Talk:Goths/Archive 5

A comment on the edit war
The lead as of this edit [] (20:26, 26 February 2020‎ Andrew Lancaster) is good, with one exception: the controversy over the Scandinavian origin is relegated entirely to suspicions cast on the reliability of Jordanes. The casual reader will assume that no other, more modern evidence bears on this. The other obvious comment to make is that beyond the lead the article fragments badly into warring references (a natural result of the warring). The main competing scenarios should be clearly stated, with the evidence for and against each added under each one. -- Elphion (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above-mentioned is issues with the lead are a result of a misrepresentation of the source which is used.
 * The relevant paragraph on Jordanes in the lead says this:
 * What the source used for the above-mentioned text says is this:
 * Reply by Krakkos There are additional issues with WP:OR in the lead, which should be fixed. Krakkos (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * your reply just raises the question once again of why you insist on using that specific tertiary source and no other sources, except for ones by the same author or people who agree with him. Of course this can never lead to a good stable article. Why do you keep ignoring this concern that I have raised over and over? See the various discussions above. Of course if you keep insisting on such sources then you can say that my edits do not match the "best sources". On my side I have explained other sources above, and tried to give you a chance to edit appropriately. You need to write in a way which reflects the field more broadly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, see the Steinacher and Andersson citations above which are far stronger sources and should be helpful. These are recently published specialist works, that get cited by other specialists, and which explain the diversity of the other literature. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Partially relevant German-language sources by Roland Steinacher and Thorsten Andersson are not "far stronger sources" than directly relevant English language sources by the world's foremost expert on the subject (Peter Heather). Krakkos (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain why they are "partially" relevant and why language is an issue? They are certainly more up-to-date, more widely-cited, more focused particularly upon the topic, more able to cover competing opinions and debates and explain where the field is. These are the things relevant to WP:RS, and which would be discussed at WP:RSN for example. In contrast, WP has no policy against using German language publications. So your conclusions appear to be the opposite of the truth. Our WP community does however have standard concerns about using these types of tertiary works which don't discuss debates, at least for anything where a debate needs to be covered - which is precisely how you are using these ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos It would be nice if you could post these supposed quality sources here so that the community could examine them. Krakkos (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought of reminding that I posted summaries above, but thought it might just make my post too big, and was probably obvious. The summaries are at the bottom of the section here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos The section you're linking to is a complete mess. Which of these are "far stronger sources" than Herwig Wolfram, Peter Heather, the Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity? Krakkos (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the dictionaries has been explained over and over. How do you say the two sources now under discussion disagree with Wolfram? The way I understand it we have been asked to look at a specific sentence in the lead. Above, you took a position that the lead needed to say the same as a dictionary article by Heather, and no more. Correct? The way I read that, is that you are disputing that anything NOT in that dictionary sentence should NOT be in our article. For example, you have NOT actually for explained anything factually wrong, or unsourceable, in the sentence in the lead. So, I presumed you would agree that everything in the sentence posted above is sourceable to good sources. But you just don't want any other sources used. Not correct? Please review and explain what your point really was above, when you complained about the lead sentence which commented on. My proposal is/was that if there is something in it now which is not in Heather we can just add a bit more sourcing (or replace Heather with sourcing which covers it all).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos The section you're linking to is a complete mess. Which of these are "far stronger sources" than Herwig Wolfram, Peter Heather, the Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity? Krakkos (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the dictionaries has been explained over and over. How do you say the two sources now under discussion disagree with Wolfram? The way I understand it we have been asked to look at a specific sentence in the lead. Above, you took a position that the lead needed to say the same as a dictionary article by Heather, and no more. Correct? The way I read that, is that you are disputing that anything NOT in that dictionary sentence should NOT be in our article. For example, you have NOT actually for explained anything factually wrong, or unsourceable, in the sentence in the lead. So, I presumed you would agree that everything in the sentence posted above is sourceable to good sources. But you just don't want any other sources used. Not correct? Please review and explain what your point really was above, when you complained about the lead sentence which commented on. My proposal is/was that if there is something in it now which is not in Heather we can just add a bit more sourcing (or replace Heather with sourcing which covers it all).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with the principle, but which other evidence is there for a Scandinavian origin, which is not somehow derived from Jordanes? Do you have any sources in mind, or wording proposals? Perhaps the closest I can think of in recent times would be something like the Andersson citation I have mentioned above, but I am not sure if this can be called fully independent of Jordanes. I suppose in that case the evidence is some name similarities (Gaut, Gotones, Goth) and this might be what you are referring to. But:
 * If you search for other evidence to show how Jordanes might be right, then is that really an argument that is independent from Jordanes?
 * In the case of Andersson and other expert authors in recent decades they normally are NOT really arguing that "the Goths" migrated en masse from Poland or Scandinavia, but only that there was an elite group who carried a tradition around. (The so-called Traditionskern approach.) Also see the Steinacher quote I explained above where he suggests the similar sounding names had a prestige value.
 * In practice, how do we fit this in a lead. Should be possible if it is needed, but there should be consideration of which bits to put in the lead, and which down into the body.
 * (Keep in mind by the way, that I am trying to mainly write ideas up here on the talk page, given the on-going practical issues this article is having. So even if I made an edit to a sentence, it does not mean that is how I would have written it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

back to the subject, please explain what "partially" relevant means and why language is an issue?. We clearly need to get back to this because you also today referred to Walter Pohl with identical terminology. What is it all about please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOENG: "[B]ecause this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Walter Pohl's book is from 2004, in German, and about "Germanen". Peter Heather's article is from 2018, in English and directly about the Goths. The citation from Pohl is of lower quality, less relevance and not even in English. It is redundant. Krakkos (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still not explaining what "partially relevant" means.
 * You are only commenting on 1 of the 3 sources you have described this way.
 * You are clearly using NOENG wrongly. These 3 sources are chosen because they are referenced to by experts including the ones you like. German happens to be one of the main languages used for this specific topic, and so the fact that some sources are only in German is no problem according to NOENG.
 * You are continuing to ignore the problem which has been explained to you dozens of times with using short summary articles from dictionaries - specifically for any topic where the field has debates, and where the tertiary work is neither cited by the field, nor written in a way to discuss differing opinions in the field. The status of the author and the publication year of the WHOLE dictionary are not the most important points which over-ride those concerns in such cases. WP:IDNHT.
 * Please justify your 2 claims of "lower quality" and "less relevance"? How have you judged the quality and relevance of the widely cited reference work by Pohl? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The above went in circles a bit, but in effect I think what Elphion proposed would be covered by a simple sentence added into the lead as follows:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos The lead is already long enough as it is, and contains too much original research already. Adding more original research would not be an improvement. The proper remedy would be to get rid of the original research and stick to what reliable reference works on the Goths say. I believe what Peter Heather writes on Jordanes in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2012b) addresses Elphion's concerns.. Theories that are not mentioned in any reference work on the Goths doesn't belong in the lead of Wikipedia's article on the Goths. Krakkos (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't seriously be calling this original research because you have yourself written/edited such comments in the body of this same article, and I just more-or-less based it off that. Please double check your thoughts here, and confirm whether you made a mistake making this claim, or indeed if I made a mistake.
 * Concerning your "reference work" proclamation, can you define this so we can get it discussed now? Which sources are you accepting as "reference works"? Only this one dictionary entry?
 * Can you state any WP policy or anything similar which actually says that anything NOT mentioned in such a dictionary entry should not be included in leads of articles? Or should we describe this as a rule proposed by one editor?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Edit warring over the content and structure of the lead has been a big problem at this article ever since you decided to edit it a few days ago. This has resulted in the lead at times becoming confusing and excessively long. Recent reference works from The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity and the Oxford Classical Dictionary on Goths, written by the world's foremost expert on the Goths (Peter Heather), provide us with excellent summaries on the Goths. If everyone is permitted to insert cherry-picked information from sub-par secondary sources in the lead, edit warring will continue forever. I think this should be avoided. Modeling the lead upon our best reference works serves as an efficient antidote to further edit warring, not only for the lead, but for the entire article. But it seems like you want the edit warring to continue. Krakkos (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So, please confirm your claims or proposals:
 * There are TWO "references" as per this rule or proposal (both short "dictionary" articles, and by the same author). Only those two right?
 * The proposed rule is that only these two sources can be used now, in the lead. Correct?
 * And any topic not in the lead will not be allowed in the entire article, I now read. Correct reading? (So the article will be entirely structured based on those dictionary articles.)
 * The source of this rule is not WP policy, but you Krakkos.
 * Let me know if there are any misunderstandings.
 * Please also let's make sure I understand how to describe this fairly. Shall we call it a proposal, demand, vision, etc ...or do you say it is just policy for example? (If it is policy or similar I'd again like to ask for a citation to explain where it is from.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am presuming the above definition of the demand/proposal is now more-or-less accurate? Please make sure it is, so we can then move to getting a fair discussion on it, step by step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

'''UPDATE. A post has now been made at WP:RSN:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_the_Goths_article --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Footnote concern
Concerning footnotes, there have been similar discussions already on other articles especially Germanic peoples where your footnoting evolved to the point of having 14 footnotes per sentence, but apparently they need to be discussed anew on every article and you don't accept what others say? See just for example my edsum, and the revert. Some basic normal aims: Instead what we are seeing is the same things being sourced over and over, using the same sources or sources all by one author. Also the quotations being inserted are not needed and are generally including many extra words not relevant to what needs sources. (Even if they are generally relevant to the article or talk page in some way.) I also note non-obvious SYNTH cases like this (from the case mentioned above) which are not even needed: All of the above is based on the normal MOS etc guidelines. why do you fight so hard against these norms, and why do you seem to want uncontroversial sentences to be overloaded like this? To me, looking at the extra words you keep in including, it seems the footnotes are kind of like a message to other editors about something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The number of footnotes should be kept to a minimum.
 * As much as possible, footnotes should be at the ends of paragraphs, or ends of sentences. Footnotes in the middle of a sentence should be avoided if possible.
 * Things which are uncontroversial, or which have already been sourced in the article, do not need to be sourced over and over, in every section and every paragraph and every sentence, or even several times per sentence. (For example, that the Goths spoke a Germanic language.)
 * In most cases, it is not necessary to give many sources for one assertion. When this is needed, it implies there is a dispute, so best practice is to discuss with other editors how to avoid it. I don't think that is your concern though, because your uncompromising source choice (Peter Heather dictionary articles, almost always) is not exactly aimed at consensus or agreement, and easily could be improved without controversy.
 * In most cases, it is not necessary to give long quotations to back up an exact wording. (This is only needed in cases where the interpretation of the original source might not be obvious.)
 * Sentence to be sourced: They are today sometimes referred to as being Germani.
 * Sentence being quoted: "Militarized freedmen among the Germani appear in sixth- and seventh-century Visigothic and Frankish law codes."
 * Some more examples of quesitonable footnotes recently done:
 * Sentence to be sourced: Roman historians write that the Gutones were in close contact with the Lugii and Vandals, and that they were at times in conflict with the Suebi.
 * Irrelevant extra quote added: A people of Scandza called the Gutae, possibly identical to the later Geats, are also mentioned, and it's possible that this people had close relations or even shared origins with the Gutones.
 * And over-sourcing :
 * Half sentence to be sourced: The Goths were Germanic-speaking,
 * Footnotes:


 * Second half-sentence: and are classified as a Germanic people by modern scholars.
 * Footnotes:

Note that these two facts, the language and categorization, were already sourced in the lead. Look for example at the multiple uses of these footnotes all pointing to the same page, and yet cited together, over and over, sentence after sentence, already several times in the lead:
 * 
 * 

Can anyone give a justification for the insistence upon such things? (These are apparently not just random mistakes, because they are insisted upon and the same thing happens over and over and will be added to as in other articles.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Per WP:FOOTQUOTE, it is useful to add quotes to sources when sources are "not easily accessible" or when one wants to "indicate precisely which information the source is supporting". WP:V further states that "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided". The sources quoted from are not all easily accessible, their claims have been contested, and your misrepresentation of these sources, as illustrated here, makes quoting them necessary. Your stacking of additional unnecessary sources to an already heavily cited sentence reveals that WP:OVERCITE is none of your concern. Your real concern is that this article contains sources contradicting your views. Krakkos (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which claims have been disputed? And given how easy it would be to use an accessible source, why insist on using the Oxford sources which you happened to have access to via Wikipedia Library? Two simple answers requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Due weight is, according to Jimbo Wales, determined by coverage in "commonly accepted reference texts". The best reference texts on the Goths are written by Peter Heather and published by Oxford University Press. These sources have been contested and misrepresented by you innumerable times. That makes it necessary to quote them. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have asked you many times how you can possible argue that a source which no experts cite is the "best reference text". You keep answering each time as if it were the first time. WP:IDHT. But how is this relevant here? Why do you keep just announcing that Heather's dictionary article is the best, all over this talk page? Concerning the examples you give of disputed claims, I do not see that any of them dispute the above sentences either? They seem irrelevant to this discussion? I do not see your reply as an answer. Can you please read again and look at the real examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC) To be specific, and spell it out, here are some obvious questions...
 * Why do we need an extra source with a specific sentence about Gutes and Geats to back up a sentence about Vandals and Lugii and Suevi?
 * Why do we three Heather citations every time where one would do?
 * Why do we need to source that the Goths were Germanic speaking, which is not controversial, several times in the lead and then again and again in the body?
 * What is Pritsak adding to Heather and Pohl in these cases?
 * Why do we need to write out a whole text about "Militarized freedmen" when the sentence being sourced is only about the fact that Peter Heather uses the word Germani to refer to Goths?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW The example you give of my "stacking unnecessary sources" is a wonderful example of the shamelessly misleading way in which you write on talk pages. I hope everyone clicks on the example to see my adding of ONE reference by a person who is not named Peter Heather, and my clear explanation of why I understand it was needed to source our wording! Of course if you think it was not needed, then you could have explained this to me before, BTW.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Yes please click the example. You removed directly relevant English-language sources from Omeljan Pritsak and E. A. Thompson, while adding an only partially relevant German-language source by Walter Pohl. Krakkos (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you describe a reduction in footnotes as a stacking of footnotes, which proves, supposedly that I do not care about over-citation. Just to be clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

these [bulleted questions above] were the questions originally raised here in this section. Can you explain why the footnotes have the above characteristics? Please do not forget this concern, if you want to make a stable long-term version of the article. These are normal logical concerns which future editors will also see and act upon if they find them in the current state.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos You have a strong tendency to insert unsourced information in the lead and even rewrite information in the lead regardless of what the sources say. This makes adding sources with quotes necessary. Information on Goths being "Germanic speaking" was added by you to the lead (again regardless of what the source says). Omeljan Pritsak has an article on the Goths in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. That source is much more relevant and useful than an only partially relevant German-language citation from Walter Pohl. That Peter Heather classifies the Goths as Germani is noteworthy. If it wasn't you wouldn't have been whining about it here. Krakkos (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The examples you show don't seem to show any problems at all (1 edit of already un-sourced information, 1 edit which did not change meaning). Whatever problems you claim I created anyway, they would not be helped by the problems described above. Your description of the sources is also wrong for the reasons explained elsewhere, and you can discuss elsewhere. But you are changing subject here. Please note the detailed examples mentioned above. Please either fix them or discuss here in a constructive way. These are basic, and pretty much indisputable. None of these specific bullets are about your quote length problem. Consider WP:IDNHT

I think the above concerns (footnote examples) are really pretty striking, and would be seen as difficult to follow by almost anyone. So I really do think you should make a constructive attempt to explain why you insist upon, what you insist upon. Honestly it is very difficult to see any good rationale. (I can think of some reasons editors sometimes push for such things, but those are not good reasons.) Anyone who edits this article in the future, and wants to avoid problems with you forum shopping to admins, will need to understand and be able to predict what is acceptable to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we need an extra source with a specific sentence about Gutes and Geats to back up a sentence about Vandals and Lugii and Suevi? (If it was an error just say so.)
 * Why do we three Heather citations every time where one would do? (The same author 3 times adds nothing in terms of any WP:SYNTH you might be trying to achieve about the field as a whole.)
 * Why do we need to source that the Goths were Germanic speaking, which is not controversial, several times in the lead and then again and again in the body? (No, I have not disputed this, so please stop implying that I have.)
 * What is Pritsak adding to Heather and Pohl in these cases? (We do not need multiple sources for such things, unless you are trying to achieve WP:SYNTH by counting how many writers agree with each other.)
 * Why do we need to write out a whole text about "Militarized freedmen" when the sentence being sourced is only about the fact that Peter Heather uses the word Germani to refer to Goths? (If it was an error just say so.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Christensen example

 * Here is an example which seems intended to be misleading, added yesterday :
 * Sentence to be sourced: The earliest possible mentions of the Goths are Roman sources of the 1st century AD, who refer to a people called the "Gutones" living along the lower Vistula.
 * <>. "During the first century and a half AD, four authors mention a people also normally identified with 'the Goths'. They seem to appear for the first time in the writings of the geographer Strabo... It is normally assumed that [the Gutones] are identical with the Goths... It has been taken for granted that these Gotones were identical to the Goths... Finally, around 150, Klaudios Ptolemaios (or Ptolemy) writes of certain [Guthones] who are also normally identified with the 'the Goths'... Ptolemy lists the [Goutai], also identified by Gothic scholars with the Goths..."
 * Christensen, despite the number of words pasted in, is actually arguing against this identification in the past. (It was published in 2002.) While recent works tend to cite Christensen as an important work bringing this identification into doubt, we are apparently using him in the opposite way. When we later mention doubts, we do not cite Christensen, but a very poor source (Mark) and the wording is very vague. Will anyone justify this one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Christensen is not cited for that sentence. The sentence above is sourced from Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather. Christensen is cited in the next sentence. This "example" is dishonestly presented. Krakkos (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It is very hard to dismantle these over-footnoted paragraphs and I have made an error, but the problem does not go away. The statement being sourced is "The Gutones are generally" [footnote placed here] considered ancestral or even identical to the later Goths." So the problem is still there, and effectively my point above is the same. Can you explain why Christensen is being used to say the opposite of what he says?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Christensen is cited for the opposite of what he believes, not the opposite of what he says. He says that the Gutones are "normally" identified with the Goths, and that "it has been taken for granted that these Gotones were identical to the Goths". This article says, citing Christensen, that "The Gutones are generally considered ancestral or even identical to the later Goths." There is no misrepresentation of Christensen. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No one reading the citation will be able to understand all that will they? They certainly won't be reading that already in 2002, this position being stated in our article was considered "taken for granted" IN THE PAST, and that the article we are citing is one of the main ones cited since, and DISAGREES with what used to be "taken for granted" IN THE PAST. To make it even worse, when you come to discuss disagreements below, you only cite Mark, and we only say some people disagree. In fact it would be more accurate to say that in the 21st century even supporters of Jordanes (such as Andersson in the RGA, explained above) no longer take it for granted. The RGA is a widely cited work, unlike your Oxford dictionaries. All of this is being censored and hidden from Wikipedia readers. Heather, in the meantime, has apparently not written any fresh research on this for a long time, and his stand points are often now out of line with people who have. For example his comments in the dictionaries you like do not even show awareness of more recent debates. Mind you, I suppose we do not really know when he wrote those little dictionary entries and what his instructions were. Those works are very long projects, and not designed to publish full explanations on all the latest debates. So, yes, Christensen, and the field generally, is being misrepresented.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Christensen writes that "it is normally assumed that" the Gutones "are identical with the Goths". Christensen is clearly not referring only to the past. Christensen's book is from 2002. The Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity are from 2012 and 2018 respectively, and thus more recent. As their articles on the Goths mentions no doubts about the equation between Gutones and Goths, this is still clearly a minority view, which should not be given undue weight in this article. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you judge what a minority view is based on Oxford dictionary articles of unknown date and specifically not covering anything like differences of opinion? In contrast you knowingly insist on ignoring what RGA, Goffart, Edward James, Ian Wood, Pohl, Steinacher, Wolfram, etc etc etc all say. And YET, you cite a MUCH worse source, Mark, because you DO KNOW there is dispute. Strange no?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and unfortunately you distracted me successfully from the topic, which to remind, was: So, yes, Christensen, and the field generally, is being misrepresented. I think your answer basically confirms that you know this, because you've jumped straight to another argument to justify why you would block our readers from knowing this. And of course, by the way, Christensen was talking about the past. The reactions to Christensen's work show us what happened after 2002. And BTW Heather does not disagree I guess, he just does not mention it, as you would expect in a simplified little Oxford dictionary article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Who is Arne Søby Christensen anyway? Krakkos (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is important to WP policy (WP:RS) is his reputation for reliability in the field of expertise, and this is shown by the extensive positive literature reviews and citations his work has gained. But he is I believe an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen. (This book was based on his Doctorate apparently. It seems Ian Wood and Lund were involved with his examination.) You should stop using red links as a way of avoiding real WP policy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos We have someone who might have been an assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen who published a book through Museum Tusculanum Press in 2002. Christensen is probably retired by now (he was born in 1945), meaning that he never made it past associate professor and never published any other noteworthy work except from this one. Peter Heather, who is Chairman of the Medieval History Department and Professor of Medieval History at King's College London, and considered the world's foremost authority on the Goths, has more recently written The Fall of Rome (2005) and Empires and Barbarians (2009). Empires and Barbarians contains no less than 842 references to "Goth", but flatly contradicts and makes no mention whatsoever of Christensen or his theories. Christensen's theories are flatly contradiced, and not even mentioned by any reliable reference work on the Goths. Michael Whitby, who is the former Head of the Ancient History department and Professor of Ancient History at the University of St Andrews, has dismissed Christensen's theories as "surely too extreme", "little more than a long footnote to Heather's work", and something "only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult". I'm sorry, but this stuff isn't suitable for the lead. Krakkos (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it does not matter what you proclaim to me. These insults which you throw around at scholars are silly. And surely you've been in WP long enough to understand the basics of our RS policy. On Wikipedia, it matters what the experts cite when they write their focused works on this topic, and if they wanted to all cite a tweet by Donald Trump, or the instagram account of Justin Bieber then that is up to them, and WP tells us to pay attention to them, when they are writing their most focused work. As far as I know, Heather has not written any new focused monographs on this topic in the 21st century, that would tell us what he thinks about the latest debates, or at least you and I have not found them? What we know is that those who have, such as Goffart, Halsall, James, Ian Wood, Steinacher, Matthias Springer, who are certainly of comparable stature to Heather, do mention Christensen as the latest person to have done a proper study the question of Jordanes and the migrations. I can see on google that Walter Pohl has cited him several times also but can't seem to find one I can access.

OTOH, Perhaps the closest I can find is a short footnote in his Afterword to Curta (ed.) where he complains about Goffart being "minimizing" about Jordanes and taking him as too "literary" and "deliberately misleading", but whatever all that means Heather also effectively says Goffart is correct that Jordanes and Paul the Deacon can be found to have "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [they] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence." So to spell it out: Really this article will in the long run cite Goffart and Christensen and Gillett too, who is another frequently cited person for Jordanes. (Heather is not.) I can't imagine any version of this article which deliberately censors such references can be stable and lasting. If I were you I would edit in a way that at least contributes something to the longer term result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You want to treat Heather as the only and "best" authority (which is absolutely the wrong approach according to WP policy) but anyway...
 * Heather, when he wrote a relatively recent comment about recent people mentioned not Christensen, but Goffart. So will you cite Goffart? Again, your attitude to him is completely wrong according to WP policy, but anyway...
 * Goffart cites Christensen. So Heather cites Goffart who cites Christensen. This is relevant to WP:RS, because it shows reputation on this topic.
 * Reply by Krakkos Nothing is being censored, but this article should not be defined and structured through non-mainstream theories. Goffart and Christensen are already mentioned in the article. Who is "Gillett"? Heather and Wolfram are the most cited scholars for Goths. That's what matters. This article is about Goths, not Jordanes. Krakkos (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But there are sections about Jordanes and in those sections... Why do I need to spell that out? Concerning Gillett, you must not have read my explanation about YOUR history of misrepresentations of scholars including Gillett, posted above. There are links there. I am guessing you probably never really carefully read what you were writing, or what answers were being given to you, the first time either. Despite your ridiculously strong comments about Gillett then, similar to your silly remarks more recently about Christensen. You are always too busy battling to actually carefully read sources, or other editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which happen to defend Peter Heather!! , Do you realize how crude you sometimes appear? This is cherry picking from weak sources while you are STILL censoring the best known sources. The use of these reviews in this biased way is not something for a lasting and stable version. We are not writing an article about the beliefs of Peter Heather. We should not take his side on every issue, or censor or caricature any people who disagree with him. Similarly in the same section this strongly worded sentence is known by you to NOT be a consensus, and is thus an undue use of Wikipedia voice to agree with Heather: "Among philologists there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is the same as that of the Goths.[29]"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos This is what Peter Heather says in 2009/2012 about the views of philologists on the name of the Goths:
 * Note that Arne Søby Christensen (as far as is known) is a historian, not a philologist. This is what top reviewers say about Christensen's theories:
 * Michael Whitby's reference to "real enthusiasts" was quite prophetic i must say. Krakkos (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am not quite sure what you mean but if you are saying I am taking a side then I hope that is not true. The point is much simpler. Your quotes are going too far and into too much detail and even taking a side. What you are not quoting is reviews, which is unusual and not a strong source. This is something you would do if we have several sections on this debate. But as you mentioned before, this is not even an article about Jordanes, and so the debates just have to be mentioned. Maybe reviews can be cited, but not the colorful stuff which verges on insults. The aim should be more like "some people like Heather and Wolfram say A, and some people like Goffart and Christensen argue differently, because.... Also I tend to think that just the reviews in books are going to be more neutral and authoritative. If I were citing a review article (these tend to be more colorful) I would normally only do it with a bigger name reviewer. Maybe it is best if you just look at it yourself with my words in mind and think about future critics of this article and not me. Comments like " a long footnote to Heather" are not encyclopedic. Take your time on getting this balance right. That is what I suggest. BTW I think the reviews I have read show that there is sympathy for Goffart, Christensen, and Gillett in between the lines. Nearly everyone has moved their position a bit even if it annoys them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Michael Whitby's reference to "real enthusiasts" was quite prophetic i must say. Krakkos (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am not quite sure what you mean but if you are saying I am taking a side then I hope that is not true. The point is much simpler. Your quotes are going too far and into too much detail and even taking a side. What you are not quoting is reviews, which is unusual and not a strong source. This is something you would do if we have several sections on this debate. But as you mentioned before, this is not even an article about Jordanes, and so the debates just have to be mentioned. Maybe reviews can be cited, but not the colorful stuff which verges on insults. The aim should be more like "some people like Heather and Wolfram say A, and some people like Goffart and Christensen argue differently, because.... Also I tend to think that just the reviews in books are going to be more neutral and authoritative. If I were citing a review article (these tend to be more colorful) I would normally only do it with a bigger name reviewer. Maybe it is best if you just look at it yourself with my words in mind and think about future critics of this article and not me. Comments like " a long footnote to Heather" are not encyclopedic. Take your time on getting this balance right. That is what I suggest. BTW I think the reviews I have read show that there is sympathy for Goffart, Christensen, and Gillett in between the lines. Nearly everyone has moved their position a bit even if it annoys them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Michael Whitby's reference to "real enthusiasts" was quite prophetic i must say. Krakkos (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am not quite sure what you mean but if you are saying I am taking a side then I hope that is not true. The point is much simpler. Your quotes are going too far and into too much detail and even taking a side. What you are not quoting is reviews, which is unusual and not a strong source. This is something you would do if we have several sections on this debate. But as you mentioned before, this is not even an article about Jordanes, and so the debates just have to be mentioned. Maybe reviews can be cited, but not the colorful stuff which verges on insults. The aim should be more like "some people like Heather and Wolfram say A, and some people like Goffart and Christensen argue differently, because.... Also I tend to think that just the reviews in books are going to be more neutral and authoritative. If I were citing a review article (these tend to be more colorful) I would normally only do it with a bigger name reviewer. Maybe it is best if you just look at it yourself with my words in mind and think about future critics of this article and not me. Comments like " a long footnote to Heather" are not encyclopedic. Take your time on getting this balance right. That is what I suggest. BTW I think the reviews I have read show that there is sympathy for Goffart, Christensen, and Gillett in between the lines. Nearly everyone has moved their position a bit even if it annoys them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Concerning the remark about all philologists answered within the above, I think you also are missing the point. We are taking one sentence from one author which we know disagrees with everything else we are reading, for example Wolfram. Wolfram (like Andersson) is I think saying the Gutone and Gaut words might just have been related tribes - and that the connection is not actual mass migration. I think that is a really interesting and important trend in the field right? I am really enjoying Steinacher's style of explaining it also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Herwig Wolfram equates the Gutones with the Goths just as Heather does:
 * Arne Søby Christensen writes, like Heather, that the equation of the Gutones with the Goths is supported by philologists/linguists:
 * Arne Søby Christensen writes, like Heather, that the equation of the Gutones with the Goths is supported by philologists/linguists:

Trying to help by saying something simple. Almost the whole field might agree with this?
 * Heather AGREES that the origins myths do not prove much. Is there any expert in this field saying "just trust Jordanes" any more?
 * Actually the criticism of Jordanes etc also means that we need to look at the archaeological and linguistic evidence. And it is pretty strong in this case.
 * HOWEVER, the new criticism means that the connection between the similar sounding names might not be a simple story of a large number of people moving from together with one unchanging name from Poland to Ukraine. The Traditionskern idea is ONE possible way that it might not have been that simple. Steinacher's comment about there being a "prestige name" is a similar idea. (Both could be true.) But in the end the point is that the details are uncertain. Maybe for us that is all we need to say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Steinacher's source for the prestige name bit is:


 * Andersson, Thomas (1998), zu Namen und Deutungen. in Goten 1. Philologisches in RGA 2 vol. 12 pp.402-403. I am looking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Google: https://books.google.be/books?id=bcwfZW_soyMC --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think these points are still undeniably important for further editing:
 * Criticism of Jordanes as a source, associated perhaps mostly with Goffart, Gillett, and Christensen, IS "mainstream", and those writers ARE mainstream and highly respected and cited as such, so we should do the same. As shown above Heather's main concern could be seen as trying to show readers that he already thought something similar in the 1990s. (The differences between these commentators and their critics like Heather, Liebeschuetz, etc are about details I think are articles are not even mentioning.)
 * The manipulated Christensen quote as given above is misleading to a reader. That obviously has to be avoided, and would be easy to avoid in the case given just by avoiding the use of a manipulated long quote in the middle of a sentence.
 * I refer also to concerns mentioned above about the over use of long quotes and lots of similar quotes, which is bad for many reasons and not seen as better in any way on WP. (It is normally something an experienced editor will see as a red flag that there is a POV pusher at work.) Using quantity of quotes to win a battle is also WP:SYNTH by the way.
 * Over-reliance on any single author is never good, and this article currently has a worsening problem with this. It urgently needs to be moved in the opposite direction, of allowing more sources and more viewpoints.
 * Allowing more viewpoints does NOT mean adding something like "some scholars disagree but they have been called illogical and biased in book reviews". Obviously.
 * Use of short dictionary articles written to reflect the position of only one academic is bad, and should especially be totally avoided on any topic which involves a known debate or complexity in the field. These quite simply are NOT the best sources, and battling on and on about it is getting no where. This can be confirmed by community feedback at WP:RSN if necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Criticism of Jordanes, and theories by Walter Goffart and Arne Søby Christensen, are already mentioned in the article. Christensen's theories are labelled "too extreme" by Michael Whitby, and neither him nor his theories are discussed in any way in our best secondary sources or reference works on the Goths. Regardless, this article is about Goths, it's not about Jordanes or Getica. Who is "Gillett", and why should his theories be given equal weight to those of Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram? Krakkos (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have answered who Andrew Gillett is above. You have written about him before in quite strong words that turned out to be ridiculous, which is an experience you should have learned from. The point about that is Krakkos, that IF Jordanes needs to be discussed, which surely seems to be the case, then Andrew Gillett is a recent and more specialized source than Heather. Your first sentence has ambiguous pronouns, but in any case Goffart, Christensen and Gillett ARE, undeniably, some of the "best secondary sources" on Jordanes and what he says about the Goths. Dictionary articles which don't discuss disputes are, in contrast, unsuitable for WP use on any discussions of debated points (WP:IDNHT). Heather and Wolfram, as authors, are clearly experts, but their main detailed publications were in the 1980s and 1990s. If they have not written about some recent publication in one of the recent short works, it basically proves nothing. But of course they DO both cite Goffart, and Goffart who has written in more detail more recently, cites more people. The implications for WP:RS can't be more clear. If we need to confirm community norms at WP:RSN let's just do it, but honestly you must already see that all roads will lead to the same result.
 * Concerning the article as a whole though, the above bullet list covers more real issues. The article is currently being dominated by Heather and anyone who agrees with him. In many parts of the article this has only gotten worse. That is not a long-run sustainable situation. This is not just a disagreement with one other editor who has a different "taste"; but a basic policy issue which there is no point banging your head against over and over and over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

here are the two places you have focused on Christensen in the article. I hope the problems are obvious to you. I don't think this is acceptable balanced writing, and accurate use of our sources. The cherry picking of words and careful removals of key bits to change the meaning are stunning. In fact, what scholars agree, and what Christensen is referring to is the connection between the WORDS, not the peoples. Wolfram etc are NOT arguing the words equate to whole peoples, but only to small culturally significant elites.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This subsequent edit makes it worse, more clearly misrepresents Wolfram and others . The connection is between words, not whole peoples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos
 * Krakkos (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have yourself been citing other remarks by Wolfram, including from more recent works, which show why this quote is not giving an accurate impression of what he believes. Not even close and there is no way you can deny that you know this, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently as a battling pointy edit, you've now added to the front of the paragraph so as to emphasize controversial aspects of your work and show you are not going to pay any attention to the concerns of other editors: "All philologists and linguists consider them to be the same names." How is that encyclopedic writing and a balanced accurate use of a range of sources?
 * What are you trying to achieve with this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos
 * Krakkos (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So, to spell it out and go through one more step, please remove the word "All". It is not in the source, and it goes beyond the source and even if one source said this, we are not here to represent one writer.
 * ...and then there are the numerous obvious distortions shown above, which need to be fixed please...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made two proposed new texts for the two distorted paragraphs above. They show, honestly, that it is very easy to avoid the unnecessary controversy and source synthesis within thickets of footnotes which seem to keep thickening. Can we use the proposed green sentences?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Using the proposals in the green text would involve the removal of quality sources and the misrepresentations of remaining sources. This is unhelpful and i'm opposed to it. The article Germanic peoples, which you have recently completely rewritten, contains HUGE amounts of unsourced text. Why can't you instead work on improving your own poor articles? Why can't you just leave me alone? Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and then there are the numerous obvious distortions shown above, which need to be fixed please...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made two proposed new texts for the two distorted paragraphs above. They show, honestly, that it is very easy to avoid the unnecessary controversy and source synthesis within thickets of footnotes which seem to keep thickening. Can we use the proposed green sentences?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Using the proposals in the green text would involve the removal of quality sources and the misrepresentations of remaining sources. This is unhelpful and i'm opposed to it. The article Germanic peoples, which you have recently completely rewritten, contains HUGE amounts of unsourced text. Why can't you instead work on improving your own poor articles? Why can't you just leave me alone? Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am already giving you a LOT of leeway and taking a much softer approach than many Wikipedians would. What you are insisting upon above is a deliberate distortion of our reporting of individual authors, works and the field as a whole. The problem with your way of thinking is that I do not own and articles, and neither do you. We are part of a community which has a lot of "rules" or norms. Secondly these are not just proposals above, but also a careful explanation of problems, where you are, I think quite knowingly, ignoring and working against the community norms. If my concerns are mistaken, then you can explain. If you have other ways of addressing them, then fine. But just trying to bully and push other editors in circles is not going to work Krakkos. If you can't accept the community way of working then you need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article). Maybe you should develop your own website or work on one of those less strict ones where more original research is allowed? Personally I work on different websites or other types of publication when I feel like doing different types of work - and I think many Wikipedians do. Anyway, your response is nonsensical in terms of WP norms, and the concerns raised above are relatively serious (because your own posts seem to shown this is deliberately fraudulent, not just naive synth and misreading) and need a solution ASAP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * so do I take it you are adamantly refusing to make any sorts of edits to correct the obvious problems shown above? I am still hoping YOU will CHOOSE to fix them, but let me know if this is a foolish hope.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Caricatures of Walter Goffart

 * Note added later: censoring WP to block mention of Goffart and several other normal authorities was also a theme of problems on Germanic peoples, where found himself in opposition with all other editors. I should therefore link to some example discussions, which also involve, like on this article, attempts to censor sources including anything published in German: ,,.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As I write, here are all the mentions of Walter Goffart, and these are being added to and made worse today. Maybe I should just let them speak for themselves. They are clearly a travesty of biased writing. This can not be depicted as an attempt to give a fair summary of the field. It also completely distorts the "favoured" authors like Heather who are made to look as crude as Krakkos! Heather (and Goffart) do sometimes use overblown rhetoric, but using it selectively like this is shameful, without exaggeration, to see in Wikipedia. really? As a specific recommendation on one detail I believe Mark, Whitby, and Sønnesyn are weak sources being used inappropriately and add nothing to this article. They should be removed entirely as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos Walter Goffart does consider Jordanes completely unreliable, and he does ignore archaeological evidence on the Goths because he considers such evidence as derived from Jordanes. These aren't caricatures, but facts. Whitby and Sønnesyn aren't cited for Goffart's theories. This is a misrepresentation by you. Krakkos (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is a misrepresentation of what said about Whitby and Sønnesyn. And yes, Goffart said various things, but the above PRESENTATION of him as an authority is a ridiculous crude caricature. If you can not understand that balancing sources requires a certain style of presentation you should not be editing Wikipedia. Why do you keep trying to push things like this, which are so obviously inappropriate and never going to be accepted by this community?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Another use of Goffart connects to other problems with the way of using sources...
 * Reply by Krakkos Herwig Wolfram writes (correctly) that the Vandals and Goths were initially considered Germani. None of the sources used say that Roman writers associated Gothic ancestry with "Huns and Sarmatians." This proposal will amount to a misrepresentation of the sources and original research. I don't consider it an improvement. You recently completely rewrote the article Germanic peoples, and that article still contains huge amounts of unsourced text and other issues. Why can't you instead work on improving that article, and permit me to work in peace on this one together with Jens Lallensack? Why can't you just leave me alone? Krakkos (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * really? If we need to add more sources to make your point then we just do that. Indeed your must have other sources in mind it seems because now you mention Herwig Wolfram saying something which is NOT cited above. So clearly adding a source when it is really needed, (I don't normally need to oversource because I am not a controversial editor pushing POVs), is something we both understand and know how to do. Can you please give the Wolfram citation now?? Let's see what he really said. But I think "Goths" were NEVER called Germani, and that is what our sources say. You know this. I think this can direction of explanation will just go in circles and end up at the same conclusion: the sentence needs to be changed. It is deliberately misleading and deliberately distorts what authors, publications and the field says.
 * Did Jens Lallensack offer to work on the content of the article BTW? In answer to your question of why I don't want to "leave you alone", this is WP. It is a joint effort by a community.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos The fact that Wikipdia is a community effort does not entitle you to hound other editors. Jens Lallensack has come up with a solution, but you do not seem to be abiding by it. Krakkos (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You should have learned by now NOT to continually twist the words of others, including other Wikipedians, sources, policies etc. This might feel like it is working when you are laying low and working on unknown articles and categories, but this is not something you should keep taking for granted now. I have indeed been trying to mainly post my concerns on this talk page, rather than editing, giving you a chance to show good faith. Having made that major concession your edits and talk page posts show absolutely no concern at all for such concerns. I have limited myself to commenting a small % of the mass of POV edits you are making, and you are seeing that as a signal to do even more. This is highly problematic because it is very difficult to come back later and retrace all the source distortions for example. So your bad faith behavior is where the problem is. If you just accepted to fix some of the obvious problems I point to instead of throwing up surreal smoke screens and parent-shopping all the time, imagine what that would be like...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I presume you will not be bringing any source to the table which shows Wolfram or anyone else demonstrating that Goths were EVER called Germani or Germanic peoples before modern times. (As per discussion above.) If I misunderstand, here is where to post!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos
 * Krakkos (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks... So to be clear, Wolfram does NOT say that the Romans or Greeks called Goths Germani or Germanic peoples. He does, unsurprisingly given our understanding of his proposals say that the "precursors" were called Germani. Consider (1) WP:SYNTH WP:OR and (2) as shown above recently, Wolfram's most recent understanding of precursor means only that there is some kind of cultural/elite connection between the two peoples with similar names (so we have to explain to our readers that "same people" here means "people with related elites" or something like that? (To be clear, he has specifically noted, as you know, that the Goths can NOT be the Gutones of Tacitus in a literal sense) and (3) we know that even in this weak form the field is not in a consensus. Heather and his fans prefer to talk about how the archaeological data shows a general movement in the right direction, though it tells us no exact tribal histories and names. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos In view of what is cited above, i don't think there is any reason to rewrite Goths. I'll leave it up to the rest of the community to make up their opinion. Krakkos (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks... So to be clear, Wolfram does NOT say that the Romans or Greeks called Goths Germani or Germanic peoples. He does, unsurprisingly given our understanding of his proposals say that the "precursors" were called Germani. Consider (1) WP:SYNTH WP:OR and (2) as shown above recently, Wolfram's most recent understanding of precursor means only that there is some kind of cultural/elite connection between the two peoples with similar names (so we have to explain to our readers that "same people" here means "people with related elites" or something like that? (To be clear, he has specifically noted, as you know, that the Goths can NOT be the Gutones of Tacitus in a literal sense) and (3) we know that even in this weak form the field is not in a consensus. Heather and his fans prefer to talk about how the archaeological data shows a general movement in the right direction, though it tells us no exact tribal histories and names. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos In view of what is cited above, i don't think there is any reason to rewrite Goths. I'll leave it up to the rest of the community to make up their opinion. Krakkos (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply by Krakkos In view of what is cited above, i don't think there is any reason to rewrite Goths. I'll leave it up to the rest of the community to make up their opinion. Krakkos (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Classification, I've noted the multiple factual mistakes of wording above in red and putting aside the way you need to synthesize several sources to defend yourself on ONE of those factual mistakes, when we report the field consensus in Wikipedia voice we can not be choosing our favorite position and censoring or ridiculing all the others. The uncontroversial baseline is what most experts would agree with, and then differences between them need to be explained neutrally as a next step. Neutrally, of course, does not mean looking for sycophantic minor book reviews to explain the positions of the people we don't like in a ridiculing way, instead of citing the authors and their supporters in a fair way themselves, which shows their arguments in their best (and most interesting) forms.

As usual, after writing out the normal common sense approach on WP to such matters, I ask myself why I constantly have to explain such obvious things for one special WP editor, over and over and over. And indeed why bother. Krakkos listens to no one.

There are also the other two sections above, Jordanes and Getica, and Archaeological evidence? To be really clear about what I have demonstrated above, given that euphemisms clearly win me nothing, they are deliberate tabloid quality partisanship. you've made great "efforts" (appealing to admins etc) to get this far in these efforts, but this BS can't remain. This style makes WP into a sycophantic bully boy for your favorite author, crudely attacking other authorities that the author in question, not known for being soft himself, would never be so dishonest to do in a similar way. It is surreal to see something like this on WP. If you see any way of explaining why that should be acceptable, then please do explain. I think my position is clear unless new information changes it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

a drafting table
To save space here, and keep discussions hopefully more compressed and easy to connect I am making a table of drafting remarks for the article, on a drafting page on my userspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting (It can be moved to here or somewhere else.) One aim is to have links to any relevant past discussions. I have started by breaking up the lead and adding some basic remarks. There is a third column where short notes can perhaps be added... . Feedback welcome, or indeed called-for. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, it is not a very long lead? (This has been raised recently as a concern.) Having said that, I think it would be great to keep a similar length if possible. It is just that I would not see it as such a problem that we need to delete anything or avoid adding anything anyone is really concerned about? Feedback anyone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The current lead contains certain information not mentioned in the cited text. I think these source falsifications should be removed per WP:OR. There are also issues with repetition and the chronology is at times confusing. I think the lead was better before the edit warring. It was in accordance with the cited sources, more concise and clear, yet covered all the essentials. Krakkos (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So how do we fix those problems if you refuse to explain them...
 * Which "source falsifications" are you referring to?
 * Please also describe the issues with repetition and chronology. You mean there is repetition in the lead?
 * Hopefully you are not just going to keep saying "my version was better", "all your changes are mutilations" and hopefully you are not going to continue to abuse your Wikipedia Library access to Oxford dictionaries behind a paywall, which we can't see. Please be constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

it would still be good for you to define the sourcing, repetition and chronology problems. Which bits are you referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, at least the prose is better in the original version of the lead compared to the current one. A sentence like "As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland" let me wonder – what is a "dominant class of Goths", and why does the Germanic language speak for an origin in modern Poland? This does not make sense to a reader new to the topic. And to be fair, implying other editors of "abusing" something is not "constructive" in any way as well. Unless No personal attacks is strictly followed, I will not get involved in this discussion any further; it just isn't fun. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jens, your remark makes sense if you have not been watching the discussions, but frankly I was not implying. The abuse can be pointed to, and I was merely saying I hope you won't keep repeating the same unconstructive things over and over. I invite you to read more of the talk page, and I'd be very happy to discuss this. (I think a different thread though.)
 * More to the point, concerning the issue you remark upon with that sentence I do not remember all the steps, so could you give an example of a version you like better? Of course the challenge will be that anything I propose at the moment will almost certainly be rejected by Krakkos, because he will say his Oxford dictionary won't accept it, but let's go through the process optimistically, and see what happens. Once we get a nicer sentence, that is already something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please re-read No personal attacks and related pages carefully. It is irrelevant whether or not an alleged abuse can be demonstrated. End of discussion from my side. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let us indeed both consider the words "Comment on content, not on the contributor". :) Now back to this content: please can you show me which version of that sentence you preferred? I would be very happy to see it and try to learn from it. :) If we do not try, then we will not know what was possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see has edited the sentence in question.  To me this seems better, and possibly it also seems better to you? I will put the new sentence in the lead draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Trying to work out whether this causes any problem, I suppose the fact which is no longer mentioned is about "Germanic languages". Perhaps this could be mentioned in a different place. Personally, I think the opening line itself could be changed, for example:
 * "were an early Germanic people" -> "were an early Germanic-speaking people"

As explained on our Germanic peoples article "Germanic peoples" can have different definitions and one of those is "Germanic-speaking peoples" which means that the above change is just being more specific. Even more specific would be:
 * "were an early East Germanic-speaking people" <"early" becomes optional then because the whole language family is extinct.>

More specific is arguably better? And if we can get this information all just by using the right adjective it is also not to difficult to read? To be clear, I am just throwing ideas around, and not taking a strong position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should base this article upon what is written in reliable sources rather than what is currently written at Germanic peoples. Our reliable sources on the Goths classify them as a Germanic people/tribe (check the sources in the lead), and i see no justifiable reason why this article should do otherwise. You are of course free to make an RfC about it if you wish to do so. Krakkos (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * are you saying, honestly, that reliable sources deny that Gothic peoples were Germanic peoples in the sense of being Germanic-speaking peoples? Over the last 2 months you and have discussed, at long length, passage in Halsall, Heather and others, which makes this very clear, so I feel very certain you know this to be verifiable. Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, you used this exact quote many times in the articles and on talk pages at both Germanic peoples and your short-lived POV fork article Germani:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Halsall (2014, p. 520), using the Gothic peoples as an example wrote: "Linguistically, we can justify a grouping on the basis that all these peoples spoke a related form of Indo-European language, whether East, West or North Germanic. Such a modern definition, however, does not equate with the classical idea of the Germani."

I don't think it matters much whether we say Germanic-speaking, East Germanic-speaking or Germanic (since each of those is accurate). Our page at Germanic peoples should cover and explain whatever it means in the context of Late Antiquity, so that is why I left it as is. I removed "early" since the Goths are basically the opposite of early in the context of ancient Germanic peoples. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is also fine by me, though I have a slight preference for that extra bit of accuracy given the obvious difficulties people have with seeing that there are different ways the term can apply. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) [TLDR: If no one objects to the rationale I just gave, my answer is yes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)]

RfC on publication date
Should we take our publication year Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather 2009 or 2012 (or something else)? See --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Other users who have edited recently on this article: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2009, according to me. I posted the RFC. 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. I contend that google summaries are often hastily created and contain errors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion. Outside my area; I think my only contribution has been to fix a link to a DAB page, I hope uncontroversially. Narky Blert (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same. I only removed excess indentation from a link to a dab page. These notifications seem rather indiscriminate. ❌ ―cobaltcigs 11:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same. I only corrected some typos.Orenburg1 (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should state the publication (not copyright) date of the edition being cited. There are three editions of this work. The first by Macmillan from 2009 has a different subtitle . The first Oxford printing is from 2010. (Look up reviews on GScholar to see how it is cited.) The Oxford paperback edition is from 2012. I believe the contents are identical and probably the pagination is too. The date should be that of the edition being cited and if it is GBooks then that should be determined from the scans and not the metadata. I suspect that the correct date for the version Krakkos was using is 2010, but only he can confirm that. We could add the  variable to the citation template to keep 2009 there in any case. Since the 2009 edition had a different subtitle, however, the current format is certainly wrong. Srnec (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have made it more clear that in the discussion (see diff) the google book version linked to said 2009 on the scanned title page. That was in any case my best understanding. (One reason for this RfC was that I could not get a clear rationale.)
 * FWIW, BTW, My own copy is paperback and I would call it 2009, and wouldn't have thought of upping the date. I always consider new print runs, especially in the 21st century, and especially when we have many people presumably all using different copies, to be relevant only when they include a re-setting? Wouldn't that obviously lead to strange situations?
 * FWIW, the position of Krakkos is different in two ways to yours: "They aren't identical. Wikipedia should use the most recent version"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't "upping" the date, you are giving the date of publication (not copyright). See WP:CITE. I tend to agree that the original date seems most useful when dealing with mere reprints without any changes to the text or pagination, but that is not standard practice. Standard practice says cite the edition you are using. Note that in this case the first OUP edition is a reprint of an earlier Macmillan edition. So having OUP and 2009 in the same citation is a little strange, no? There was also a subtitle change. So while the 2012 and 2010 editions may be identical, the 2009 one is a little different. How we handle this in a collaborative project in which different editors have different editions of the same work is a good question. So long as they are identical texts, I think using both the  and   parameters will suffice. It looks like there is even a 2018 edition of this work! Srnec (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am 99% sure that multiple versions have been consulted by various editors. So theoretically this leads to the need for having 3 or 4 entries in the bibliography, for each of the more popular books with several editions? I think the reason I've never had this discussion before is because normally editors just come to some friendly compromise, or just don't notice the issue or bother with it. In this case when I corrected one in good faith a complaint was filed against me for edit warring. The reason I don't just ignore it was that several works which were involved in content dispute concerning their up-to-dateness, seemed to all get adjusted upwards. Note again the wording chosen by Krakkos to explain this in their own words implies always picking the highest year, so that is why I wrote "upping".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec per his comments above. The American 2009 version published by Macmillan is subtitled Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe. As he says, the date used should be that of the edition being cited. If the "orig-year=" parameter is used, the applicable subtitle must be indicated somehow. Carlstak (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we don't yet have one clear leading proposal? I agree copyright date would not be correct if it was not a publication date, but normally it is the first publication year; and as previously advised I checked the OUP website and they say "Published: 05 March 2009". Thanks for reminding me to use google scholar, but it seems to also show wide use of 2009 by scholars. In any case to me it sounds like the choice is between having multiple entries, or choosing between 2009 and 2010, and the reason for 2010 is the changed subtitle? (But this means we would be disputing the implication of OUP that they published in 2009?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think Srnec's comment is reasonable. The scan of the edition of Empires and Barbarians used in this article says 2010. I think we could add 2010 as publication date and 2009 as orig-year. This must certainly have been discussed at Wikipedia before? Krakkos (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I doubt such discussions do happen often. This type of thing does not normally happen even during disputes: . But just to be sure: are we all really sure Oxford really did no 2009 edition, despite what they say on their website? (As long as we work based on a common sense consistent principle, and don't use different rules to make different works look newer or older, I have no strong opinion. So my priority is getting the rationale clear.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * one of you guys have time to flip a coin, post a quick note about a rationale, and do the deed? I doubt we will get much more feedback.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Changed to 2010. Seems resolved. If you think the original year needs mentioning (I don't), you should add a note indicating the title and publisher of the 2009 edition. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, posting two years does not seem to be the best way to work in such cases. my main concern is whether we now have a clear rationale on record that we can use the same way for all sources. I think we are using the first publication year for the main "version" we are using. In other words, we are not using 2009 because you are saying there was no 2009 publication of the Oxford version (which I have doubts about, but that is a minor issue). Does that sound about right to everyone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

some specific tweak proposals in lead
I will use my table format. My suggestions are in green. Feedback requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stuffing the lead with all of these selective details and sources is not an improvement in my opinion. There are also factual inaccuracies in this proposal. For example, Alaric I died in Calabria, Italy in 410 AD, long before Goths settled in Aquitania. I have strong doubts that any of the sources above contain such an inaccuracy, suggesting that this proposal is at least partially based on original research. Peter Heather's entry on the Goths in the 2012 Oxford Classical Dictionary is easily accessible, and removing such a source is not an improvement.


 * Let's stick to limiting the lead to the basics, which are covered in reference works. Additional information can be covered in the body. That will be an effective measure against edit warring. Krakkos (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Krakkos, please remember WP:ASPERSIONS yourself sometimes...
 * Aspersion and misrepresentation #1. This is not a significant change of length, and details are not "selective" but explained as corrections. The present text really does seem to contain errors. You could have said that my explanations are wrong, but instead you only cast aspersions.
 * Aspersion and misrepresentation #2. You accuse me of inserting factual inaccuracies. Again, no attempt to give evidence.
 * Aspersion and misrepresentation #3. You accuse me of fraudulently misreporting the sources and inserting original research under the name of these sources. Again, no attempt to give evidence.
 * Aspersion and misrepresentation #4. As you surely must know, you have access to OUP via Wikipedia Library, as shown on your userpage. The dictionary is behind a paywall. Below, you have suggested that the paywall is my only concern with this source, but you know this is not the case. See WP:RSN.
 * I invite you to actually read the text with an open mind, actually look at the sources, etc, and then post a constructive comment about the proposals. I would be very happy to explain my concerns in more detail also, concerning the errors I believe are in the current text.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity the words which you point to as inaccurate, implying that Alaric led one single migration that went to Spain, are from the current version, and yes they should be fixed. To the extent they are in my version that is because it is adapted from the older version. But part of the problem here, honestly, is this constant reference to single migrations, which did not happen like that. I compromised too much about that in my draft. There was no such single migration was there?


 * I am going to say this too: I find it a shame that after posting a pretty crude misrepresentation of my draft here, you immediately started a new sub-section about EXACTLY the same paragraph with no reference to this topic which had just been posted. How should others interpret this "style"? Please think about it. Can you you explain to yourself or anyone else what this is intended to achieve?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to replace links behind paywall
Andrew Lancaster has repeatedly complained that the following sources are behind a paywall: On this basis he has advocated the removal of these sources from this article. I have found links of these sources which are not behind a paywall. If it's alright with the community, i would like to insert those links into the article, so that the sources become accessible to everyone. Krakkos (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Krakkos but just to be clear, that is not the only concern with these sources, or the way that they have been used. I will comment on WP:RSN where this is being discussed. Hopefully one of the other editors watching can insert those links.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to confirm, these links do not work for me. I presume that you can open them because of the OUP access mentioned on your Userbox?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster, do i have your permission to switch the links so that it will work for your too? Krakkos (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But the links here on the talk page do not work for me. Do I misunderstand something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources with freely accessible links:
 * Free links are accessible through clicking the book titles, which were previously wikilinks but are now urls. Do i have your permission to replace these new links with the old ones? Krakkos (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I tried this (now several times) and no, these links go to OUP and a paywall? I am not sure why you keep responding as if you did not read my comment. The older of the two works does have pages on google books https://books.google.be/books?id=bVWcAQAAQBAJ which would be better. I would like to hear from other editors. Is there any rush?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the source, you must click on the book rather than the article in order to get to the freely accessible link. If i insert the links into the article you will understand. Do i have your permission add the free links? Krakkos (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is behind this and why you want to rush this, and I am not sure if I really should be deciding it, but from my point of view based on your explanation you could try it. But if this does not work, then will you please change back to google for the one which at least has a google book link? Remember the paywall is a side issue in the discussions about relative source strength. I only mentioned it in order to compare to your comments about German sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you tried it, so I tested it. By clicking on the book link I can get to the google preview of the 2018 book, though unfortunately at least for me the Goths article does not seem to be in the preview. It will be interesting to hear what other editors see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is behind this and why you want to rush this, and I am not sure if I really should be deciding it, but from my point of view based on your explanation you could try it. But if this does not work, then will you please change back to google for the one which at least has a google book link? Remember the paywall is a side issue in the discussions about relative source strength. I only mentioned it in order to compare to your comments about German sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you tried it, so I tested it. By clicking on the book link I can get to the google preview of the 2018 book, though unfortunately at least for me the Goths article does not seem to be in the preview. It will be interesting to hear what other editors see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos. You are in no way obliged to change them.
 * "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf", see WP:VERIFY.

Complaining that sources are hard to access is not a valid objection.--Berig (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

just to be clear, because I am concerned about the large number of misleading remarks being made and the attention they draw, that the paywall is also clearly not the main concern that I raised about these sources, and the highly unusual ways in which they are being used in terms of rationales for excluding other sources. Krakkos misrepresented my concerns above. I also noted this immediately above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to paragraph 3 in the lead
Paragraph 3 in the lead reads currently as follows:
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths fell under Hunnic rule, while others migrated into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, and eventually became known as the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.

I would like to add the following tweaks, with proposed changes marked in bold.
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic rule, while others migrated across the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they eventually inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.

Feedback welcome. Krakkos (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks Krakkos. I hope you don't mind me placing the proposal here, which I made just a few hours earlier.
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.[*1] In the aftermath of this event, many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved into the Roman Empire. When a large group of Tervingi crossed the Danube, tensions rose and they were joined by more Goths, Alans, and Huns to inflict a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.[*2] Within the empire, Goths such as Alaric, possibly a Tervingian, led large barbarian military forces for Rome, with their families attached.[*3] Unable to confirm his position in the Roman hierarchy, Alaric's people became the Visigoths, and with Alaric as king, they moved to Aquitania, and generations later, a Visigothic Kingdom was established in Spain at Toledo.[*4] Meanwhile, the Hunnic alliance split up in the 5th century, leading to the splitting out of different components, most importantly the Amal-led Ostrogoths.[*5] Under their king Theodoric the Great, and supported by the eastern emperor Zeno, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[*6]
 * Certain issues with this proposal has already been explained above. Krakkos (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are remarks about my reasons. Perhaps you and others will find better solutions! So, I think there are some mistakes that do need fixes, and these are not yet covered in your proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Goths did not simply become subjects of a Hunnish state. I think Wolfram, Goffart, Heather and Halsall would all more or less agree that (a) there was no single Hunnish central "rule" and (b) some of the Goths probably entered into the "alliance" as equal partners. So I think, just to be clear, the current wording disagrees with Heather for example.
 * I propose the word "migration" is being used too much in the paragraph, and I think the word over-simplifies. I switched to the more neutral "moved". "Migration" gives the impression of a simple continuous movement of fixed groups of people. This is inaccurate here IMHO.
 * The present paragraph makes a simple equation of the people who crossed the Danube in 376 (Tervingi) with (a) the whole category of Goths who moved into the empire and (b) the winners in 378 at Adrianople. Actually both these implications are quite wrong. (a) There were Goths entering the empire before and after, and in significant amounts. (b) The winners at Adrianople included SOME of those who had crossed, and some who came over especially perhaps, for the fight. There were Huns at Adrianople as I understand it. It is all a bit messier than we are making it - even in Heather, who is I think in a minority concerning sticking to the old simple equations as much as he does (but not as much as we are doing).
 * I don't see evidence of any of the authors I was just checking this morning, including Heather, agree with the simple equation of Adrianople Goths = Visigoths. Perhaps the short text in a dictionary could give that impression somehow but in longer explanations Heather seems to clearly disagree with our present text.
 * "under their king Alaric I". This implies that Alaric was always seen as a king. It invents a continuity which we do not know from the real evidence. What we do know, that he was part of the Roman military, is what we are NOT saying. Our sources do debate ideas about what is likely to have been the case, but none of them write quite like this.
 * Again the word migration. There was not one single migration from the Balkans to Spain, but that is what our text is quite wrongly suggesting.
 * "regained their freedom" Again, I don't see any of our authors including Heather describing the Ostrogoths as slaves of the Huns. Ostrogoths were a powerful part of the Hunnic alliance.
 * My proposal above is largely based upon your ideas. Do you consider the proposal an improvement or not? Krakkos (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, whether that was your intention or not, thanks for switching to that kind of wording. Still not sure why we started a new section or what was wrong with just answering what I wrote already though. Commenting on your draft, which proposes much smaller changes than mine: Maybe a crazy proposal, but just to consider: on my draft table above I added some page citations to 3 books I think you have access to. Why don't we look at those? One of them is by Heather. (Of course I will remind us both of the need to check for which points might be ones where Heather might be in the minority.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * fell->came. No strong opinion. But of course I have in effect explained why I fear both are wrong. I think a bigger change is needed. They chose the "Hunnic alternative" according to Wolfram.
 * into the Roman-Empire->across the Danube. No strong opinion. Again linking to my bigger explanation, which I really beg you to read, I am thinking a bigger change is needed. The implication of the sentence now is that ALL Goths who entered the empire did so together at one time and place, and then this exact same group was the Gothic side at Adrianople. That is of course wrong, and not just a simplification.
 * addition: eventually. Same as last bullet. But also the Tervingi crossed the Danube 376 and Adrianople was 378 so I can't really see what "eventually" is adding as those two particular events were reasonably rapid, and so for this case I'm actually against it at least until I understand better why this should be added.
 * "most importantly the Ostrogoths" ("gained their freedom"). The wording change does not make it worse, so no problem, but again a bigger problem is covered in my longer post already. For example "gained their freedom" needs to be reviewed.
 * The part about Goths coming under Hunnic rule, and Gothic refugees winning the Battle of Adrianople and becoming Visigoths under Alaric I is described by Peter Heather in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is now freely accessible. Would this be an improvement?
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic rule, while others migrated across the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their independence in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna. Krakkos (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Still some bits to look at:
 * others migrated ... they inflicted. I can see that Heather in that very brief dictionary article has "two separate Gothic groups crossed the Danube in 376, their victory at Hadrianople in 378...". I will put aside differences between Heather and other authors on this for now, and also differences with Heather's more detailed works, but STILL, we are saying ALL Goths who EVER came over the Danube were involved in 378. So we are not even following this one source you like.
 * These Goths became known as the Visigoths. Here Heather is arguably a minority source in his simplification and assumptions, but again putting all that aside for later, just looking at "your" abbreviated source, Heather says "only after being joined by...". So there were other Goths.
 * regained their independence. Maybe a bit better. But it still means they wanted "independence". They were big boys in a big power, and they lost that. Consistent with what I am saying, Heather choose the word "hegemony" in that little summary, not "rule" or "empire" or "dominance".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of some differences between recent experts by Halsall, who writes p.190:

On p.191:

have a look perhaps at more of these longer works again? On this particular word choice thing, I don't see any big dramatic problem at least in the lead. I think authors are not light years from each other and unlike you might think, they are not denying that the differences between them are in areas where it is difficult to ever be really 100% certain. So we just have to avoid being certain at the wrong moments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

strikes me part of the problem is partly coming from compressing things until they are wrong. So, as the person with the lead length concern, maybe you need to consider whether for example these are the key facts you want to fit. Or which should be removed or added? I have written each in a way that contains what I think is more-or-less what the sources would describe. I did this looking again at Heather, to try to make sure I also remove anything from Halsall which might not be a field consensus. I hope this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.
 * Many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved south into the Roman Empire, or east into the Carpathian and Middle Danube regions.
 * After a major Danube crossing in 376, Goths and their allies inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.
 * Goths quickly became a major part of the Roman military.
 * Two major kingdoms of Goths formed within the Roman empire itself.
 * First, the Visigoths, acquired a semi-independent were the people led by their king Alaric, who started as a Romanized military leader.
 * Later, an Ostrogothic kingdom formed under the control of the Amal dynasty, who had been part of the Hun alliance. With support of the eastern emperor they took over the kingdom of Italy which had been created by Odoacer.
 * Would this be an improvement?
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic domination or migrated further west, while others crossed the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their independence in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.
 * Krakkos (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it basically the same?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are substantial differences. Do you consider the proposal an improvement? Krakkos (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any changes in any of these proposals which seem to respond to the concerns I am mentioning in every round of this discussion? Unless "further west" is meant to refer to the Pannonian region? But how is that west of the Roman empire? It does not seem a good addition. For the rest it seems you are not interested in my concerns listed several times above. I guess there is not point listing them again, but they are there now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal responds to several of the suggestions you have made. "Further west" means west of the lands were the Goths lived (Chernyakhov culture/Oium) before the Hunnic invasion. Do i have your permission to implement the proposal? Krakkos (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your drafts take no account of the concerns I have noted, time after time. All my notes are above. I also gave sources you can consider, above. So to me this proposal makes no sense, and the discussion is strange. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal is largely inspired by your suggestions. Do you consider it an improvement or not? Do i have your permission to implement this proposal? Krakkos (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did answer. I think that is a very strange description of the proposal. And we have already gone in circles many times. This is not a useful proposal, though it is clear that the sentence will need to be rebuilt according to the sources and explanations previously advised. On the other hand I remain open to further discussion if there are genuinely new ideas available that take more account of the advised concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

For everyone's handy reference here is a "key" to the easy-to-solve/impossible-to-solve problems in the latest proposal in short form, as per more detailed discussions above... I think all my concerns except the first are in agreement with Heather when read properly in a proper detailed work? And, by the way we are certainly "allowed" to use such books, despite what Krakkos has tried to enforce.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Goths came under Hunnic domination [Heather version] =questionably because=> some of these became key players in a loose alliance [Halsall etc] =more neutral=> simple remove words like "under" and pass no judgement: they became part of Attila's Hunnic group.
 * or migrated further west =but this is not worth saying like this because=> its a very unclear description apparently referring to the Hungarian region
 * others crossed the Danube into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat =nope because=> Just because a Goth went over the Danube does not meant they fought at Adrianople
 * These Goths became known [came to be known?] as the Visigoths =nope because=> just because you fought at Adrianople does not mean you were in Alaric's group
 * Meanwhile =is a chronological terms which is, in this context=> unclear
 * Goths under Hunnic rule regained their independence =not really=> some were more powerful as "Huns", and working for Rome was not "freedom". They gave them power and then destroyed them. [ADDED: Correction. This is consistent with Halsall, Heather and Wolfram. My mistake.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)]

Using a different device I could see this, the [so-called] "reference". (There is no mention at all of Adrianople, and the article is one column only with 3 citations, 2 of which to Heather himself)...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 3, which is being discussed here, cites Heather 2012, p. 623 rather than Heather 2018, p. 673. Heather 2012, p. 623 mentions Adrianople:
 * Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

New proposal for paragraph 3 in the lead
- I have formulated an improved version of paragraph 3 of the lead, largely based upon your suggestions:
 * In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths came under Hunnic domination, while others migrated further west or sought refuge inside the Roman Empire. Goths who entered the empire by crossing the Danube inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. These Goths would form the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, eventually establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule gained their independence in the 5th century, most importantly the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.

Is this an improvement compared to the current version? Do i have your permission to implement the proposal? Krakkos (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At first sight this is a clear improvement and would therefore be a edit worth doing. I personally do not object to you or anyone else putting this in the article, but I am not sure if this is necessary, or if it can cause any problems. In any case thank you for making the changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)