Talk:Goths/Archive 7

Request for permission to reduce duplication
There have been complaints about duplication in certain sections of this article. I have made an attempt at reducing duplication through merging section 3.2 into sections 3.1 and 3.3. I have also fixed some chronological errors and added some citations from recent archaeological research. The proposed version can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths. The proposed edit will be like this. Krakkos (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * over and over you reject proposals I make, and then propose something similar-sounding yourself? Hmmm. I will of course check and comment in a good faith way ASAP, but I wish you would demonstrate that you can do the same.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * is it possible to provide a diff which shows all the differences? Was any version of the draft on your page the same as the current article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The diff you're asking for is already provided above. Krakkos (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So the 11:51 version there is the same as our current article? Sorry for asking twice, but you were clearly doing more edits before then, so I am wondering if this is really the case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "11:51 version" is the same as our current article. Krakkos (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Some key changes of potential concern seem to relate to the way that two sources from the deleted section will over-write the other sections concerning the archaeological and genetic evidence for Scandinavian influence on the Wielbark culture. It creates a false impression of field certainty. This can be compared to the edits you made a month ago on the Wielbark culture article, where sourced comments about doubts were removed . There are especially two sources being used for this:
 * Kokowski for the archaeology. I can not access the online version linked to, but it does not seem to represent a field consensus. For example it disagrees with Heather's reading of that field?
 * Stolarek for the genetics. I think our use of this source is unfortunately WP:UNDUE and verging on WP:OR. It is also used in 3 parts of our article still, in a way which gives an impression of far more studies than we are really reporting. This is WP:PRIMARY research data. These are basic reports of a tiny amount of mitochondrial data, which led to quite confusing results. Mitochondrial DNA is not even suitable for this type of work. (It used to be the only type of test possible. I presume this lab just does not have access to the newer technologies.) The author's comment about the results being consistent with Scandinavia comments (which use Jutland as a proxy for Scandinavia BTW, which makes it useless for the OR we are doing of trying to contrast Scandinavia with East Germany, as they are equally close) is made far stronger and taken out of context.
 * Can you consider whether there is any way to reduce those types of concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be able to access this link to Andrzej Kokowski's article. In his more recent works (Empires and Barbarians from 2009 for example), Peter Heather, approvingly cites Kokowski's work on the Wielbark culture. It does not appear that they disagree with each other to any major extent. I have fixed the draft in accordance with your concerns about the proposal. The proposal does not touch upon Stolarek's articles in Nature Communications. If you want to remove citations from Stolarek you should make a separate proposal for that. The proposed edit will now be like this. Is this an improvement from the current version? Krakkos (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Genetics. You have a point about leaving Stolarek for a later discussion, but I would strongly appeal to you Krakkos to please consider next steps on what to do with this 3-times described, and every-time exaggerated source. I feel it is a minor part of the article which is purely a WP creation. None of our good sources cite this, and we are taking the article way out of context. We should at least tame down the very strong claims made for this minor work and reduce the duplication? This is by the way no disrespect to the researchers who are just doing their jobs.
 * Archaeology. I am perhaps like Heather in also having no disrespect for archaeologists proposing Scandinavian links either. Sounds really interesting! I feel more uncomfortable about us not reporting other ideas. I find it a bit hard to believe that all all archaeologists you found were all claiming Scandinavian connections? Is that really your impression?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Historically, archaeologists such as Gustaf Kossinna, Eric Oxenstierna and Birger Nerman suggested that the Goths originated through a mass migration from Scandinavia. Then in the 1970s, Rolf Hachmann wrote an influential work suggesting that the Goths originated on the continent from the Przeworsk culture. The field of archaeology has changed a lot since then. For example, the Oksywie culture had not yet been discovered when Hachmann published his book. The most comprehensive recent works by archaeologists on this question appear to be by Andrzej Kokowski and Anders Kaliff. They both suggest Scandinavian influences on the Wielbark culture. If we find works of similar reliability and relevance which contradicts this, then we can of course add it, but that is a matter for future discussion. The same principle applies to Stolarek. Do you consider the proposed reduction of duplication an improvement to the current article? Krakkos (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I am torn. I do not want to be too negative, but I feel each edit should move the article ahead. I hope others will comment.
 * Archaeology. You only mention pre 21st century sources, whereas one of your favourite sources is Peter Heather's more recent book, which, IIRC says that archaeology is not showing any evidence of a Scandinavia migration, as opposed to a migration from the Oder? Why wouldn't we mention such positions? The Wielbark edits are a worrying example also. I don't want to use Kossina as a bogeyman, but using him in your explanation also doesn't really make me feel like this is going a good direction.
 * Genetics. Stolarek is simpler. Based on normal objective criteria this is undue, and original research, and repeated 3 times in the article. It goes beyond what those two small mitochondrial reports can be used for.
 * I see no similarity between the archaeology and genetics sourcing discussions here, because whether something is "out of Scandinavia" or not is not my interest. With archaeology I am worried about balance, and missing sources, while with genetics I don't see an RS at all, only OR.
 * I will look again tomorrow and keep considering my opinion. Thanks for your responses so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A summary of some reading and checking of sources follows, but here are some key sentences in the draft that we are talking about. My conclusion is that it would be easy to avoid controversy on these, and so all indications are that the controversy is intended, and discussion will be resisted about changing anything after this merge goes through. See also what has happened on the Wielbark culture article: In other words, Heather (like Wolfram, Pohl etc) takes a Vienna school position which does not assume any mass migration necessary. I feel we are misleading our readers. Concerning mitochondrial DNA and its uselessness for pinpointing origins within Europe, especially when there is only a small number of samples, it is convenient to just point to our own article which has some sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#Matrilineal_studies (But we report Storalek's article misleadingly anyway.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added, and still there in newest proposal [source=Kokowski, but given in WP voice]: Archaeological evidence suggests that the Wielbark culture probably emerged out of the preceding Oksywie culture under Scandinavian influences. This can not be verified, because Kokowski does NOT use archaeological evidence to come to this conclusion, and clearly knows he is not speaking for the field. His evidence is Jordanes.
 * Weakened [source=Heather, no longer given in WP voice]: there is no archaeological evidence for a mass migration from Scandinavia. -> according to Peter Heather there is no conclusive archaeological evidence for a mass migration from Scandinavia. This can not be verified because Heather's wording is much stronger, and he is also describing what archaeologists and other scholars think, which I have no reason to doubt (see collapsed box). See his page 39 (I am not sure why our article cites p.26): Archaeologists consider the Wielbark culture autochtonous. But since no one wants to claim that the Gutones as such migrated from Scandinavia, it is entirely possible they there was a Gutic immigration. [...] Does this mean, after all, that the Goths originated in Scandinavia? Reinhard Wenskus has already given an answer, which ought to be slightly modified: not entire peoples, but small successful clans, the bearers of prestigious traditions, emigrated and became the founders of new gentes.
 * The chief source by Andrzej Kokowski is from 2011. A 2011 source is a 21st century source. Kokowski is one of Poland's most distinguished archaeologists, and an expert on early Gothic archaeology. His works on this subject are cited approvingly by both Peter Heather and Andreas Schwarcz. Kokowski bases his conclusions on archaeological evidence; Jordanes is not mentioned in his article. Kokowski in fact dismisses Jordanes' story of a single mass migration. I have now added citations from more archaeologists on the discussion of Scandinavian influences on the Wielbark culture. Would you now permit me to reduce duplication and add the suggested fixes to the article? Krakkos (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that during the discussion we've switched from his 1999 book to a later article but that is only one aspect of the concern. Also, that Kowkowski is citeable etc is not the issue either of course. Once again, I'll look asap, but can you confirm that the above link is a comparison of the current article and the draft? (Or if not, what does it show?) If I understand correctly, you've tweaked on archaeology but not on genetics? I think this new sentence in WP voice would not be adding anything if it were not meant to imply more than it should be: The archaeological evidence nevertheless indicates that while his work is thought to be unreliable, Jordanes' story was based on an oral tradition with some basis in fact Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This diff compares the current version of the article with the draft. The draft makes no changes to genetic information. The sentence you're quoting (which has since been tweaked) is a direct citation from the Swedish professor of archaeology Anders Kaliff. Krakkos (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with the edit only if the following changes (or something equivalent) could be made. If these are controversial, then that would itself raise big questions about why: Genetics:
 * Removal of the new sentence by Kaliff, added in during this discussion. Just because a sourced sentence was good in its original context does not mean it has the same implication when placed into a new context, in Wikipedia voice. Anyone who disagrees that it implies something more than the sentences already there, should logically also believe that the sentence is adding nothing, and so the change should be uncontroversial.
 * We should remove this short citation from the poor source Mark which now disagrees with everything else we have from good sources in the article: Jordanes' account of Gothic settlement in modern-day Poland is widely accepted. Just for example consider the remarks of Dennis H. Green describing this same scholarship as a "hornet's nest" - remark made in at least two carefully worked-up published places, and already discussed above.
 * The creation of a strong statement from Heather by using a book review not written by him (Sønnesyn, 2004) is a straight-forwardly inappropriate way of citing Heather, and needs to be replaced or removed. Obviously if this sentence survives this detailed discussion it will not be because we are in a rush, or had no real quotes from Heather. An example of what Heather really believes is that Jordanes has "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [Jordanes or Paul the Deacon] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence." (Full citation for those is on this talk page already.) The period where Heather thinks Jordanes might sometimes be useful is clearly NOT the one we are implying. (I am not sure the sentence would add much if it was made more accurate?)
 * Stolorek summary: Now we have - A 2019 genetic study published in Scientific Reports examined the remains of individuals identified with the Wielbark culture and the Goths. Close genetic relations to populations of Iron Age Scandinavia and modern Norwegians and Swedes were detected.[112] The authors of the study cited this as supporting the theory of a Scandinavian origin of the Goths.[36] I believe this should be Studies of mitochondrial DNA from two Wielbark cemeteries showed a close relationship to mitochondrial DNA found in Iron Age Jutland, and similarity to the mitochondrial DNA found today in modern populations including Norway and Sweden. The author described this as consistent with a Scandinavian origin of the Goths.
 * We certainly need to switch "supports" wording to "consistent with" wording, which is a wording Stolarek uses more often in both reports, which need to be more clearly explained as two reports. In contrast to the impression we are giving, the one occasion where "supports" is used is NOT comparing the hypothesis to any named competing hypothesis (it looks a bit like they were trying to write it that way and gave up trying to name any theory with which their extremely limited data would not be consistent). There is a similar problem with their one and only mention of Norwegians and Swedes, which is part of a bigger description of their more informative tables and graphs which show the normal mitochondrial pattern of all modern Eurasians populations close to each other and hard to pull apart on a geographical basis. Our readers can not, as usual, do see the original context, but we know that it shows "consistent with".

The genetics passages really deserve more discussion. For one thing there is obvious duplication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Järve summary: The results appeared to confirm the theory that the Chernyakhov culture emerged as a result of a Gothic migration from the north. As per the article's own summary I think this should say The results appeared to confirm that the Chernyakhov culture emerged partly as a result of a new non-Scythian population, with a higher amount of Near Eastern ancestry.
 * Most of these demands (Stolarek, Sønnesyn, Mark, Järve etc.) are not about proposed changes in the draft. Blocking other editors from improving an article unless they agree to remove other information is not a constructive approach. Anders Kaliff is a distinguished Swedish archaeologist who has written widely on early Gothic archaeology and removing his conclusions is not helpful. In Empires and Barbarians (2010), Peter Heather cites archaeological evidence for his belief that Jordanes' Getica partially reflects Gothic oral histories. The longer this discussion becomes, and the more sweeping the changes in the draft becomes, the harder it will be for the community to agree on improvements to this article. But perhaps that is your aim? One is left with the impression that you are more concerned with removing citations on Gothic connections with Scandinavia than you are about removing duplication. This discussions appears to be never ending. Final question: Do you want to preserve the current version with its extensive duplication or do you support adding the fixes in the draft? Krakkos (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * merges are not necessarily neutral because they are merges, and snippets of words from good sources are not necessarily uncontroversial when placed in a completely new context. Furthermore, due to your own actions, you and I are in a special situation on this article where we can't just handle details later in any easy way. But there is a solution. By their very nature, the small tweaks I request should not be controversial at all for anyone who simply wants the article to be better, and does not want to distort what the sources are saying. So it should be easy to move ahead quickly now if you want to. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
In our section Goths, we have this opening definition in two sentences: "After the Hunnic invasion, many Goths became subjects of the Huns. These would become known as the Ostrogoths.". We should change to something like this: "After the collapse of the Hunnic empire of Attila, the Amal clan, who had been prominent in one of at least three Gothic factions under Attila, established themselves as leaders of a Gothic kingdom in Pannonia, in the north of the Roman Balkans. They eventually also took control of a Thracian group of Goths. These Amal-led Goths came to be known as the Ostrogoths.

TLDR. We cite Peter Heather but our definition is apparently based on Jordanes, and clearly disagrees with Peter Heather. We are equating the Ostrogoths to all Goths who did not enter the Roman empire, but became part of the Hunnic community, and equating these in a simple way to Theoderic's kingdom. Specifically it cites the following short dictionary entry by Heather, which is not ideal to begin with, but which does make it clear that we are using the source wrongly: More extended discussions can be found in better publications by Heather: Just to be clear, I have also given some consideration of the question of whether Heather's position really represents a field consensus. It might be possible to dispute that, but on this particular point Heather is at least not taking an extreme position, and the wording chosen tries to avoid any major issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * [See for example p.73.]
 * [See for example p.123, 222-224, p.250]
 * I have tweaked the sentence in question in accordance with your request. Keep in mind that we also have the article Ostrogoths. Detailed speculations on Ostrogothic origins and identity are better suited for that article. Krakkos (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I agree, but this was a sentence already in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request Visigoths
I think we need to make certain minimum changes to the opening of our Visigoths section: Luckily we have a good source which not only argues one well-known historian's position but explains what he believes would be agreed to by most of his colleagues: [ADD quote --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The term Visigoths should be switched to Goths in at least the first two paragraphs.
 * The sentence about Alaric being elected should be removed, and probably the source being cited should also be removed. All better sources show that there is uncertainty about exactly when and how Alaric came to be called king. (Some like Kulikowski perhaps doubt whether it ever happened at all?)
 * The opening should be possible for readers to understand, so it needs to define the term and explain what the "treaty" is.
 * p.47: The Visigoths of Aquitaine were a new political unit largely put together during the reign of Alaric (ca 395-411). [Then names five different sources of these people.] Alaric may have had other sources of recruits besides, but the basic pattern is clear enough. The Visigoths settled in Aquitaine in 418 were a new creation. [Following page starts with a look back at what was just summarized: This much, I think, would command consensus, although it is certainly worth stressing. While specialists are well aware of the point, handbooks continue to talk about 'Visigoths' before 376.]

These changes seem to be necessary and uncontroversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC) I have colored the changes to show how small they are: one introductory sentence, some changes of the term "Visigoth" from the period before they definitely existed, the implied "election" date removed, and a few punctuation tweaks (which can be ignored if necessary). For anyone who has doubts the clickable link to Peter Heather's summary of what scholars all agree upon should be easy to absorb, and is very "to the point". Bottom of p.47 and top of p.48. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Perhaps I should add a source for the lack of consensus about when Alaric became a king. A good recent summary is by Halsall, who keeps open to various possibilities, but seems to favor the proposal of Burns, based on Jordanes. He names 3 antique sources which all give different answers:
 * p.202: Traditionally, in 'people on the move' theories, he was simply king of the Goths, although his elevation is associated with his rebellion in 395
 * p.203: But was Alaric a king of the Goths? T.S. Burns makes much of the fact that, writing 150 years later, Jordanes said that Alaric took the title of king in the year of the consulate of Stilicho and Aurelianus - 400.
 * p.206: In the second quarter of the sixth century, Marcellinus Comes pushed Alaric's kingship back to his first appearance in 395 and in the early seventh century Isidore of Seville completed the process by linking it to the Gothic submission in 382.
 * p.206: Jordanes' statement might apply to the first time this expedient was used, in particular circumstances in 400/1. It would appear that it only (and gradually) became an important feature of western politics after that date. Athaulf was possibly the first to imply it regularly.
 * p.206: Jordanes' statement might apply to the first time this expedient was used, in particular circumstances in 400/1. It would appear that it only (and gradually) became an important feature of western politics after that date. Athaulf was possibly the first to imply it regularly.

It would be strange for us to willfully ignore that our article is wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Goths should be capitalized. "eventually came to be called" is very weak. Called by whom? When? Other than that, no objection. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I took a minimal approach to the king bit. Potentially something more in line with Halsall's uncertain comments could be added back in somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Christensen citation
Another case where context changes meaning. We currently have, in the context of a paragraph about what different authors think about the Jordanes myth of Goths sailing from Scandinavia:
 * Arne Christensen argues that Jordanes borrowed the legend from Cassiodorus, who had conflated the Goths with the Geats.

This implies, to a general reader, that there is a people called the Geats who were known to have migrated from Scandinavia, and I think more generally we are not letting the reader understand what Christensen actually says. The footnote helps, but then (a) if the text in a footnote is needed for comprehended a passage, it should not be in a footnote, and (b) some missing words from the same passage (also going on to p.137) are important: PROPOSAL would make it slightly longer:
 * Christensen says that the story that "the Goths originate on an island in the far north" was an "innovative element in Cassiodorus's work".
 * "The Goths were naturally unable to assist him in the matter, for they did not know of the island. Isidore of Seville's failure to mention the Gothic origins in Scandza provide the final proof that Cassiodorus himself invented that part of the story. Had it been part of a living Gothic tradition in their carmina prisca, Isidore would have been familiar with the story."
 * Arne Christensen argues that the story that "the Goths originate on an island in the far north" was an "innovative element in Cassiodorus's work" which Jordanes used as a source. He argues that Cassiodorus based his idea of Scandza upon a reading of the 2nd-century Geography of Ptolemy which mentions a people living there, the "Goutai", "whose name was strongly reminiscent of the name of the Goths". Furthermore, Christensen believes that the Gothic traditions can not have included this story, or else Isidore of Seville would also have reported it.

Can we go ahead with this? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Why can't we just add "of Scandinavia" after Geats? who had conflated the Goths with the Geats of Scandinavia. I don't see how the text as it stands implies a Geatish migration. It is short because the article is already long and we aren't presenting everybody's interpretation of Jordanes in a separate paragraph. Srnec (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that proposal, because it would also be an improvement. I will do it. But I think it would be a further improvement to move at least some of our footnote into the article. I am not seeing any length problem, especially given that we already have such a long footnote? I think the references to Ptolemy and Isidore need to be connected to this discussion eventually, at some point in the future of the article. (A bigger length concern is coming from duplication/ illogical structure. But we've seen it is difficult to propose changes to that.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Better source needed tag: Gdansk
Noting a tag in the Jordanes section, which I agree with (or perhaps I put it there):
 * Although the exact location of Gothiscandza is unclear, it is generally believed to have somewhere near Gdańsk. [49 = Mark 2014. "Historians such as Peter Heather have identified Gothiscandza with Gdansk in modern Poland, and this theory is generally supported..."][better source needed]


 * Dennis H Green is a better source, being a philologist: p.17 although he reports it as an old theory with some doubts.
 * Herwig Wolfram in History of the Goths p.21 also reports it as an old theory: "The historian reads such timeless reports from the past only with detached interest but must consider them impossible to interpret scholarly" [sic].
 * I do not find any reference to the theory yet in Heather. can you have a look in your book for any reference to Gdansk?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Goths and Romans doesn't seem to mention Gothiscandza or Gdansk (or Gothiscandia or Danzig), but the book is nearly 30 years old, so the reference might be a newer paper. GPinkerton (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Goths and Romans doesn't seem to mention Gothiscandza or Gdansk (or Gothiscandia or Danzig), but the book is nearly 30 years old, so the reference might be a newer paper. GPinkerton (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sub-section title
When making another edit I changed a section heading.  I think it is a no-brainer, because there are other sections about the Goths in classical sources, but this one is NOT one of them. But if there is a real concern please mention it here first, and we can potentially revert it or change it to something else. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence from classical sources -> Goth-related names in early Baltic


 * This was not an improvement. It sounds like it is about early Baltic languages, or records from the Baltic region. It is all about classical sources, so why do you say it is not? Srnec (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are all records about the Baltic region though, and they are not records mentioning Goths (except in an extended sense, but that needs extra discussion). OTOH there are other sections which DO discuss classical sources which mention actual Goths. The mismatch between the title and content was striking and confuses all discussion on this talk page. I think you might not have realized it. Please have a look. I removed the term classical sources just for length but I am open to other ideas. The section is really about classical mentions of the sometimes-claimed early Baltic region Goths, or "Goth relatives" who were chronologically recorded before the Goths themselves were. What should it be called?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Early history" GPinkerton (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the virtue of simplicity. There are two discussion points which us lead to other issues:
 * It is a "POSSIBLE/PROBABLE" early history section, at least as far as most historians would be concerned. Gutones and Goutoi have a related name to the Goths, say our sources, and very likely some sort of connection. But do our readers understand that this is all we want to say - if we simply call them Goths?
 * It is only one sub-section in an "Early History" section which already exists. Have a look. There are even THREE of these sub-sections about written records. Worst case is poor Procopius, whose origins theory is not mentioned at all, but instead just a comment leading to blond hair and blue eyes. (Similar crap to what we can find duplicated over and over in many Wikipedia articles about this period in history.)
 * How do we divide Early/Pre History and History more clearly and get this section into some type of order? As a side remark showing how we really do have a lot of work to do, this whole sub-section is pre-empted by a section above it called "Name", which is more than 50% about the same early history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone with "Possible references in classical sources". I am completely confused by your comment The mismatch between the title and content was striking. The heading used to be "Evidence from classical sources". The only contestable word there is "evidence", which I have replaced. I don't understand what else the objection could be. The Goths aren't synonymous with their name. It is possible for them to have existed long before their name was recorded or to have existed under a different name. Saying recorded before the Goths themselves were is question-begging when talking about this section, which is about the possibility that these earlier references are to the Goths. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * & I would recommend hiving off all the exegetical material and speculation on the mystic origins, archaeology, "possible" passing classical references, and so on to a point far further down the article. There should be a clear History section beginning in the second or third century at earliest and talking about what we actually know about the actual Goths of Late Antiquity, unencumbered by this relentless analysis and scholarly dot-joining with Iron Age Scandinavia. What the late antique Graeco-Romans wrote, what the Goths did, the battles, the cities the provinces, the emperors, the kings, the bishops. This preoccupation with where they came from way back in the misty before-time is colouring the whole article and it's really a historiographical issue with a history of its own, and not one everyone needs to know all about every paragraph in a general history of the Goths. As for anything relating to genetics, that can be banished altogether - I doubt most of the articles cited so much as mention the Goths and where genuinely relevant archaeologically they can be discussed in the relevant articles. In any case the Goths are cultural-linguistic group(s) and genetics tells you very little about culture or nationality or Gothic identity, whatever that was. GPinkerton (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. It's confusing to have all the speculative exegesis in the "Origins and early history" section and its subsections preceding the actual history. I agree that the "Genetic evidence" section should be dispensed with as well. Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In summary, removal of duplication and a more logical structure could really be important for making this article easier for everyone to edit in the future, and easier to see what is a good edit or a bad one. It is a hump to get over, and it could go wrong if done badly. I will start a small new section addressing your specific remarks about genetics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks. That is better than what we had. But the comments of GPinkerton and Carlstak reflect what I also think: the changes needed are really much bigger, and speculation is being deliberately confused with more concrete information. The distinction between Goths and POSSIBLE related peoples is an important distinction don't you think? IMHO it is the duplication and confusing title names which are making it difficult to discuss, just as we had on Germanic peoples. For example, just looking at this section, in effect it is a better explanation of the same evidence which has since been inserted into the "Name" section ABOVE it, and now makes up most of that section. (With discussion of the actual word Goth, difficult to find and separate!) The titles in this case HAVE certainly made discussion or improvement difficult, as can be seen in this discussion and also previous attempts to get agreement on this talk page , , which have led to nothing. Please have a look at that?
 * I agree in principle (the practical details of such restructuring could be complicated) but I personally can not make such changes without clear pre-agreement. This is because made great efforts to appeal all over Wikipedia to stop me fixing such problems like I did on Germanic peoples, until an admin gave a warning to both of us to only edit with a clear consensus on this article. That is why I am working on smaller and less controversial proposals, bit by bit. Others can edit more easily. I am confident any experienced and competent editor who looks through this article will see similar problems. If it seems worth it, I can of course make (or discuss) bigger proposals here on the talk page or a draft page.
 * It's worth mentioning that  not only barred us from making "any change at all" "without a prior consensus on the talk page", but also warned you specifically against making personal attacks against me. I have previously made attempts at reducing duplication and making a more logical structure, but you opposed this. I would love to participate in the reduction of duplication of this article, but now is not the right time for me. Why the urgency? The article Germanic peoples that you're linking to has even more issues with structure and duplication than this one. I would ask you to fix those issues before you embark on a wholesale rewrite of this one. Krakkos (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult by getting him confused with me. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For some reason i tend to mix you guys up. Krakkos (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * your post contains several misrepresentations. To avoid distraction I will reply on your talk page. But I am not pushing any urgent rush, and I'm fine with working slow if need be. However, bigger structural problems were brought up by other editors in discussion about a smaller edit, and I have simply agreed and showed in more detail how, indeed, certain harder-to-fix background problems are also making it hard to fix, discuss, and visualize solutions for the smaller problems. I am happy to help anyone working on this article however I can, and I did not ever reject all your proposals. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

just for clarity, your proposals to reduce duplication so far were not only proposals to reduce duplication. Moving sentences around is not removing duplication, and you insisted on new material. All your proposals effectively moved emphasis to cherry-picked sentences from less well-known sources such as Kaliff, with clear POV implications. Here was the latest proposal. Example change The exact origins of the Goths are unclear and disputed.->The exact origins of the Goths are unclear and the subject of much controversy, often for political reasons. I see nothing like this in our main sources on this topic, but it looks very similar to political agenda remarks you like to emphasize in other articles, for example about scholars?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Genetics sections: remove? reduce?
We currently have three sections/discussions about the same 3 small published reports, and all of them distort these sources and give them undue weight. I would have no argument against deleting all of them, so feel free as far as I am concerned. But I have already made some simple compromise proposal above, which has gone nowhere so far. We could remove the first two, and shorten the text in the one at the end to:
 * Studies of mitochondrial DNA from two Wielbark cemeteries showed a close relationship to mitochondrial DNA found in Iron Age Jutland, and similarity to the mitochondrial DNA found today in modern populations including Norway and Sweden. The author described this as consistent with a Scandinavian origin of the Goths. [Citation: Storalek 2018 and 2019] A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in 2019 examined the mtDNA of three Gothic females from the Chernyakhov culture. The results appeared to confirm that the Chernyakhov culture emerged partly as a result of a new non-Scythian population, with a higher amount of Near Eastern ancestry. [citation: Järve 2019] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think these articles belong under the relevant articles for Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures. The words "mtDNA of three Gothic females from the Chernyakhov culture" should not appear anywhere. It presupposes that the human remains analysed were "Gothic" and representative of the Chernyakhov culture, and that these things identities were the same, and that culture has some relationship with mitochondrial DNA. mtDNA can prove sod all about culture and precious little about actual ancestry, given that it records only matrilinear females and ignores all other ancestors, not least the wandering male warriors that we know the historical sources called "the Goths". As we know, the identification of these archaeological cultures with the historical Goths is tenuous at best and Wikipedia should be treating them as interchangeable. I say delete from the article and no separate genetics section. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not personally against deletion, but foreseeing that not everyone might agree, it would be possible to remove that word "Gothic". These types of genetics reports are reported in multiple articles all over Wikipedia each time they appear. The archaeological articles you mention have way more, but that raises other issues on those articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly the rubbish about modern populations in Scandinavia has no place anywhere. "consistent with a Scandinavian origin of the Goths" is also "consistent with a Gothic origin of modern Scandinavians". Comparisons with modern people prove absolutely nothing about the relationships of ancient peoples to one another, given the millennia of prior and subsequent mixing in both directions. GPinkerton (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, given that Stolarek's proxy for Southern Scandinavia is Jutland, it is also consistent with a Jastorf origin, as opposed to Swedish. I would say OTOH that as a side issue, you might be underestimating what can be done by comparing modern people and a few ancient people in the right kind of study. But mitochondrial DNA is infamously difficult to use this way. People in Siberia can have closest mitochondrial matches in North Africa. A random selection of 3 people's mitochondrial DNA can not be placed geographically because it is too well mixed. You can run an algorithm and make a graph but it means almost nothing. So I am NOT against ALL genetics sections in such articles. I am concerned about this specific one for specific reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a lot of scholars use 'Southern Scandinavian' when they mean 'Denmark/Jutland' (it is not wrong technically, but we should use less ambivalent terms in articles). Azerty82 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Jarve et al. is very much being misused. It stresses repeatedly the multi-ethnic nature of the Chernyakhov culture and says the three samples represent that it had a "Gothic component" and most of the article is anyway about the genetics of the Scythians. It cannot be used to prove a Gothic origin of the Chernyakhov culture or vice versa and really has no place in this article; it belongs in Scythians or Chernyakhov culture. It says that Jordanes's "state of Ermanaric" might have been a Chernyakhov culture polity, but that it disappeared in the Huns' time. It says: The Chernyakhiv culture was likely an ethnically heterogeneous mix based on Goths (Germanic tribes) but also including Sarmatians, Alans, Slavs, late Scythians, Dacians and the antique population of the northern coast of the Black Sea and From the reign of Constantine I the Goths, who were part of the Chernyakhiv culture, became federates (military allies) of the Empire. The word Scandinavia appears nowhere in Jarve et al and presently the article here is worded as though Jarve et al. supports that narrative and it doesn't. GPinkerton (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * do you have access to the Järve article? I don't. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I do. GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to find a copy. I only saw a version behind paywall so far. Is there any other url?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , here's the free download page for the article pdf on Researchgate. I say remove the genetics section—it's not essential, and such as this are magnets for dispute and tend to destabilize whatever articles they appear in, at least in my experience. Carlstak (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks. For anyone wanting more remarks on this article (which still appears on other WP articles) in addition to the summary I gave above, here the two small bits relative to Goths:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The higher proportion of Near Eastern and (according to CP/NNLS) lower proportion of eastern ancestry in the Chernyakhiv culture samples were mirrored by f4 analyses, where Chern showed lower afﬁnity to Han compared to Scy_Ukr (Zscore3.097) and to EHG compared to Ukr_BA (Zscore 3.643), as well as higher Near Eastern (Levant_N and Anatolia_N) afﬁnity than Scy_Ukr (Zscores 4.696 and 3.933, respectively; DataS1). It is plausible to assume that this excess Near Eastern ancestry in Chern is related to European populations whose Near Eastern proportion has exceeded that in the steppe since the Neolithic expansion of early farmers. This is further conﬁrmed by the qpAdm and CP/NNLS proximal models, in which the Chern samples were characterized by a high proportion (18%–45%) of Central European Middle Neolithic (Data S1). Although the Chernyakhiv culture was likely ethnically heterogeneous[24–27], the three samples in our Chern group appear to represent its Gothic component.
 * after the end of the Scythian period in the western Eurasian Steppe, the Chernyakhiv culture samples have higher Near Eastern afﬁnity compared to the Scythians preceding them, agreeing with the Gothic component in the multi-ethnic mix of the Chernyakhiv culture[24–27], although no such post-Scythian genetic shift is detected further east, in Late Sarmatians [2] from the Southern Urals.
 * Basically they found an east-west gradient in some of the ancestral contributions to various Steppe peoples, and the 3 Chernyakov individuals fit reasonably well in that, but the authors feel there is a case could be made for some westernizing of the DNA in the Chernyakov region (using 3 samples) - implying immigration from somewhere like, Central Europe. (See also Hungary on their chart.) No mention of Poland or Scandinavia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * it is a funny case here, but not so untypical for these short standard reports by geneticists. The author actually starts to suggest that he has determined that there are two competing historical theories. It is really nice when a geneticist had a good set of hypotheses to test from other disciplines, but this was clearly not the case here. First he mentions that one is origins in Scandinavia, by which we know the debate would be about southern Sweden, or Gotland. But then the author simply forgets to mention the competing theory. We know it would be southern Jutland and neighbouring areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the sections on genetics per WP:SCIRS §2.2, which obtained broad consensus here. WP consensus seems to be that such genetic studies as cited are primary sources. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but as the bot saw, you left the worst one (because the one with the strongest simplest, least qualified, wording): . Also thanks for the WP:SCIRS link. I knew that existed but forgot the name, and had been thinking about it during the discussion.
 * These are articles and many similar ones have been placed on many non-genetics article in Wikipedia lately. since discussion started on this article I notice there was even a burst of such propagation ? Relevant to this article are some specific archaeological articles such as Wielbark culture and Chernyakhov culture. The Chernyakhov article has a short paragraph only, but Wielbark is worth looking at by more people if anyone is interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for permission to reduce duplication and improve article
There have been complaints about duplication and chronological errors in this article. I have made an attempt at fixing those issues through merging section 3.2 into sections 3.1 and 3.3. I've also attempted to fix the chronology at Goths and added some more recent citations. The proposed version can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths. The proposed edit would be like this. An earlier version of the proposal was discussed here, but I've created a new section for the new proposal in order provide more clarity. Permission from the community is required for the improvements to be added. Krakkos (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging, , , , , , , and , who have participated in previous discussions at this talk page. Krakkos (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My "vote" [to re-cap]: can proceed with small simple tweaks proposed above in your first section about this same major drafting proposal : (1) removal of one new sentence you added; (2) removal or replacement of two obviously inappropriately sourced sentences which conflict with the rest of the proposed text (and Heather and Green etc); (3) necessary tweaks to genetics sub-section (which probably should be removed entirely, being an undue OR duplicate section that your duplication reduction proposal leaves in place, but at least it should report the sources properly). Hard to understand a good faith reason anyone would fight so hard to avoid those.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I should note that you've made changes on your drafting page and my comments were based on the draft diff you gave above. I have no idea what the differences are with the new one, because it is difficult to follow. (This is a complex proposal you are making.) Hopefully you can "translate" and my proposal for conditional acceptance is clear. (As a general remark, the citations of Mark which have indeed been tagged by other editors are all a concern. We don't need to cite Mark for any normal editing reason?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE. Discussed below. TLDR: This duplication reduction proposal moved some things around, but was mainly an expansion proposal with a strong POV change. The request was a bit misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: sentences which use poor sources to "explain" good sources
It should be obvious that it is bad practice to cite an unknown source in order to give a certain impression about our stronger sources. We have also already had discussion about some such cases on this specific article (let alone related ones such as Germanic peoples) and I believe there is strong agreement with this principle. I therefore propose deleting the following 2 sentences, which in the best case scenario add nothing, and in the worst case scenario are being used to create false impressions of sources who we already can and do cite directly...

1. In the section Goths we currently close with this: Jordanes' account of Gothic settlement in modern-day Poland is widely accepted.[49] It has a footnote Mark 2014. "Historians such as Peter Heather have identified Gothiscandza with Gdansk in modern Poland, and this theory is generally supported..." Mark 2014 refers to a paywall educational tools website... Actually the sentence in our text is saying something quite different to the footnote quote, and implying a lot more besides that (such as settlement having come from Scandinavia, which Heather sees no evidence for). What Heather really thinks can be found in many of his writings including this well-known one in our biography
 * Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199892266., for example pp.104-107, or p.157.
 * p.104: it is now generally accepted that the Wielbark culture incoporated areas that, in the first two centuries AD, were dominated by Goths, Rugi and other Germani, even if its population had not originally been
 * p.105: It is also unclear how we should envisage the human history behind the expansion of the Wielbark system.
 * p.157: The sixth-century Jordanes describes third-century Gothic migration into the Black Sea region as one 'people' on the move, when the reality portrayed by more contemporary sources was much more complex.

2. This sentence: Heather also suggests that Getica is partially based on authentic Gothic tradition. cites our footnote which uses a book review which is not even a book review of Heather: Sønnesyn 2004, p. 308. "Peter Heather has argued that Jordanes' account of the genealogy of the Amal family may in part be based on a Gothic tradition. This claim is opposed by Christensen with something looking suspiciously like circular argumentation."
 * An example of what Heather really believes is that Jordanes has "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [Jordanes or Paul the Deacon] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence." *The only reason this sentence seems to be added, is for the message being given to readers in its footnote?
 * Heather, Peter (2010), "Afterword", in Curta, Florin (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 32
 * Heather, Peter (2010), "Afterword", in Curta, Florin (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 32

=>Can we delete these two sentences, with their footnotes please? As far as I can see they actually add nothing in the best case scenario.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your proposal, but we should add Liebescheutz in place of Heather as one who believes the Getica to be based on authentic oral tradition. Srnec (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * what I have done for a first step is remove both footnotes, but only the sentence citing Mark. The remaining sentence is less concerning than the footnote text it was attached to. You are right that it could be added to or modified to make it more worthy of remaining in the article. For now, without that footnote it is vague, but at least less controversial. Looking to what we can add: the thing about Heather and Liebeschuetz and others, is that I think no-one at all accepts everything Jordanes says, though many historians such as Heather and Liebeschuetz think we should not automatically assume nothing in Jordanes before the 4th century can be trusted. But our current wording makes no refined distinctions about this. Any ideas? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a Heather citation for the Heather sentence (instead of deleting it) and tweaked a word or 2 in order to remove the implication that Heather agrees with Wolfram in the previous sentence. Do you have any citation to add from Liebeschuetz? Also, note that I do not have access to Heather's Goths and Romans, which might be a better source for many of these things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have access to Goths and Romans, which has a whole 30-page chapter on Jordanes, where towards the end he says: (p.66)...apart from recounting the story of Gothic origins on the ‘island’ of Scandinavia, Jordanes also mentions other legends ‘which tell of [the Goths’] subjection to slavery in Britain or in some other island, or of their redemption by a certain man at the cost of a horse’ (5. 38). There was thus more than one version of Gothic origins current in the sixth century. Jordanes, as we have seen, made his choice because he found written confirmation of it, but this is hardly authoritative: the Scandinavian origin of the Goths would seem to have been one sixth-century guess among several. It is also striking that Jordanes’ variants all contained islands: Scandinavia, Britain, ‘or some other island’. In one strand of Graeco-Roman ethnographic and geographic tradition, Britain, Thule, and Scandinavia are all mysterious northern islands rather than geographical localities. ‘Britain’ and ‘Scandinavia’ may well represent interpretative deductions on the part of whoever it was that recorded the myths. The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. The Scandinavian origin-tale would thus be (p.67) similar to much else in the Getica, depending upon a complex mixture of material from Gothic oral and Graeco-Roman literary sources. If something particular is needed I can look it up. GPinkerton (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks! The new version of the sentences in our article was done by after discussion above also with . Perhaps you can check what you think of our paragraph?
 * Jordanes' account is controversial, and certainly contains many inaccuracies.[52] It has not been possible to confirm archaeologically his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia.[1] Herwig Wolfram considers Getica to be a work of indispensable value to Gothic history and a relic of Gothic oral tradition.[53] Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz also suggest that Getica is probably partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[54][55][56] Walter Goffart, on the other hand, claims that the Getica's account of Gothic origins is a literary fabricated with no foundation in oral tradition.[57] Arne Christensen argues that Jordanes borrowed the legend from Cassiodorus, who had conflated the Goths with the Geats.[58]
 * My concern with this flow of sentences is that it is being implied that Wolfram, Liebeshuetz, and Heather not only think bits of Getica might reflect verbal traditions, but also that (a) these traditions might based on the truth (implied by "of indispensable value" and "also") and (b) we are specifically implying in this section that the Scandinavian story is among the real and valuable traditions as far as Heather etc are concerned. I am thinking that Heather especially makes it clear that he does not think this? Can anyone tweak the wording to make sure we do not imply this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point regarding distinguishing the authenticity of the traditions (if that's what they are) from their accuracy. My understanding is that Wolfram and Liebeschuetz do believe they contain a kernel of truth. Perhaps GPinkerton can alter the reference to Heather to better reflect his views. My understanding is that he does not accept the accuracy of the Scandinavian tradition but does accept at least its possible authenticity (as an oral tradition). Srnec (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is also my reading. I think Heather does believe there might be things based on the truth (not just Gothic traditions) in Jordanes, but NOT the early material and specifically not the Scandinavia section. Concerning what Wolfram and Liebeschuetz think, I am am also not certain we have it right, even though both of them clearly believe that Getica contains some bits of truth, and contains some bits of Gothic tradition. The question is which bits are which?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not read the other historians' work so I'm loathe to edit myself but from what I understand, the discussion of whoever argues the Goths really did come from Scandinavia and the lack of archaeological corroboration thereof should come only after the conclusions of Heather: Jordanes possibly preserved some late antique notion of the Goths' own as to their origins, but this "information" amounted to "the Goths thought they came from a faraway (is)land unknown to the Romans and some myth of theirs involved something about a horse"; the Roman/literate transcriber of the late antique tradition among the Goths, or Jordanes himself, interpolated the names of Scandinavia and Britain as suitably exotic and remote-sounding names for the Graeco-Roman literati to understand, while not conflicting with the already sanctified-by-tradition geographical works of the ancients, which fail to discuss the Goths but could nonetheless not have been in error. The last two footnotes of Heather's chapter discuss his position in relation to others: (n. 82) Goffart, Narrators, 88 ff. I agree with Goffart 88–96 that these paragraphs are not straightforward Gothic oral history, and in finding the mention of Scandinavia suspicious. He is also surely right in seeing Jordanes as concerned to refute rumours that the Goths originated in Britain. Much less convincing is the suggestion that Jordanes was really arguing—against Procopius’ account of Herules who had returned to ‘Thule’ (Wars 6. 14–15)—that Goths could not be got rid of back to the far north. Nothing suggests that Procopius was advocating the act of the Herules as a general solution to the barbarian problem. The wealth of detail and involvement of Justinian’s court show that this is a piece of history, not (Goffart, 99) ‘a beguiling evocation of barbarians who set off for the distant north’. Belisarius did offer Britain to the Goths in 538 during the siege of Rome (Wars 6. 6. 28–9), but this was clearly not meant seriously and the Goths ignored it. It was simply another way of saying that the emperor was not interested in a compromise peace, the substance of the rest of Belisarius’ remarks. (n. 83) Hachmann, Goten und Skandinavien, shows that there is no archaeological or philological evidence that the Goths really came from Scandinavia. But for those who view Gothic oral history in Jordanes as a window into the authentic past, Scandinavian names at Getica 3. 21–4 and the Berig story nevertheless guarantee the Goths’ Scandinavian origins: e.g. Wolfram, 21 ff. I understand this as: Heather: "little authenticity, no accuracy"; Goffart: "basically no authenticity, no accuracy"; Wolfram: "some authenticity, basically accurate". GPinkerton (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the quotations provided by GPinkerton, i don't think our section misrepresents Heather. We could of course add more material on his views. Heather apparently writes an extensive account on Gothic origins in his book The Goths (1996). Page 26 of the 1998 version of that book is cited in our article, but i don't have access to it. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff sums up Heather's theory on Gothic origins like this:

In his Empires and Barbarians (2009), Heather makes another noteworthy observation on Jordanes', which might be useful:

As cited in our article, Walter Goffart writes that all "experts in Germanic literature" (Germanic philologists) consider Jordanes' account of Gothic origins to be authentic. It is also worth mentioning that several prominent modern archaeologists specializing in Gothic archaeology, such Andrzej Kokowski, Anders Kaliff and Michel Kazanski, consider Jordanes' account of Gothic origins in Scandinavia to be at least partially supported by archaeological evidence. Adding a sentence or two on the views of archaeologists and philogists to Goths would be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't you talking past the point? We can see what Heather wrote, by reading what Heather wrote, not what other people think he should have written? Not only Heather, but also other authors, constantly cite the 1991 book which GPinkerton has quoted from (and sometimes the 1996 book you mention) as his most detailed explanation. I really don't see any room for doubt about what he believes, and therefore what we should write when we explain his position. We must carefully distinguish between believing Getica contains real "tradition", and believing it is true, and we must also distinguish both these things for all different parts of Getica; and the text you have placed in the article is written to imply that we are talking about Scandinavian migration. So yes, we ARE misrepresenting Heather. Concerning that subject in Getica Heather believes it is neither tradition nor true. We should remove any implication that he thinks otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Heather has written three dictionary entries on the Goths this century. There's the 2010 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome:
 * The 2012 Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.):
 * and the 2018 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity
 * The fact that Heather only mentions Scandinavia in the context of "according to Jordanes", and only once across three entries, strongly suggests he thinks there is no truth to the idea they really came from Scandinavia, or even that the Goths really believed that they did. The earlier Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium has the same basic Baltic-Vistula basin story, and omits Scandinavia altogether:
 * as does the (very concise) Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2 ed.), which merely says: "Germanic peoples originating in the Baltic area in the 4th century ad and divided into two groups, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths.". On the basis of all these tertiary sources, the whole Scandinavia idea should be clearly labelled as a minority view reliant on Jordanes alone. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to make guesses based on those dictionary articles? We know what Heather thinks from his more detailed works, such as the two already cited in the article (currently 54 and 56) or (even better) the citations above on this talk page. Heather thinks Jordanes' Scandinavia story might reflect a real Gothic tradition, but unlike the migration from the Vistula, he does not think we should see the Scandanavia tradition as accurate in terms of reality, or in terms of reflecting the original Gothic myth. He thinks the original Gothic tradition was probably much less specific and did not mention Scandinavia specifically. As quoted above: The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. Surely we need to tweak this sentence: "his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia [...] Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz also suggest that Getica is probably partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[54][55][56]". I think I can tweak this uncontroversially to save time, so that it will at least be a bit better. If there are concerns we can go back of course, but what concerns would they be? Here is my tweak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that Heather only mentions Scandinavia in the context of "according to Jordanes", and only once across three entries, strongly suggests he thinks there is no truth to the idea they really came from Scandinavia, or even that the Goths really believed that they did. The earlier Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium has the same basic Baltic-Vistula basin story, and omits Scandinavia altogether:
 * as does the (very concise) Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2 ed.), which merely says: "Germanic peoples originating in the Baltic area in the 4th century ad and divided into two groups, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths.". On the basis of all these tertiary sources, the whole Scandinavia idea should be clearly labelled as a minority view reliant on Jordanes alone. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to make guesses based on those dictionary articles? We know what Heather thinks from his more detailed works, such as the two already cited in the article (currently 54 and 56) or (even better) the citations above on this talk page. Heather thinks Jordanes' Scandinavia story might reflect a real Gothic tradition, but unlike the migration from the Vistula, he does not think we should see the Scandanavia tradition as accurate in terms of reality, or in terms of reflecting the original Gothic myth. He thinks the original Gothic tradition was probably much less specific and did not mention Scandinavia specifically. As quoted above: The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. Surely we need to tweak this sentence: "his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia [...] Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz also suggest that Getica is probably partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[54][55][56]". I think I can tweak this uncontroversially to save time, so that it will at least be a bit better. If there are concerns we can go back of course, but what concerns would they be? Here is my tweak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to make guesses based on those dictionary articles? We know what Heather thinks from his more detailed works, such as the two already cited in the article (currently 54 and 56) or (even better) the citations above on this talk page. Heather thinks Jordanes' Scandinavia story might reflect a real Gothic tradition, but unlike the migration from the Vistula, he does not think we should see the Scandanavia tradition as accurate in terms of reality, or in terms of reflecting the original Gothic myth. He thinks the original Gothic tradition was probably much less specific and did not mention Scandinavia specifically. As quoted above: The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. Surely we need to tweak this sentence: "his account of a Gothic origin in Scandinavia [...] Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz also suggest that Getica is probably partially based on authentic Gothic tradition.[54][55][56]". I think I can tweak this uncontroversially to save time, so that it will at least be a bit better. If there are concerns we can go back of course, but what concerns would they be? Here is my tweak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island" does not make Heather's position sound strong. Putting "perhaps" and "mysterious" in the main text only causes the reader to throw up his hands. Srnec (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well in my opinion that would mean the reader is getting the correct impression, and we could be proud of avoiding the temptation to make the story more clear and simple than it is. But I guess it would be easy to replace the quote with simpler words that we chose such as:

Better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather believes that the original Gothic myths "perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island" which a later interpreter concluded to be Scandinavia.
 * Peter Heather believes that the original Gothic myths probably mentioned a "mysterious island" without naming it, and a later interpreter concluded it was Scandinavia.
 * "later interpreter" is perhaps too vague; I would say explicitly the interpreter is Jordanes himself or some other late antique Roman writer trying to make sense of the Gothic tales: "The Goths are known to have inhabited the Baltic coast and Vistula valley in the 1st&2nd centuries. Heather accepts that Jordanes' material might preserve genuine traditions among the Goths of their origins in an island to the north, but argues the identification of the Goths' mythic homeland as Scandinavia is a "guess" interpolated by Jordanes or his Roman sources. X, y, and z argue for p, q, r, s more literal interpretation, but archaeology says no ..." GPinkerton (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the reason for that word choice was that there is always the idea in the background that Cassiodorus was the source. Does Heather not also say it that way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I will tweak to... If anyone sees a problem, please let me know, or change appropriately of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Heather believes that the original Gothic myths probably mentioned a "mysterious island" without naming it, and Jordanes or another later interpreter such as Cassiodorus concluded it was Scandinavia.

The two "physical appearance" sections
What do other editors think about these? Given that we have been looking at the genetics sections, another controversial type of section which has been added en masse into this and many other similar articles are the so-called "physical appearance" sections, which might better be called the "blonde hair blue eyes" sections. This article has two references to physical appearance. As I noted in a previous summary of duplications on this article : Apart from the special section for this topic, under "Other literary sources" for "Origins and early history" we have: Procopius noted that the Goths, Gepids and Vandals were physically and culturally identical.[77] This is, disappointingly, the ONLY bit of information our article gives about Procopius' discussions relevant to Gothic origins (despite the length of discussion we have about possible Gothic origins, and the fact that Procopius should actually be one of the main classical sources for this topic). We should also look at what Procopius actually wrote about the origins topic, but that can be done separately. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Physical appearance. Has its own section, but is also the subject of a lonely sentence in "Other literary sources".

Speculative origins: The too much too early concern
you made a sort of non-detailed proposal above, I would like to separate out. Genetics and Appearance sections have already been separated out in other sections, but apart from these you both mentioned a concern with too much, too early of:
 * "exegetical material and speculation on the mystic origins, archaeology, "possible" passing classical references"
 * "all the speculative exegesis in the "Origins and early history" section and its subsections preceding the actual history"

Some notes for future work, for whoever wants to work on it:
 * I personally would be open to alternative approaches, but there is a sort of tradition both on WP and in many publications, of starting with a short summary of (1) Name forms/etymology proposals, and (2) something which at least describes the kinds of evidence/debates for early origins.
 * Name. has been working on such Name sections recently, and has now started on this article.
 * Goths is a topic where the name discussion has to at least mention the Gutones, Gutes and Geats as probable related names. Azerty seems to be doing the correct thing by dividing them into sections. I hope that Azerty will also reduce duplication and move speculative bits to a later section.


 * Origins. Azerty's approach to the Name section - finding a way to break it up more logically - could also help shorten the origins section or sections. I feel that by doing this properly, these sections would also naturally be shorter and easier to read (currently 6 sections: 3.1.1-3.1.5, and 3.2).
 * An example approach would be for the initial origins discussion to consist of a short discussion mentioning Vistula proposal and Scandinavia proposal, as two separate topics relevant to Goths. (These should not be mixed up as if they stand and fall together.)
 * Whether the main detailed discussions about those proposals should be in this article (and if so where) or another (apart from the Wielbark article, for example we currently have no Gutones article) is something which could be done various ways.
 * I can see an argument for waiting to see what a less duplicated and better structured version of 3.1/3.2 would look like. I think it could be much shorter and less frustrating. 3.1.2 and 3.1.5 could mostly be merged up into the Name section Azerty is re-working for example. The name evidence is repeated over and over now.
 * Obviously if we are looking for a separable chunk which might be proposed for moving out to a more detailed discussion somewhere it is worth mentioning the special subject of Jordanes. Perhaps another is archaeology. Both could be mentioned in a more summarized way in the opening sections of this article.

Hope this makes sense, and can help others develop concrete actions. I hope Azerty will look into it already while working on the Name section, because the results of that should make it much easier to visualize what can be done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, Andrew, but since you pinged me—I really don't have time for this obsessive wrangling; besides, dealing with this never-ending discussion would drive me crazy. Azerty has a way of cutting through the miasma, and I'm sure he's more than capable of sorting things out. I have total confidence in him, if he wants to take this on. Carlstak (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it was not self-evident. I wanted to make sure that you had a chance to add any remarks, and see what complications are likely, in the context that Azerty is now working on at least one of the parts of the article relevant to your recent remarks. (Or your agreement with GPinkerton's remarks.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I'll write a draft to summarize and better organize the debates on the etymology of 'Goths' and their ethnogenesis. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Lancaster: no worries, I just have a low tolerance for endless discussion on talk pages;-). @Azerty82: that's great news.

(formerly Azerty82) Please note below new announcement by Krakkos below that after the above discussion, Krakkos made a new article called Name of the Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware that Krakkos was working on a new version, that's why I did not propose a draft. That's a great and welcomed work! Alcaios (talk)
 * see below section. To be honest, I would suggest keeping coordination discussions between editors on wiki.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant that I noticed from Krakkos' list of contributions that he/she was working on the article. I didn't have the time to review the new article to be honest, but it is still a welcomed article. Alcaios (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

change publication date proposals
Simple practical proposal. The following are very heavily cited and important works. The authors themselves, in later works, and other authors citing them, all seem to use the same years, but different years than us, as follows:
 * 1991 instead of 1994 (which however does seems to be the most recent printing edition).
 * Heather 1991 and Heather 1994 are different books and will have different pagination (probably) - the references need to be to the correct edition unless it's certain the information is on the same page in the more recent editions. Goths and Romans was published in 1991, but so were several other Heather works. GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Heather 1991 and Heather 1994 are different books and will have different pagination (probably) - the references need to be to the correct edition unless it's certain the information is on the same page in the more recent editions. Goths and Romans was published in 1991, but so were several other Heather works. GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 1988 instead of 1990

Changing them would make it much easier for editors or readers to cross check and verify this article. Can we make those changes? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The proper thing I think would be to add the original publication year (1979) and the original language, the latest (2nd) German edition (1980), the original publication year in English (1988), and the reprint year of the actual book cited (1990). Something like, which I'll change it to now:

GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC) I think in reality most of us have been using the 1991 and 1988 versions respectively. (I think they are also the versions on Google Books.) I guess things get fuzzy when all of us have different editions, but in this case all our secondary sources also keep using the same dates, and following them makes sense to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have an ISBN, the year must align with it. That ISBN corresponds to 1990. I think the title should be English, since the version cited has an English title. Of course, the German and English versions have totally different paginations. So if we are citing from both, we need two entries in the bibliography. Srnec (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We could change the isbn though? I can see that we've probably used the Oxford page which gives the latest print, but no one else uses that reference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)