Talk:Goths/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Proposal to reduce duplication and restructure the History section

I have now made a proposal at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths with the aim of eliminating duplication and having a more simplified structure of the history section. This article already exceeds recommended article size, and the Goths#Culture section is underdeveloped. I have therefore transferred nearly all information about the Gothic name to the article Name of the Goths. I believe the name is a notable topic which cannot be covered comprehensively within this article without taking up too much space. I have given the history section a simplified chronological structure based upon the works on Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather. I have also tried to make the prose less exegetic by transferring some disputes into the notelist. The proposed edit will look like this.[1] This is of course not a perfect version nor a final version, but i believe it gives the article a better basis for future improvement. If the community considers the proposal an improvement over the current version, permission to implement the edit would be much appreciated. Krakkos (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Even "origins of the Goths" would be worthwhile to go together with the names in an article of their own. GPinkerton (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos and GPinkerton: this is certainly a surprising way to split the article, because it means structuring the whole article around a special (and confusing) wording choice which only one scholar, Wolfram, likes, but the article is not even explaining what Wolfram really means by it. A more typical approach on WP might be to create a Gutones article for example. (We already have articles for Gutes and Geats.) There must be many other more conventional possibilities, but I am not sure we need any of them. I thought we were going to wait while Azerty82 worked on tidying up the Name related sections first? I believe the current version of this article can be compressed enormously without much problem, so we should do that first? The proposal for this article removes critical discussion of Jordanes I guess, but it does it by just treating him as reliable instead? I am not sure GPinkerton and Carlstak had that in mind? I feel it is obvious that this article should not be shortened by just accepting Jordanes was a reliable source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Jordanes does not contribute much to the question with his legendary account indeed. The modern debate is principally fed by archeology and historical linguistics. Alcaios (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No that is also not really correct. Jordanes is still described by many scholars as the main/only source of the original idea, which some archaeologists and philologists have tried to prove right. Some scholars might argue that without Jordanes they would have come to the same conclusion, but not all. So we can't just delete/censor this. If there is a controversy in a field we have to report it neutrally, and in such situations articles splits should be done carefully and with regard to consensus and neutrality, making sure we do not simply create POVFORKS or delete/censor bits that some people don't like. For example if we really want to get rid of all origins controversies then we would need this article to start in the 3rd century. If we are not going to do that, then we need to be careful about how to handle it. In my opinion nothing so dramatic was needed, because the excessive duplication and de-structuring of this article should be fixed first. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

ADD: "the original idea" should be split into two: the migration from Vistula idea, and the migration from Scandinavia to Vistula idea. The split-up of scholars for these two would be quite different. But both originally come from Jordanes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say that Jordanes should be censored or removed? He doesn't contribute much to the modern debate since he is not regarded as reliable by the majority of scholars. Alcaios (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Under the current proposal, in any case, he becomes the basis of the structure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: Jordanes is certainly important for the historiography, but he is not really relevant to the modern debate. Either you can prove the Scandinavian origin of the Goths by scientific means, regardless of what Jordaness wrote, or you cannot. Alcaios (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, and scholars do not agree on whether you can or not, especially for the Scandinavian theory, but also for the Vistula proposal. That is why it needs a careful solution. I think Jordanes needs to be mentioned early (Vistula aspect and Scandinavia aspect, separately), but I think this can be done MUCH more quickly, and not in such a way that the whole discussion is structured around it. Indeed, I felt very good about the similar approach you started to take in the name section, where you broke apart the amorphous "the Goth name" discussion. Now instead we have a whole new article which insists again on the concept of "the Goth name" whereby it deliberately mixes Geats, Gutes, Gotones and Goths, Scandinavians, Vistula-dwellers and people living in the Ukraine. So that seems a step backwards in the Name section, as well as for the Origins sections. I really liked the sectioning. I believe it was leading naturally to a shortening. Now we have lengthening again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios and Krakkos: If I understand correctly, based on discussion on the new article talk page, we go back to something like the consensus we had last night: Alcaios (former Azerty) is going to look at how the Name and Origin sections in THIS article should/could be changed (now with the new article taken into account), and make proposals for discussion. Correct? Krakkos has made proposals, and I have expressed preferences (such as my strong preference for the breaking up the geographically completely different cases in both the Name and Origin sections, rather than deliberately confusing them). I appreciate it both of you, as long as I understand it correctly.

I do think the new article creates dilemmas, though I am trying to keep an open mind and wait to see what proposals come. For example in the proposal of Krakkos, the Swedish and Polish "Goths" are just a fact now [in both articles], with discussion about doubts and debates and the original reasoning very censored and mixed up. We would then use what I would call a wrong understanding of Wolfram and Jordanes. I am very concerned about that direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A question for the community

There are been almost daily complaints from a certain editor about duplication and the exegetical prose and structure of the history section of this article. I'm partially responsible for these issues and i would very much like to clean up my own mess. I have made a proposed solution at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths. I'm tempted to implement the proposal here. Are there any editors who would instead prefer to keep the current version? Krakkos (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: you are referring to me, but you misrepresent me. The "exegetical" remarks came from two other editors. And secondly I don't think the proposals and concerns I have tried to discuss should be described as the whole "History" section. Gothic history starts in the 3rd century (something you don't want the article to state clearly). The main concerns (and I think many other editors) are specifically about the 6 sections which currently cover periods BEFORE the 3rd century.

Concerning your proposal, as mentioned above I thought there was an agreement, which had much better consensus, for Alcaios to continue re-working at least the Name section first, so that we can then see better what else needs to be done?

One important difference between your approach and the one Alcaios started is that your draft is structured around Jordanes as a default account of Gothic "history" starting in Scandinavia, whereas Alcaios was breaking up the different types of evidence into small logical sections. Also in the Origins (pre 3rd century) sections there are different types of evidence, doubts, debates. Because you build around Jordanes, no reader could get the following out of our current article and even less out of your draft, but it should be the starting for explaining why/how some people argue there is something like a "history" before the 3rd century...

Scholars do not agree about whether these Goths had an identifiable and continuous history and identity which stretched before the third century. Steinacher p.50: Bei der historischen Beurteilung ist nun entscheidend, welche Rolle man den Wanderungsberichten in den Getica des Jordanes zugesteht, bzw. ob man eine gotische Identität und damit Geschichte schon vor dem 3. Jahrhunderd annimmt. In diesen Fragen ist sich die Forschung nicht einig. This is a good short recent (2017) review of the field with a long endnote giving examples of the diversity in the field, citing Kazanski, Bierbrauer, Wolfram, Heather, Kulikowski and Goffart. We should at least be consistent with such remarks?

To the extent you let readers know that things might not be so simple, there are strange jarring sentences in your draft like this The equation between Gutones and later Goths is disputed by Arne Søby Christensen implying that there is only one scholar who doubts it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: The proposal is structured around the works of Herwig Wolfram and Peter Heather, not Jordanes. If you want to add German-language analysis by this Steinacher then you should do that as a separate proposal. During the last week, you've been complaining almost daily about duplication and poor structure on this article. You have been flooding this talk page, my talk page and the talk pages of others with repeated complaints about this issue. My proposal simplifies the structure and eliminates the duplication entirely. Do you prefer to keep the current version instead of my proposal? Krakkos (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And your proposals always come within hours of other people posting proposals. I still prefer the plan which was being agreed hours before you made your proposal. Alcaios was going to continue restructuring the Name section first.

I think the Steinacher quote is an example which is very consistent with the works of Wolfram and Heather and many other scholarly works, but very different from what you keep putting into Wikipedia.

I think your position, and your way of explaining, is very different from Wolfram and Heather. The sources you name are generally not your real sources. Hardly a sentence you write can be verified, even though you often show quotes. Unfortunately most editors don't have time to check all your footnotes and see this. Another example from your draft: The authencity [sic] and accuracy of Jordanes' claim of Gothic origins in Scandianvia [sic] is disputed among historians.[25][26][27][28][29] Germanic philologists assent that the story is authentic.[30] Amazingly, this 2nd sentence is supposedly justified by a critical general remark about a type of argument: Goffart 2005, pp. 379–380. "Experts in Germanic literature, who instantly discount reports of Trojan or Scythian or Noachic origins as being fabulous, solemnly assent: emigration from Scandinavia is an authentic 'tribal memory'..." This is just one example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It unfortunately seems now that Alcaios has been discouraged from working on this topic [2]. So there goes my preferred option. My second option would either be you allowing some tweaks, or else someone else needs to write a proposal (or more likely we will have to do it bit by bit). I want to do my best to once again propose an easy compromise:

• Remove the wrongly worded and sourced sentence mentioned above.
• The Origins section in your draft is only about Jordanes, and it starts the whole history section. I therefore believe it should have a different title (e.g. "Jordanes and Scandza") and ALSO ...
• There should be a short intro paragraph to the history section, giving the context: Roman authors first mention the Goths in the third century. Scholars do not agree about whether these Goths had an identifiable and continuous history and identity which stretched before then. However several lines of evidence exist which point to an origin near the Vistula river, and possibly also connections to Scandinavia.
• Given the above, the "Early History" section could probably best be changed also. (e.g. "Vistula region evidence")
• This sentence should be tweaked to avoid implying there is only one scholar who has doubts: The equation between Gutones and later Goths is disputed by Arne Søby Christensen.[51] I believe Goffart, Kulikowski, and Halsall all have doubts?

What do you think? The proposal does not mean I have no other concerns, but these changes would help reduce specifically connected to your draft. I am not sure what other editors think, but I have tried hard to find something you should be able to accept? Tweaks to my tweaks also can be discussed, of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now implemented the proposal in accordance with your compromise suggestion.[3] I don't think the titles Goths#Jordanes and Scandza and Goths#Vistula region evidence are optimal for those sections, but i'm sure the community will be able to come up with better alternatives. Krakkos (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: OK thanks, and yes, editing never stops for any part of the article, but IMHO those tweaked titles are at least more accurate, and that can at least help others think about any eventual better titles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Crucial

"has played a crucial role" is not the same thing as "is a crucial source". Suggest rewording to emphasis the uniqueness of Jordanes rather than his (disputed) value for early Gothic history. Srnec (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial to me. Why not just make the wording more like the quoted text from Heather?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Have made Origin stories of the Goths

@GPinkerton, Krakkos, Srnec, and Alcaios: thinking about recent discussions and the proposal of GPinkerton, I suppose that while I would split articles less quickly than most people there is still a good case for this one, so I made it. I see no problematic overlaps (I've been looking), and I do think it can help take the load off several other articles, including talk page load. The idea kept coming back in different discussions including not only the new Names of the Goths but also today at Oium. See Origin stories of the Goths. I have started with Christensen only because he has a simple listing which was a good place to start. I should receive a copy of Heather "1991"? soon, and of course the first phase of editing should be pretty easy. Note this particular article is about a type of literature, NOT primarily about archaeological evidence, because we already have that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that Goffart strenuously denies that there ever was an origo gentis genre. I think the bigger question is whether we should have an article on the origin stories alone or on all origin theories, ancient and modern, i.e., an origins of the Goths article. Srnec (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster and Srnec: Origins of the Goths is what I was recommending before, not "origin stories of the Goths" - there's not enough there! GPinkerton (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: good point about Goffart's criticism. I see that is also mentioned on Origo Gentis.

@GPinkerton: I feel comfortable there is a lot of material available. There are several books which spend a lot of time on it, and some well-known debates.

Apart from that, we should also avoid too much overlap with Chernyakhov culture and Wielbark culture and this article. Concerning this article, I see the aim as deferring the "exegesis" to specialist article(s), but I don't think this article can avoid having a simplified summary of some of the opinions in play.

OTOH, of course as with the archaeology articles, it is inevitable that an article about the literature must at least touch upon whether it corresponds to reality. And the title and weighting of the article could be more about that if necessary. (Or we could just see how it evolves and potentially decide to change it later?)

I am open to dropping it as well if it seems wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I will open an article name discussion on that new page, as it exists now. I presume that it will probably continue to exist, but it might change into "Origin(s) of the Goths". I am comfortable with either name/focus, and I think the only idea I would be uncomfortable with would be having two different articles (because I can't see a way for that level of overlap to make sense). So I will also create a redirect from one to the other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC about the Name section

There is no consensus for the proposed changes.

Cunard (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Name", "classical sources", and "literary sources" sections be combined to reduce duplication and improve overall quality?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC) @Carlstak, Srnec, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, Yeowe, and Berig:

• I agree, because I proposed it. A possible name for the section could be "Recorded name forms"? It could contain sub-sections or paragraphs which give ONE quick effective statement about each of : (a) the classical attestations and form variations (b) etymology discussions (c) the question of how the different peoples with these names were connected. It would set-up the rest of the article better for editors and readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Goths#Name covers the etymology of the Gothic name. Goths#Evidence from classical sources covers evidence from classical sources on the origin and early history of the Goths. These are quite distinct subtopics which should be treated in distinct sections. All Wikipedia articles on major ancient tribes, such as the Vandals, Burgundians, Suebi, Helvetii, Franks, Alemanni etc, have sections on name/etymology, and this article should have one too. Merging this name section into the history section will not improve the quality of this article. If there is overlap this should be dealt with by trimming overlapping content. Krakkos (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos, Ermenrich, and Carlstak: this is also a reasonable vision of a future article. But, it does not describe the current article. The bulk of "Name" is now a duplicate recitation of the classical evidence. So we might need an RFC about changing the Name section's content or title? I have no strong opinion except to try to reduce the relatively extreme duplication. My approach was intended to follow the logic of the existing content reality, and I assumed section names to be flexible. Anyway, the root cause of our "content reality" seems to be past editors needed to show the classical examples before explaining them? If you have other ideas on how to reduce the jarring duplication, we can already think ahead about those? Maybe just add a note to your vote if you only have simple remarks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Krakkos. Etymology is not history.—Ermenrich (talk)
• Oppose per Krakkos' comments. Carlstak (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, I can appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I would also appreciate you not pinging me about every proposed change to be made to the text. I have this talk page on my watchlist, so it's not necessary to ping me. Please address me by my username if you want me to comment, I'll see it in good time when I'm on WP because I check my watchlist frequently. I operate a business, and have to apportion my time accordingly. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I also oppose any major rewrite of the article along the lines of the hatchet job based on a fringe source (Goffart) that @Andrew Lancaster: has just done on Heruli, which is what I suspect he intends to do here too. Unless he gets a clear support for it from other editors here first, of course. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That is what this RFC is for Thomas.W, so please be civil. I have requested discussion with you on the Heruli article, where I think your first ever edit there is a deletion of one third of the article and 6 good sources, reverting god knows how many edits, and then you have come here looking for blood? You've basically reverted to a version I also mainly wrote, mostly by 2016: [4]. Goffart is clearly not a fringe source, as has been discussed on this article and several others in the past, so if there are issues they need detailed discussion not a mass revert. You should post your explanation there now, and not make "revenge edits" on other articles of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this RFC is only about whether certain existing sections should be merged or not, not about totally rewriting the history of all Germanic peoples based on a fringe source, like the hatchet job you did on Heruli. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You deleted Vienna school sources, Reallexicon sources etc., even a reference to Jacob Grimm, not only Goffart. On both this article and that one, I think you need to home in details so we can work out what can be done? You appear to be saying no to this rather boring section rearrangement RFC because of Goffart being cited on another article by me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is about you. I oppose this RFC because I share the views expressed by Krakkos and others here. Etymology and history do NOT belong in the same section. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, and as I said above that is a reasonable point but it raises other questions. (The "history" you mention is of course only a quick list of classical mentions. There is no section called "etymology". (I was suggesting splitting one out.) There is now a "Name" section and the bulk is a duplication of the classical mentions repeated just below.) We will find a way though, as long as we can have constructive conversation, and thanks. Next discussion: Heruli...? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Yes they should be combined. Idealigic (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New article Gutones

After suggesting it several times here I have finally made it. It is clearly justified as Germanic peoples with much less notability have articles, including the Gutes and Gauts. The article implies some tweaking to links etc on this article which I can not do. It also should eventually help reduce the size or detail of those introductory sections more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

minor edit requests on section headings and "See" templates

Any concerns with these minor house-keeping proposals? Can someone either do them or give a clear go ahead?

3.1 Jordanes and Scandza -> Add "See" (or See also) template linking to Scandza

3.2 Vistula region evidence [No proposal yet, but I hope to make a Gutones article soon.]

3.3 Movement towards the Black Sea -> Move "See also" for Oium here from Co-existence with the Roman Empire.

4.1 Early raids on the Roman Empire -> Add (3rd century) to section title or similar to show chronological logic.

Also consider whether the See "Gothic Wars" template should be refined to one of the sub-articles, or moved to the History section heading.

4.2 Co-existence with the Roman Empire -> Add (300-375) or similar to show chronological logic.

4.3 Arrival of the Huns -> Add (about 375).

4.4 The Gothic War -> Add (376–382).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I assume no opposition to these minor and logical proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully no concerns with that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with lede

In the intro the Scandinavian connection cannot be reduced to a mention of Jordanes and his unrelibility. To honest with the readers we need to show that we are aware of other sources of information that point to a Scandinavian origin, or at least a Scandinavian origin tradition.

• Mausoleum of Theodoric, which appears to have been consciously decorated in a contemporary Scandinavian style so as to point to a living Gothic tradition of Scandinavian descent.
• Polish archaeology (e.g. Scandinavian burial customs)
• archaeogenetics (as recently published in Nature)
• linguistics (certain shared traits between Gothic and Old Norse in general and Old Gutnish in particular)
• Onamastics (Goths/Gutes/Geats, etc.)

This article is not restricted to historiography, and should not reduce the possible Scandinavian origin to a single source. This may look disengenuous to informed readers.-Berig (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berig, I am open to learn new things. I can only report what I have read so far:

• Many scholars say that there never would have been efforts to find Scandinavian links in other types of evidence if it had not been for Jordanes. I have to take them seriously on that because I don't think I have found any source which disagrees with that. Do you know any?
• Polish archaeology has shown a cultural connection between the Goths and the south Baltic, but the connection to Scandinavia is more tenuous? There are of course shared traits between all the cultures around the Baltic, but I have not seen any consensus of any which show a direction which has to come from Scandinavia to the Vistula? Can you mention any sources?
• Genetics. I looked at the sources in our article and that is extremely tenuous evidence where our wording distorts the weaker wording in that report on very limited data. (There is also a bigger concern on WP about the use of individual reports of raw data like this.) Which source are you thinking of in Nature?
• Linguistics. The way I understand the field, this line of argument has not gained much consensus? Again, can you bring some new sourcing?
• Onomastics. This is now mentioned in the article. As noted in some of the authorities such as RGA this evidence does not give any indication of any specific direction of movement. Only Jordanes clearly mentions such a direction, and I keep seeing that pointed out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Mausoleum of Theodoric was decorated in a Scandinavian style? How? It looks like a pretty standard late Roman/early Byzantine structure to me. What recent art historian makes such a claim? The UNESCO document says its construction may derive from Syrian influences [5]. New theory about the origin of the Goths?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

North Germanic (whence Old Norse) and Gothic do not form a single clade per current linguistic consensus. Old Norse is more closely related to West Germanic languages, with which it forms a single clade (Northwest Germanic). The only major shared innovation often mentioned when discussing possible links between Gothic and Old Norse is Verschärfung, but these processes are realized differently in both languages and likely arose independently. For the most part, similarities between the two languages not shared by West-Germanic represent shared retentions, not shared innovations. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"consciously decorated in a contemporary Scandinavian style" - did they get it from Ikea or what? Where in Scandinavia is there anything at all like the Mausoleum of Theodoric, which has hardly any decoration at all? Why, if the Scandinavian origin claim is mainstream at all, does the 2018 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity make not a mention of Scandinavia anywhere in its entry on the Goths, which describes them as Germanic people first attested in the Baltic area in the 2nd century AD? GPinkerton (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Current scholarship has evolved quickly and this article is not in sync. Goths are not Germanic. Their homeland was no where near Germany nor did the Germanic language exist when the Goths are first attested to in the archaeological record. Their eastern most area was Ukraine/Crimea, and their westernmost portion was in Romania. Not Germany. Way before Teutonic languages are a significant group. They were called Scythians by Greek and Roman writers. These are the Goths who invaded Roman territory. QueenofRods (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well Germanic language did already exist, but more to the point some scholars still call Goths Germanic because they are Germanic-speaking, while others insist we should avoid that. Both points are respected in publications by experts. That is the challenge we face in getting the wording right on this article. Does that make sense? Do you have any concrete proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disputed link to Scandinavia, the imperative of major publishing houses concerning "History"

The Cernjachov culture of the later 3rd and 4th cents. AD beside the Black Sea, and the Polish and Byelorussian Wielbark cultures of the 1st–3rd. cents. ad, provide evidence of a Gothic migration down the Vistula to the Black Sea, but no clear trail leads to Scandinavia.":

What a bunch of nonsense. In the current year, we can now see the spread of the DNA matching the Sámi people from Scandinavia to essentially everywhere the tribes that became known as the Germanics went; but I guess none of that matters when the noble Peter Heather " reliable source" enlightened one speaks on behalf of the major publishing houses that pay him to say whatever it is that Peter Heather has himself determined to be "true" (after hearing the same thing from the spokespeople for truth before him, sponsored by the same major publishing houses). It's hilarious how careful he is to check all the right boxes, though, even calling the cultures in modern-day Poland (and Belarus) "Polish" (and Bylorussian"). Anyone with a grasp of history knows that the people in the vicinity of that region never would have considered themselves Poles by any means at that time in history, nor did Poland even exist. But of course that is just a "part 2" to the sort of things a "reliable" source historian is paid to say (lest he forfeit his check from his mainstream publisher and risk being on the street without a job in academia). Why is the golden rule of history 'thou must say whatever it is that happens to buck a narrative that the National Socialists championed'? It's so predictable. "What? The Nazis were interested in the link between Scandinavia and the Germanics and glamorized Northern symbols? We must deny any link!" "What? The Nazis took an interest what Europe might have looked like before the Great Migrations and emphasized that Germanic people settled as far as the Black Sea and linguistic and civilizational borders were indefinite and uncertain? We must say Europe never looked like that, otherwise we concede to one of the arguments as to what Hitler was doing and that would weaken our position that he wanted to conquer and dominate everything everywhere and every word from his mouth was a lie, especially that about the Jews and their control over things!" You people are psychotic. And yet you are the descendants of the same people who laughed when the Nazis went with pick and shovel to the Far East, fully aware that the Northern peoples may have originally come from there, too. You people who hawk Wikipedia are not historians for truth, you are negationists who parrot whatever the major publishing houses and your self-proclaimed "reliable sources" tell you. SHAME ON YOU.--Stopyourwhitewash (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no doubt good reasons to be careful and you'll see that editors of this article have not lacked energy in criticizing each other. On the other hand quite often the true difficulty is simply in finding a good wording that is both readable and realistic. Whatever the case is here, perhaps you can offer wording change suggestions? To be honest I can't fully understand you. There seems to be a lot between the lines in your post. But trying to keep it straightforward:

• In historical articles we sometimes use the term Poland in a geographical sense: "what is now called Poland". If we are not making it clear that this is what was intended in some place, we should tweak it. (I presume Heather would say something similar but we are not answering for him, and this article is not only based on him.) Can you specify any such case?
• Perhaps you will be surprised to know that not everything the Nazis believed about history was correct. Clearly they might have been right about some things though. I guess. But anyway indeed Wikipedia just summarizes what the currently accepted experts say. It is a simple and doable mission for a massive "anyone can edit" wiki. I believe there have been many attempts to make wikis which go beyond such goals and have articles that try to be ahead of the curve, written only by experts. They always fail, and I'm confident they'll continue to, but if that is your preferred model please go pursue it. It is, quite honestly, very unlikely you'll get this whole wiki to change direction 180 degrees based on posts like the above. Indeed, I suppose you will have trouble convincing anyone of anything with that particular style of writing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew is too polite. This hateful screed reeks of a conspiracy theory-driven racist agenda and is not the sort of commentary that will change anyone's mind, nor do I believe it is intended to. It's bad enough that the single-purpose account sarcastically fabricates quotes to place in the mouths of WP contributors, but the bit he makes up concerning Hitler really gives away the game: "We must say Europe never looked like that, otherwise we concede to one of the arguments as to what Hitler was doing and that would weaken our position that he wanted to conquer and dominate everything everywhere and every word from his mouth was a lie, especially that about the Jews and their control over things!" This rant is clearly anti-Semitic hate speech and has no place in civilized discussion. Carlstak (talk)

Intro

I sincerely hope that this article isn't about American politics, per above. What I react mostly to is the idea that the Scandinavian origin hinges only on the credibility of Jordanes in the intro. I think it should be more in line with this more scholarly and neutral approach:

Nevertheless, that these explanations cannot be used to confirm the historicity of the origin myth does not mean that the Goths and many others did not originate from Scandinavia. Several independent, unrelated, pieces of evidence, both philogical and archaeological,⁴⁵ indicate that there might be a grain of historical truth in these stories. If Scandza is a literary motif, it might also reflect some long-gone historical reality,⁴⁶ at least for the Goths, the Lombards, and the Anglo-Saxons, and perhaps even for groups like the Heruli, the Vandals and the Burgundians too. Several of the groups were tied up with the Nordic regions.⁴⁷ Over the generations, the origin myths would have been handed down and recreated in a multitude of ritual contexts, associated with the social reproduction of the people and the warrior kings' sacred position. (in Hedeager, Lotte. 2003:27-28. Rituals of Power From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages Series: Transformation of the Roman World, Volume: 8 Editors: Frans Theuws and Janet Nelson)

If RS don't consider it to hinge solely on Jordanes' credibility, neither can we as WP editors, and I really really hope that this article is not considered to be a tool in American identity politics, because then all hope is probably lost for this article and the POV tag may have to stay in place as long as that debate lasts.--Berig (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Much of this article, including the lead, has been written by me, and there is certainly room for improvement. Thanks for making this clear, Berig. I have made a proposal for fixing these issues at User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths (see this diff for exact changes). The proposal seeks to make the structure of the article more encyclopedic, to remove duplication, and to present a more balanced and coherent account of Gothic origins. Please let me know if your consider it an improvement. Krakkos (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks fine, but I am curious about why Jordanes has to be attributed here as an inventor in what looks like he proclaimed it "said". Encyclopedia Britannica calls it their own legend and often information from a medieval scholars are called "legends" and "traditions". I don't think it is very controversial to call it their own tradition. Maybe you know that Theodoric's mausoleum was decorated with a frieze in a pattern that otherwise is only found on ornaments from 5th and 6th century Scandinavia, possibly as a reference to their traditional origins in Scandinavia. I added it not long ago with a reference in the article Theodoric the Great[6]. Adding that it was their own tradition, or may have been their own tradition, doesn't hurt anyone here. You should be able to find references for it. I also wonder if it is WP:DUE to cite only dissimilarities between East and North Germanic. There are words that Gothic had in common with the Gotlandic dialect of Old Norse (lamb, as the word for "sheep", and lukarn, IIRC). Also it could be worth mentioning new theories such as the Goths having originated in a trading network across the Baltic Sea, such as the one that the Gotlanders kept maintaing until they were replaced by the Hansa, or the theory of charismatic clans.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have now made an attempt at adding the suggested improvements to the article. Regarding Jordanes, there are several historians who disagree very intensely with the idea that his account on Gothic origins was based on any Gothic material. Though this appears to be a minority viewpoint, i think we have to include these views in the article. Appropriately balancing these opposing viewpoints while simultaneously making the article readable is not an easy task, but i have made an attempt. Details on the views of various historians, such as Peter Heather, Herwig Wolfram, Walter Goffart and Wolf Liebeschuetz, are included in the footnotes. Feel free to let me know what you think. Krakkos (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now made another attempt at addressing your concerns, particularly your suggestions on how we should approach Jordanes. Feel free to let me know what you think about the changes. Krakkos (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It is considerably better now. I will read it more closely later today, but I doubt that there will be any major concerns from my side.--Berig (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to bring up the "classification" section. This section should deal with how modern scholars classify the Goths. How Romans vaguely generalized, missidentified and categorized distant and exotic nations is more anecdotal and belongs in a historiography section. Otherwise, I think it looks fine now, and considerably more balanced.--Berig (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

PS, or, it should at least give prominence to modern scholarship and tell the reader about that first. Then, the classification of classical authors can be added as a curiosity.--Berig (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have made an attempt at modifying the "classification" in accordance with your suggestions. The classification by classical authors of the Goths as Getae or Scythians isn't taken seriously by any scholars, so i guess you are right that that we should not be giving that too much weight. Feel free to let me know what you think about the modification. Krakkos (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't bother you with minor quibbles. I have removed the tag. Thanks for your great work!--Berig (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Berig. Coming late to the discussion, but some small remarks:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica is not really a strong source given how hard we worked to looked for the best sourcing on this article in the past. To cut a long story short, the Scandinavia story of Jordanes is not seen as a reliable source by the experts on Jordanes. Peter Heather is a key source on this point. Of course that does not mean the Jordanes narrative should not be mentioned or anything like that. Indeed, obviously some scholars (mainly Scandinavians according to one published remark) still see it as reflecting some reality, but I just want to say that I agree with the need for some caution about balance. We don't want to be treating Heather as "fringe". I think Krakkos and you have also agreed.
• One practical suggestion: we should be careful about telling our readers Jordanes was simply a "Gothic" writer. He identified as Gothic, but he was writing as a Romanized person, long after the Goths had mainly dispersed far from their original concentrated settlements in Roman territory. We should make sure that we don't give the wrong impression - for example that he was a near contemporary of events.
• I noticed your remark about the frieze. I noticed you posted one source so far (Näsman). Is that the source which first made the proposal, or does this position have a bigger literature which can show us the "field" accepting/rejecting/debating it? It is clearly interesting, but we should work out what sources exist in order to balance anything we write about that.
• FWIW, Walter Pohl who is clearly one of the main scholarly experts on Germanic peoples today, does not include Goths as a Germanic people in his writing. His reference work on the Germanic Peoples, for example, does not cover them. He covers them elsewhere, and argues pro-actively for this categorization. He is clearly not a member of Goffart's school, but rather the senior active representative of Wolfram's more conservative school (in as far as we may speak of "schools"). I just say this to make sure you realize that not classifying the Goths as Germanic (except in the linguistic sense) is not a fringe position. More generally, modern academics no longer accept the straightforward equation of linguistic classifications and ethnic classifications, as I'm sure you realize, and so Pohl's decision is quite consistent with that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The idea that we somehow have to choose or balance between the so-called Vienna and Toronto schools of historians are a false dilemma. There are plenty of prominent historians, such as Peter Heather and Wolf Liebeschuetz, who disagree with those schools on fundamental points. The views of philologists and archaeologists are perhaps even more relevant for the question of Gothic origins than those of historians, and must also be taken into account. In a 2018 work summarizing the historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence on Gothic origins, Robert D. Fulk notes that "the considerable majority of scholars" consider Jordanes' account on Gothic origins in Scandinavia and Poland to be "trustworthy at least in general outline". Wikipedia articles should prioritize and be structured around the majority views. We should of course include prominent minority viewpoints as well (which this article already does), but there is a limit to how much weight we can give them without the early part of this article degenerating into an exegesis on the Getica. Such an exegesis is better suited at Jordanes, Getica and Origin stories of the Goths. Krakkos (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that we are balancing only those two schools, did I? I only mentioned Goffart in order to point out that this article is not much influenced by him or his school at the moment. But clearly, according to numerous comments by you, Heather and Wolfram are two of the most respected sources on the the topic of Gothic origins. Neither believes that Jordanes is literally correct about a physical migration from Scandinavia. In any case, what edit are we arguing about? I was explaining what the best-known recent historians and philologists say, because it seemed Berig might not be aware of it. I did not propose any specific edit, unless you could being careful not to simply call Jordanes a Goth in any way which implies he was actually a near-contemporary of their migrations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig I just noticed that the topic of this frieze was brought up by you before (March and April 2020, above) and Ermenrich and GPinkerton had doubts also. It seems important to get some sourcing rationales on record because in essence you are arguing this is a "game changer" piece of evidence, but it does not seem to be well-known among in the international community yet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly my impression from grad school here in the last ten years that Scandinavian origins are highly poo-pooed at least in certain circles. If you are mostly around scholars who doubt Scandinavian origins, as I seem to have been, it's definitely intimated to you that it's the majority opinion among historians nowadays. My specialty, however, is High and Late medieval German literature, so I wouldn't claim to known the lay of the land as far scholarly consensus. Genetics research seems to be revising a lot of the early skepticism about large migrations being something possible at least. I wouldn't say this article has been effected by American politics, but like everything Germanic it's very much in the shadow of the Nazis and white supremacy. It's not surprising that people would want to reject a central narrative that they latched onto to, namely migrating Germans conquering Europe.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, also remember that the Cold War era was dominated by Immobilism. Andrew, you have to write your posts in a much more concise way. I think we all need time to process what you write above, before we can answer you properly, so I will have to put my answer on hold, for now. May I ask you a personal question? Why you really find a possible connection between the Goths and Scandinavia so problematic? Is it ideological? You seem to be so very passionate about it that there must be something deeper than the mere intellectual stimulation of it.--Berig (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I honestly have no preference at all Berig, and I do not consider it disproven by the way. Indeed, I think at least a Scandinavian cultural influence into the Polish area is widely accepted. That's the honest truth. There are a lot of smoke screens around. The content dispute with Krakkos on this article has mainly been about misreadings of the sources which we agree are important. But I think it was inflamed by issues on other articles, as well as earlier issues concerning Germanic categories etc. Maybe it will help if I do give more "personal" background to you, because we've not worked much together. However, of course then I'll be told it was a bad idea to post a long post, and this makes it easier for smoke screens to start appearing again, so I'll post more personal information on your talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice I never placed this quote on this talk page yet. It just illustrates the point Ermenrich made. I am not taking sides, but pointing to what published scholars say: [7] [Dennis] Green: Earlier this year I was in Sweden discussing this problem with a number of Swedish archaeologists. They, of course, are firmly convinced of the Swedish origin of the Goths. But even amongst the Swedes there is dissension as to where in Sweden the Goths may have come from. Four of the contestants being Västergötland, Östergötland, Aland and Gotland. So to take the problem back to Swedish origins would have opened up yet another hornets' nest of scholarly disagreement. The discussion before and after adds to it.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Could you cite some specific examples of what you consider to be misreadings, if you consider there are any in the article? So that the discussion can get beyond schools or names of scholars, because pretty much any scholar will have made multiple nuanced statements on relevant issues? And specifically because I wonder whether things may be complicated in this instance by the fact that "Scandinavia" is quite a large area, and even "Sweden" has a different extent depending on period. For example, I doubt any modern scholar is propounding a view specifically that the Goths originated in Scania, but some may have been arguing against that old proposal in some passages; and then there's mainland Gotland and the island of Gotland. And I see your quote above mentioning Åland, which is broadening things a bit. But maybe that's not the key issue; could I ask you for some specific quotes from sources, especially those you see as being misread, so we can see what the issues are? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: hi, I think there might be a misunderstanding. I have not yet looked through the newest edits by Krakkos and Berig and so I have not noted any problems with that sourcing. Hopefully there will be none. I entered a conversation where various claims were made claiming that the article now is and was biased because it is too negative about Jordanes and his account of Scandinavian migration. In the ensuing discussion Berig made personal accusations about me being biased, and I explained that scepticism about these things comes from the expert sources. And I noted that in the past of this article well-known sources were often mis-read. (See the history of this talk page.) There are also sources that seek evidence to prove Jordanes was right and I have nothing against those, but they should be presented in a balanced way of course. Many of them openly start by using Jordanes as their starting point, and, as published experts have remarked, these sources tend to be Scandinavian, and not experts on Jordanes interpretation. In our search for sources we've also seem Polish researchers, but generally speaking it does seem to be correct that the pro-Jordanes researchers have not moved the international consensus very much. In any case, they can not be equated to an international consensus. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any personal accusations, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place :-) However, if you think the article is unbalanced now, and/or misrepresents the scholarly consensus, I still request specific quotations. What's this about Polish researchers, for example? This may turn out to be one of those areas where the archaeologist, the philologists, and the historians—to say nothing of the clacissists and the Germanicists—are sometimes talking about different things and other times not fully aware of what the others are saying, and there may indeed be something that could usefully be added. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sure the article can be improved in many ways. But there are no clear proposals right now. Hopefully you are not asking for a review of the entire history of all discussions about sources on this talk page. So your question should be addressed to Berig who initiated the above discussion. More generally, I think anyone who sees a problem or has a proposal should explain their thinking before I am asked to reply to it? :)

For the most relevant unjustified personal accusation you just have to look a few posts above in this thread: "May I ask you a personal question? Why you really find a possible connection between the Goths and Scandinavia so problematic? Is it ideological? You seem to be so very passionate about it that there must be something deeper than the mere intellectual stimulation of it." The discussion here goes together with Berig's parallel post to an admin who intervened on this article in the past [8] "I am starting to doubt that his agenda is for the benefit of this project". I think it is up to Berig to clarify these WP:ASPERSIONS, or more simply to cease making them. So far there is no explanation of the background thinking to these remarks, and no diffs showing any "agenda". As far as I am concerned, these vague accusations come out of the blue, and have no connection to reality. Nevertheless, I have also posted on Berig's user page with an attempt to give a serious answer to the "personal question", which is BTW a straightforward example of a leading question. Hopefully there was just some kind of misunderstanding caused by the difficulty of following past discussions on this page? Honestly I do not know.

An obvious speculation to make is that different historical debates are being confused. A different WP controversy where the word "agenda" really was used, which is touched upon above, but more relevant to other articles such as Germanic peoples, is the one about Wikipedia's past tendency to try to base our articles on old and low-quality sources which equated large language families with ethnicity. Many Wikipedians were once critical of Krakkos because of edits following that agenda, and Krakkos often accused them of being the ones with an agenda. (So this is is the only agenda I can think of anyone saying I have.) Hopefully we are past this. But maybe this is somehow an issue affecting Berig's out-of-the-blue accusations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see that as an accusation, but since you're here, I for one would still like you to look at the article and cite specific scholarly statements representing important viewpoints that you think are being neglected—or misrepresented—or statements that in your view phrase something better. Otherwise, I take it you think Krakkos's work fixed the most important issues? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the first accusation is an accusation in the form of a leading, or perhaps more precisely a "loaded" question (i.e. one which contains an accusation within the phrasing of the question), while the second is an example of casting aspersions, so it makes an accusation between the lines. They were not exactly subtle or unclear! And no, I'm afraid you can not conclude what I think based on a non-answer. Honestly, those look like simplified teaching examples of some dodgy (but ancient) debating tactics that would normally only be used in bad faith debates. I hope that was tongue-in-cheek?

To be clear, I did not do a detailed check of the major edits done by Krakkos, and this was a relatively big round of editing done without clear pre-discussion. If you happen to know what the "important issues" were which Berig and Krakkos attempted to fix, then can you please help everyone to understand what they were? If you want feedback on a proposal, it is normal to spell out what the proposal is. That might allow a more straightforward discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do see a lot of back and forth above between Berig and Krakkos before the tag got removed, and I've looked at the article and it seems to me to cover the disagreement in evaluating Jordanes' statement about the origin of the Goths pretty well, but having just rewritten an article myself because I could see commonly held scholarly positions that were not covered, I can appreciate that those more familiar with the scholarship, or familiar with other parts of it, might have a different perspective. Since that seemed to be what you were saying, I would still appreciate some specifics if when you examine it anew, you find it still appears defective to you. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand theoretically the type of issue you are asking about, and there have been many such discussions on this talk page and so just demanding that other editors give you a full summary, to see if you have anything to add, is not a workable approach? Anyway, maybe these bullets help...

• In the context of starting a discussion in this thread, started by Berig, but aiming the question mainly at me (as I understand it) I now note your edit concerning the mausoleum of Theoderic, which does constitute an interesting open question raised by me to Berig, which I also mentioned on his talk page. Concerns were raised before by other editors, and that seemed reasonable. Berig apparently sees it as a big breakthrough, but is there any evidence that the field has come to a consensus? Maybe if this is a topic you can help on, you should start a new thread.
• OTOH, concerning Jordanes and the reliability of his Scandinavian narrative, Berig is the one who raised concerns about the balance, but he seems to want to review his thoughts on it after the replies from Krakkos. That seems appropriate to me. Honestly I don't think Berig correctly appreciated that there is a definite dominant negative position on this topic among the most cited commentators on that work including the well-known "Tory" and pro-Brexit, anti-immigration historian, Peter Heather, so it involves a broad spectrum of experts on the old written narratives, not just Walter Goffart (who seems to make people angry in the other direction). There have been extensive discussions in the past about this involving many editors. Berig's accusation that this was a personal "passion" of one Wikipedia editor was a definite misrepresentation. For anyone who is not aware of the gorilla in the room, Berig's username is derived from a heroic character in the Jordanes migration story, and that story provides Scandinavia with a link into the centre of Roman history, that was much beloved by romanticists in pre-WW2 historiography. My own notes on this talk page about that topic have been based on the published works of recorgnized experts, and have been consistent with the positions of other editors.
• There is a secondary discussion about Jordanes which is touched upon also, and this is the question of whether there is significant evidence apart from Jordanes for sufficiently strong connections between Wielbark and Scandinavia to indicate any significant kind of migration, rather than just an unsurprising cultural influence (given the proximity). This is a topic where there is more diversity of opinion so one where WP needs to explain some different opinions. Certainly some academics have claimed that there never would have been any such a strong preference among some researchers, who literally make it their stated aim to find such evidence, if it were not for Jordanes. This is, once again, not an extreme or radical position associated with any one school or political persuasion. (From what I have seen in the small number of less well-known articles about DNA, archaeology etc, it is indeed accurate to say that some, perhaps all, researchers who argue for Jordanes being right are explicitly starting with the Jordanes account and looking for evidence to prove it correct. So the published sources who claim this to be the case seem to have a point?)

Note that no one is arguing that there is no connection between Scandinavia and the Gdansk region - not here, and not in the published sources we cite. The primary and secondary questions about Jordanes mentioned above are about whether he can be taken to be literally true, which almost no published scholars believe, or perhaps partly true. (Many academics after WW2 have followed the Vienna school argument that the name of the Goths, and a small number of prestigious people, came from Scandinavia and founded a culture which spread. But others argue that we don't really have evidence for this either, and so we don't have much strong evidence to go beyond saying that Wielbark was a local synthesis which was influenced by various neighbouring regions in ways that are now difficult to determine in detail.) Hope this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here are some sources on the views of the majority of modern scholars on Gothic origins:

"How the Goths arrived at the Black Sea, and where they originated, are matters of debate. The usual assumption, and the one still credited by the considerable majority of scholars, has been that the account given in the sixth-century Getica of Jordanes is trustworthy at least in general outline: according to this account, the Goths migrated, perhaps about 100 BCE, from Scandinavia (Scandza) to the banks of the Vistula. Their area of settlement on the southern coast of the Baltic is called by Jordanes Gothiscandza... In accordance with the account of Jordanes, the Goths have usually been identified with the Gutones first mentioned by Pliny the Elder ca. 65 CE as living on the shore of (apparently) the Baltic Sea. On this reasoning the Goths have also commonly been associated with the island of Gotland and with the region of south-central Sweden called Götaland (named after the ON Gautar, OE Gēatas), from which areas they are assumed to have migrated originally... In more recent times the account of Jordanes, recorded so many centuries after the purported departure from Scandinavia, has been called into question, in part on archaeological grounds... [T]he presence of Goths in Scandinavia is not to be doubted... At all events, the name of the Goths is so common in place-names in Sweden—and place-names are often among the most archaic evidence—that it is difficult to believe that the Gothic presence in Scandinavia could have been a late development." – Fulk, Robert D. (2018). "Provenance of the Goths". A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages. Studies in Germanic Linguistics. Vol. 3. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 21–22. ISBN 978-90-272-6312-4.

"Greek and Roman sources of the first and second centuries A.D. are the earliest written evidence we have for the Goths, under the names Guthones, Gothones, and Gothi. The sources agree in placing these people along the Vistula river, although whether they were on the coast or a bit inland is unclear. Also not totally clear is the connection between these people and other tribal groupings of similar names found at that time and later in parts of south central Sweden (now Västergötland and Östergötland) and on the island of Gotland. If the legend recorded by the sixth-century Gothic historian Jordanes is accurate, the Goths came to the mouth of the Vistula from across the sea, displacing a number of Germanic tribes who were there before them, including the Vandals. The weight of scholarship appears to support this story, with (mainland) Götland being seen as the likely point of origin, and the early first century B.C. as the likely time. Owing perhaps partially to population pressure, a large number of Goths subsequently left the Vistula in the mid-second century A.D. Around 170 they reached an area north of the Black Sea, where they settled between the Don and the Dniester rivers." – Robinson, Orrin W. (2005). "A Brief History of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths". Old English and its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages. Taylor & Francis. pp. 36–39. ISBN 0-415-08169-6.

"Most scholars agree that contents of Jordanes' text... concerning the arrival of the Goths and Gepidae from Scandinavia to Pomerania is fully reflected in archaeological sources." – Olędzki, Marek (2004). "The Wielbark and Przeworsk Cultures at the Turn of the Early and Late Roman Periods" (PDF). In Friesinger, Herwig; Stuppner, Alois (eds.). Zentrum und Peripherie. Mitteilungen Der Prähistorischen Kommission. Vol. 57. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 279–290. ISBN 9783700133179.

"The story by Jordanes about the migration of Goths from Scandza is a matter of a vivid and long standing discussion between historians. 'Most scholars argue that it is a part of the Gothic tribal tradition." – Kasperski, Robert (2015). "Too Civilized to Revert to Savages? A Study Concerning a Debate about the Goths between Procopius and Jordanes". The Mediaeval Journal. 5 (2). Brepols: 33–51. doi:10.1484/J.TMJ.5.108524.

Krakkos (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Krakkos. That looks like good confirmation to me. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you think it confirms and what that implies for the article? I find this entire discussion extremely fuzzy in terms of edit proposals, and I think we need to remember this is an article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We can fill this talk page with quotes once more, but WP policy tells us to look for the current experts, and not to cherrypick quotes from sources written primarily about other topics. To attempt a compact summary about who the experts are, from discussions so far:

• Historians regarding the migration. You've said yourself Krakkos that the most respected authorities on the origins of the Goths are Heather and Wolfram, and we could probably add Pohl. Anyone else at that level? Kulikowski perhaps?
• Commentary on Jordanes. The only major modern commentators on Jordanes and the Scandinavian migration are Heather, Christensen and Goffart.
• Concerning archaeology we can look at many writers but I've not seen evidence of any simple consensus. Therefore we need to look at review discussions about the field. In terms of commentary about the field as a whole we have seen e.g. the comments of Florin Curta, and the conversation I linked to above which includes the opinions of Schwarcz [9]. Among non-archaeologists we have many comments by historians and philologists (Heather, Halsall, Goffart). What many/all of these (in both groups) claim is that archaeologists who claim a Scandinavian migration do so based on Jordanes (ie evidence from outside their field), and tend to be Scandinavian. This appears to be correct. It also seems that archaeologists who've commented on the field, like Curta and Schwarcz, are sceptics. I think our current article is, if anything, biased against positions like those of Schwarcz, Halsall and Curta. More generally we're risking OR in the sense that for a pro-mass-migration argument we can not find any secondary sources; we can only cherrypick individual "primary" sources, ie specific speeches and research papers with no special claim to fame and no authoritative literature review.

Is this a reasonable summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Krakkos for providing reliable sources per WP:RS/AC.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please read RS/AC again? These can't "trump" the recognized authorities that all experts cite such as Wolfram and Heather and Christensen or even Goffart. I own at least one of those books. Nice books, but these are NOT about Jordanes or about Scandinavian migration theories. These are just quotes cherry-picked out of side remarks in books about other things. If we are all allowed to do that we won't get anywhere. We could look at who they cite, if anything. I have shown above my summary of how we can judge the academic consensus in this case, and that is a rough summary of months of detailed discussion of sources here in the past. Of course that can maybe be improved upon, but you have not attempted to engage in constructive conversation at all. Your remark is clearly completely out of line with WP policy. Just cherry picking from textbooks seems to show no understanding of Wikipedia or academia, which would be strange? I understand you are experienced in both? Please address this in terms of the expert sources which scholars cite on the specific topics being discussed. That is what I've tried to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this attempt at diminishing sources. Please provide relevant quotes of your own instead.--Berig (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have, over and over and over again. Tell me what you want a quote for. But how have I diminished them? They quite simply do not claim to be in the business you want them to be in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So far I have seen you on talkpages making assertions that seem very farfetched to me, and sometimes absurd. Your strategy is always to shift the burden of evidence on everyone else, but it stops here. I will not accept any more assertions and claims from you without full quotes with references.--Berig (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, your new references, found by Krakkos, do not say what you think they say. So that gives me a problem to answer you in any sensible way. What are you claiming Krakkos has proven? What do you want a source for?

• The first one is a book by a scholar specialized in Old English in a book about Early Germanic grammar. The position quoted looks like a recitation of the Vienna position associated with Wolfram etc, which does not demand an actual major migration, only cultural influence and small group movement. It is not saying what you want it to say, and is not inconsistent with the current article. ADDED to try to avoid relying too much on good faith etc: the Vienna position must surely be what Berig referred to above as the "theory of charismatic clans" and which I have also mentioned several times as a position held by Heather, Wolfram, Pohl, etc. Hopefully this is in the article already?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• The second one is from a book I really love which is a primer on early Germanic languages. The quotation given takes no [ADDED: strong or authoritative] position, but says "IF". It is simply not saying what you want it to say. It is not really saying anything relevant to our discussion.
• The third one is an archaeologist giving opinions on non-archealogical evidence (Jordanes) [ADDED: and citing what archeaologists think about that]. For archeaology he cites Bierbrauer and Kokowski [ADDED: and others], who've both been discussed here before. Kokowski certainly used Jordanes, not archaeology, as his source. So [ADDED: for Jordanes] we need to look at what Jordanes experts say. Don't we? If you want, I can link to previous discussions. Let me know if you want this. [ADDED: For what Polish archeaologists think, the article is not censoring anything, and I've not denied it either, but the question in this discussion is whether they can be seen as a world consensus.] MORE ADDED (again to avoid any misunderstandings, real or fake): One complication with a simplistic interpretation of this quote is that it is basically impossible to say that Jordanes was literally correct about everything. The quote given can't therefore be taken in a simple literal way. But if the quote only means that Jordanes contains information which is "rooted in" what really happened, then this quote would not be inconsistent with, for example, the Vienna position, which is that it was just a small number of people who brought some prestigious names and traditions. I am not saying this is what the author intended. It probably is not. I would be happy to learn more. But this would not inconsistent with my current understanding, or the current article? As to whether the author is right about "scholars", clearly, for example, we know of a LOT of scholars who believe in a "theory of charismatic clans", so I don't believe anyone in this discussion can't understand why we need to be a bit cautious about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• The 4th one is taken from an abstract. I don't think we've discussed this author before Krakkos? I suspect Krakkos has only read the abstract it is hard to know what to address here. I'd be interested to know what the article says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ADDED: (because nothing seems obvious in this discussion): the quote given is about Gothic tradition, not what really happened, and it seems to agree with Heather. So this is another quote in line with the types of opinions I cited above. I believe Heather's position on this is cited in the article already?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig I think to show good faith you should start by giving at least one example of a far-fetched assertion I've made. You've asserted that you've seen some so please put one on the table for us all to see. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ADDED: please also remember to explain what the relevance is for the article as it currently stands. Remember I have no asked for any changes and you also seem happy with it. It is a balance mainly decided by Krakkos so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig, as a reality check it seem necessary to register that one remarkably strange thing about this discussion is that it seems to be about me, not the article, and yet you and Yngvadottir won't actually get to any point about me either. Not only does this discussion not look like its ever been aimed at discussing any edit proposals, I can't even see any point where either of you have defined a disagreement with me, or even doubt about any specific thing I've really said. The whole discussion seems to purely be a vehicle for casting WP:aspersions so far. The fact that you can't define anything you really want to argue against makes your demand for a citation quite strange, and very far from any WP norms on what these article talk pages are for. (Just any citation??)

To the extent that Jordanes is apparently a personal concern of yours, I still don't understand what your point about Jordanes is. If you are arguing that he can be taken literally for things he said happened thousands of years before him then obviously my scepticism about that would not be unique, to say the least. So why aren't your attacking all the editors of this article instead of just me? If your point is simply that archaeologists find evidence of links to Scandinavia which are "consistent with" Jordanes then who is arguing against that?? The main challenge then becomes a question of how we word that. (For example if these archaeologists are including something like the "charismatic clans" scenario in their definition of "consistent with Jordanes", then as editors we have to be careful to remember that our readers would be totally misled if we would use wording that implies "Jordanes was proved correct".) But I don't see anything above indicating any concern with any specific wording? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to add links to Orrin W. Robinson and Marek Olędzki

Orrin W. Robinson and Marek Olędzki are cited here, but there are no links to their articles. The given name of Olędzki is also incorrectly spelled "Mark" rather than "Marek". I would like to add links to their articles and to correct the spelling of the name of Marek Olędzki. Krakkos (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections, and I trust no one else would. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Change proposal in prehistory section

We currently have:

Most scholars believe that Jordanes' account on Gothic origins is derived at least partially from Gothic tribal tradition and trustworthy in its general outline.[27=Fulk][28][29][30] This has however been fiercely disputed by some scholars, particularly historians.[citing Heather]

I propose that at the very least, the part in red needs to be urgently removed as it is seriously misleading. Only one of the sources being cited uses this type of language, and it is from a book on Germanic languages [27=Fulk], not from any scholar specialized in Jordanes. It is also clearly "wrong", in the sense that it disagrees with what the expert sources say. If anyone has time, further tweaks will eventually be needed, so please consider making them...

• To shove the most common opinion of the textual expert historians into a side remark in a second sentence is seriously misleading. The historians involved happen to be the experts we should be citing. We really only need to be citing their opinion? Heather, Christensen and Goffart, the three authors who've written on this disagree on many things, but they all agree that Jordanes can not be used as a straightforward report of the prehistory of Goths. I would say this is the consensus of all historians in this area. The debate in the field is between Jordanes having zero value, or limited value, for pre-Ukraine events.
• Our article is avoiding mentioning what the Jordanes experts always remark, and what Jordanes himself remarks: his sources for the pre history of northern Europe are commentators on biblical myths, such as Orosius and Josephus. He mentions them himself, and the similarities are traced by the experts in this field. To the extent such things are handled in our more specialized articles instead of here, we still have to be careful not to create a POV problem by only removing mention of these source of Jordanes, while not removing mention of the more controversial argument that Jordanes might have been influenced by "Gothic traditions".
• Concerning the 4 sources on the first sentence I also have concerns. The first two are from books about Germanic languages, the second of which is not even a research work but a university primer. The third one, as far as I can see, has not been read by any Wikipedian. We are just citing broad language from the abstract? (It appears Kasperski is following Heather because he specifies the same exact bit of Jordanes as possibly being based on reality. One wonders why we don't cite Heather instead. But unless we read more than the abstract, should we be citing it at all?) The 4th one is an archaeologist, i.e. from another field. With the possible exception of the abstract, these clearly are not the expert sources which academics cite on these topics, to say the least. In fact, I'm afraid it looks like they've been cherry picked because they disagree with the sources the academics cite. I struggle to see any justification for keeping this whole sentence, at least if we follow WP core content policies.

We should all keep in mind that this article is about an historical people who are named in written records. It is not about a language family, or archaeological material cultures. Even though such evidence is clearly relevant, we can't let ourselves simply equate the topics of different fields. We should also keep in mind that there is a massive difference between saying there is archaeological evidence of connections between Scandinavia and Gdansk, and saying that Jordanes has been proven correct. This is not a "fine point". It is basically impossible to say Jordanes might be correct in any general way. But to understand this you need to look at Jordanes and modern commentators on Jordanes, not side remarks in archaeology or linguistics articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is an improvement. Detailed discussion of Jordanes and his book belongs at Jordanes and Getica. Robert D. Fulk clearly states that "the considerable majority of scholars" consider Jordanes' migration story "trustworthy at least in general outline". Fulk, Orrin W. Robinson and Marek Olędzki are certainly more qualified to review the academic consensus on this question than we are. See WP:RS/AC. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Only Fulk can be used to justify the wording we have, but (a) the "safety net" words, at least in general outline, make this quote highly unsuitable for WP (but highly useful for cherry picking), because they could mean almost anything (b) According to our article on Fulk he is an expert on Old English and Old Icelandic literature, and this article is a book on A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages ; (c) the disagreement between his wording and those of the experts in the field of Jordanes interpretation and commentary is extremely stark. It is not us judging him, it is Wenskus, Wolfram, Pohl, Heather, Christensen, Goffart, Kasperski, Halsall, Kulikowski etc etc etc. You obviously looked very hard to find this one stunning quote, and we are using it three times. That is a red flag. Note to all of us: this topic is now being discussed in two section, because Krakkos started a new section below as a reply to this one. I suggest moving that section to here as a sub-section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

-continued below. do not use this section any more. discussion continues below in unified section-

Unified section for further discussion

Note, Krakkos has removed parts from this thread, breaking it somewhat [10], but it still contains the latest source-related replies to both the above thread and the parallel thread [11] opened by Krakkos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion for the two above sub-sections should now be here please. The posts above represent the answers to the last posts in both the above two sub-sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Here are some quotes which reply to all of the above discussion sub-sections...

• Despite the undeniably Gothic nature of some of its material then, any reconstruction of Gothic history between 350 and 500 based on the Getica will be misleading - See p.32: Heather, Peter (1994). Goths and Romans 332–489. Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205357.001.0001. ISBN 9780198205357. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Today we are able to conclude that this narrative is fictitious, a fabrication in which the omnipotent author himself has created both the framewok and the content of the story. But in spite of all this, it is never justifable to completely discard a relic of the past. If it cannot tell us something about the past it claims to describe; then at least it speaks volumes about the period in which it was conceived - contingent of course upon our own ability to precisely date the source. Parting is a painful process, as in this case, where we must relinquish something we have grown accustomed to regarding as Gothic history. - See p. 349: Christensen, Arne Søby (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Museum Tusculanum Press. ISBN 9788772897103. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that Krakkos. It is evident that your unacceptable resectioning separates my responses from the posts by you which they are replying to, and was being used by you to demand replies to the same point multiple time after you have already received them. I don't accept you doing this to my posts. It is not normal Wikipedia behavior to create two versions of one thread - obviously. Stop it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Krakkos, continuing the ONE discussion HERE, do you accept that the quotes I have given HERE now demonstrate the problem with using the Fulk quote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC) By the way, another problem with this Fulk quote, even putting aside its obvious disagreement with Jordanes experts is that it makes a basic mistake about Jordanes. the account given in the sixth-century Getica of Jordanes is trustworthy at least in general outline: according to this account, the Goths migrated, perhaps about 100 BCE, from Scandinavia (Scandza) to the banks of the Vistula. Nope. Jordanes can not be made to say that, and the Jordanes experts disagree with Fulk on this also. We are currently citing this quote three times for the following:

• "Most scholars believe that Jordanes' account on Gothic origins is derived at least partially from Gothic tribal tradition and trustworthy in its general outline"
• "The general outline of Jordanes' account of Gothic migration from Scandinavia is considered trustworthy by a considerable majority of scholars, with the time of migration set at around the 1st century BC."
• "The Goths are generally believed to have been first attested by Greco-Roman sources in the 1st century under the name Gutones."

I don't think Fulk should be used at all. This is cherry-picking of a source which is never cited by anyone writing about Gothic migration, in order to say the opposite of what the real highly-cited authorities say. Can anyone find any single academic citaiton of Fulk as an authority on Gothic migration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The diverse views of historians like Heather and Christensen are cited numerous times throughout the text. Note that Heather's views on Gothic origins have changed quite considerably since he published Goths and Romans 332–489 (1994). In the years after the publication of that book he familiarized himself with the recent work of Polish archaeologists and published The Goths (1998), which goes into much more detail and accepts (like Wolfram and Kazanski) the possibility of partial Gothic origins in Scandinavia. Robert D. Fulk is a distinguished scholar in the field of Germanic philology, and certainly a reliable source. He is well qualified to conduct a review of the academic consensus on Gothic origins, and certainly more qualified than we are. See WP:RS/AC. Note that Fulk refers to the academic consensus on the accuracy of the general outline of the Getica rather than its entirety. This general outline is that Goths had moved from the Baltic to the Black Sea. That general outline is considered accurate by the majority of scholars (including Heather). Removing quality sources like Fulk will not be an improvement to this article, but will only serve to prevent understanding. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In short, Fulk is demonstrably wrong in his description of both what the experts think and what Jordanes wrote, and this creates no dilemma for us on WP (considering RS), because he is not a widely-cited expert on this topic to begin with. We don't need to cite him. Please explain why you INSIST on citing this source, and NOT Heather or Christensen? I don't think we need to guess, because you've made it clear already, many times...

• Quotes like the above show that Heather and Christensen think the OPPOSITE of what Fulk is saying, and you are misleading our readers about their opinions. Your attempt to argue that they kind of agree with some bits is your non-expert OR and clearly tendentious.
• Just focusing on your OR argument that you think they really agree with Fulk on one little bit, because they don't find the Polish origins part unreasonable, that is clearly not relevant to the texts you are creating in WP. You are saying Jordanes is generally correct, which is utterly wrong, and it clear that for you one of the most important things you want to imply is concerning migration from Scandinavia. That's the big issue that Berig asked you to change, and so it also happens to be the basis of your claim to have edited based on a pre-agreed consensus, which is clearly not true.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)