This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The lead as of this edit [ [1]] (20:26, 26 February 2020 Andrew Lancaster) is good, with one exception: the controversy over the Scandinavian origin is relegated entirely to suspicions cast on the reliability of Jordanes. The casual reader will assume that no other, more modern evidence bears on this. The other obvious comment to make is that beyond the lead the article fragments badly into warring references (a natural result of the warring). The main competing scenarios should be clearly stated, with the evidence for and against each added under each one. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
"As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland, where such languages are believed to have been spoken at this time. They are generally believed to have been documented much earlier by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living near the lower Vistula, where they are associated with the Wielbark culture.[2] In his book Getica, the Gothic historian Jordanes claimed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia more than 1000 years earlier, but his reliability is disputed.[2]"
"Goths, a Germanic people, who, according to Jordanes' Getica, originated in Scandinavia. 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." Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|subscription=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
@
Krakkos: back to the subject, please explain what "partially" relevant means and why language is an issue?. We clearly need to get back to this because you also today referred to Walter Pohl with identical terminology. What is it all about please?--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Elphion and Krakkos: The above went in circles a bit, but in effect I think what Elphion proposed would be covered by a simple sentence added into the lead as follows:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Possible new sentence in Green by Andrew Lancaster, drafting
As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland, where such languages are believed to have been spoken at this time. They are generally believed to have been documented much earlier by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living near the lower Vistula, where they are associated with the Wielbark culture, which is believed to have been at least partly Germanic-speaking.[1][2] In his book Getica, the Gothic historian Jordanes claimed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia more than 1000 years earlier, but his reliability is disputed.[1] Another possible indicator of connections is the presence in classical times of similarly named "Goutai" in Scandinavia and "Gutones" near the Vistula.<can be sourced to; see discussions about how the topic should be sourced in body text, for example here.> The Wielbark culture expanded southwards towards the Black Sea, where by the late 3rd century AD it contributed to the formation of the Chernyakhov culture, which is associated with the Goths who were in frequent conflict and contact with the Roman Empire.[1][3] By the 4th century AD at the latest, several groups were distinguishable, among whom the Thervingi and Greuthungi were the most powerful.[4] During this time, Ulfilas began the conversion of Goths to Arianism.[3]
|
UPDATE. A post has now been made at WP:RSN: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_the_Goths_article -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: Concerning footnotes, there have been similar discussions already on other articles especially Germanic peoples where your footnoting evolved to the point of having 14 footnotes per sentence, but apparently they need to be discussed anew on every article and you don't accept what others say? See just for example my edsum [3], and the revert [4]. Some basic normal aims:
Instead what we are seeing is the same things being sourced over and over, using the same sources or sources all by one author. Also the quotations being inserted are not needed and are generally including many extra words not relevant to what needs sources. (Even if they are generally relevant to the article or talk page in some way.) I also note non-obvious SYNTH cases like this (from the case mentioned above) which are not even needed:
All of the above is based on the normal MOS etc guidelines. @ Krakkos: why do you fight so hard against these norms, and why do you seem to want uncontroversial sentences to be overloaded like this? To me, looking at the extra words you keep in including, it seems the footnotes are kind of like a message to other editors about something?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Note that these two facts, the language and categorization, were already sourced in the lead. Look for example at the multiple uses of these footnotes all pointing to the same page, and yet cited together, over and over, sentence after sentence, already several times in the lead:
References
Can anyone give a justification for the insistence upon such things? (These are apparently not just random mistakes, because they are insisted upon and the same thing happens over and over and will be added to as in other articles.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: these [bulleted questions above] were the questions originally raised here in this section. Can you explain why the footnotes have the above characteristics? Please do not forget this concern, if you want to make a stable long-term version of the article. These are normal logical concerns which future editors will also see and act upon if they find them in the current state.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I think the above concerns (footnote examples) are really pretty striking, and would be seen as difficult to follow by almost anyone. So I really do think you should make a constructive attempt to explain why you insist upon, what you insist upon. Honestly it is very difficult to see any good rationale. (I can think of some reasons editors sometimes push for such things, but those are not good reasons.) Anyone who edits this article in the future, and wants to avoid problems with you forum shopping to admins, will need to understand and be able to predict what is acceptable to you.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
OTOH, Perhaps the closest I can find is a short footnote in his Afterword to Curta (ed.) where he complains about Goffart being "minimizing" about Jordanes and taking him as too "literary" and "deliberately misleading", but whatever all that means Heather also effectively says Goffart is correct that Jordanes and Paul the Deacon can be found to have "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [they] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence."
So to spell it out:
Really this article will in the long run cite Goffart and Christensen and Gillett too, who is another frequently cited person for Jordanes. (Heather is not.) I can't imagine any version of this article which deliberately censors such references can be stable and lasting. If I were you I would edit in a way that at least contributes something to the longer term result.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which happen to defend Peter Heather!! [17], [18] Do you realize how crude you sometimes appear? This is cherry picking from weak sources while you are STILL censoring the best known sources. The use of these reviews in this biased way is not something for a lasting and stable version. We are not writing an article about the beliefs of Peter Heather. We should not take his side on every issue, or censor or caricature any people who disagree with him. Similarly in the same section this strongly worded sentence is known by you to NOT be a consensus, and is thus an undue use of Wikipedia voice to agree with Heather: "Among philologists there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is the same as that of the Goths.[29]"-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
"In the period of Dacian and Sarmatian dominance, groups known as Goths – or perhaps 'Gothones' or 'Guthones' – inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century ad, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second, the latter explicitly among a number of groups said to inhabit the mouth of the River Vistula. River Vistula. Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century." Heather, Peter (2012a). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199892266.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"I think that Christensen has been too stringent in denying the existence of Gothic elements in the text. Wood, Ian N. (2003). "Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths" (PDF). Historisk Tidsskrift. 103 (2). Danish Historical Association: 465–484. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=
,|laydate=
,|nopp=
, and|laysource=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Christensen's conclusion... is therefore partly based on dubious reasoning, which does nothing to strenghten the central argument of the book." Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn (2004). "Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths". Scandinavian Journal of History. 29 (3–4). Taylor & Francis: 306–308. doi: 10.1080/03468750410005719. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=
,|laydate=
,|nopp=
, and|laysource=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"This is surely too extreme... [T]he fact remains that this, even if very clearly presented and argued, is little more than a long footnote to Heather's work; only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult it." Whitby, Michael (October 2003). "A. S. Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth". The Classical Review. 53 (2). Classical Association: 498. doi: 10.1093/cr/53.2.498. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=
,|laydate=
,|nopp=
, and|laysource=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them... The Gothic name appears for the first time between A.D. 16 and 18. We do not, however, find the strong form Guti but only the derivative form Gutones... Hereafter, whenever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. pp. 18, 20, 23. ISBN 0520069838.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"[L]inguists believe there is an indisputable connection." Christensen, Arne Søby (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Museum Tusculanum Press. p. 41. ISBN 9788772897103.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
Trying to help by saying something simple. Almost the whole field might agree with this?
I think these points are still undeniably important for further editing:
@ Krakkos: here are the two places you have focused on Christensen in the article. I hope the problems are obvious to you.
<Just to consider how bad the above is, it flat out disagrees with Wolfram. He is presumably included in "everyone".> Proposal: A simpler sentence would be uncontroversial and would not need all these SYNTH sources. EG: "The Vistula Gutones are generally considered to have a connection to the later Ukraine Goths, and to share an etymologically related name."[28][29][31]
Proposal: Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the Gutones mentioned by early Graeco-Roman authors were possibly not identical to the Goths, though it has been "taken for granted" by many scholars.[30][32] Among philologists and linguists, there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is based upon the same etymological word root as that of the Goths.[29][31]
|
I don't think this is acceptable balanced writing, and accurate use of our sources. The cherry picking of words and careful removals of key bits to change the meaning are stunning. In fact, what scholars agree, and what Christensen is referring to is the connection between the WORDS, not the peoples. Wolfram etc are NOT arguing the words equate to whole peoples, but only to small culturally significant elites.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
"[W]henever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. p. 23. ISBN 0520069838.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"the question is not whether Scandinavia was the "original homeland of the Goths"; at best it is whether certain Gothic clans came from the north across the Baltic Sea to the Continent". (Wolfram 1990 p.37)
"Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century." Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
I am already giving you a LOT of leeway and taking a much softer approach than many Wikipedians would. What you are insisting upon above is a deliberate distortion of our reporting of individual authors, works and the field as a whole. The problem with your way of thinking is that I do not own and articles, and neither do you. We are part of a community which has a lot of "rules" or norms. Secondly these are not just proposals above, but also a careful explanation of problems, where you are, I think quite knowingly, ignoring and working against the community norms. If my concerns are mistaken, then you can explain. If you have other ways of addressing them, then fine. But just trying to bully and push other editors in circles is not going to work Krakkos. If you can't accept the community way of working then you need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article). Maybe you should develop your own website or work on one of those less strict ones where more original research is allowed? Personally I work on different websites or other types of publication when I feel like doing different types of work - and I think many Wikipedians do. Anyway, your response is nonsensical in terms of WP norms, and the concerns raised above are relatively serious (because your own posts seem to shown this is deliberately fraudulent, not just naive synth and misreading) and need a solution ASAP.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
As I write, here are all the mentions of Walter Goffart, and these are being added to and made worse today. Maybe I should just let them speak for themselves. They are clearly a travesty of biased writing. This can not be depicted as an attempt to give a fair summary of the field. It also completely distorts the "favoured" authors like Heather who are made to look as crude as Krakkos! Heather (and Goffart) do sometimes use overblown rhetoric, but using it selectively like this is shameful, without exaggeration, to see in Wikipedia.
Andrew Lancaster comments in red and green
|
@ Krakkos: really? As a specific recommendation on one detail I believe Mark, Whitby, and Sønnesyn are weak sources being used inappropriately and add nothing to this article. They should be removed entirely as far as I can see.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Another use of Goffart connects to other problems with the way of using sources...
Andrew Lancaster comments in red and green
The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, eventually came to live outside of Germania, <No, not all of them did, which means this is wrong> and were thereafter <misleading word! they never had been...> never considered Germani by ancient Roman authors <Except Apollinarus Sidonius and the Burgundians, but this is far from relevant here, but it makes this text wrong>, who consistently categorized them among the "Scythians" or other peoples who had historically inhabited the area.[14][15][16][17] PROPOSAL: The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, were never called "Germani" ( Germanic peoples) by Graeco-Roman authors, who consistently categorized them as "Scythians" and associated their ancestry with other Danubian and steppe peoples such as Getians, Huns and Sarmatians.
|
"[A]lready in late antiquity the Germanic name was limited first to the Alamanni and then to the Franks as the dominant tribal groups in traditional Germania. While the Gutones, the Pomeranian precursors of the Goths, and the Vandili, the Silesian ancestors of the Vandals, were still considered part of Tacitean Germania, the later Goths, Vandals, and other East Germanic tribes were differentiated from the Germans and were referred to as Scythians, Goths, or some other special names. The sole exception are the Burgundians, who were considered German because they came to Gaul via Germania." Wolfram, Herwig (1997). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. University of California Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0520085114.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Archaeologists equate the earliest history of the Goths with the artifacts of a culture named after the East Prussian town Willenberg-Wielbark... In any case, the Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them - were initially under foreign domination... [W]henever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. pp. 12, 23. ISBN 0520069838.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"In the period of Dacian and Sarmatian dominance, groups known as Goths – or perhaps 'Gothones' or 'Guthones' – inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century ad, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second, the latter explicitly among a number of groups said to inhabit the mouth of the River Vistula. River Vistula. Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century." Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Beyond the Ligii are the Gothones, who are ruled by kings, a little more strictly than the other German tribes." Tacitus (1876). Germania. Translated by Church, Alfred John; Brodribb, William Jackson. p. XLIV.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
Concerning Classification, I've noted the multiple factual mistakes of wording above in red and putting aside the way you need to synthesize several sources to defend yourself on ONE of those factual mistakes, when we report the field consensus in Wikipedia voice we can not be choosing our favorite position and censoring or ridiculing all the others. The uncontroversial baseline is what most experts would agree with, and then differences between them need to be explained neutrally as a next step. Neutrally, of course, does not mean looking for sycophantic minor book reviews to explain the positions of the people we don't like in a ridiculing way, instead of citing the authors and their supporters in a fair way themselves, which shows their arguments in their best (and most interesting) forms.
As usual, after writing out the normal common sense approach on WP to such matters, I ask myself why I constantly have to explain such obvious things for one special WP editor, over and over and over. And indeed why bother. Krakkos listens to no one.
There are also the other two sections above, Jordanes and Getica, and Archaeological evidence? To be really clear about what I have demonstrated above, given that euphemisms clearly win me nothing, they are deliberate tabloid quality partisanship. @ Krakkos: you've made great "efforts" (appealing to admins etc) to get this far in these efforts, but this BS can't remain. This style makes WP into a sycophantic bully boy for your favorite author, crudely attacking other authorities that the author in question, not known for being soft himself, would never be so dishonest to do in a similar way. It is surreal to see something like this on WP. If you see any way of explaining why that should be acceptable, then please do explain. I think my position is clear unless new information changes it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
To save space here, and keep discussions hopefully more compressed and easy to connect I am making a table of drafting remarks for the article, on a drafting page on my userspace. /info/en/?search=User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting (It can be moved to here or somewhere else.) One aim is to have links to any relevant past discussions. I have started by breaking up the lead and adding some basic remarks. There is a third column where short notes can perhaps be added... . Feedback welcome, or indeed called-for. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: it would still be good for you to define the sourcing, repetition and chronology problems. Which bits are you referring to?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Trying to work out whether this causes any problem, I suppose the fact which is no longer mentioned is about "Germanic languages". Perhaps this could be mentioned in a different place. Personally, I think the opening line itself could be changed, for example:
As explained on our Germanic peoples article "Germanic peoples" can have different definitions and one of those is "Germanic-speaking peoples" which means that the above change is just being more specific. Even more specific would be:
More specific is arguably better? And if we can get this information all just by using the right adjective it is also not to difficult to read? To be clear, I am just throwing ideas around, and not taking a strong position.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |laysource=
, |layurl=
, and |nopp=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I don't think it matters much whether we say Germanic-speaking, East Germanic-speaking or Germanic (since each of those is accurate). Our page at Germanic peoples should cover and explain whatever it means in the context of Late Antiquity, so that is why I left it as is. I removed "early" since the Goths are basically the opposite of early in the context of ancient Germanic peoples. Srnec ( talk) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we take our publication year Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather 2009 or 2012 (or something else)? See [29]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Other users who have edited recently on this article: @ Carlstak, Srnec, Orenburg1, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Narky Blert, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Cobaltcigs, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
orig-year=
variable to the citation template to keep 2009 there in any case. Since the 2009 edition had a different subtitle, however, the current format is certainly wrong.
Srnec (
talk)
23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)year=
and orig-year=
parameters will suffice. It looks like there is even
a 2018 edition of this work!
Srnec (
talk)
02:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Changed to 2010. Seems resolved. If you think the original year needs mentioning (I don't), you should add a note indicating the title and publisher of the 2009 edition. Srnec ( talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I will use my table format. My suggestions are in green. Feedback requested.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
current | comments | proposal |
In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths fell under Hunnic rule, while others migrated into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. | 1. fell under, or joined? e.g. Wolfram 1990 p123ff ; 2. who is they? | In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.[*1] In the aftermath of this event, many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved into the Roman Empire. When a large group of Tervingi crossed the Danube, tensions rose and they were joined by more Goths, Alans, and Huns to inflict a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.[*2] |
These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. | Oversimplification | Within the empire, Goths such as Alaric, possibly a Tervingian, led large barbarian military forces for Rome, with their families attached.[*3] Unable to confirm his position in the Roman hierarchy, Alaric's people became the Visigoths, and with Alaric as king, they moved to Aquitania, and generations later, a Visigothic Kingdom was established in Spain at Toledo.[*4] |
Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, and eventually became known as the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[5] | I can not check that source behind a paywall but it would be strange if it did not say something like this... | Meanwhile, the Hunnic alliance split up in the 5th century, leading to the splitting out of different components, most importantly the Amal-led Ostrogoths.[*5] Under their king Theodoric the Great, and supported by the eastern emperor Zeno, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[*6] |
[5]=Heather 2012b, p. 623. | [*1] Wolfram p.123; Heather (20xx) pp.208-221; Halsall p.170. [*2] Halsall pp.175-180; Wolfram p.124; Heather (20xx) pp.151-153. [*3] Halsall pp.189-194; Wolfram pp.89-101; Heather (20xx) pp.189-201. [*4] Wolfram pp.272-275; Halsall pp.296-300. [*5] Heather (20xx), pp.221-224,246-250 ; Wolfram p.140; Halsall pp.286. [*6] Wolfram pp.199-203; Halsall p.287. | |
2012b is behind paywall and only a dictionary entry | Heather 20xx means "Empires and Barbarians". |
Andrew Lancaster has repeatedly complained that the following sources are behind a paywall:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)On this basis he has advocated the removal of these sources from this article. I have found links of these sources which are not behind a paywall. If it's alright with the community, i would like to insert those links into the article, so that the sources become accessible to everyone. Krakkos ( talk) 14:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)@Krakkos. You are in no way obliged to change them.
Complaining that sources are hard to access is not a valid objection.-- Berig ( talk) 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Berig: just to be clear, because I am concerned about the large number of misleading remarks being made and the attention they draw, that the paywall is also clearly not the main concern that I raised about these sources, and the highly unusual ways in which they are being used in terms of rationales for excluding other sources. Krakkos misrepresented my concerns above. I also noted this immediately above.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 in the lead reads currently as follows:
I would like to add the following tweaks, with proposed changes marked in bold.
Feedback welcome. Krakkos ( talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks Krakkos. I hope you don't mind me placing the proposal here, which I made just a few hours earlier.
Here are remarks about my reasons. Perhaps you and others will find better solutions!
So, I think there are some mistakes that do need fixes, and these are not yet covered in your proposal.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, whether that was your intention or not, thanks for switching to that kind of wording. Still not sure why we started a new section or what was wrong with just answering what I wrote already though. Commenting on your draft, which proposes much smaller changes than mine:
Maybe a crazy proposal, but just to consider: on my draft table above I added some page citations to 3 books I think you have access to. Why don't we look at those? One of them is by Heather. (Of course I will remind us both of the need to check for which points might be ones where Heather might be in the minority.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Summary of some differences between recent experts by Halsall, who writes p.190:
The nature of Alaric's forces has been much debated. Some see them as the Gothic tribe or people who had entered the Empire in 376 <cites Heather>. This is difficult to square with the sheer profusion of Gothic groups around 400. Others have therefore advanced the opinion that Attila's force and those of the other Gothic leaders were warbands or armies recruited by Rome, probably, on a short-term basis, in the aftermath of Adrianople. Although led by Goths these were polyglot in composition.<cites Liebeschuetz> A third, more radical view envisages the troops commanded by Alaric (and the others) as Goths recruited into regular auxiliary units of the Roman army of a new, if not unrecognisable, type.<cites Burns 1994> It has also been argued that this 'nation or army' debate is incapable of resolution on the basis of the evidence as we have it.<Kulikowski>
On p.191:
I have tended towards the interpretation of Alaric's followers as a military force rather than a tribe or people. Their emergence from formal units of the eastern army seems clear enough.
@ Krakkos: have a look perhaps at more of these longer works again? On this particular word choice thing, I don't see any big dramatic problem at least in the lead. I think authors are not light years from each other and unlike you might think, they are not denying that the differences between them are in areas where it is difficult to ever be really 100% certain. So we just have to avoid being certain at the wrong moments.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: strikes me part of the problem is partly coming from compressing things until they are wrong. So, as the person with the lead length concern, maybe you need to consider whether for example these are the key facts you want to fit. Or which should be removed or added?
I have written each in a way that contains what I think is more-or-less what the sources would describe. I did this looking again at Heather, to try to make sure I also remove anything from Halsall which might not be a field consensus. I hope this helps.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's handy reference here is a "key" to the easy-to-solve/impossible-to-solve problems in the latest proposal in short form, as per more detailed discussions above...
I think all my concerns except the first are in agreement with Heather when read properly in a proper detailed work? And, by the way we are certainly "allowed" to use such books, despite what Krakkos has tried to enforce. [32]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Third-century migration was not remotely as simple Jordanes' formula - one king, one people, one move - might suggest. (Heather, Empires and Barbarians, p.124.)
if, as is customary, the term [Ostrogoths] is reserved for the group which Theoderic the Amal led to Italy in 489, then the Ostrogoths were in fact a new political unit of Goths whose ethnogenesis occured in several phases in the course of two political generations (Heather, Ostrogoths entry in the 2018 dictionary)
Using a different device I could see this, the [so-called] "reference". (There is no mention at all of Adrianople, and the article is one column only with 3 citations, 2 of which to Heather himself)...-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Several different Gothic groups made there way onto Roman soil (Heather, Goths dictionary article 2018, p.673)
"Goths, a Germanic people, who, according to Jordanes' Getica, originated in Scandinavia. 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... Visigoths and Ostrogoths were actually the product of a later convulsion occasioned by the inroads of the Huns. As a direct result, two separate Gothic groups crossed the Danube in 376, their victory at Hadrianople in 378 paving the way for a more ordered coexistence with Roman power after 382. These two groups were definitively united by Alaric (395–411) to create the Visigoths... Gothic groups who had either fled to the Romans after c.400 or survived Hunnic hegemony, were united in various stages between c.450 and 484 behind the family of Theoderic (1) to create the Ostrogoths..." Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|subscription=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
Andrew Lancaster - I have formulated an improved version of paragraph 3 of the lead, largely based upon your suggestions:
Is this an improvement compared to the current version? Do i have your permission to implement the proposal? Krakkos ( talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The lead as of this edit [ [1]] (20:26, 26 February 2020 Andrew Lancaster) is good, with one exception: the controversy over the Scandinavian origin is relegated entirely to suspicions cast on the reliability of Jordanes. The casual reader will assume that no other, more modern evidence bears on this. The other obvious comment to make is that beyond the lead the article fragments badly into warring references (a natural result of the warring). The main competing scenarios should be clearly stated, with the evidence for and against each added under each one. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
"As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland, where such languages are believed to have been spoken at this time. They are generally believed to have been documented much earlier by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living near the lower Vistula, where they are associated with the Wielbark culture.[2] In his book Getica, the Gothic historian Jordanes claimed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia more than 1000 years earlier, but his reliability is disputed.[2]"
"Goths, a Germanic people, who, according to Jordanes' Getica, originated in Scandinavia. 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." Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|subscription=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
@
Krakkos: back to the subject, please explain what "partially" relevant means and why language is an issue?. We clearly need to get back to this because you also today referred to Walter Pohl with identical terminology. What is it all about please?--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Elphion and Krakkos: The above went in circles a bit, but in effect I think what Elphion proposed would be covered by a simple sentence added into the lead as follows:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Possible new sentence in Green by Andrew Lancaster, drafting
As speakers of a Germanic language, it is believed that at least a dominant class of Goths migrated from the direction of modern Poland, where such languages are believed to have been spoken at this time. They are generally believed to have been documented much earlier by Roman writers in the 1st century AD as living near the lower Vistula, where they are associated with the Wielbark culture, which is believed to have been at least partly Germanic-speaking.[1][2] In his book Getica, the Gothic historian Jordanes claimed that the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia more than 1000 years earlier, but his reliability is disputed.[1] Another possible indicator of connections is the presence in classical times of similarly named "Goutai" in Scandinavia and "Gutones" near the Vistula.<can be sourced to; see discussions about how the topic should be sourced in body text, for example here.> The Wielbark culture expanded southwards towards the Black Sea, where by the late 3rd century AD it contributed to the formation of the Chernyakhov culture, which is associated with the Goths who were in frequent conflict and contact with the Roman Empire.[1][3] By the 4th century AD at the latest, several groups were distinguishable, among whom the Thervingi and Greuthungi were the most powerful.[4] During this time, Ulfilas began the conversion of Goths to Arianism.[3]
|
UPDATE. A post has now been made at WP:RSN: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_the_Goths_article -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: Concerning footnotes, there have been similar discussions already on other articles especially Germanic peoples where your footnoting evolved to the point of having 14 footnotes per sentence, but apparently they need to be discussed anew on every article and you don't accept what others say? See just for example my edsum [3], and the revert [4]. Some basic normal aims:
Instead what we are seeing is the same things being sourced over and over, using the same sources or sources all by one author. Also the quotations being inserted are not needed and are generally including many extra words not relevant to what needs sources. (Even if they are generally relevant to the article or talk page in some way.) I also note non-obvious SYNTH cases like this (from the case mentioned above) which are not even needed:
All of the above is based on the normal MOS etc guidelines. @ Krakkos: why do you fight so hard against these norms, and why do you seem to want uncontroversial sentences to be overloaded like this? To me, looking at the extra words you keep in including, it seems the footnotes are kind of like a message to other editors about something?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Note that these two facts, the language and categorization, were already sourced in the lead. Look for example at the multiple uses of these footnotes all pointing to the same page, and yet cited together, over and over, sentence after sentence, already several times in the lead:
References
Can anyone give a justification for the insistence upon such things? (These are apparently not just random mistakes, because they are insisted upon and the same thing happens over and over and will be added to as in other articles.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: these [bulleted questions above] were the questions originally raised here in this section. Can you explain why the footnotes have the above characteristics? Please do not forget this concern, if you want to make a stable long-term version of the article. These are normal logical concerns which future editors will also see and act upon if they find them in the current state.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I think the above concerns (footnote examples) are really pretty striking, and would be seen as difficult to follow by almost anyone. So I really do think you should make a constructive attempt to explain why you insist upon, what you insist upon. Honestly it is very difficult to see any good rationale. (I can think of some reasons editors sometimes push for such things, but those are not good reasons.) Anyone who edits this article in the future, and wants to avoid problems with you forum shopping to admins, will need to understand and be able to predict what is acceptable to you.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
OTOH, Perhaps the closest I can find is a short footnote in his Afterword to Curta (ed.) where he complains about Goffart being "minimizing" about Jordanes and taking him as too "literary" and "deliberately misleading", but whatever all that means Heather also effectively says Goffart is correct that Jordanes and Paul the Deacon can be found to have "historical value only limited" and "it is very unclear that [they] tell us anything at all profound about the deeper Germanic past before those kingdoms came into existence."
So to spell it out:
Really this article will in the long run cite Goffart and Christensen and Gillett too, who is another frequently cited person for Jordanes. (Heather is not.) I can't imagine any version of this article which deliberately censors such references can be stable and lasting. If I were you I would edit in a way that at least contributes something to the longer term result.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which happen to defend Peter Heather!! [17], [18] Do you realize how crude you sometimes appear? This is cherry picking from weak sources while you are STILL censoring the best known sources. The use of these reviews in this biased way is not something for a lasting and stable version. We are not writing an article about the beliefs of Peter Heather. We should not take his side on every issue, or censor or caricature any people who disagree with him. Similarly in the same section this strongly worded sentence is known by you to NOT be a consensus, and is thus an undue use of Wikipedia voice to agree with Heather: "Among philologists there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is the same as that of the Goths.[29]"-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
"In the period of Dacian and Sarmatian dominance, groups known as Goths – or perhaps 'Gothones' or 'Guthones' – inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century ad, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second, the latter explicitly among a number of groups said to inhabit the mouth of the River Vistula. River Vistula. Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century." Heather, Peter (2012a). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199892266.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"I think that Christensen has been too stringent in denying the existence of Gothic elements in the text. Wood, Ian N. (2003). "Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths" (PDF). Historisk Tidsskrift. 103 (2). Danish Historical Association: 465–484. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=
,|laydate=
,|nopp=
, and|laysource=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Christensen's conclusion... is therefore partly based on dubious reasoning, which does nothing to strenghten the central argument of the book." Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn (2004). "Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths". Scandinavian Journal of History. 29 (3–4). Taylor & Francis: 306–308. doi: 10.1080/03468750410005719. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=
,|laydate=
,|nopp=
, and|laysource=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"This is surely too extreme... [T]he fact remains that this, even if very clearly presented and argued, is little more than a long footnote to Heather's work; only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult it." Whitby, Michael (October 2003). "A. S. Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth". The Classical Review. 53 (2). Classical Association: 498. doi: 10.1093/cr/53.2.498. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=
,|laydate=
,|nopp=
, and|laysource=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them... The Gothic name appears for the first time between A.D. 16 and 18. We do not, however, find the strong form Guti but only the derivative form Gutones... Hereafter, whenever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. pp. 18, 20, 23. ISBN 0520069838.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"[L]inguists believe there is an indisputable connection." Christensen, Arne Søby (2002). Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Museum Tusculanum Press. p. 41. ISBN 9788772897103.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
Trying to help by saying something simple. Almost the whole field might agree with this?
I think these points are still undeniably important for further editing:
@ Krakkos: here are the two places you have focused on Christensen in the article. I hope the problems are obvious to you.
<Just to consider how bad the above is, it flat out disagrees with Wolfram. He is presumably included in "everyone".> Proposal: A simpler sentence would be uncontroversial and would not need all these SYNTH sources. EG: "The Vistula Gutones are generally considered to have a connection to the later Ukraine Goths, and to share an etymologically related name."[28][29][31]
Proposal: Historian Arne Søby Christensen has argued that the Gutones mentioned by early Graeco-Roman authors were possibly not identical to the Goths, though it has been "taken for granted" by many scholars.[30][32] Among philologists and linguists, there is no doubt that "Gutones" and similar names mentioned by early Roman authors is based upon the same etymological word root as that of the Goths.[29][31]
|
I don't think this is acceptable balanced writing, and accurate use of our sources. The cherry picking of words and careful removals of key bits to change the meaning are stunning. In fact, what scholars agree, and what Christensen is referring to is the connection between the WORDS, not the peoples. Wolfram etc are NOT arguing the words equate to whole peoples, but only to small culturally significant elites.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
"[W]henever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. p. 23. ISBN 0520069838.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"the question is not whether Scandinavia was the "original homeland of the Goths"; at best it is whether certain Gothic clans came from the north across the Baltic Sea to the Continent". (Wolfram 1990 p.37)
"Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century." Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
I am already giving you a LOT of leeway and taking a much softer approach than many Wikipedians would. What you are insisting upon above is a deliberate distortion of our reporting of individual authors, works and the field as a whole. The problem with your way of thinking is that I do not own and articles, and neither do you. We are part of a community which has a lot of "rules" or norms. Secondly these are not just proposals above, but also a careful explanation of problems, where you are, I think quite knowingly, ignoring and working against the community norms. If my concerns are mistaken, then you can explain. If you have other ways of addressing them, then fine. But just trying to bully and push other editors in circles is not going to work Krakkos. If you can't accept the community way of working then you need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article). Maybe you should develop your own website or work on one of those less strict ones where more original research is allowed? Personally I work on different websites or other types of publication when I feel like doing different types of work - and I think many Wikipedians do. Anyway, your response is nonsensical in terms of WP norms, and the concerns raised above are relatively serious (because your own posts seem to shown this is deliberately fraudulent, not just naive synth and misreading) and need a solution ASAP.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
As I write, here are all the mentions of Walter Goffart, and these are being added to and made worse today. Maybe I should just let them speak for themselves. They are clearly a travesty of biased writing. This can not be depicted as an attempt to give a fair summary of the field. It also completely distorts the "favoured" authors like Heather who are made to look as crude as Krakkos! Heather (and Goffart) do sometimes use overblown rhetoric, but using it selectively like this is shameful, without exaggeration, to see in Wikipedia.
Andrew Lancaster comments in red and green
|
@ Krakkos: really? As a specific recommendation on one detail I believe Mark, Whitby, and Sønnesyn are weak sources being used inappropriately and add nothing to this article. They should be removed entirely as far as I can see.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Another use of Goffart connects to other problems with the way of using sources...
Andrew Lancaster comments in red and green
The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, eventually came to live outside of Germania, <No, not all of them did, which means this is wrong> and were thereafter <misleading word! they never had been...> never considered Germani by ancient Roman authors <Except Apollinarus Sidonius and the Burgundians, but this is far from relevant here, but it makes this text wrong>, who consistently categorized them among the "Scythians" or other peoples who had historically inhabited the area.[14][15][16][17] PROPOSAL: The Goths and other East Germanic-speaking groups, such as the Vandals and Gepids, were never called "Germani" ( Germanic peoples) by Graeco-Roman authors, who consistently categorized them as "Scythians" and associated their ancestry with other Danubian and steppe peoples such as Getians, Huns and Sarmatians.
|
"[A]lready in late antiquity the Germanic name was limited first to the Alamanni and then to the Franks as the dominant tribal groups in traditional Germania. While the Gutones, the Pomeranian precursors of the Goths, and the Vandili, the Silesian ancestors of the Vandals, were still considered part of Tacitean Germania, the later Goths, Vandals, and other East Germanic tribes were differentiated from the Germans and were referred to as Scythians, Goths, or some other special names. The sole exception are the Burgundians, who were considered German because they came to Gaul via Germania." Wolfram, Herwig (1997). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. University of California Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0520085114.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Archaeologists equate the earliest history of the Goths with the artifacts of a culture named after the East Prussian town Willenberg-Wielbark... In any case, the Goths—or Gutones, as the Roman sources called them - were initially under foreign domination... [W]henever the Gutones and Guti are mentioned, these terms refer to the Goths." Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. Translated by Dunlap, Thomas J. University of California Press. pp. 12, 23. ISBN 0520069838.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"In the period of Dacian and Sarmatian dominance, groups known as Goths – or perhaps 'Gothones' or 'Guthones' – inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century ad, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second, the latter explicitly among a number of groups said to inhabit the mouth of the River Vistula. River Vistula. Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century." Heather, Peter (2012). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780199892266.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
"Beyond the Ligii are the Gothones, who are ruled by kings, a little more strictly than the other German tribes." Tacitus (1876). Germania. Translated by Church, Alfred John; Brodribb, William Jackson. p. XLIV.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|subscription=
and|registration=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
Concerning Classification, I've noted the multiple factual mistakes of wording above in red and putting aside the way you need to synthesize several sources to defend yourself on ONE of those factual mistakes, when we report the field consensus in Wikipedia voice we can not be choosing our favorite position and censoring or ridiculing all the others. The uncontroversial baseline is what most experts would agree with, and then differences between them need to be explained neutrally as a next step. Neutrally, of course, does not mean looking for sycophantic minor book reviews to explain the positions of the people we don't like in a ridiculing way, instead of citing the authors and their supporters in a fair way themselves, which shows their arguments in their best (and most interesting) forms.
As usual, after writing out the normal common sense approach on WP to such matters, I ask myself why I constantly have to explain such obvious things for one special WP editor, over and over and over. And indeed why bother. Krakkos listens to no one.
There are also the other two sections above, Jordanes and Getica, and Archaeological evidence? To be really clear about what I have demonstrated above, given that euphemisms clearly win me nothing, they are deliberate tabloid quality partisanship. @ Krakkos: you've made great "efforts" (appealing to admins etc) to get this far in these efforts, but this BS can't remain. This style makes WP into a sycophantic bully boy for your favorite author, crudely attacking other authorities that the author in question, not known for being soft himself, would never be so dishonest to do in a similar way. It is surreal to see something like this on WP. If you see any way of explaining why that should be acceptable, then please do explain. I think my position is clear unless new information changes it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
To save space here, and keep discussions hopefully more compressed and easy to connect I am making a table of drafting remarks for the article, on a drafting page on my userspace. /info/en/?search=User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting (It can be moved to here or somewhere else.) One aim is to have links to any relevant past discussions. I have started by breaking up the lead and adding some basic remarks. There is a third column where short notes can perhaps be added... . Feedback welcome, or indeed called-for. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: it would still be good for you to define the sourcing, repetition and chronology problems. Which bits are you referring to?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Trying to work out whether this causes any problem, I suppose the fact which is no longer mentioned is about "Germanic languages". Perhaps this could be mentioned in a different place. Personally, I think the opening line itself could be changed, for example:
As explained on our Germanic peoples article "Germanic peoples" can have different definitions and one of those is "Germanic-speaking peoples" which means that the above change is just being more specific. Even more specific would be:
More specific is arguably better? And if we can get this information all just by using the right adjective it is also not to difficult to read? To be clear, I am just throwing ideas around, and not taking a strong position.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |laysource=
, |layurl=
, and |nopp=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I don't think it matters much whether we say Germanic-speaking, East Germanic-speaking or Germanic (since each of those is accurate). Our page at Germanic peoples should cover and explain whatever it means in the context of Late Antiquity, so that is why I left it as is. I removed "early" since the Goths are basically the opposite of early in the context of ancient Germanic peoples. Srnec ( talk) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we take our publication year Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather 2009 or 2012 (or something else)? See [29]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Other users who have edited recently on this article: @ Carlstak, Srnec, Orenburg1, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Narky Blert, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Cobaltcigs, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe:-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
orig-year=
variable to the citation template to keep 2009 there in any case. Since the 2009 edition had a different subtitle, however, the current format is certainly wrong.
Srnec (
talk)
23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)year=
and orig-year=
parameters will suffice. It looks like there is even
a 2018 edition of this work!
Srnec (
talk)
02:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Changed to 2010. Seems resolved. If you think the original year needs mentioning (I don't), you should add a note indicating the title and publisher of the 2009 edition. Srnec ( talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I will use my table format. My suggestions are in green. Feedback requested.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
current | comments | proposal |
In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns. In the aftermath of this event, several groups of Goths fell under Hunnic rule, while others migrated into the Roman Empire, where they inflicted a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. | 1. fell under, or joined? e.g. Wolfram 1990 p123ff ; 2. who is they? | In the late 4th century, the lands of the Goths were invaded from the east by the Huns.[*1] In the aftermath of this event, many Goths joined the Huns, while others moved into the Roman Empire. When a large group of Tervingi crossed the Danube, tensions rose and they were joined by more Goths, Alans, and Huns to inflict a devastating defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.[*2] |
These Goths became known as the Visigoths, and under their king Alaric I they began a long migration, which culminated in them establishing a Visigothic Kingdom in Spain at Toledo. | Oversimplification | Within the empire, Goths such as Alaric, possibly a Tervingian, led large barbarian military forces for Rome, with their families attached.[*3] Unable to confirm his position in the Roman hierarchy, Alaric's people became the Visigoths, and with Alaric as king, they moved to Aquitania, and generations later, a Visigothic Kingdom was established in Spain at Toledo.[*4] |
Meanwhile, Goths under Hunnic rule regained their freedom in the 5th century, and eventually became known as the Ostrogoths. Under their king Theodoric the Great, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[5] | I can not check that source behind a paywall but it would be strange if it did not say something like this... | Meanwhile, the Hunnic alliance split up in the 5th century, leading to the splitting out of different components, most importantly the Amal-led Ostrogoths.[*5] Under their king Theodoric the Great, and supported by the eastern emperor Zeno, these Goths established an Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy at Ravenna.[*6] |
[5]=Heather 2012b, p. 623. | [*1] Wolfram p.123; Heather (20xx) pp.208-221; Halsall p.170. [*2] Halsall pp.175-180; Wolfram p.124; Heather (20xx) pp.151-153. [*3] Halsall pp.189-194; Wolfram pp.89-101; Heather (20xx) pp.189-201. [*4] Wolfram pp.272-275; Halsall pp.296-300. [*5] Heather (20xx), pp.221-224,246-250 ; Wolfram p.140; Halsall pp.286. [*6] Wolfram pp.199-203; Halsall p.287. | |
2012b is behind paywall and only a dictionary entry | Heather 20xx means "Empires and Barbarians". |
Andrew Lancaster has repeatedly complained that the following sources are behind a paywall:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)On this basis he has advocated the removal of these sources from this article. I have found links of these sources which are not behind a paywall. If it's alright with the community, i would like to insert those links into the article, so that the sources become accessible to everyone. Krakkos ( talk) 14:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)@Krakkos. You are in no way obliged to change them.
Complaining that sources are hard to access is not a valid objection.-- Berig ( talk) 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Berig: just to be clear, because I am concerned about the large number of misleading remarks being made and the attention they draw, that the paywall is also clearly not the main concern that I raised about these sources, and the highly unusual ways in which they are being used in terms of rationales for excluding other sources. Krakkos misrepresented my concerns above. I also noted this immediately above.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 in the lead reads currently as follows:
I would like to add the following tweaks, with proposed changes marked in bold.
Feedback welcome. Krakkos ( talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks Krakkos. I hope you don't mind me placing the proposal here, which I made just a few hours earlier.
Here are remarks about my reasons. Perhaps you and others will find better solutions!
So, I think there are some mistakes that do need fixes, and these are not yet covered in your proposal.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, whether that was your intention or not, thanks for switching to that kind of wording. Still not sure why we started a new section or what was wrong with just answering what I wrote already though. Commenting on your draft, which proposes much smaller changes than mine:
Maybe a crazy proposal, but just to consider: on my draft table above I added some page citations to 3 books I think you have access to. Why don't we look at those? One of them is by Heather. (Of course I will remind us both of the need to check for which points might be ones where Heather might be in the minority.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Summary of some differences between recent experts by Halsall, who writes p.190:
The nature of Alaric's forces has been much debated. Some see them as the Gothic tribe or people who had entered the Empire in 376 <cites Heather>. This is difficult to square with the sheer profusion of Gothic groups around 400. Others have therefore advanced the opinion that Attila's force and those of the other Gothic leaders were warbands or armies recruited by Rome, probably, on a short-term basis, in the aftermath of Adrianople. Although led by Goths these were polyglot in composition.<cites Liebeschuetz> A third, more radical view envisages the troops commanded by Alaric (and the others) as Goths recruited into regular auxiliary units of the Roman army of a new, if not unrecognisable, type.<cites Burns 1994> It has also been argued that this 'nation or army' debate is incapable of resolution on the basis of the evidence as we have it.<Kulikowski>
On p.191:
I have tended towards the interpretation of Alaric's followers as a military force rather than a tribe or people. Their emergence from formal units of the eastern army seems clear enough.
@ Krakkos: have a look perhaps at more of these longer works again? On this particular word choice thing, I don't see any big dramatic problem at least in the lead. I think authors are not light years from each other and unlike you might think, they are not denying that the differences between them are in areas where it is difficult to ever be really 100% certain. So we just have to avoid being certain at the wrong moments.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: strikes me part of the problem is partly coming from compressing things until they are wrong. So, as the person with the lead length concern, maybe you need to consider whether for example these are the key facts you want to fit. Or which should be removed or added?
I have written each in a way that contains what I think is more-or-less what the sources would describe. I did this looking again at Heather, to try to make sure I also remove anything from Halsall which might not be a field consensus. I hope this helps.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's handy reference here is a "key" to the easy-to-solve/impossible-to-solve problems in the latest proposal in short form, as per more detailed discussions above...
I think all my concerns except the first are in agreement with Heather when read properly in a proper detailed work? And, by the way we are certainly "allowed" to use such books, despite what Krakkos has tried to enforce. [32]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Third-century migration was not remotely as simple Jordanes' formula - one king, one people, one move - might suggest. (Heather, Empires and Barbarians, p.124.)
if, as is customary, the term [Ostrogoths] is reserved for the group which Theoderic the Amal led to Italy in 489, then the Ostrogoths were in fact a new political unit of Goths whose ethnogenesis occured in several phases in the course of two political generations (Heather, Ostrogoths entry in the 2018 dictionary)
Using a different device I could see this, the [so-called] "reference". (There is no mention at all of Adrianople, and the article is one column only with 3 citations, 2 of which to Heather himself)...-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Several different Gothic groups made there way onto Roman soil (Heather, Goths dictionary article 2018, p.673)
"Goths, a Germanic people, who, according to Jordanes' Getica, originated in Scandinavia. 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... Visigoths and Ostrogoths were actually the product of a later convulsion occasioned by the inroads of the Huns. As a direct result, two separate Gothic groups crossed the Danube in 376, their victory at Hadrianople in 378 paving the way for a more ordered coexistence with Roman power after 382. These two groups were definitively united by Alaric (395–411) to create the Visigoths... Gothic groups who had either fled to the Romans after c.400 or survived Hunnic hegemony, were united in various stages between c.450 and 484 behind the family of Theoderic (1) to create the Ostrogoths..." Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|subscription=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
Andrew Lancaster - I have formulated an improved version of paragraph 3 of the lead, largely based upon your suggestions:
Is this an improvement compared to the current version? Do i have your permission to implement the proposal? Krakkos ( talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)