Talk:Goths

RFC to move ahead on previous Intro and Origins proposals

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)

---

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

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)

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)

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

• Yes (as proposer). I think these two drafts correspond to the various opinions and ideas mentioned in previous RFCs and discussions. I have already agreed with Krakkos on his lead proposal. There was a clear consensus in previous RFCs that the 3 sections about possible "pre Goths" which will be compressed now can better be expanded upon in other articles, because they have a tendency to expand and become controversial and overwhelming on this large article. Tweaks are possible of course, but I recommend moving ahead. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment 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.

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)

I have now requested the closure of three ongoing RfCs above which cover similar questions as this one. Krakkos (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: . 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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: (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support With the caveat that my knowledge and depth on this is insufficient for a thorough confident answer. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is precious. Are there any bits you throught particularly strong or weak?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

@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: . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

 Done As you can see, I've added the "RFCBot Ignore Expired" tag to the page. Carlstak (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

  @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)

  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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

I agree with SMcCandlish on these points; they are my sentiments exactly. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

New section on warfare

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

@Sirfurboy:, @Isacdaavid:, I note that the same sources are still there. Apparently none of us did anything. So I first trimmed and adapted the material and made the following new summary of the Stolarek article. I preserve it here because really it is about the Wielbark culture and its ancestry, not its possible descendants (according to some) the Goths. None of the DNA evidence or conclusions drawn here say anything about the proposal that Goths originated in the Wielbark culture. The other paragraph is relevant, and I suppose the new articles by McColl and Speidel can also eventually be used to talk about the proposed Goth-Wielbark link. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, this is better. I don't like the parenthetical "(I1 and R1b-U106: North European; Z93: Iron Age Steppe)" in what you have left, which is technical and meaningless to the average reader. I'd put that in a footnote with a reference or just take it out. Most of what you have left was written by Austronesier on Christmas Day, 2023, and is a good summary (he didn't write the parenthetical). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Stolarek et al. (2023) sequenced genomes from from multiple Wielbark culture sites, and found evidence suggesting culture was partly made up of newcomers from northwestern Europe, who mixed with the local population at the beginning of the Common Era (0 AD). More specifically, Iron Age samples from Denmark and Norway were a better match for the newcomers than older samples from surrounding regions to the south and east represented by Bronze Age samples from Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Latvia, and Iron Age samples from Estonia. By comparing the autosomal DNA results to uniparental markers the researchers also found evidence suggesting that the Iron Age newcomers from the north were mainly male.

References

Goths were Romans

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)

my revert to new DNA edits

I reverted 3 edits . Quick notes:

• The new editor name is clearly based upon the names of the 2 articles that are the basis of the edits made. McColl et al https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09064-1 and Speidel et al https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08275-2 . I presume the account was created to promote the articles in a particular way.
• The insertion of a map of Sweden as the first illustration for an article about the Goths, who first appear in history in the 3rd century in the Ukraine, is obviously inappropriate.
• Looking at wordings I deleted from our article:

• Genetic evidence supports a two-stage model of Gothic ethnogenesis: an initial, genetically detectable migration from Scandinavia to the southern Baltic coast (associated with the Wielbark culture), followed by subsequent genetic and cultural admixture with neighboring Baltic and Eastern European groups as communities expanded into Central and Eastern Europe and formed multiethnic confederations such as the Chernyakhov culture.

• Problem: Neither article makes any such claim. The Chernyakhov culture is not mentioned by McColl et al, and is only mentioned once by Speidel et al., but then only referring to the fact that this culture has been linked in other publications to the Wielbark culture. No genetic evidence for a migration is being claimed. Both articles clearly state that they looked for connections to the Goths in the Ukraine and found none.
• The wording of McColl et al is clearly being twisted out of context. It only says the evidence is "consistent with a two-step model on the ethnogenesis of the Goths: an initial migration from Scandinavia, followed by the acculturalization of others". Notice that in contrast to the edits made here, the second step is NOT a migration or genetic admixture.

• Speidel et al. (2024) and McColl et al. (2026) analysed ancient DNA samples from present-day Poland and identified several significant demographic changes. During the Middle to Late Bronze Age (1500–1000 BC), the population experienced a shift away from the ancestry characteristic of earlier Corded Ware-associated groups, towards a genetic profile resembling that of individuals from Roman Iron Age Lithuania. A further, much more pronounced demographic shift occurred during the Roman Iron Age (first–fifth centuries AD), particularly among individuals associated with the Wielbark culture, who exhibited a substantial Scandinavian-related ancestry component. Speidel et al. found that these individuals could be modelled with more than 75% ancestry related to the Scandinavian Peninsula, with some individuals, particularly those from earlier Wielbark cemeteries, displaying approximately 100% Scandinavian-related ancestry. McColl et al. subsequently refined these findings, identifying an ancestry predominantly from eastern Scandinavia, traceable to Bronze Age Scandinavia and Iron Age Sweden, rather than from southern Scandinavia, which contributed to other migrations associated with West Germanic peoples. Taken together, these findings support the traditional narrative that Germanic-speaking populations, linked to early Goths, originating in Scandinavia migrated across the Baltic Sea into the territory between the Oder and Vistula rivers during the early centuries AD.

• Problem: Again, none of this is about Goths except in the sense that it is about the Wielbark culture which appears in speculations about the origin of the Goths. These 2 articles do not claim to be bringing any new evidence about THAT proposed link, which is NOT derived from DNA evidence.

Does this DNA evidence give us any NEW information about the proposed link between the Goths and the Wielbark culture? Yes, this evidence says (according to these articles) that there is NO genetic link, and therefore no major migration. Both articles say that if there was a link it was a link involving the transfer of culture etc. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

A few points for @Andrew Lancaster

The Chernyakhov culture is not mentioned by McColl et al, and is only mentioned once by Speidel et al., but then only referring to the fact that this culture has been linked in other publications to the Wielbark culture.

This can be easily resolved by including this study, which confirms that the Goths formed ethnically heterogeneous confederations during their southward migrations.

A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations

While this other study confirms that the Goths occupied the area of ethnically heterogeneous Chernyakhiv culture.

Shifts in the Genetic Landscape of the Western Eurasian Steppe Associated with the Beginning and End of the Scythian Dominance: Current Biology

Does this DNA evidence give us any NEW information about the proposed link between the Goths and the Wielbark culture? Yes, this evidence says (according to these articles) that there is NO genetic link, and therefore no major migration. Both articles say that if there was a link it was a link involving the transfer of culture etc.

The study found genetic evidence of a major shift in ancestry, associated with the emergence of the Wielbark culture. Archaeology confirms that these remains belong to a Germanic-speaking population that crossed the Baltic Sea, arriving from Scandinavia. Taken together, these results support the traditional narrative regarding the Gothic origin.

"A sixth-century origin legend of the East Germanic Goths claims a homeland on the Scandinavian Peninsula55. The earliest evidence of plausibly East Germanic-speaking populations out of Scandinavia are the individuals from the Wielbark culture of present-day Poland, dated to around 1950 BP 23. We find these individuals to be modelled primarily by Eastern Scandinavian Bronze Age and Swedish Iron Age ancestry (Supplementary Note 5.7.4), supporting a migration from a region and population distinct from those of the West Germanic groups—a scenario that is consistent with Gothic oral history 50"

"The Wielbark archaeological complex has been linked to the later Chernyakhov culture to the southeast and to early Goths, an historical Germanic group that flourished in the second to fifth centuries ce 56. Our modelling supports the idea that some groups that probably spoke Germanic languages from Scandinavia expanded south across the Baltic into the area between the Oder and Vistula rivers in the early centuries ce, although whether these expansions can be linked specifically with historical Goths is still debatable."

Speidel McColl (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

There is indeed a scholarly consensus linking the Chernyakhov culture to the Goths themselves, and as already mentioned there are also many scholars who believe the Chernyakhov culture has links of some kind with the Wielbark culture to its north (but as other scholars point out it shows similarities to other neighbouring cultures as well, as you'd expect). None of these things were determined using DNA evidence, and before these new articles were published there was no scholarly consensus about whether they implied migration. I am not sure what point you are making. Do you disagree with any part of the summary I made?

Concerning the implications for this Wikipedia article we should only use these articles to describe what new information they bring relevant to the Goths, if any. We should not use genetics articles for their summaries of previous literature about linguistics and archaeology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Here is a new article from Science that confirms what we already knew thanks to linguistics, archaeology, historiography...

Genetics is a genuine science. It does not require the academic consensus of "experts" driven by political and emotional motives".

https://www.science.org/content/article/barbarian-tribe-s-mythic-origin-story-true-ancient-dna-reveals Speidel McColl (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I did not say "genetics is not a science", and you have not explained whether you think my summary contains any mistakes. Also, concerning your final sentence it is in fact Wikipedia policy that we summarize the expert consensus as found in the most respected publications, and so Wikipedia IS for better or worse driven (at least for academic topics like this) by whatever biases that the most respected academics have. This is our imperfect but more-or-less doable mission here. There are other websites with different methodologies. In the meantime, I have created a new summary of McColl et al focussed on its relevance to Goths. Speidel et al does not really add anything to that. The "article from Science" you mention is from their news section and written by a journalist to summarize some things in academic articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I see you've reverted all my edits and called them blatantly POV, appealing for consensus on the talk page first. But here on the talk page I've asked you if you see any errors and your reply was instead a criticism of academics for their biases. Where are we going with all this? Did you find any errors in my summary of your edits above or in the summary of McColl I placed in the article? To be clear, as explained above, I DO see errors in your summary. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you wrote this in your edsum McColl et al mentions only the Ostrogoths and Visigoths as the primary cultural descendants of the original Goths. This seems to be your own attempt to put some bits of the article together into an argument to say that the authors don't mean what they say. However, the article actually refers to "the Ukrainian Ostrogoths". While this terminology is a bit odd, I can only presume that this refers to "original Goths" outside the empire, in the Chernyakhov culture, and not Goths within the Roman empire.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I've put your edits back per the 2024 consensus above. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on Speidel McColl to show consensus for including all these primary source studies and the ensuing synthesis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

There are two issues here. 1 the revert effected edits related to older sources and the 2024 discussion, but also 2: There are two new sources which were inserted yesterday, and not discussed in that previous discussion. Your input would be welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Are the two new sources inserted Speidel et al. (2025), and McColl et al (2026)? If so, the new editor might want to explain whether they have a conflict of interest, considering their chosen username. These sources are good papers, but they are primary research sources. There is simply no good reason why an encyclopaedic article should be collating and synthesising such primary research into what ought to be a tertiary article. The missing link here is the synthetic academic secondary sourcing. I am comfortable with keeping these out of the article. Speidel McColl is clearly well intentioned, but would do well to read our policy on Original Research to understand why we are not saying their information is necessarily wrong, but it cannot go into our tertiary encyclopaedic article on this sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Yes that's them. Genetics articles continue to be a dilemma on WP because there is no real secondary corpus we can use, and this is not going to change soon. I am not taking a strong position on that. I can see an argument for using big name articles like these two carefully, ie just reporting what they say, at least if there is no realistic doubt about their notability. But I also accept the validity of the counter argument, and will work with the consensus. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I have posted here a long list of primary and secondary sources, many of which had been removed by Lancaster from the main article. Lancaster can't even tell apart Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths, let alone understand the more complex articles and sources. Speidel McColl (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

The sources you have posted are not relevant to this discussion. Trying to prove something about one article by combining it with your knowledge of other sources is WP:SYNTH. I have asked you over and over to tell me what is wrong with my summary at the top of this thread, and with my text in the article which you deleted. Why won't you just answer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I have removed some clear instances of POV from the article. A few points for @Andrew Lancaster.

1) McColl et al. report that only the Ukrainian Ostrogoths and the Iberian Visigoths exhibit local ancestry.

"By contrast, later individuals associated with the East Germanic-speaking groups, the Ukrainian Ostrogoths and the Iberian Visigoths, are modelled with local ancestries"

The Wielbark culture, which is identified with the Goths, is of clear Scandinavian origin.

"A sixth-century origin legend of the East Germanic Goths claims a homeland on the Scandinavian Peninsula55. The earliest evidence of plausibly East Germanic-speaking populations out of Scandinavia are the individuals from the Wielbark culture of present-day Poland, dated to around 1950 BP 23"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09064-1

2) Speidel et al. confirm a massive migration of Scandinavian populations across the Baltic Sea toward Poland, which is consistent with the origins of the Goths, though it remains uncertain whether these were, in fact, Goths or other related tribes.

"The Wielbark archaeological complex has been linked to the later Chernyakhov culture to the southeast and to early Goths, an historical Germanic group that flourished in the second to fifth centuries ce 56. Our modelling supports the idea that some groups that probably spoke Germanic languages from Scandinavia expanded south across the Baltic into the area between the Oder and Vistula rivers in the early centuries ce, although whether these expansions can be linked specifically with historical Goths is still debatable."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08275-2

3) Stolarek et al. confirms the Scandinavian migration across the Baltic sea. They link the emergence of the Wielbark culture with the migration of people commonly referred to as Goths.

"This population existed in the basin of the Vistula River between the first and fifth centuries and then disappeared. Some theories link the emergence of the Wielbark culture with the migration of people commonly referred to as Goths [32]"

"Our recent analyses of mitochondrial genomes of IA groups associated with the Wielbark culture [[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10364380/#CR37 37], [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10364380/#CR38 38]] showed that from the matrilineal perspective, male individuals were genetically most similar to the IA southern Scandinavians, and their genetic history was different from that observed for females, who were associated most closely with the Middle Neolithic groups from Central Europe. This strongly suggests that peoples associated with the Wielbark culture were newcomers who mixed with the local population living in the territory of present-day Poland at the beginning of the CE."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10364380/

5) Golubiński et al. confirm the Scandinavian origin of the Wielbark culture, linking it to Gothic migrations.

"the Masłomęcz group (late 2nd to mid-5th century, distinguished within the Wielbark culture)"

"The group of Goths that settled in the eastern part of the Hrubieszów Basin (currently central part of Poland’s eastern border) is referred to as the Masłomęcz group, after the major archaeological site associated with these people located in the present village of Masłomęcz, 50 km East of Zamość"

"while the Masłomęcz group was built mostly on Scandinavian-derived ancestry it extensively assimilated individuals from diverse directions and distances, including the Baltics, the Balkans and even further into the Mediterranean, creating a highly genetically heterogenous population."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12924530/

6) Both Olalde et al. and Järve et al. link emergence of the ethnically heterogeneous confederations linked to the Chernyakhiv culture under Gothic leadership.

"Genetic makeup agrees with the Gothic source of post-Scythian Chernyakhiv culture"

"Genetic proof that migrants identified as Goths were ethnically diverse confederations"

"The appearance of individuals with admixed Central/Northern European and Pontic-Kazakh Steppe ancestry inside the Roman Empire in late antiquity reflects the Roman encounter with various trans-frontier populations in this period. Notably, many individuals reflect a prior process of population admixture between these two sources that likely occurred beyond the Roman frontier, perhaps indicative of, e.g., the formation of diverse confederations under Gothic leadership"

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/1-s2.0-S0092867423011352-main.pdf

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30712-2

7) These articles confirm the Scandinavian migration of Goths across the Baltic sea based on genetic and archaeological evidence.

https://www.science.org/content/article/barbarian-tribe-s-mythic-origin-story-true-ancient-dna-reveals

https://community.mytrueancestry.com/cosmopolitan-goths-archaeogenomic-evidence-for-a-genetically-diverse-maslomecz-community-in-late-iron-age-barbaricum/

https://web.archive.org/web/20231105160116/https://genomicatlas.org/2023/10/26/the-genetic-origin-of-the-goths/ Speidel McColl (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

You still aren't explaining any mistakes in anything I wrote. By the way, the authors did not write that "only" the Ukrainian Ostrogoths and the Iberian Visigoths exhibit local ancestry. You've added the word only, but you are misunderstanding their general model for the Goths in "two steps". Notice that the second step is "acculturation" which they clearly contrast with migration. Almost everything you write is really an argument for the importance of these studies for the Wielbark culture article. Even if there were no doubts at all about Wielbark-Gothic connections, the Wielbark culture is not the main topic of the Goths article. Like Gutones, it is at a topic related to the proposed origins of the Goths, before they were known as Goths. In the same way we have different articles for the Saxons in Britain and the Saxons in Germany, and it would be poor writing to try to merge these in to one mega-article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Your arguments contain elementary errors, as you have conflated the Goths with the Ostrogoths of Ukraine and the Visigoths of Iberia, demonstrating that you either failed to understand the relevant studies or did not read them at all.

There is a consensus, based on genetic data from many studies, regarding a Scandinavian migration to Poland via the Baltic Sea. This phase is followed by the formation of mixed confederations under Gothic leadership near the Black Sea. These facts are confirmed by a number of genetic studies, which in turn corroborate archaeological, linguistic, and historiographical evidence regarding the origins and the migrations of the Goths. Speidel McColl (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

You have still not explained what mistake I have made, at least not in any clear way. The McColl article talks about a "two step" model for the "ethnogenesis of the Goths" (all Goths), where the second step does NOT involve migration (or genetic links), but rather "acculturation". If you are trying to imply that the word "Goths" should also apply to the Wielbark culture then that's a confusing and unusual way of using words, but does not change the conclusion about relevancy to this article. There is no previous genetic study which has such a serious look at this amount of real evidence for this question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

You have confused the original Goths with their descendants, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, thereby contradicting the conclusions reached by McColl et al. It is clear that you have not understood this study, nor the other studies I posted previously (Speidel et al., Stolarek et al., Golubiński et al., Olalde et al. and Järve et al.)

""A sixth-century origin legend of the East Germanic Goths claims a homeland on the Scandinavian Peninsula55. The earliest evidence of plausibly East Germanic-speaking populations out of Scandinavia are the individuals from the Wielbark culture of present-day Poland, dated to around 1950 BP 23. We find these individuals to be modelled primarily by Eastern Scandinavian Bronze Age and Swedish Iron Age ancestry (Supplementary Note 5.7.4), supporting a migration from a region and population distinct from those of the West Germanic groups—a scenario that is consistent with Gothic oral history 50""

""By contrast, later individuals associated with the East Germanic-speaking groups, the Ukrainian Ostrogoths and the Iberian Visigoths, are modelled with local ancestries"

The "two step model" is a brief summary of the various studies cited, which, despite their differences, agree on a few things.

• The people of the Wielbark culture were of Scandinavian origin. The Wielbark culture is associated with the Goths and other related peoples such as the Gepids.
• Subsequent cultures associated with the descendants of the Goths, such as the Chernyakov culture, instead show a mixed origin.

You have not demonstrated that any of these things are false. Instead, your only argument is that there is no physical evidence of a Gothic presence in these cultures.

Speidel McColl (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that any of these things are false. This may be so, but Andrew Lancaster doesn't have to do that. The debate you are having indicates why we need a secondary source. If you rely on these primary sources and write what they think this means, you will arrive at a premature synthesis.

To be clear, looking at this very wordy debate, Andrew Lancaster has made some pertinent observations, but arguably has not established that the particular Ukrainian and Iberian samples justify his general conclusion about Gothic ancestry and migration. Okay, but several of your counter claims also go beyond what is established in the papers. Andrew Lancaster has picked up on some of these. When you say things like Archaeology confirms that these remains belong to a Germanic-speaking population, you are going beyond the qualifications/caveats in the papers. Speidel says "probably spoke Germanic languages"; McColl says "plausibly East Germanic-speaking".

Your arguments against Andrew Lancaster are ad hominem. But even where you strictly focus on the papers, the problem is that you are attempting to synthesise two primary research reports to reach a conclusion in this tertiary article. Once again: we cannot do that. We need the secondary reviews, which I don't think exist yet on this subject. Wikipedia is a lagging source. We write what the secondary sources say when they say it.

Or we find some newspapers and write nonsense that will be hard to dislodge and will mis-frame the matter. But I see no consensus for inflicting that approach on this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I have asked user:Speidel McColl to explain any mistakes in my summary at the top of this thread, or in my text in the article. Why not just do that?

Concerning the accusation of me being confused about whether McColl was referring to general Gothic ancestry the key sentence in McColl et al is not the one which mentions "Ukrainian Ostrogoths" and "Iberian Visigoths" but the one which clarifies the point just after that: The genetic evidence here is consistent with a two-step model on the ethnogenesis of the Goths: an initial migration from Scandinavia, followed by the acculturalization of others, including Baltic and Slavic groups. Note: simply "the Goths". In other words: The first step is a migration from Scandinavia (of men at least) which created the Wielbark population. The second step, the link between Wielbark and "the Goths" supposedly involved the transfer of culture without migration and transfer of genes. IMPORTANT: This conclusion comes from Jordanes. That is not hidden if you follow the citation trails. By definition this not genetic evidence. McColl, like many genetics sources, simply presumes that Jordanes is correct (and reflects an oral tradition etc). Jordanes scholars do NOT do that, and we should NOT use genetics articles for our Jordanes opinions on WP.

Bombarding this talk page with mentions of what other articles say (based on Jordanes and other non-genetic evidence) is a distraction, and entirely irrelevant to the question of what McColl et al says based on genetic evidence, which is what is relevant when we discuss how this article might be used.

For the record, user:Speidel McColl mentioned the sentence about the "Ukrainian Ostrogoths" and "Iberian Visigoths" sentence but misleadingly inserted the word "only" into it above, which is what I complained about. McColl does not insert the word "only", which twists the meaning, and does not talk about "original Goths", which is another term that Speidel McColl adds to the discussion. I don't see how any of this can be converted into an accusation against me that I have misunderstand McColl. The accusation itself is, once again completely unclear. I can't even be sure what user:Speidel McColl means by the term "original Goths". For anyone interested in this: (1) In careful scholarly terminology since Peter Heather's studies in the 1980s the Ostrogoths and Visigoths are seen as two peoples that formed within the Roman empire. To refer to Ukrainian Ostrogoths appears to be accepting the account of Jordanes, who assumed the division existed before the Goths entered the empire. If you follow Jordanes in this way then ALL Goths are either Visigoths or Ostrogoths, and the term "Ukrainian Ostrogoths" makes some sense. But IMHO Speidel McColl is not making any clear point here, and does not seem to want to.

(2) Finally, McColl et al does have supplementary information about this matter of the "Ukrainian Ostrogoths" and "Iberian Visigoths", so by all means read it. See page 177 here. The 1st paragraph is about the Lombards, the 2nd is about proposed Goth samples from southern Europe including in the Ukraine, and the 3rd is about Polish Wielbark samples. The one about the Goths says: This [The Lombard data] contrasts with the Ostrogoths and Visigoths of Southern Europe, in which the majority of individuals (12) are modelled primarily with Farming-related ancestries. Notably, two individuals from are modelled with a large amount of Northern European Bronze Age ancestry, however these are associated with Southern Scandinavia and the Baltic cline, rather than Eastern Scandinavia. Finally, two individual from Crimea are modelled with a large amount of Corded Ware ancestry rather than the more temporally close Iron Age ancestries, similar to the more local Sarmatian individuals that they cluster with. In other words it seems these authors include Crimean samples under Ostrogoths and Visigoths, and ALL OF THESE GOTH SAMPLES fail to match the Wielbark genetic profile.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

For the record, user:Speidel McColl mentioned the "Ukrainian Ostrogoths" and "Iberian Visigoths" sentence but misleadingly inserted the word "only" into it was what I was thinking of when I said you had already picked up on places where they had gone beyond the evidence. My general point is still that we don't need this debate as we can't use these sources in the way that Speidel McColl wants to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

That’s how it is. In any case, it’s entirely irrelevant. Even if I were to provide another 100 sources, both primary and secondary, Lancaster would either ignore them or misinterpret them, because doing so would run counter to the conjectures of some fringe historian.

Here are some secondary sources:

• Goths show it too: burials in Poland matched Scandinavian ancestry, but later Goths in Ukraine and Spain mostly carried local ancestry, which fits locals adopting Gothic language and identity

https://studyfinds.com/ancient-migrations-germanic-celtic-languages-spread/

• The Goths show how ancestry and identity can come apart. The earliest people who may have been Goths, from a culture in what is now Poland, mostly had Scandinavian ancestry, as the old story says, but Goths tested later in Ukraine and Spain mostly had local ancestry. The authors read that as people joining the Goths and taking on their language and identity without the migrants’ ancestry, though DNA records only ancestry and cannot show what language or identity a person claimed.

https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/11/a-previously-unknown-migration-reveals-the-origin-of-english-german-and-the-viking-tongue-4000-years-ago/

• The Goths tell a different story. Remains from the Wielbark culture, in what is now Poland and dating from about 2,000 years ago, descend mainly from eastern Scandinavia. That supports a sixth-century origin legend placing the Goths’ homeland in Scandinavia. The Goths who settled later in Ukraine and in the Iberian Peninsula, by contrast, carry almost entirely local ancestry. They seem to have adopted the Gothic language and identity rather than Gothic genes.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/english-s-ancient-roots-may-have-reached-scandinavia-800-years-later-than-thought-49906

• Skeletons across Europe confirm the Goths surged out of Scandinavia before sacking Rome

https://www.science.org/content/article/barbarian-tribe-s-mythic-origin-story-true-ancient-dna-reveals

• Overall, roughly three-quarters of the Masłomęcz men have male lines pointing to the Baltic Sea basin, with the closest ties to Scandinavia. A smaller fraction show Balto-Slavic, Baltic, or Balkan affinities. The male population was diverse, but with a clear Scandinavian backbone. The Masłomęcz group belongs to the wider Wielbark cultural complex, a cluster of archaeological cultures linked to the Goths as they expanded from the Baltic region.

https://community.mytrueancestry.com/cosmopolitan-goths-archaeogenomic-evidence-for-a-genetically-diverse-maslomecz-community-in-late-iron-age-barbaricum/

• Regular contacts between high-ranking groups in different geographic areas could eventually have developed into a close relationship between certain groups of the Wielbark culture and groups of people in Scandinavia, visible in similarities in material culture, language and burial customs. The archaeological record indicates that Jordanes’ history concerning the origin of the Goths was based on an oral tradition with a real background. "Stolarek et al. (2023) and Antonio et al. (2022) both sequenced genomes from the Wielbark culture Goths. Stolarek et al. includes samples from multiple sites all over the territory of the Wielbark culture, in large numbers. The results are in aligment with archaeological and historical evidence, strongly suggesting that the Wielbark culture formed through migration from Southern Scandinavia. A large majority of the Wielbark culture samples are autosomally Scandinavian-like, and carry predominantly Scandinavian Y-DNA haplogroups.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231105160116/https://genomicatlas.org/2023/10/26/the-genetic-origin-of-the-goths/

• Data from the study was in line with the hypothesis that the Iron Age Gothic/Wielbark population was comprised of individuals who immigrated from Northern Europe and mixed with the existing population in Poland. A new 2023 study of 474 individuals examines the origins and genome-wide DNA of the Iron Age Gothic and Wielbark cultures along with the Middle Age Slavs, of whom there is a similar debate on their arrival in Poland—one hypothesis being that the Slavs were already in Poland during the Iron Age and the other being that the Slavs did not arrive in Poland until at least the sixth century CE.

https://blog.familytreedna.com/gothic-origins/ Speidel McColl (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Please cease making it personal, and please slow down and read this more carefully. I am not your problem. These sources are simply not the types of sources Wikipedia allows us to use for this. Secondly, I am personally not opposed to explaining the conclusions which McColl et al. presents IF they are conclusions coming from their new genetic research. Its just that SOME of their positions are actually old positions already argued by others, and not coming from McColl et al's genetic research. (Your long list of articles from before McColl shows that you must understand this!) Thirdly, just to be clear, we DO ALREADY report those old positions on Wikipedia, using better sources. (We also report counter arguments.) But of course we shouldn't say they come from McColl et al's genetic work unless they did? Isn't that reasonable? Surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I'll go with the flow on policy issues. Sorry for the long posts everyone, but I think there were/are some misunderstandings about the new publications and they won't only be relevant today and on this one WP article. To put it in much shorter words: the McColl article has certainly made a real genetic case for a Scandinavia-Wielbark connection, and I was not arguing against that. It has also provided genetic evidence that if there is a Wielbark-Goth connection it was not in the form of a significant migration but rather more of a cultural influence. So in terms of the non-genetic literature they have given evidence that brings the position of Peter Heather into doubt, and they took a more "Vienna School" (Traditionskern) type of position. Whether they like it or not their genetic evidence is also consistent with the position of Kulikowksi, which is that there is no reason to assume Jordanes was right about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2026 (UTC)