Jump to content

Talk:Goths

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



RFC to move ahead on previous Intro and Origins proposals

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is limited participation and most of the discussion below is about what process is appropriate for revising the article and not the revised draft itself. There has been no further participation for well over a week and a close is requested. The only reasonable reading of this discussion is that the proposed draft did not gain a consensus in favor of implementation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE ADDED 5 June 2021: Please do not close this RFC. It is on-going.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED 7 July 2021. I just note that I think the idea here, based on previous discussions, is to keep this discussion alive for a long period and not rush the final decision. Not sure how others see it or how long this should go.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Based on previous RFCs and discussions, may we now move ahead with the new Intro proposal of Krakkos (4th column here, discussion here), and the new Origins section drafted by me (2nd column here) which would replace the current 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging. Berig, Nishidani, Obenritter, Peter K Burian, Bloodofox, Ermenrich, Srnec, Carlstak, Mnemosientje, SMcCandlish, Yngvadottir, Alcaios, Pfold, North8000, Sea Ane feedback please.


Concerning the proposed change to the Intro, i think we should get some feedback before we move ahead. Krakkos (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now requested the closure of three ongoing RfCs above which cover similar questions as this one.[1][2][3] Krakkos (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess that makes sense, formally at least. No rush, so no harm getting the details right. Thanks Krakkos. OTOH, do you have any concern about this RFC as such? I didn't see any problem at least starting to ask people to look at the two proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asking people to look at proposals is alright. On the other hand, posting the same proposal in mulitple RfCs and sections leads to confusion and makes it harder to work out sensible solutions. Interconnected RfCs should be handled in a reasonable order one step at the time. Making a new RfC with a request to "move ahead" with a counter proposal to a proposal being discussed in a ongoing RfC is problematic. Regarding your counter proposal for the Origins section, i am concerned about its removal of many quality sources, its undue emphasis on the views of historians at the expense of philologists/linguists and archaeologists, and its lack of a coherent structure. Krakkos (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted one proposal in one RFC. This links the decisions about moving forward in two early parts of the article, and I think this is correct because these have clearly been linked discussions, also for other editors. (The shortening of the lead is also connected to the reduction of emphasis on "pre Goths".) There were no other open RFCs or running discussions. If you try to (re)open a second RFC that could then be problematic in the way you describe. The old RFC which led to my new Origins section proposal was clearly already useless as an RFC a month before it was terminated because it was no longer about one clear proposal. Many had been discussed and rejected. Mine is best considered a new one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster: Talk:Goths#RfC on proposal to simplify the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections and merge them into a single Origins and early history section has now been closed with the conclusion that there is a consensus to trim the early history sections and use this proposal as a basis for trimming and further refinement. Are you alright with moving ahead with this previous proposal? Krakkos (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the new intro, drafted by you, the other part of this RFC is my draft of a shortened and united "Origins" section, to move ahead on a basis as described in that closure. During that previous RFC you proposed other ideas which all failed to create a concensus, so my draft is now the next one needing feedback. (We did not really need the closure because it was obvious what was agreed.) To quote the rest of the closure "There is a rough consensus to use the proposed text as a basis for further refinement. Whether the participants in this discussion believe such refinement should take place in a sandbox, in the article directly, or on this talk page is not clearly established below but can be determined through the normal editing process." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a rough consensus in the previous RfC to use my proposal as a basis for further refinement. Would you object to moving ahead with that? Krakkos (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my proposal is clear, and is the basis of this RFC. This draft evolves from that same previous RFC as all your drafts, and that's how I suggest we go ahead. Other editors can say if they prefer your draft, or a mix of the two, or neither. But I suggest we leave these two drafts unchanged for a while now, and try to allow other editors to absorb them and comment. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an improvement. This "Origins proposal" ignores key conclusions from previous RfCs and is less informative and balanced than the current version. The proposal may be appreciated due to its shortness, but content quality is of greater value than content shortness. Previous RfCs have reached consensus that this article should put less emphasis on dubious origin stories and more emphasis on archaeological, linguistic and contemporaneous historical evidence. Despite of this, the proposal maintains discussion on such origin stories while removing all references from linguists (Brink, Rübekeil, Andersson, Strid etc.), virtually all references to archaeologists (Kazanski, Kokowski etc.), and a large amount of essential references on contemporaneous historical evidence. Various sub-par sources are in turn introduced to support the minority viewpoint that "there is no Gothic history before the third century", while top-notch sources supporting the majority viewpoint are removed, ignored and/or misrepresented. It may also be noted that the proposal lacks a coherent structure, in contrast to the current version, which is at least chronologically structured. The History section of this article can certainly be improved and trimmed. Removing essential content and rewriting it in an incoherent manner in support of a minority viewpoint will put it on a weaker basis for such improvement. Krakkos (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Krakkos we've looked at the sources in previous discussions and you are misrepresenting them. That Gothic history starts in the third century is mainstream for historians, and history is the speciality of historians. Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that your draft proposal contains no discussion about some critical topics such as the mainstream idea that a small elite probably carried gothic/gothonic traditions between various places. So my draft actually ADDS critical information, which you've been hiding from our readers. Your draft is instead based on treating Jordanes as a fact, and there was a strong concensus that this article needs to get away from that. Thirdly, archaeologists are cited so much by you ONLY to defend your complete dependence upon Jordanes, but they are NOT Jordanes experts. I am all for Wikipedia having a better coverage of the archaeological discussions - but the main discussions should not be in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Goths rather than Jordanes. We should therefore be citing Goths experts rather than Jordanes experts. Your proposal increases the weight given to Jordanes and Jordanes experts, and that is opposite of the clear consensus established in previous RfCs. The chief mainstream historians on Goths are Heather and Wolfram, but your proposal minimizes and misrepresents their views in order to push minority viewpoints as a matter of fact. That archaeological and linguistic evidence is of relevance to Gothic origins and early history is agreed upon both by mainstream scholars and by prior talk page consensus. Such evidence should be cited to archaeologists and linguists who are Goths experts, rather than Jordanes experts. That certain archaeological and linguistic evidence corroborates parts of Jordanes is not a valid argument for removing such evidence. Likewise, the addition of material about "gothic/gothonic traditions" does not necessate the misrepresentation of Heather and Wolfram and the complete removal of citations from archaeologists and linguists. Such misreprentation and removal of essential sources from experts on Goths reduces the quality of the article and puts it on a weaker basis for future improvement. Krakkos (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors should compare my draft to yours and the current version in order to confirm the facts. My drafting page (and indeed the archives of this talk page also contain extensive evidence concerning what the sources say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for completeness, I forgot to link to my older comments on the draft which I understand to still be your latest draft for a shorter pre-history section: [4]. A major concern is cherry-picking of sources in order to promote the Jordanes story, while hiding what experts in the various fields really believe and write.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I see no reason to remove studies on archaeology, lingistics, and genetics surrounding the origin of the Goths, and especially since the origin of the Goths is a very notable and still controversial topic.--Berig (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Berig perhaps there is a misunderstanding. The previous RFCs made it clear that there was a consensus not to remove such information from Wikipedia, but to focus upon it more in other articles. There are already many articles related to this article, concerning linguistic, archaeological etc topics. None of these topics can be done justice here. This article focuses on the topic "Goths" as that term is used in sources. The various disputed proposals about "pre Goths" should be mentioned and linked to, but there has been a strong consensus expressed about concerns that these disputes continually take over this article and talk page. There was also a strong theme of the need to stop making Wikipedia treat Jordanes as the main source for all of this. I would add that we really must make it more clear that mainstream scholars these days make use of the Vienna school's concept of a small elite who carry traditions with them, not requiring a large movement of people. In my draft this is added, whereas previously it has been hidden from our readers. How can we justify this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging as reminder. The previous RFCs decided that the 3 controversial sections about possible Gothic origins before the 3rd century should be shortened, because the main discussion is for other articles. This is the current proposal, which actually covers reliably sourced topics currently excluded from our current article, despite being significantly shorter and simpler: [5] (4th column). Nishidani, Obenritter, Peter K Burian, Bloodofox, Ermenrich, Srnec, Carlstak, Mnemosientje, SMcCandlish, Yngvadottir, Alcaios, Pfold, North8000, Sea Ane. So far: (1) Krakkos has also linked above to his older proposal, and I linked to my analysis of that draft showing the problems. If I understand correctly Krakkos would however prefer that the previous RFCs never get acted upon. (2) Berig also prefers that the previous RFCs never get acted upon. (3) No one else who participated in the previous RFCs has commented on the present proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key conclusions of the previous RfCs were to increase emphasis on archaeological, linguistic evidence, contemporaneous historical accounts and secondary sources, and to shorten existing material. Attempts to act on these RfCs have been proposed and supported by the wider community, but you have opposed these efforts. Your proposal constitutes a complete rewrite of key sections of this article, in which top sources are replaced with sub-par ones, and essential information on archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence is entirely removed. This is the opposite of the conclusions of the RfCs, and constitutes a significant reduction of article quality. For more than a year you have made essentially the same proposal here multiple times (Talk:Goths/Archive 6#Should the Origins 3.1 and Migration 3.2 sections be move out of History?, Talk:Goths/Archive 8#RFC about the Name section etc.). Making the same proposals over and over again and pinging users endlessly until one gets the desired result is not a good approach. Krakkos (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. This RFC is my first proposal and it was made slowly, based on the RFCs and aiming to match the diverse comments of other editors, after very thoroughly reassessing the sources. It includes additional information and sources compared to your current controversial Jordanes-based version. There is at this stage no evidence at all that there is any opposition to my proposal apart from you and Berig. But that is not surprising because you are both clearly opposed to the decisions and opinions in the previous RFCs and want the opening of this article to continue to be tacitly Jordanes-based, in order to spread the word that Goths are Swedes (and DNA will prove Jordanes right one day, etc, etc). None of your proposals show any interest in archaeology, let alone linguistics or DNA. Editors should read my actual draft. Your previously rejected draft is still clearly linked to as well, and people can still say if they prefer it, or see bits they like better. BTW on my drafting page I have also shown extra sources that can be added to my version, but many editors may find my draft over-footnoted. I do not believe your approach to sourcing always matches our community norms, but I've tried to follow you part of the way due to the inevitability of the outrage which will be expressed if the footnotes are fewer or less long. There is also a table showing the problems which your draft has, including source distortion. Anyway, I have no problem with my draft being rejected after a proper discussed, but what is more important it to make sure the drafting discussion and feedback leads to clarification of what changes are needed. Please do not disrupt this discussion with misleading red herring remarks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made false remarks about me (and Berig) and then pinged a whole bunch of editors. Of course i have to respond to such red herrings which disrupt the discussion. This article should be based on the research on Goths by the foremost experts, including archaeolgists, historians and philologists. Your proposal involves the removal of the sources from these experts and their replacement with weaker ones which support the fringe viewpoint. Such removal is essentially what you have been proposing repeatedly for more than a year, using a supposed need for "simplicity" as justification. Krakkos (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid excuse. However, I'll agree with one thing:- The "Goths are Swedes" theory, which only comes from Jordanes, and features Berig, and which you have made the central theme of this article while pretending it is from modern archaeologists, is indeed a long term controversy among most editors of this article, and has indeed been raised before by me and others in different contexts before. You are right about that. But I repeat that this draft is a first attempt to make a quite carefully sourced compromise based on a wide range of editing opinions and a careful reassessment of the sources. Please let discussion go ahead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback is precious. Are there any bits you throught particularly strong or weak?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was on the losing side of both RFCs. I do not share the community's view of how to make this article better or even of what is wrong with it. Therefore, I have no opinion on the implementation of the RFCs. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I do not think the RFCs above are clear enough about details to say your position "lost", and I also can't believe that you would say the differences between the two proposals currently being made have no connection to the points you made. My draft was made after your rejection of the one made by Krakkos. I also looked at the way other editors all referenced your opinions (e.g. CarlstakSMcCandlish). Could you double check what I am proposing? I suppose BTW you are referring to your two comments here: [6][7]. Honestly I counted your opinions as having received a lot of support and I have tried to work to reduce "obsessive focus on origins", and the use of selected snippets about topics which can only be properly handled in dedicated article or articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note and also responding to Andrew's question, the caveat in my post is because I have not taken the deep dive needed to thoroughly learn the article, proposed changes and situation well enough to give full-fledged opinions. If y'all think that extra input is needed, I'd be happy to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the more detailed feedback that can be given the better. Having a draft rejected is no problem but a more important aim is gathering feedback and new perspectives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took a deeper dive. My first more detailed comment is on the half of the RFC dealing with the lead. I think that the specific question is substitution of the linked "column 4" for the current lead. IMO this would be a good move, with the understanding that this doesn't "lock in" the whole thing but leaves it open to tweaks. The lead should be a summary of the article. In comparison. the current lead is more of a blizzard of factoids that is hard to absorb and the column 4 looks like a easier-to-read summary. Since the lead should be a summary of the article, there should not be anything in the lead that is not in the article so removal of the old lead should not result in any loss of material. But you might want to double check that or possibly you did already. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that step forward. Krakkos made it, and so presumably would not be opposed to that step either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, Srnec is a well-respected editor whose edits I've seen on many articles concerning historical topics on my watchlist. I can't remember that I've ever disagreed with an edit that he made, but if I did, I know that he would have a well-reasoned explanation of his thinking. I don't have time now to delve into this, but I know that Srnec's thoughts always deserve consideration—he is knowledgeable and expresses himself quite well.
One day years in the future some Wikipedian will do a forensic analysis of the voluminous discussion on this talk page and its continuing stasis. That person will be amazed and perhaps lose his or her sanity from contemplating all the ever-increasing gigabytes of argument. May he or she rest in peace—that's what I'm going to do.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak: I propose that in order to avoid problems with the undead, ignore the whole history of the talk page and just read the short and simple draft? Any kind of feedback might help. The proposal does not require a re-reading of every debate because this simple single change is easy and uncontroversial to summarize: a big reduction of everything concerning speculations about the origins of the Goths before the third century (as Srnec requested). The people who don't like it agree that this is what is doing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you have a sense of humor, Andrew. Please understand that I'm a bit zombified myself these days—I'm not quite running on all cylinders and just don't have much spare time. I read your shorter draft, compared it to the other, and find the short version to be much better—it's concise and less confusing, although I thought we had consensus that excessive footnoting with quotes from the referenced authors was not desirable. Carlstak (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak: It's a good point about having a sense of humour. Helps a lot with this article, and I don't think it is just you but maybe even our whole community which is getting a bit tired of some types of work (and yes we are all getting older, and apparently we are not doing well recruiting young people). Just on the footnotes, as far as I am concerning all the direct quotes can be removed (or reduced), but realistically I kept them in for discussion of the draft because we have a long history on this article (like Germanic peoples) of a specific argument that reduction of this is un-sourced, or even "removing quality sources". How do we stop the bots from removing the RFC template while discussion is on-going?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done As you can see, I've added the "RFCBot Ignore Expired" tag to the page. Carlstak (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolve the earlier-opened RfC first, then, yes, let's get on with it ("it" being some combination of what's been proposed so far and whatever comes out of that other RfC). I think this is a good summary of the current consensus, based on past RfCs not counting that still-open one: "The previous RFCs decided that the 3 controversial sections about possible Gothic origins before the 3rd century should be shortened, because [they're covered in] other articles."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: which RFC do you say is open? Which question is unanswered? Please clarify. I am glad you agree with my summary, but don't quite follow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to "Changes to the initial parts of the Goths#History (Origins) section are currently being discussed at an earlier RfC found at Talk:Goths#RfC on proposal to simplify the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections and merge them into a single Origins and early history section. I doubt whether it is helpful to have two ongoing RfCs on essentially the same question. We should probably resolve the earlier RfC before we "move ahead" with its conclusions." If that's now also closed, then let's integrate the results of it with previous results. I tend to agree with: "The previous RFCs made it clear that there was a consensus not to remove such information from Wikipedia, but to focus upon it more in other articles." But the devil is in the details of how to shift focus and narrow scope. I tend to agree at least in spirit with this, too: "Interconnected RfCs should be handled in a reasonable order one step at the time. Making a new RfC with a request to "move ahead" with a counter proposal to a proposal being discussed in a ongoing RfC is problematic." But I'm not sure that's a 100% accurate description. Regardless, I see enough blowback already to think that this new RfC is a bust. It would probably be most productive to prepare a draft revision based on the previous RfCs and then see if it meets with approval. Give us all something concrete to look at instead of more of the same arguments. They're getting hard to follow except for people really focused on this particular page. When I say we should get on with it, I mean get on with improving the article, which is a content endeavor not more talk-page argument. PS: Talk:ByteDance is stuck at exactly the same stage of the same process: lots of discussion and "voting" about how to revise, but a need to just write the revision, with everyone's concerns in mind and balanced to the extent possible, then put that draft up and see if it sticks as the new base from which we'll work moving forward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I can't follow, and I think one of us is misunderstanding the situation. According to me you are referring to a closed RFC as open. Also you are proposing that the next logical step is that someone should propose a new draft. That is exactly what this RFC is? In terms of the older draft of Krakkos, Krakkos called in an admin to close all the older RFCs, not me, but I've continued to remind editors that this draft also still exists. (The result of this RFC could also be a hybrid or something based on new ideas.) I also don't understand your reference to blowback EXCEPT in the inevitable sense that Krakkos and Berig do not agree with the opinions of other editors in the previous RFCs (as per the summary you agree with) and would prefer the article to keep the Goths-are-Swedes theme of the controversial opening sections. That is of course a disagreement which goes back long before I ever worked on this article, and one where both editors believe ideology-driven academia is partly to blame, and are waiting for new DNA evidence to prove them right. We can't expect any consensus that will resolve that disagreement at this time? I believe however we can come to a happier compromise if the academic versions of the Swedish proposal can be properly discussed in a more specialized article. I think most of believe trying to fit the MAIN discussion of that here is just never going to really work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm misreading something, I'll just sit out for a while. Anyway, I don't think the present thread is going to come to an active consensus to do anything, and stick to my advice to work on a draft and try to get buy-in on it (taking editorial suggestions to work toward a compromise version).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: This thread is meant to be an RFC about a specific draft. For any such draft RFC to work, indeed we need some feedback and "editorial suggestions". (That would also apply to any future draft.) So feedback is what is needed now. So far, this draft has had more positive feedback than the drafts of Krakkos in the previous RFC. The only criticism about my draft so far is from Krakkos who suggests my draft should have more footnotes. (Berig disagrees with the whole aim of shortening the origins discussions. That is not a criticism specific to any draft.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is far too much meta-discussion about my own input/viewpoint. I'm not in control of this discussion or any processes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish:, I can't really follow these occasional remarks, but the fact is that this RFC is now at a point where simple feedback (positive and/or negative) about the proposed draft is what would be most helpful. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can support the Krakkos lead, for its concision, and your Origins section, for its appropriate post-lead detail and sourcing, which is nevertheless more concise than what we started all this to revise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SMcCandlish on these points; they are my sentiments exactly. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @SMcCandlish: and @Carlstak:. I am not 100% clear what "more concise than what we started all this to revise" means. Does mean you find my draft to be on the short side? As background, feedback from Srnec on the previous drafts from Krakkos was pushing for a shorter version, as I understood it. Anything you think needs changing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that it's too short; rather, it is short enough [for me]. I.e., good job. If Srnec and someone else want to tighten it even further, I don't object, but I like how source-dense it is for the amount of verbiage, and how much verbiage it leaves for other articles to get into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe one step towards simplification would be to do the change to the lead if there is a consensus or no objections. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

collecting quotes to help future discussion about pre 3rd century "pre" Goths

[edit]

Even if we come to some clear action plans soon, it seems this topic might come back again, either here or on related articles, and discussions has been anything-but-helped by lumping big quotes into the normal talk page. So I hope this workpage helps: Talk:Goths/Quotes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and started a new article: Origin of the Goths. There seems to be a clear enough agreement that any attempt to expand discussions of this topic needs to be done somewhere else, and I believe our explanations of the topic need expansion somewhere on Wikipedia if they are to be clear and accurate. Highly compressed versions are constantly going to be controversial distractions. From my work on this new article so far, a single independent article does seem possible. (I am open to other ideas about merging it to other Goth-related articles. Other relevant articles are Origin stories of the Goths, Wielbark culture, Name of the Goths, and Gutones but I think the overlap is OK at this point.) I really hope this helps us in the future. I truly believe it can.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New section on warfare

[edit]

Joe Flats 123, I think all or most of the material you've added is not specifically about Goths but about what we modern people call "Germanic peoples"? Ancient authors did provide distinct descriptions of the Goths, but I think you are using descriptions of other Germanic peoples? Roman authors repeatedly insisted that the Goths were a Scythian people in terms of their customs etc. For example, a major part of the new material is a block of text from Mauricius about the "Fair haired peoples" such as Franks and Lombards. These are western European groups who the Romans did not associate with the Goths. The Strategikon has a different section for discussion about Scythian peoples, and in Book IV this work makes clear that Goths, as in other works, are Scythian. Are you not using the wrong section of the Strategikon? To give an example of a difference, while the fair haired peoples can easily be drawn out of formation by simulated retreats, the Goths are experts in performing such simulated retreats. And rather than being happy to dismount, like the fair-haired peoples, this work claims that because they grow up on horseback, the Scythians are not happy walking around on foot. If on the other hand we say this is not explicitly enough about Goths, that's fine, but we can't use descriptions of western europeans as a stand-in, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster I think you are right for the Strategikon section, i will delete that. However, i know that the paragraph or two before that talks about weapons and armour explicitly for the Goths, so i wont delete that. :) --Joe Flats 123

another re-appearance of the DNA section

[edit]

@Isacdaavid I don't know who reintroduced the genetics section, but you have reintroduced strong claims into another section, about the name of the Goths, indicating that DNA proves the "Goths" to be from Scandinavia. There is no such evidence, and this has been discussed and agreed here several times in the past. Of course there could be new evidence one day, but I don't see it?

  • The Genomic Atlas website you are now citing as a new source does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia norms. If necessary please take it to WP:RSN and ask for someone else's opinion.
  • The Stolarek et al. article from 2023 only mentions the Goths once: "Some theories link the emergence of the Wielbark culture with the migration of people commonly referred to as Goths". (There is a lot more that could be said about the problems of using a research report like this, with vague conclusions.)
  • The Antonio et al. article of 2023 does not mention Gothic DNA, or the Wielbark culture.

On this basis I believe the genetics section, and also this misplaced genetics digression in the name section, should be removed or stripped down quite a lot. At the moment this is basically WP:OR. (I also don't see why all these things need to be repeated in a section which is supposed to be about the name of the Goths?) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur entirely with Andrew Lancaster about this matter. This topic has been repeatedly argued on pages related to the ancient Germanic peoples in general and this page especially. There is overwhelming consensus about the speciousness of these sorts of claims.
As an update Isacdaavid you posted on RSN (thank you) and received two very clear negative responses concerning the new source. I think we are going is that the DNA claims need trimming or deleting. If anyone has other evidence, or good proposals on ways of trimming it, now would be a good moment to get involved in this discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deletion or trimming. And I know it's a new and fast paced field, but there is no exception to the requirement that we use secondary and not primary sources to write encyclopaedic articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goths were Romans

[edit]

As I wrote in the Talk pages of the Visigoths' and Ostrogoths' articles, I do not deny that the Goths had a Germanic origin, but throughout their centuries of history, they underwent a cultural evolution, even greater if we take into account that they were a nomadic people until their final settlement in Hispania and Italia.

The goths of the Third century weren't the same ones that the ones of the Seventh century. The first ones were pagans, mostly blonde and spoke a germanic language (gothic); the second ones were christians, mostly brunette and spoke latin. So again, goths had a germanic origin but after being romanised they became a latin / romance people.

Also, you forget that they became foederati and according to the Constitutio Antoniniana, any freeman that was born inside the Empire was a Roman citizen, therefore Alaric I (Flavius Alaricus) and Theodoric I (Flavius Theodoricus) like his men, were Romans, if they weren't Alaric could never have become magister militum per Illyricum and Theodoric could never have become dux per Italia; previous to them, Maximinus Thrax and his relatives, like Maximinus Daza, who were goths or had gothic ancestry, were able to become emperors. 83.58.151.88 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goths&oldid=1280403513"