Talk:Goths/Archive 6

More Editors

Krakkos (talk · contribs), and Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs), I occasionally visit the is page but do not feel I have expertise on the subject to offer so have not edited it. However, I just need to point out that in the last couple of weeks, this talk page has gained 30,000 words. We are between a half and a quarter of the way to a novel here! This is almost certainly crowding out any participation from other editors, who simply cannot keep up with all the discussion and proposals. I am on the verge of unwatching it myself. I think discussion needs to be more succinct, and slowed down to allow for wider participation. RFC may be called for if there is a point of particular contention. This will bring in more editors.

I am also a little dismayed that a lead that did not feel the need to cite anything in the past (as recently as 1 January) now has multiple repeat citations. I think the Good Article review process would have picked these up and would have suggested moving the information to the main and then using the lead to summarise. Adding more citations to the lead just takes this article further from good article status. Yes, you know I have a thing about that ;) But I also note that this exact point was made in the HomeopathyGreta Thunberg good article review process recently.-- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: I'm sorry for this, though i do not consider myself primarily responsible for the convolution. The lead as of 1 January was good. I have no problem with restoring it. However, in February, after the GA review was begun, radical changes were being made to the lead, resulting in it becoming long and confusing just like this talk page has become.[1] Repeat citations were introduced as a way to put limitations on the size and confused nature of the lead.[2] I think we are dealing with a situation in which there are no perfect solutions, with downsides to all alternatives. Krakkos (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos and Sirfurboy: as on Germanic peoples, Krakkos sees footnotes as something like a defense system. I have also been proposing (please see above) that this is not a good thing. As far as I can make out Krakkos believes(?) that I forced him to do this by attempting to edit the article?

Concerning the talk page though, what else can we do? I can not edit, so BRD, which is fast, is impossible. Krakkos has now over-reacted and escalated after every attempt I have made to edit the article, reporting "edit warring" (using misleading diffs) twice until we were both blocked on this article. Every discussion here, once started, has also been stretched and painful. EG I attempted to reduce the effect using tables, which I have used in difficult drafting environments before, but you can see above what happened and how much space it now takes.

@Srnec: also happened to mention the footnoting in the preface very recently on WP:RSN where I tried to get one of the other points here discussed.

I have to say that the reaction of Krakkos, denying responsibility, and offering to revert all content as a solution(!), as if that was your request, is not giving me great hope, and shows very little concern with this article's quality. There are actually mistakes and obvious fixes which have been done in this article by me and others, and many which still need to be done.

FYI Krakkos has put much more energy into parent shopping and dramatizing than editing. Currently he is going for a personal interaction ban on Arbcom: Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks. So at least I've had a chance to leave working notes for others! LOL --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec and Sirfurboy: just a thought, but quite honestly I think talk page circles are happening BECAUSE there are ONLY two people. More voices and the circles would break and the talk page will be better. OTOH I believe I have given some good citations, and shown some areas on the article which need tweaking, which I may not do. I'd be happy to quickly cross-check sources etc on any questions. It would be so nice to have a non-circular content discussion. Since January when I committed to work on the Germanic subject I have been doing a lot of reading and invested in new books etc. All dressed up but no place to go.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but why are there only two people? And Krakkos has not been saying much. I suggest you shorten your talk page comments. Krakkos put forward a simple and straightforward proposal in a new section at "Proposed changes to paragraph 3 in the lead", but before anybody else could chime in you had put up 750 words. People just won't interact in that level of detail on Wiki talk pages. Even in this section, compare the length of your comments (plural) to that of the rest of us. I suggest using RFCs (no more than two open at a time) to address the issues. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: I can see why it might look that way, and indeed there is a lot of effort going into making things confusing. I'll point to 3 obvious things:

• You don't seem to realize that the section you refer to was started immediately after, and clearly in reaction to, the more compressed and source-based, to-the-point, section I posted [3]. That section shows that Krakkos reacted quickly negatively to the use of more sources, then started a new section which ignored all the source-based concerns mentioned by me.
• You really have to look at the section you mention to see that it consists of Krakkos asking me to comment, over and over, to what were essentially the same proposals, over and over. So I am stupid for doing that in good faith I guess. If you really read through that discussion there is no way to call it straightforward.
• Another obvious thing: one "good faith" reason I had a small list of mistakes to explain so quickly is because I have spent the last two months reading on this topic with the aim of editing. Indeed, I had just posted my own draft, which Krakkos was successfully trying to drown.

In the meantime, my various posts above point to basic problems such as source misrepresentations that simply need fixing, in various sections. If I could edit, I would not be posting here. Fact is that right now I've got time to do research and post it somewhere, but clearly the efforts being made to block me using it are going to go for a long time, so there is no point just trying to remember what I read and wait. All of this could be ameliorated if there were more active editors helping break the deadlock. Of course I admit this is not an attractive invitation, the way it looks, but I am suggesting it might quickly improve.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And just to remind us all of the real cause of these problems, as per RSN discussions here are at least 13 occasions when the same incredible argument was used, this being just ONE such strategy that is being repeated over and over, burying this talk page: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Any of these could easily have been the last one, if other editors had entered the discussion and not allowed it to be seen as a reasonable discussion between similarly strong good faith positions. Without having that, I believe I did the right thing trying to reply to these posts, and not allowing them to stand as any kind of "consensus"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Names section

The discussion about this section (Etymology) got messy. In that section you will see discussion of two extra sources I proposed. The section itself, is also in the end mainly just needing organization. I think it is a collection of different notes added at different times. I do not want to fill this talk page too much so I started drafting on my page again [17]. It is just a start to get a structure and not complete. I should be a bit careful to avoid too much duplication in with other sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for permission to rewrite section Goths#Name

Complaints have been raised about possible original research and use of poor sources in section Goths#Name. That section was indeed of insufficient quality. I have therefore made an attempt at rewriting it entirely, based upon citations from Herwig Wolfram, Winfred P. Lehmann, Ludwig Rübekeil and Anders Kaliff. The proposed new section can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths#Name. The proposed edit will be like this.[18] Krakkos (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it a little pointy, verging on deliberately disruptive, that you have once again made a new section in reaction to mine posted above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerning comments. I presume we may comment on the talk page of the draft?

A first general remark about method: you are still picking individual positions from selected authors and then stating them in Wikipedia voice as facts. This won't lead to a stable consensus version. A better method is to identify first:

• What positions are consensus positions and which are disputed, and which are minority positions among the experts? For example, your preference for saying that the Gutones simply ARE the Goths is not a consensus, and the way you write it, it is also not the Vienna position.
• Which are more recent, and therefore have more likely taken older works into account, whereas the older ones can't take the newer ones into account? In this case for example, some of the works you cite are very old.
• Which ones are by the most specialized writers on the exact topic? So in this case that means the philology and linguistic authorities such as Rübekeil and Thomas Andersson. In my draft I gave their explanation which seems to be the source for people like Heather, and you can read how very different Heather's "people" is from every other modern work, but seems to just be his tweak on "men". Of people though, only men ejaculate. Or have you located some place where he explains that no, he really does DISAGREE with the ejaculating "men" idea for some reason?

Don't get me wrong. I am not supporting any particular theory. But we should not mix and match, and we have to be careful how we use "Wikipedia voice". More often, IMHO, you need to use attribution and terms which express something less than the absolute certainty some authors like to use when they (unlike us) are debating for one specific position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The draft will soon be updated with additional sources from Stefan Brink, Jan Paul Strid and Herwig Wolfram. Krakkos (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Some constructive comments

1. I'd remove the See also. If relevant, the links should appear in the text.
2. I'd mention Pytheas' Guiones directly.
3. Christensen has an extended discussion and yet is only cited for one quotation ("linguists believe there is an indisputable connection"). On the same page (41) he gives the following four classical forms with primary source: Goutones (Strabo), Gutones (Pliny), Gotones (Tacitus), Guthones (Ptolemy). This is useful information.
4. The proposal also removes reference to the actually attested Gothic form (Gut-þiudai), which is a step backwards.
5. It does not make sense to suggest that it means "people" up front and then later on that it is "doubtlessly related to the Proto-Germanic [for] 'to pour'." Indeed, by the time we get to doubtlessly we've already hedged the claim a few sentences earlier with a generally thought.
6. Too many asterisks in the third paragraph for the general reader. Indeed, when all the foreign words are asterisked you have to wonder what actual words lie behind them. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

All the remarks of Srnec make sense to me and I tend to think that we can assume most experienced editors would agree. @Krakkos:, concerning the response to me, I don't want to write another long post but please do consider previous remarks made by many editors to you about the fact about adding footnotes. Adding extra sourcing does not make contested content any less-contested. It normally just means that there is some kind of problem (and indeed any future GA reviewer, if they are experienced, should see it as a red flag that the article is not actually stable). Best is to first try to get all the source material organized in your own brain, and then try to write out something which reflects the whole field and is uncontroversial. Sourcing should be then easy and should not need disputes and masses of footnotes.

To everyone: I was wondering in fact if this name section, which is now getting long, should somehow be merged with the section I worked on about classical sources? I have mentioned before that I don't myself have a final proposal on exactly where that material should be in the article. Also, in my draft there was some stuff which might be helpful:

"There are two possible attestations of the Gothic name for themselves:

• Most securely, an Italian palimpset calendar estimated to be from the fifth century, has "Gut-þiudai" as a dative singular form of a word for the Gothic people (þ here represents a letter for the "th" sound). This implies a nominative form of "Gut-þiuda".
• The form gutani is found in the inscription in the Ring of Pietroassa, a ring of the second half of the 4th century, found in Romania. Although this is generally agreed to be a Gothic word, related to their name for themselves, the exact form and meaning is uncertain, and subject to several proposals."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it again quickly perhaps the classical sources section is fine where it is but the section about the Gutones uncertainty at the end probably needs to be somewhere else. It is at least good that this is mentioned now in the lead, but a stable version of this article will need one single stable discussion of it in the body too. Maybe even in the Name section, or perhaps a short section just after it? And there is currently a second section about other classical sources (Orosius etc) which I guess should be merged into the first one and also I think what is being said about Orosius needs re-checking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated version of Goths#Name

I have updated the draft for Goths#Name by taking the suggestions above into account and by adding citations from Stefan Brink, Jan Paul Strid and Herwig Wolfram. The updated draft can be viewed at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths#Name. I'm requesting permission to replace the current version in this article (largely written by me as well), with the one from the draft. Krakkos (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: if we were doing an RFC this is not a vote. I can see you've put work into this. It is a difficult section. I want to look again. I don't think it is perfect, but perhaps a more important question is how it sets up the article for future editors. I am also a bit worried it is growing too much and maybe taking over the roles of other sections. Or maybe it should become several sections. I think in any case it is important for more editors than me to commenting. A good stable Goths article would be a nice thing to have, but stable means lots of people can agree with it and understand it. Recently for example on this article/talk we have had @Srnec, Carlstak, Berig, Sirfurboy, Orenburg1, Davemck, Mnemosientje, DASDBILL2, and Jens Lallensack:. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to you putting it into the article, but there are changes I would make:

1. The last four paragraphs ("On the basis of...", "The name Goths...", "From at least..." and "For a time...") seem tacked on and somewhat tangential to the issue of the name. They could be dropped without loss. (Some of them may belong in other sections.)
2. I think "of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy" can be dropped.
3. The Wolfram citation does not seem to support the assertion that "this equation is nevertheless generally accepted". The section might make it clearer that while the etymological link between these various names is generally accepted (far as I know), the identity (=equivalence) of the different peoples referred to is much more contested.
4. Old Norse is overlinked. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I guess you know it, but for the benefit of others I have put some specific notes on the talk page of the sandbox draft. I think some of the issues Srnec points to might be coming from trying to make the Name section do more than discuss the name. There might need to be other sections, or discussions within other sections, for things like the Gutones=Goths question where there is no consensus concerning the details of what the exact connection is between them. Possibly also the concept of "Gothic peoples" and the question of what made a tribe Gothic, deserves discussion somewhere in the article. (The Tervingi, for example, first seem to appear in history in a panegyric which distinguishes them from the Goths. See Christensen.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos I see you edited anyway. I expressed clear discomfort with some of your proposals, both here and on your draft, and I see no response to those? That's not really a "prior consensus" (as per EdJohnston) is it? Very directly opposed to the spirit of the ruling by EdJohnston is also your repeated strategy of immediately beginning a new section about the same topic every time I try to propose something ([19]->[20]; [21]->[22]). Because of the nature of EdJohnston's "solution", and your own habitual tendency to always push every situation to a limit, it is hard for me to ignore this, which would be my preference. Please show some concern for real consensus, and please don't try to test the limits of things all the time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The current version of Goths#Name takes into account several of your suggestions. Is it not an improvement? My impression is that Srnec approved of it. I interpreted that as a consensus. I will not respond to every single one of your comments, because that will only invoke another long counter-response from you, leading to yet more flooding of this talk page, and the discouraging of non-involved editors from participating in the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"I will not respond to every single one of your comments" sounds, like I said, to be a complete rejection of the whole concept of seeking consensus - especially in the light of the practical reality, which is that you are not responding at all, and doing everything possible to add length to discussions (see above), and you've not used your sandbox talkbox as suggested, to avoid filling this one. Your edit takes no account of some sources I have given you. Just take your second sentence concerning the Ring of Pietroassa where I have given you Andersson's and Rübekeil's remarks about this interpretation no longer being seen as certain (which indeed you have fuzzily referred to in another place). But I could fill a page with more comments, and I'd be happy to say "OK, maybe it was a misunderstanding" (which I doubt) and do that. But what do I read? There you are again saying that because I write about details, you can use that as a rationale to not count me in any consensus you have to worry about. So you have created an awkward situation again. What would you do if you were me? Please remember, I did not create this situation and I personally think it is ridiculous, and I am not pushing any specific POV. It is obvious that if you pick and choose your favorite "reference" authority (now you are suddenly following Wolfram against Heather in this section) you are not going for a stable consensus. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW in this bizarre system of working it is actually difficult to track whether you large complex edit in several sections only involves changes which have been discussed at all on this talk page, but as only one section was discussed here, it seems to difficult to imagine that it can possibly be described that way??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerning this quote, I am not saying it is right, and certainly not saying it is a field consensus, but it is clearly not the type of position we should ignore. In other words we should not write as if there is no dispute about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thus, no one has offered any real evidence that Gauts and Goths are linguistically or ethnically related. Consequently the name Gautigoth cannot serve as proof that the Goths once live on the island of Scandza. What the Gautar name may do, however, is to help explain the beginnings of the idea that the Goths could come from Scandza. (Christensen, p.291)

Rübekeil (again I don't say this is a field consensus, but this is a source cited by others as an authority, so who are we to act as if this position does not exist?):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The linguistic data must therefore be interpreted with some caution. *Gutan- can not be derived from *Gauta-. [...] Theoretically Gauta- could have the same meaning. In this case, however, we would be dealing with semantic competitors, not with lexical variants. (p.603)

This one I feel is very judicious and was written recently and with someone who clearly has sympathy for the positions of many of the big names in the field including Wolfram:

Sicher ist nur, dass der Goten/Gutonen/Gauten- ebenso wie der Rugiername prestigeträchtig und prominent war, Unterschiedliche Verbände könnten sich solcher alter Namen bedient haben. [para] Die Archäologie ist sich groben Zügen darüber einig, dass ab der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts materielle Kultur und Bestattungsbräuche aus dem Weichselgebiet Ähnlichkeiten mit jenen vom nördlichen Rand der pontischen Steppenzone aufweisen. Umstritten ist, ob die Gründe für diese Parallelen in der Möbilität kleiner mobiler Verbände, grösseren Migrationsbewegungen (wie man früher allgemein annahm) oder schlicht in Kulturtransfer zu finden sind. Für die traditionelle Vorstellung spielt dabei insbesondere der spätantike Gechichtsentwurf des Jordanes aus dem 6. Jahrhundert eine Rolle... Rough trans: The only thing sure is that the Goten/Gutonen/Gauten, as with the Rugii name, carried prestige and was prominent. Different groups may have decided to use such old names. Archaeology is basically in agreement that in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, culture and funeral norms from the Vistula area were similar to those from the northern edge of the pontic Steppe zone. What is debated is whether the reason for these parallels is the mobility of small bands, or large migration movements (as used to be generally accepted), or simply a culture transfer. For the traditional account, Jordanes plays a role. Steinacher, Roland (2017), Rom und die Barbaren. Völker im Alpen- und Donauraum (300-600), p. 48

Cases in the major new edit where it appears Wolfram proposals which did not catch on are being reported as simply true in WP voice:

• Gutones may have meant "young" Goths or "great" Goths.
• Visigoths means the "good" or "noble" Goths, while Ostrogoths means "Goths of the rising sun" or "East Goths".

We also now have a new section called "Evidence from etymology" which essentially repeats some things from the other section, and within the Name section some points are covered several times and even with different information. This is clearly not finished work, but now needs copy-editing, so this is not a good way to work when every edit needs consensus to be recorded first. But furthermore, duplication of favored theories into multiple sections was also a major controversy in the editing of Germanic peoples. It led to sections which disagreed with each other, and the destructuring of articles means it is easiest to slip in POV or wrong material, and harder for good editors to improve the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Gaut and Goth are not considered identical, although they are considered to related in meaning, being derived from a root for "pour". Any source written by an actual linguist should confirm this. However, "Got" in Gotland is etymologically identical to "Goth", both being derived from an original *gutoniz. In fact the "-n-" in *gutoniz is preserved in the local adjective for Gotland - gutnisk. When dealing with the origin of the word Goth, I prefer if we avoid references to historians , as they unfortunately tend to dig deep the trench warfare of their own academic world separate from both archaeology and linguistics. Let us refer to linguistic works instead. .Berig (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Good points IMHO. I tend to think one "tool" Krakkos needs is a way of saying two words are not "the same" but have the same root, are etymologically connected, or something like that. I have seem some debate about that -n-. Do we need to into all details when the basic idea of an etymological connection is in any case pretty much a consensus? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the derivations of Goths/Got(landers) and Gauts/Geats are straightforward and in my experience a matter of consensus. The derivations (processes of evolution of names and words) in Indo-European languages is a field that is very well-studied.-Berig (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Berig: I propose that that "The Gothic name", used 4 times in the Name section should be tweaked something like my proposal below, at least in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cases. (In the first case I suggested a way of writing "a Gothic name".) What do you think? BTW in terms of what I personally think, I like Steinacher's relatively cautious attempt to summarize something which everyone can agree with. (Quoted just before your post.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, what Steinacher wrote is relevant and accurate.-Berig (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Berig: yes, and one point from it is that many of the Scandinavia proponents for now (and yes this may change with more archaeology and genetics) are not arguing for one simple massive movement of people with one un-changing tribal name, but about a more complex history, where several options are still possible. It is a useful "review" comment in my mind. PRACTICAL: Do you agree with describing calling e.g. "Gutones" as something like "a" Gothic name instead of "the" Gothic name?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Herwig Wolfram refers to Gutones as "the Gothic name".[23] Peter Heather refers to it as "the same group name".[24] I think this article should use the descriptions used in our best sources. Krakkos (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: [Deleted my own previous post] Looking at your citations: Wolfram and Heather's explanations are in conflict with yours, and show Steinacher to be giving a good summary. You must have misread. Both authors make it clear there are different name forms. Wolfram specifies that that they were used by different peoples in different places with different ethnogeneses. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Some proposals to change the hastily added new Name section

Many of these were already proposed by me, but ignored. Nevertheless, I will start in the 3rd paragraph. I believe the first sentences are maybe better moved around and tweaked a bit. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for the proposal below, mainly reordering sentences: Using the word "certainly" is not a clear way of say there might be earlier sightings. Easier to just be more chronological. Strabo is normally called a geographer. Does anyone see a problem with this reasoning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The "illegal edit" is carefully written in accordance with what our best sources say. This "tweak proposal" appears to be largely written independently of what the sources say. It also largely duplicates what is written at Goths#Evidence from classical sources. Overall, i don't think this "tweak proposal" is an improvement. Krakkos (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: what? These are the same sentences moved around!! Please look again?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

But concerning duplication I do agree that your sentences should perhaps be removed from this section and not just moved around. This is why I suggest moving a listing of classical mentions BEFORE the name section. See below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: is there any chance you can confirm a misreading of my proposal on this one? Please give a new comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: will you confirm that you misunderstood the below proposal and give an answer relative to what it actually contains please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

General remark: there are too many footnotes, and certainly too many within sentences. These sentences should not be controversial?
Krakkos "illegal edit"	Tweak proposal
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 reported 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] Gutones may have meant "young" Goths or "great" Goths.[7]	The two earliest possible attestations of a Gothic name are uncertain: Pliny mentions that the 4th century BC traveler Pytheas reported a northern people called the Guiones,[20][21] while the early 1st century geographer Strabo mentioned a people called the Butones.[22][23][24] The name "Gutones" is certainly recorded by Pliny[12][13][14] in the 1st century AD. Some decades later, the historian Tacitus mentions the Gotones/Gothones in two of his works.[25][26][27]. None of these are given an exact location, but Ptolemy[15][16][17] in the 2nd century AD[18][19] mentions not only the Gutones near the Vistula, but also a people of Scandia called Goutai/Guti,[30][16][19][17] who are generally equated with the Geats/Gauts (Old English: gēatas; Old Norse: gautar; Swedish: götar) of southern Sweden.[7][18][9][19]

I am going to concur with the observation that there are too many footnotes. Please take a look at WP:OVERCITE. That is an essay, not policy, but it is good advice. In general one citation is needed for one claim. I note that almost all of the citations are used more than once so a quick way to trim them is to removed the repeat citation in each case. I could have a go at this, but again I am not familiar with the source material, so it would be better if someone who knows this stuff thinks carefully about which source is best at each point. WP:CITETRIM in the above essay is especially helpful. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: You are right in pointing out that there is an excess amount of citations in Goths#Name. This section is written by me, so i am familiar with the source material. All of the primary sources and most of the citations from historians are also in Goths#Evidence from classical sources. I think these can be removed from Goths#Name. With your permission, i would be glad to perform the removal. Krakkos (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, thanks. That is all fine with me. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos and Sirfurboy: But doesn't this raise the question which indeed I have already raised of whether those two sections should BOTH exist? @Krakkos: I am not sure exactly what you just proposed. This is messy. What is the change you think you just got "consensus" for? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos said that excess citations could be removed from Goths#Name, and as the editor who wrote that section, this makes sense and that is what I indicated I was happy for. This is simply dealing with overcitation and should be uncontroversial. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: to be clear, actually I said that not Krakkos, and then you agreed, and then Krakkos wrote as if you proposed it. I only mention this in order to register that this pattern of making new posts about topics I raise, and not referring to mine, is being repeated all over this talk page by Krakkos and it is creating a mess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I was attempting to be concise. Yes, to be clear, you said there were too many citations, I agreed, and Krakkos then consented to removing some of the overcitation. This happened and I think this is an improvement, but unlike Berig, I am not, and do not claim to be any kind of authority on the subject. I visit this page to learn about the Goths. Regarding your concerns that the citations may not be balanced, I would suggest that it is not the role of the citations to be balanced, it is the role of the text of the page. Citations are there for verification of the text, and readers of the page will read the lead first, and then they may read the text, but very few will follow up the citations. If you want to present information to the reader in a balanced matter, it is the text that must be balanced. When sources disagree, don't cite strings of all the sources - find a balanced way to cover the matter and cite one appropriate source (two if particularly controversial). In this way the reader will be informed, and should they have a desire to verify a statement, they only have one or at the most, two citations to follow up. Finally, primary sources should generally be avoided (except when sourcing quotes or other such matters). See WP:PRIMARY. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all that except about the primary sources, but I think you are talking about something different and I think Krakkos understood me and agrees. I am talking about the illustrative use of primary sources. For their meaning we should use experts. The point it seems we really should be talking about is the duplication of the recitation of classical mentionings. I see it more as an editorial than factual issue, so please can you have a look and comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed some of the excess citations in Goths#Name. These were either primary sources or sources from non-linguists that are already cited in Goths#Evidence from classical sources. There is potential to remove additional sources, but although that would make the text visually more appealing, it would at the same time make it less informative in my opinion. Krakkos (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos and Sirfurboy: interestingly similar case? So soon. [25]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Having been summoned by ping, I made a few edits to remove unnecessary refs from the lead per MOS:LEADCITE but the citations updated in the main are a definite improvement there. Thanks, Krakkos (talk · contribs) for replacing the use of efn with harv referencing. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I only mentioned it here because it seems to show the "agreement" we seemed to have about leads and footnotes here does not seem to have really convinced Krakkos. That has a relevance to this article and others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sirfurboy: Technically, Krakkos was saying ALL sources will be removed? Is that the best solution? In any case should it just be "whatever you want"? I think it is very important to explain which citations, and also to explain what is going to happen to the other overlapping section which was mentioned in the discussion (Evidence from classical sources). You understandably think it is obvious and common sense, I guess, but if you examine the last edit Krakkos did, there is an enormous difference between the talk page discussion and the eventual edit. I am also quite concerned based on past experience that (1) we should avoid having duplicate sections which argue which other (POV forks), especially if one of them is now going to have NO sources and the other will. That sounds like the kind of thing which can definitely go wrong. (2) When we move to less sources, which is indeed something I proposed, this should not be done by removing all the ones that Krakkos sees as opposed to Peter Heather for example, but in a balanced way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: so you have removed ALL references to the primary sources and Christensen, and now we treated Kaliff and Strid as the two main authorities? I do not feel this was balanced at all, and I don't see any pre-discussion of this. The aim of having fewer sources was discussed but actually there are still a lot, just now worse balanced. Primary sources are informative to readers in a different way in articles like this, and in my opinion irreplaceable. The section you refer to is AFTER this one, so it does not help the readers. At first sight I also can't see any reason to see Kaliff or Strid as particularly strong sources? What is your reasoning concerning those two sources, and concerning your continuing POV censorship of Christensen, Goffart, anyone who writes in German, etc?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV. I have followed this article on and off for 17 or 18 years, and I have always doubted that this article can ever become a stable good article. There are too many who are interested in a Scandinavian origin of the Goths, and too many who can't accept any such notion at all. The challenge for both of you is to write something that you both can live with, because it will only become relatively stable if you both manage to write something that you can agree on. I honestly, hope that you can, because this article would benefit from it.-Berig (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC) @Berig: But this article is not the most difficult case ever and a stable version should be very doable. Even a little bit of occasional commenting from interested editors such as yourself can make a BIG difference. Please remember to give your opinions on proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, would be more inclined to comment if this page weren't a seething cauldron of disputatious verbiage filled with hard-to-follow, complex walls of text about often abstruse points. I'm sure I'm not the only editor scared away by it. Carlstak (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak:, yes that is the reason I wish more people would nevertheless post. While it is only one person + Krakkos, then conversations will go in useless circles, such as the 13 times Krakkos's answer to everything was that if something is not in Peter Heather's 3 paragraph dictionary article it should not be in our article. Even a small amount of extra input can stop that happening, and has done so in recent days. Another major artificial cause of this is that because of Krakkos's escalations, Krakkos and myself MUST now check that we have consensus before any edit on this article. Krakkos is not doing this, but I have stupidly been making efforts to explain everything, because Krakkos has a history of screaming "edit war" even even for technical edits. It is a truly awful "solution", when no action was appropriate, and which takes no account of the situation. As a result of such micromanagement, and the fight-to-the-death on every edit approach of Krakkos, we had to have an RFC just to get a publication year fixed. This would all be much less easy to get away with if there were more editors. Maybe just look at the last few sections?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Per your complaints, i have removed citations from Anders Kaliff (except his citation of linguist Elias Wessén) from Goths#Name. Arne Søby Kristensen is/was (presumably) an assistant professor of history. Jan Paul Strid was a full professor of linguistics. Strid is therefore a stronger source on etymology than Kristensen. Kristensen and the primary sources are much more relevant for the section Goths#Evidence from classical sources, where they are cited extensively. Krakkos (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So your rationale is based on your own judgement of their status at the Universities they work at? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

At first sight Strid seems to have been selected because he is an unusual case of someone still pushing the Scandinavia theory in a simple strong form? That also matches your preferences right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Still pushing the Scandinavia theory"? Recent discoveries in genetics, published in the respected Nature (journal), seem to support that theory. Let's be open-minded about the future, here, or other editors may question your ambitions concerning NPOV.-Berig (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Berig: In the end, should this Name section really be used a place to slip statement of this theory in early? I think it needs its own discussion. BTW I am personally open-minded about it, but I am not a source. The DNA source you mention is only "consistent with" the Scandinavia theory, and certainly not a game changer. See discussion about that section above. (Perhaps comment there.) The theory is, our sources all agree, actually based on Jordanes. It would not even exist otherwise. The main authorities on whether we can trust Jordanes are happily quite clear: Heather, Christensen, and Goffart. Funnily enough, whereas Heather was the only reference we need in the lead, according to Krakkos, Heather is being trimmed back in this section and Wolfram's old book is being used as the only source we need. Concerning Strid, if we wanted the linguists and if we were letting this section just be about the name, then Rübekeil and Thomas Andersson (in RGA) are more cited?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

In reality, the Name section should clearly come after the summary of classical mentions, at least if it depends on first listing them, which it currently does. Also the "Other literary evidence" should be added to that classical sources section. Then all three sections can be can be trimmed and focused. Do others agree, or what am I missing here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is speculating about the future by referring to theories with the word "still", it is good to keep in mind that genetic and archaelogical studies are more likely to have an impact on future discussions than the personal judgement of the historians you mention.-Berig (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Berig: That sounds true. What do you think of in any case bringing the article's two discussions of old texts together? Because I don't want to get stuck on Strid or whatever. My main concern is that having two competing sections is, from experience, something that will work against the aim of a stable article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of merging Goths#Name and Goths#Evidence from classical sources. The origins and meaning of the Gothic name is a very important question, and the section dealing with this question should be kept. Likewise, evidence from classical sources is of major importance to early Gothic history. Both sections should be kept. If there is overlap, then this overlap should be trimmed from both sections. Nevertheless, a certain degree of overlap is acceptable on Wikipedia per WP:RELART. Merging these two quite distinct sections will certainly not contribute to making this article more stable. Krakkos (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: RELART is about duplication between different articles, as I already reminded you. Please stop posting deliberately misleading information. In any case the other option is to remove the over-complete listing of all classical mentions from the Name section. Please consider and comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It is standard practice at Wikipedia to have the name/etymology section as the first section of an article. I'm not in favor of merging Goths#Name and Goths#Evidence from classical sources. The first section deals with etymology, and the second deals with history. Rather than merging them, we should make sure to limit the overlap between them. A certain degree of overlap is however hard to avoid and nevertheless acceptable per WP:RELART. Krakkos (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The classical mentions are ALREADY being almost fully discussed in this "standard" nomenclature section, which is in fact "non standard" in length. Maybe they should be removed. But I am saying, I can sort of see why that has to be in the case of this subject, and I am suggesting how to reduce the duplication. I am suggesting that the "mentions" sub-topic IS (already) part of the naming topic, and we just need to work according to that reality. So the nomenclature section would have several sub-sections. Please consider. As far as I can see this is consistent with your own preferences?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC) BTW you should look at RELART again. It is clearly NOT about duplication in one WP article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Some more problems with the expanded name section

In effect the section's long second and third paragraphs are covering things handled in other sections, and make lots of side remarks. To discuss the NAME, we don't need much of it. Strangely, the discussion about the etymology is still scattered here and there and impossible to put back together. Here are some specifics:

• Wrong: "Jordanes writes that the ancestor of the Goths was named Gaut". He called him Gapt, also according to Rübekeil who is being cited.
• Undue/for another section: The Geats/Gauts and royal Lombards and Anglo-Saxons claimed descent from Gaut.[21]
• Undue Repetition: last 4 sentences of 4th paragraph.
• Gautigoths in Jordanes are a subject of uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Stefan Brink and Ludwig Rübekeil, Gapt is an alternate spelling of the Proto-Germanic *Gaut. The last four sentences in paragraph four introduce the views of Herwig Wolfram and Elias Wessén on the meaning of the Gothic name. I don't think this is "undue repetition". Rübekeil and Brink equates Geats with the Gautigoths. Krakkos (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but Jordanes said Gapt. The proposals that this is equivalent to Gaut are certainly common and respectable. But we should not say that he wrote something he did not write. Our sources also don't do that. Concerning Gautigoths, Christensen gives a much more detailed discussion than the two sources you mention and shows that, to put it in my own neutral terms, there is at least good reason to see this as not completely certain. It is by the way a genuinely interesting bit to read as it mentions other Goth-like terms I think you are not aware of. I wonder what Heather wrote? I think the undue repetition problem is obvious, and clearly a POV pushing thing. That particular bit is not a stable long term approach and certainly not a consensus seeking approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, if "gapt" is generally assumed to be a misspelling for "gaut" it is relevant here, because these manuscripts are not known for their perfect spelling. If scholars followed a letter by letter approach like the one you advocate with old manuscripts they would have to talk about discovering new romance languages, or simply consider them illegible. Let's present "gapt" according to how scholars do it.-Berig (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Berig: I do not think it is universally assumed to have been a misspelling. It is just a common proposal that it is a kind of variant. Again, we are NOT reflecting the way our secondary sources present things. OTOH, in the situation you describe I would still always want to avoid wordings which literally say that the word in the text is Gaut. Why would we do that if it is easy to indicate that it "is interpreted to be a variant of Gaut" without making our text significantly longer? Does this make sense to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, sorry for my late response. The identification between "Gapt" and "Gaut" is not likely to be challenged very much because it fits with what we know about the early Germanic tribes. They were often organized around charismatic lines of chieftains who claimed descendance from a Germanic god. In this case there is a connection to be made that makes sense even according to the recent ideas about the ethnogeneses of the Germanic tribes. However, if you feel that there is enough of a discussion about it to consider it relevant for inclusion, why not be bold, or add it here for discussion?–Berig (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually recently started a new comment below which proves that it is actually not a consensus, even for the conservative Peter Heather, who has been described as sceptical of scepticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goths#Gapt_versus_Gaut I think we have to be a bit cautious of trying to guess what scholars think. I think our article needs less "certainty" if it is really going to aim to reflect the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Verification failure requiring tweaks: please comment

@Carlstak, Srnec, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe: Can I (or someone else) please fix the following? This has been discussed at more length above, more than once. We currently have, for example in the classical sources section:

"Ancient authors do not identify the Gutones with the Goths.[74][40] Their equivalence is nevertheless supported by Herwig Wolfram[37] and Peter Heather,[12] among scholars in general.[50] According to Heather and Christensen, philologists and linguists consider it indisputable that they are the same.[12][39]"

The sources pointed to are really saying, very specifically, that the two name forms, Gothi and Gutones, are indisputably from the same etymological root. This is not a fine point. Wolfram and his Vienna School (Steinacher, Pohl etc) specify that they are not arguing that these are identical peoples in any simple sense, but rather culturally-connected peoples (mobile tradition bearing elites, the name must have carried prestige etc). So our article is strongly distorting its sources. Confusing the issue, also please consider and comment:

• Such statements, or wordings implying such positions, have been duplicated in many sections throughout the article, and that duplication should be reduced so that a stable article with one explanation can be developed.
• In some cases the citations of what Heather, etc thinks are not be sourced from the authors, but from the article by Mark on an educational website. I think this source confuses all discussion and adds nothing positive. It should be removed from the article IMHO.
• Concerning the real position of the Vienna school, which is very prominent, we are not even explaining it in our article even though we cite Wolfram and imply a different position. Maybe this needs another discussion.

As far as I can see this is a simple verification failure? Can we at least start by tweaking sentences like the named example or are there serious counter arguments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather do indeed consider Gutones and Goths to be the same people. Please read the sources. This is what these sources say:

"Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them... The Gutonic immigrants became Goths the very moment the Mediterranean world considered them "Scythians"... The Gothic name appears for the first time between A.D. 16 and 18. We do not, however, find the strong form Guti but only the derivative form Gutones... Hereafter, whenever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. pp. 12–13, 20, 23. ISBN 0520069838. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription= and |registration= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Goths – Germanic-speaking group first encountered in northern Poland in the first century AD." Heather, Peter (2007). The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. p. 467. ISBN 9780195325416. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Goths – or perhaps 'Gothones' or 'Guthones' – inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century AD, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second... Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name..." Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"Goths. A Germanic *tribe whose name means 'the people', first attested immediately south of the Baltic Sea in the first two centuries." Heather, Peter (2018). "Goths". In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. p. 673. ISBN 9780191744457. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Your above post is very misleading. You accuse the paragraph in question of "strongly distorting" sources from Steinacher and Pohl, but the paragraph actually cites neither of them. Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I see that you have doubled down and made a "WP:pointy" "battling" edit [26] which is the opposite of consensus-based. This and other recent seems to be in direct conflict with the restrictions placed upon us by EdJohnston. In fact, by the definition implied in your last AN3 case this edit can perhaps even be called "edit warring"?

You also deliberately deleted one of the relevant authorities for understanding this field, the much cited Christensen book, and replaced that citation with another citation to the controversial unknown source, Mark.

The wording style you insist upon is deliberately misleading our readers and censoring what the Vienna school really believe (see the discussion with Berig above and the recent summary written by Steinbacher, whose Doctorate was promoted by Wolfram). You are also censoring information about the big variations in what "scholars in general" really believe in general, by synthesizing your own version of what the field believes using individual quotes from chosen authors. This is of course consistent with the surreal POV edits you have made recently to WP articles about the Vienna school and its scholars, such as Walter Pohl, who should be cited, despite your fighting against the use of German language sources above. Relevant: WP:NPOV--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Third-century migration was not remotely as simple Jordanes' formula - one king, one people, one move - might suggest. (Heather, Empires and Barbarians, p.124.)

formations of Gothic tribes were possible only because they were based on this saga, which was kept alive by "nuclei of tradition" like the Amal clan. It was these nuclei who preserved the Gothic name. (Wolfram, p.37 of the same book cited by Krakkos)

Given your history of deliberate misrepresentation, I also need to protest that your description of which sources I called distorted is obviously untrue. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You requested someone to tweak this paragraph[27] and i tweaked it in accordance with your wishes. I did not remove Christensen and i did not replace him with Mark. See the edit again.[28] Krakkos (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. You are indeed correct about that side issue in your second sentence. I was fooled by the moving around of the sources. But the bigger issues remain the same. This was absolutely not a consensus edit. Quite the opposite, and the edsum is misleading. Your first response above shows you never agreed with the change I asked for. Or are there any more errors or misunderstandings you can point to (or admit to)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: here is a more specific proposal based on the NEW version. If you don't know the right sources, let me know. I strongly suggest responding and not directly editing again:

The equivalence between the Gutones and the Goths is supported by Herwig Wolfram,[37] Peter Heather,[12] and scholars in general.[50] Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the Gutones and similarly named peoples mentioned by early Roman authors were possibly not identical to the Goths, but concedes that such an equation is generally accepted and is chronologically a "realistic possibility".[38][40]

A connection between the Gutones and the Goths is commonly accepted, though the nature of that connection is uncertain. Peter Heather, for example, argues for a straightforward equation of the Gutones and Goths, though he is sceptical of the "simple formula" implied by Jordanes, "one king, one people, one move". Herwig Wolfram and the Vienna school, in contrast, propose that smaller elite groups, such as the Amal clan, transmitted traditions such as prestigious names, founding new Gothic tribes in different places. Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the connection has been "taken for granted" although it remains a realistic possibility.

This is of course now longer, but at least accurate. Should it even be in this section, when the same thing is discussed several times in other sections? In reality we should be moving all the discussions about this topic to one place. How can we have a sensible discussion about that? I still propose that the Nomenclature section should have sub-sections: classical examples of Gothic names, then the etymological theories, and then something like the above discussion of the question of how many Gothic tribes there were and how they were connected. If you have proposals, can you please discuss first though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Same people

@Srnec: concerning this edit, it equates the position of Heather and Wolfram on a particular point: "That the Gutones and the Goths were the same people is supported by Herwig Wolfram<> and Peter Heather.<>" As I've been trying to show with quotations above though, the only way a normal reader is going to understand this, will be wrong. While it is not quite clear how critical Heather is of the idea of a simple migration of one unmixed tribe (he certainly leaves space) with Wolfram and the Vienna school it is quite clear, despite certain "the Goths" wordings here and there, that "the Goths" were probably re-founded several times, with the only continuity being provided by a mobile group of tradition carriers. I don't think our wording even allows a reader to think this could be a possibility for what Wolfram believes? See my various proposals above. I still the explanation of Steinbacher to be a good clear one as explained to Berig above. Wolfram was Steinbacher's Doctoral promoter (bad translation, but I can't think of a better one) and his explanation is explicitly intended to explain the new way of thinking developed by the elders of the Vienna school. I am not sure if it is visible for you on GBooks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to re: Steinbacher. Note that what you are suggesting also means that we cannot take "the Goths" at time A to be the same people as "the Goths" at time B. There is a sense in which this is true, of course, but I think normal people will understand it regardless. Srnec (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: "Steinacher" (no "b" sorry). You should be able to see the quote on this page (which I don't want to overload) just by using the browser page search - now that you have the spelling. But Wolfram and others are relatively clear about it too, as long as we read several pages rather than selected search-term words (e.g. "the Gothic name"), which is I suppose how many parts of our article were made. I am not confident of readers getting it. Our own editors seem to have a problem with this point, and our readers are not even being given good clear hints, let alone all the material our editors have looked at. Also, I think small tweaks can allow us to just report what Wolfram meant, more accurately.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What Steinacher writes is not controversial. Are you saying that you do not think Wolfram would agree that the Gutones are the Goths at an earlier time? Even Goffart in his 1982 review of Wolfram seems to accept that Goths are mentioned in the works of Pliny et al. My point above was that everything you are saying would be equally true if Pliny said Gothi. For that reason, I think the nature of Gothic identity over time is a separate matter from the Gothic name as it appears in foreign sources across time. And I agree that we cannot take the Gutones/Gothi equivalence for granted just because of the etymology—that's a different kind of equivalence. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. So coming back to our text: do our readers get this message? I am thinking not. I also don't think we need to deliberately imply something just because Wolfram, for example, also uses confusing wordings. After all, with Wolfram, you just have to read several pages and then you will see what he means. But we don't have that luxury, and trying to chose words which leave open the possibility of peoples being connected but not truly identical seems a worthy challenge for us?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: PS as an example, I put a draft sentence change in the section immediately above this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Speculation

There is a large ethnic group in South Asia called Gojar or Gujar. I am also a part of this group. This group has ruled a large part of Asia in past and are Aryans by way of their Physical attributes, Genes and Lifestyle, language etc.

We were contacted by someone from this Gojar village of Granada in Spain and were told that there are Gojar or Gujar people in Spain as well. These people are purely Spanish by Genetic and physical attributes and claim to be the descendants of the great VisiGoths. The visi-Goths were Goths who were called Gutar or Guadar (there wasn’t any “J” alphabet in English or Greek until 15th Century and it was written as D or T or G. Most of the Royalties of Europe hail their origin to the Goths.

The country of Georgia was also interestingly called Gurjiya (land of Gurjars or Gujars) and there are people who are in contact with us and call themselves Gujaraidze (progeny of Gujar). They are also genetically purely Georgians. They claim to be the descendants of Gugark tribe (that named the province of Gugark) who were called Gargarians by Greeks (J written as G).

It might be worth researching on this point to unearth some great connection between the past heroes that ruled Europe and Asia (the total then known World). The Real Rana (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Honestly I don't think any of this helps us write the article here. On WP we just try to summarize what has been published. Agreeing on what that is, is already a challenge sometimes. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this article, on less watched article. Topics include Walter Goffart as source.

As Heruli is not much watched, it would be good to get more community input on events there which certainly involve sources relevant to this article. In short: (1) approximately 1 third of the article including 6 sources was deleted in a major revert, [29]; (2) the only clear rationale given so far is that Walter Goffart was mentioned as a source in some of the new material. (But Goffart is not one of the 6 sources deleted, and was already in the article, and still is.) That issue has clearly come up here before also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Posted only at Heruli, though it is about Scirri, this appears to also be part of this same systematic work which is relevant to this article [30]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just so we do not loose it: Main attempt to defend the Heruli revert by Thomas.W has been led by Krakkos at User_talk:Thomas.W#Heruli. It is certainly about Goffart, and involves the interpretation of Goffart and other sources which has been proposed on Wikipedia by Krakkos. The discussion leads me to feel concerned about edits being made on the articles of living scholars like Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Gapt versus Gaut

We have discussed above whether our readers should simply be told that the ancestor of the Goths was called Gaut when the classical text said Gapt. I can add to that discussion that Peter Heather argues against the equation which we have been putting in WP voice, and there were no variants. See p. 415 of ...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Green, Dennis (2007). Barnish; Marazzi (eds.). Linguistic and Literary Traces of the Ostrogoths, The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology. Vol. 7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Where does "History" really start?

Looking at this article a lot and it occurs to me one simple change might help editors and readers a lot to get their bearings (and to see how to fix things): "History" should only begin with "Early raids on the Roman Empire". The sub-sections and sub-sub-sections before that should perhaps be simply named "Pre-history"? Potentially, we could have an RFC, but I am not sure if that is necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

boranoi/boradoi doubts

Our article has In their first attested incursion into Thrace, the Goths were mentioned as Boranoi by Zosimus, and then as Boradoi by Gregory Thaumaturgus. Normally these people are described as Sarmatians, or people whose language group can not be identified. Here, for example, is Heather talking about the same two classical references, and also citing Wolfram as one of the authors who sees them as Sarmatian: https://books.google.be/books?id=m8p4SxNNk1YC&pg=PA3 They are also discussed, for example in this article: https://www.academia.edu/5079620/INSTITUT_ANTIQUITAS_ISTRO-PONTICA which says "In any event, they do not seem to have been of Germanic origin". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tried to fix. The source was definitely mishandled. No need to mention Sarmatians, which is as much a guess as Goths. Best to just lay bare our ignorance but make the Gothic connection (from Gregory) clear. Unless there are other sources I'm not aware of for these raids? Srnec (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! Concerning some of the raids at least, there is more discussion on the Heruli article, though that is more about the later ones. I have also added a bullet about it on Germanic peoples. Our article here is citing Kulikowski, but I don't have access to that exact page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplication on this article

Just some examples, I can not work on without agreement:

• The probable related names Gutones and Gaut

• Are the main subject of the repetitive and long Name section, which goes into great detail and is essentially already slipping in a case for this being evidence for Baltic origins. (Before all the context is explained.)
• Are explained at length again in the introduction of the Origins and early history sub-section of the History section. (A sub-section which is very long and unstructured arguably not history.)
• Are discussed again at length with all possible pre Black sea sightings in the Evidence from classical sources sub-sub-section of the above named sub-section. Arguably, this is not a History section unless "Name" is also. Arguably also, this listing should come before the Name section as context.

• Is discussed again in "Evidence from etymology", adding nothing?
• Genetic evidence. Has two sections. It all looks a bit undue.
• Physical appearance. Has its own section, but is also the subject of a lonely sentence in "Other literary sources".
• Literary evidence is divided into several sections. In this complex structure, Procopius is only mentioned for the physical appearance sentence. He is as important as Jordanes, who is a contemporary. The secondary sources often compare them.
• Mentions of archaeology are also scattered and repeated.

Because of the broken structure and extreme duplication, it is hard to notice other issues. For example, we have a section on Evidence from historical parallels which is in fact a speculation built on a speculation and expanding upon a minor remark by only one author. So it seems quite WP:UNDUE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks, including outright removal of the historical parallels section. I can't do much about the duplication. Too hard. Srnec (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: another easy one should be the DNA sections. The first one should not exist because the word "support" is OR (original says "seem to be consistent with" as can be seen online). See the previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goths#Undue_genetic_conclusions? The second version should also be adapted to remove at least the most obvious OR and undue weight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the Origins 3.1 and Migration 3.2 sections be move out of History?

To structure this article better, is there any opposition to moving the pre-history sections (3.1) and (3.2) out of "History" (3) into their own section? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Without such steps we can not begin to reduce the excessive duplication and give the article a logical structure going into future. The most important sub-sections needed are concerning textual and archaeological evidence. 3.2 can probably be used to make an intro to the section, and merged into the sub-sections wherever it contains extra details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak, Srnec, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, Yeowe, Berig, and Ermenrich: feedback please? Perhaps someone will see better solutions but it is clear the current article needs work. This proposal is a relatively simple one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• No objection. Srnec (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Our top sources (Peter Heather, Herwig Wolfram etc.) treat Gothic migration as part of Gothic history.[31][32] Splitting sections will not reduce duplication. If there is duplication, the appropriate measure is to merge duplicated sections. See WP:DUP. Krakkos (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: the two references you give clearly are not writing about what to call some sections in Wikipedia? Hopefully you are not just continuing to automatically oppose every edit or proposal I make? Also keep in mind that the key point of this proposal is not the name of the new section. It could be called "Origins" or something if that is the only concern?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:NPOV articles should be based on the mainstream view, with views that deviate from the mainstream view mentioned in proportion to their support in reliable sources (as Andrew Lancaster very well knows, since I've told him so multiple times by now on other talk pages). And the "out of Scandinavia" theory is the mainstream view. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your response implies (with a lot of AGF) that you did not read the proposal? Can you have a look at the original RFC? Maybe you can start a talk page section about whatever you are thinking concerning Scandinavia. It sounds like you are seeing Peter Heather (and many scholars)as fringe authors? If we have to see Peter Heather as a fringe source the article would require a lot of changes, so this would need a convincing explanation for all the normal editors of this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)