent version, which is the 2012 version. Krakkos (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The version you are calling 2012 says 2009. Look at the title page. You are getting your information from the google front page which is always full of mistakes. My 2009 version, on my desk has 734 pages, like the so-called 2012 edition according to you. If there was an expanded version the number of pages would not go down, but then again the so called 2010 version on google can not be read, so is clearly not our source. And no we should NOT pick the newest edition, we should give the one we use. And of course also a new printing would not be a new edition anyway. Why are you arguing things like this all the time???? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * will you revert your revert?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should get this one looked at by the greater community now unless you have any new position or information to report. To summarize before acting, please check the following: Correct? (I will wait a bit, and then assume this is correct if there is no response.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The publisher website says 2009, all copies on google books with a visible title page say 2009, all copies known to us users (such as my copy) are also published in 2009.
 * The version which the google summary gives as "2012" says 2009 on its title page.
 * The 2009 version has the same number of pages which you say the "2012" version has.
 * 2010 is mentioned on one google copy which is however not open-able.
 * I contend that google summaries are often hastily created and contain errors.

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

Undue genetic conclusions?
We currently have, in the opening discussion of "Origins and early history", this simple a decisive conclusion in Wikipedia voice:
 * Recent genetic studies has lent support to the Scandianvian theory.ref name="Stolarek_2019"/

There are actually two related articles in the bibliography: We always should be careful with individual reports of raw genetic data from small studies, but I note in this case the studies are particularly inconclusive in reality, because they are based on mitochondrial testing. The most solid conclusion seems to be that there was migration, but beyond that these are not very strong. Yet we are using these studies for a VERY DIFFICULT and exact conclusion: distinguishing between Scandinavian and other Germanic places of origins, such as the nearby Jastorf culture. I think this is not justified.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These are recent studies, conducted by a team of qualified scholars, and published by Nature Research. The abstract of the study states that "the collected results seem to be consistent with the historical narrative that assumed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia". It's not undue to mention that in this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeming consistent with something is what even a completely indecisive trial or experiment is. But the wording we have is "lends support". The problem is obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this undue sentence should be removed from where it is now in the opening sections of the article. As you know, a typical solution on how to handle genetic claims, which is a controversial matter on WP, is to have a section near the end of the article which gives a short dry summary of findings so far. In this particular article even that would arguably be undue, but what we currently have is unusually questionable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

describe where the Goths lived
, seriously? Please give a simple explanation about where you think they lived. I think the place description added matches the rest of the article, which is how leads should work. But what geographical places would you say the Goths lived in? If I add 3 sources to the sentence to get past this, what have you achieved? Making the article ugly? What is your point???--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have three top-quality sources on the Goths from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, written by Peter Heather and Omeljan Pritsak. There is no need to add additional sources to the lead. The lead should not mention theories not mentioned in any reference works on the Goths. The lead is long enough as it already is. Krakkos (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So your tagging was dishonest and you now explain it a different way. Nothing new there, and of course this explanation is still not honest but as usual just veering off into the surreal. I will remove your dishonest tag.
 * Concerning the length of the lead etc please feel free of course to explain here honestly what you are talking about, but to me it is obvious that the opening of the article needs to connect a topic to reality for the reader. My edsum when adding these two simple sentences was: important to open with something which connects to well-known things, and distinguishes from other similar topics - where they lived in modern terms is a common method . Logical? Not? In other words the opening needs a bare minimum of something like this. If you did not agree, you should have explained honestly and given your reasoning instead of being dishonest. If length is a real concern, which I doubt, there is a lot of less important stuff in the lead. I predict you will however not engage in constructive discussion, as usual. After seeing the way you do this over and over, I don't even think lead length is a concern to you.
 * Concerning the RS status of the two tertiary sources you name, please name any expert source that cites them as a trusted authority. I believe it is evident that they are NOT "top quality" sources, but I also don't see how this connects to your dishonest cn tag. What is the connection? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

this sentence is still in the lead, but unsourced. I am not sure if it needs a source according to you? (Above you make it seem otherwise.) Of course you have created a Catch 22 demand but it is one you can perhaps resolve for us?
 * You are currently demanding that the only sources you can accept here are ones behind a paywall only you can read.
 * None of us know apart from you how those sources describe the Gothic homeland, and whether their remarks cover these fairly simple and common geographical descriptions.
 * Alternatively, of course it should not be hard to find another source, but until we get your special demands about the paywall dictionaries resolved...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Poor sources for potential deletion
I will start a list. If anyone sees a good reason to keep any of these, please explain it. For now I will not list all the basic-summary style tertiary sources yet, as some of these would be ok for non-controversial use, but clearly they also require discussion as they are being used in the wrong way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Concerning the tertiary sources, there were already discussions at Germanic peoples including this one - at least for the Britannica ones, demonstrating that most are old, and all written with no discussion of controversies etc, making them unsuitable for use on WP for any topic where there are several respected view points. There are now many Oxford tertiary work articles being cited. has Wikipedia library access to Oxford publications, so the question is whether more of us should also apply for that access so we can work. But Krakkos can perhaps confirm some points first: In other words, at first sight these tertiary works just aren't suitable for Wikipedia use on any topic which potentially requires the handling of different viewpoints. Or else something strange is happening. I am asking for any explanation that might show otherwise, so we can move forward on a more rational basis. Is there something I misunderstand about these articles in "dictionaries"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From the citations being made, it appears that these Oxford articles do not mention controversies or alternative positions, or present the results of latest research. They just summarize the position of whoever writes them. Correct?
 * If this is not correct, then the question arises as to why they are constantly being used on this article to imply that there is only one mainstream opinion.
 * As already raised, it also seems that experts in the field never cite these articles as trusted authorities, but instead cite monograph works that have the explanations of debatable points etc.
 * The author at Ancient History Encyclopedia, Joshua J. Mark, is a former Professor of Philosophy and lecturer on history at Marist College. I disagree that he's a "poor source". His article on the Goths gives a neutral and up-to-date analysis of the various theories of Peter Heather, Walter Goffart, Herwig Wolfram etc. It is a useful source. Krakkos (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is it adding to the other sources? Mark is clearly not a big name and we clearly have no shortage of better publications. Please explain. Are you saying it is because he reviews what other authors write? But we have other sources like this also (just not by Heather)? Why would we for example use him above Pohl, Christensen, and the RGA articles? Also you have not addressed the more general issue with this insistent use of short tertiary source articles in general which is perhaps also connected to the need to use Mark. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * RGA and Pohl are German-language sources. I have never said that we should use Mark "above" Christensen. When evaluating due weight however, i believe a 2018 work by Peter Heather in the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is more suitable than a 2002 work by Arne Søby Christensen from Museum Tusculanum Press. Krakkos (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But you don't cite Heather for this?? Only Mark? And your explanation of why some scholars disagree is vague, unclear, too short, and I think inaccurate. The main concern is that the proposals are not proven, not that they are proven wrong. On the other hand there is also a complication of chronology you do not want to mention at all: Jordanes says the Goths left Scandinavia 2000 years earlier and were in Ukraine long before Tacitus. Wolfram etc all admit this to be an issue, and that means that while there probably WAS migration from Poland (based on archaeology and language, not Jordanes) the Gothic name may not have traveled in any strong connection to any large people. The Germanic peoples who eventually appear in records could have come from any number of Przeworsk or Wielbark or even other Germanic cultures. The best sources say this aspect is not clear. See Wolfram and Andersson and Steinacher.
 * On Wikipedia we look for sources with a reputation for reliability. A normal indicator is whether experts in a field commonly cite it. This is how I came to propose Christensen as an important source: he is widely cited (though relatively young). Short summaries in Oxford dictionaries are NOT good sources for WP because their reputation is less and also their mission is generally opposed to ours, because they do NOT report the latest differences of position but rather give the keys to famous academics, generally English.
 * We are of course writing about a field where everyone including Heather cites German-language sources very often. This does not mean Heather is a bad source. But his main specialist works on the Goths were in the 1980s and 1990s. It seems to me to be very convenient to have a problem with German language sources when your one-and-only hero source is from an older generation, and English language works being written in this century in a way which does not ignore newer work includes people you are trying to censor out of Wikipedia like Goffart. But also Pohl has published in English, if that is your real concern. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For editors who aren't used to you, in the small range of edit types you do, one is that you make articles for the sources you want to push, and not for the ones you don't like. Then you post links or red-links on talk pages when dispute arises, and try to imply that widely cited scholars are "no-ones". A good example was your disparagement of Andrew Gillett on Germanic peoples as a "self-styled independent scholar though he is widely cited in a respectful way by experts, and clearly Associate professor at Monash University with an impressive international record in other institutions, conferences, editing collections of papers etc. It was another example where you misrepresented the field, got caught, and then kept doing it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you removed Jarus as suggested, but Mark is playing an ever increasing role in the article despite the clear lack of consensus about his suitability. Let's now make sure your position is clear and then call for opinions from the community. Can you just confirm that is more or less correct? Once we have the position defined we can move ahead. If I receive no answer I will assume the above is OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) UPDATE. An RSN discussion has been started about removing these sources, which are currently only used to support Heather and ridicule Christensen and Goffart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Part_2--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One obvious concern I have mentioned in detailed discussions with you about specific section is that he is being used to say crudely positive things about Heather and negative things about Goffart.
 * Otherwise he seems to add nothing at all to what more authoritative sources can easily be used for?
 * Perhaps a side issue, but I note from other discussions that you have taken an arguably extreme position about the importance of sources being accessible for readers, and thus not in German. Surely it therefore seems odd that your recent editing has moved all sourcing towards the almost exclusive use of materials behind a paywall which you can access because of Wikipedia Library? I don't think the general public has such access. I do think a lot of people can read German.

A paywall online educational website: A book review of Christensen: Another book review of Christensen: