User talk:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths

Comments on first version of Name section

 * Goths called themselves *Gutans (Goth), => What is the "(Goth)" for? Concerning this sentence, I understand (without running to the books) that this proposal only occurs in the old books of Wolfram and is explained by him as a proposal not based on any actual evidence of that name. The linguists seem sceptical of this. So I believe this should not be in Wikipedia voice and because we are not writing for linguists I believe we should not trust that our readers know that * means reconstruction only, but spell it out.
 * Göta älv of Götaland => these are very different places. I think only Wolfram has speculated about a connection to the first one, so it seems that speculation, which has a lot of time to catch on, has not caught on.
 * Perhaps you do not realize that Gutes and Geats are two different regional peoples? I think you are treating them as one.
 * Third long paragraph has a lot of hammering on one point? People think A, other people also think A, some people are uncertain about A but they are wrong, a famous perhaps thinks A is certain. I am being sarcastic and I realize this is a new draft so this remark is to guide further work.
 * a large number of non-Gothic peoples => Who are we to say that they were not "Gothic peoples"? I think the term Gothic peoples is only a classical term, so we should think like them. I had been hoping to explain who used this term by the way (Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius). Not sure what you think? Back to this sentence: I think you mean to say "other Germanic-speaking peoples" or something like that. An interesting point is that for example some of the Gothic groups are also sometimes not called Goths - even the Tervingi I believe. Such terms for large groups were flexible.
 * Last paragraph, good to see attribution in the second part of the sentence, but you already stated it as a Wikipedia voice fact in the first part. Simpler sentence would be starting with According to... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments on a new version

 * The name Gutones is certainly recorded by Pliny[12][13][14] in the 1st century AD, and by Ptolemy[15][16][17] in the 2nd century AD.[18][19] Pliny mentions that the 4th century BC traveler Pytheas encountered a people called the Guiones,[20][21] while the early 1st century ethnographer Strabo mentions a people called the Butones,[22][23][24] and the late 1st century historian Tacitus mentions the Gotones/Gothones.[25][26][27][28][19] These names mentioned by Pytheas, Strabo and Tacitus are often equated with the name Gutones.[18][29]


 * that last sentence should finish with "of Pliny" to be clear.
 * I don't think Pliny really specified that Pytheas "encountered" the Guiones. We could say "reported" or something like that.
 * Why not place Tacitus chronologically, after Pliny and Strabo?
 * I wonder if there is really any need to doubt that Tacitus is talking about the same people as Pliny when he mentions the Vandal group. If you want a source let me know, but I believe several authorities would list these together as two solid cases. (In other words, Butones and Guiones are obviously a bit uncertain.)
 * The 3rd solid case is, as I understand it, Ptolemy. Not sure why he is not mentioned. He is the only one who gave a relatively exact place (between the Fenni and Veneti, east of the Vistula, in Sarmatia).
 * In other words, I think there is basically no controversy about equating the people described by Pliny (but not his Guiones), Tacitus and Ptolemy (but not his Gutes).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The name Gutones/Goths


 * It is one thing to say they are related names, or even related peoples, or even the same people, but they are not the same name. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentences which are only sourced to Wolfram's translated work which effectively goes back to the 1980s seem to mainly be cases of opinions which did not catch on, and are not consistent with later research. Caution is required in all those cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)