User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Goths

NOTE. This is a page for constructive discussion of my drafting, and part of the user space of me, Andrew Lancaster. In order to stop a past problem of participants being discouraged, I've decided on a policy of quickly deleting or collapsing comments without warning, simply based on my judgement of which posts may become unhelpful or discouraging.

Introduction to this draft page, in case you are interested

Pinging current talk page participants on the Goths page. Berig, Nishidani, Obenritter, Peter K Burian, Bloodofox, Ermenrich, Srnec, Carlstak, Mnemosientje, SMcCandlish, Yngvadottir, Alcaios, Pfold, North8000, Krakkos

This is the talk page of my drafting page for the Goths article, which has existed for a long time. I've started work on it again with a focus on the first sections of the article. We currently have a third RFC there which has already looked at two drafts for a new single section to replace the current Prehistory and Early History sections. Two drafts have come and gone and are appreciated, but it was unanimous that more work was needed, and explanations such as that given by Obenritter have been noted as the right way forward. From Obenritter's comment from the article talk page:

General support but more trimming – Something more of a synopsis. Hypothetical: Origin myths and ethnic classification for the Goths remain disputed. These range from classical sources that claim the Goths migrated from Scandinavia (Jordanes' Getica)(source citation accompanied by short explanatory note), their emergence as misidentified groupings of Butones, Gutones, etc. (source citation), whether they were originally Scythians (source citation), or XXXXX. Archaeological findings and linguistic analysis also complicate the discussion as XXXXX claims that XXXX while so and so claims XXXX (source citations).

I've also noted some problems I think are very critical. From the article talk page (my "vote" in the 3rd recent RFC).

RFCs is that Jordanes discussion should be reduced, but his influence should not be hidden. We should not place the stories of Jordanes in modern clothing. Why mention Jordanes at all if we do not mention that he is the original source of the idea that the ancestors of the Goths took part in 2 migrations? I think we must handle him first then, letting our readers know about his influence on historians. That would be the quickest way to handle him. We can quickly summarize that Jordanes is not considered reliable, but various recent scholars argue for one or both migrations being some kind of reflection of real events (but probably not a real migration). Then we can quickly mention (1) the Gutones (but less detail), (2) the archaeological evidence of Scandinavian contacts with the Vistula, and OTOH Wielbark culture (Vistula) influence on the Chernyakhov culture, which is widely considered Gothic (3) the newer thinking that instead of a migration there were smaller scale influences. (I don't think anyone wanted less of 2 and 3, but perhaps even more. These 2 points have been de-emphasized and over-simplified in some past versions. 3 currently has no home article either.) So this comment is based on what I understand the RFC responses are saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC) List of concerns with first and second proposals (Work still needed): Simple equation of Gutones with Goths is not acceptable. It is not found in scholarly sources. And we have a Gutones article. This is a case of making certainties out of uncertainties. Title "Early Goths" is not acceptable. For same reason. Discussion on this talk page suggest there is near unanimity among recent editors that Origins of the Goths would be suitable for this topic. (It has been discussed as possibly needing a new article.) I would, predictably, prefer something more uncertain like "Origin hypotheses" or "Origins debates". Over-simple attitude of 2 migrations of Jordanes is not acceptable, and just mentioning Jordanes less hides the source of these migration stories, which makes the situation worse, not better. We agreed not to do this in previous RFCs. No mention of the modern scholarly pro-Jordanes argument. We are now including no mention at all of the very fundamental issue that scholarly proponents of Jordanes now rarely believe in real migrations, but rather culutral influences. (Heather's understanding of the second migration is obviously an exception, but does not constitute a consensus.) This seriously misleads our readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

first discussion

One of the biggest problems is that the two drafts insist on ignoring that Wikipedia already has a Gutones article. Quite honestly I have no idea how we can go into a more complex drafting discussion in that RFC format, so I wanted to make sure you were all aware of this page, and I invite you to post here, and within reason to edit directly into the draft. Perhaps it will help. Please remember it is only a draft, not a proposed edit. Don't get mad at me for missing things or mistakes, just tell me (if you find this an interesting draft) what you think needs fixing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure what "the two drafts insist on ignoring that Wikipedia already has a Gutones article" means, and this kind of hyperbole (which you used in some excess at the talk page) is not helpful, to anyone. If your meaning is that a lot of detail about the Gutones should merge to Gutones instead of being in the Goths article, I would probably agree with that, and I think at least one other would as well. I'm finding this page hard to parse, though; for whatever reason, your attempt to 50/50 it did not work (at least not in Chrome on Win10); there may be stray empty cells or something. I'm seeing a vary narrow first (left) column in each table, then a very,very wide second (right) one, that marches off-screen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: I see what you mean about my comments concerning the aim of the other two drafts, but my honest interpretation of the intention is based on the explanations of the author around the time I think you entered the discussion, so you may have missed it: This article should focus on what is normally assumed by scholars, while taking note of minority viewpoints. It already does that. Our article Gutones is a POV fork based on a minority viewpoint and a more or less a verbatim copy paste of material from Goths and name of the Goths, and should probably again be a redirect to this article. Two controversial aims connected to these drafts ARE (I believe) (1) that this section will replace the current Gutones article, and that this version of the Gutones will be "Early Goths". I think I am right about this, but would be glad to be proven wrong. Not sure what's wrong with the columns. They work for me in Chrome. Potentially I could simplify the format in the relevant Origins section and remove the table, because the first column is not currently serving as much purpose as it sometimes does.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Can you read it now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Yes! The columnar layout is working well now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) BTW I've cheated (it is my page!) and edited the starting post, after you responded to it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC) I do that, too. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Andrew, I am not entirely sure mine is the right way forward, but like Berig, Nishidani, Carlstak, and SMcCandlish have noted, we do need to simplify the structure accordingly without burdening the text with scholarly disputes. Your disagreements and lengthy debates with Krakkos are not necessarily helping here. My suggestion is that both of you submit draft write ups on the section in dispute and let the remaining editors comment and/or deconflict the content. Then walk away from it. To be honest, we might be better off letting a high-caliber neutral scholar like Nishidani (provided they agree to do it) perform the perfunctory content deconfliction and final copy edit. Since I have studied under the tutelage of Wolfram, I might not be considered an unbiased editor/contributor here (atop the fact that we've had spats between us) or I'd offer my services to this end. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your vote of confidence in recognizing a potential solution and in finding a way forward.--Obenritter (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC) For what it's worth, Obenritter and I are of the same mind on this, and I had been thinking along just the same lines. I believe Nishidani would be well-suited to the task, should he so choose. Carlstak (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC) @Obenritter and Carlstak: does not yet sound like a clear plan, but the kind of thinking makes sense to me at first sight. Although, it may now be a side issue Obenritter, I started with what is clearly only some pointers that it seems other people liked. No need to fear me taking that too seriously. Also the sources on this draft are only for drafting purposes, and done in the "answering an argument" style currently used on the article (for now). These tend to be sources not yet used on the article, so additional. What is more important, if possible, is that I believe any other editors with the energy should give criticisms, compliments etc. I believe the aim has to be not making this a competition, but everyone trying to bring us to similar results, with the same aim. Simple would be good: This needs a better source. This is useless detail. Something is missing. The other guy's version is better in this bit. :) Make sense? Perhaps play with ideas, but I'd avoid making the spirit too competitive. We need a more collegial spirit and this could help - I guess. @Obenritter, Carlstak, Nishidani, and SMcCandlish: This sounds like a good idea. Andrew and i could each write a draft of the disputed section in cooperation with others editors. A neutral observer, such as one of you, could then post an RfC at Talk:Goths asking the community which version they think is preferable. To prevent the talk page from being clogged, both Andrew and i could stay entirely away from the RfC discussion and let our drafts speak for us. If the community can reach consensus on which version that is preferable, we could ask EdJohnston to perform an administrative closure, and replace the disputed section with the preferred version. After that the community could copy edit the new version further as they see fit. Krakkos (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Pleased (and honestly happily surprised) to see that reply!! To go back to what I said before an perfect result would be that Krakkos and I have drafts which approach each other and become the same. I am not saying that is realistic, but if we can get down to a small number of specific choices, people (or an umpire) can then pick and choose more easily and make a final version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I'm flattered that some editors have named me in a possible overseer function. The obvious objection is that I am incompetent, in the sense that several editors here are clearly thoroughly at home in, and have ready access to the major sources. I haven't seen the inside of a public library for 15 years, and though I have 5,000+ books, the only one that deals specifically with Goths is Mierow's 1914 annotated translation and commentary of Jordanes. Sure, I have downloaded lots of jstor etc material, which I am reading. But really, one has to have several fundamental books at one's fingertips to do that. I'm very impressed by the erudition here, and I think Obenritter, or Carlstak could do what has been proposed with neutrality. I must admit that I tend both to be partial to Andrew's general take: it just sits more comfortably with the minimalist rigour in what one can do with, infer from, texts and commentaries, in the way I was trained. And I do have a debt to him: he rode shotgun on my revision of a topic, in an area I have far greater ethnographic familiarity with, tribal steppe societies like the Khazars. I twitch instinctively at anything that smacks of, or lends itself to being read as, identitarian ethnic interpretation (ie, as in Japanese ethnography, or the politics of reading the I&P conflict, or more broadly the collectivist interpretation of that extraordinary world constituted by Jewish cultures). The practical objection is that I have a huge offwiki workload in spring, as an amateur gardener. 8-10 hours in my gardens will be the norm for the following month, and that renders close and continuous attention to these pages almost impossible. That said, I am relieved to see that a framework for resolving the differences between two highly informed editors has been found. I'll be more than happy to offer what little I can on specific conflicts between the emerging alternative versions. Best regards to all. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Well I imagine what we're are talking about is not meant to be create a wheel-of-fortune winner-take-all competition, and won't have a deadline or be too formal, this being Wikipedia, where nothing is enforceable. Unless someone says otherwise I see no reason we can't just work on these for a while, slowly. Other editors are in any case free to pick bits out of them that they like and improve the article anyway, within reason. I stand open for ideas. But I do have stronger concerns about some principles like "certainties becoming certainties" or "Jordanes through the back door" which I have described as red lines. I think those simple principles are based on WP policy, and would have consensus as RFC's on their own. So if this is going to head towards a "winner" declaring that the losers are banished and their preferences and those of people who preferred them can be ignored, that would not be a good result. So having the aim of a final "third version" to be built from the "best of" sounds better to me. If my red lines really sound extreme to others then it may mean we need to work another way (in parallel, or prior), for example having a few more RFCs on some of those principles? Not sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I don't think there will be one winner. Two editors will show their versions, and third parties will look at both, and probably work out a synthesis of the best in both, in turn subject to comments by all parties. That's my understanding (in the SAQ article I alluded to, neither Tom Reedy or I won: he revised my version of the page, and I revised his work, then third parties went through the result like a dose of salts, weeding, rewriting, or imposing policy criteria. What worked there was the decision to go from a long start status dumping ground of crap (as we had in Khazars) and given the opportunity aim for FA quality from the outset. I think that's what you both should do: design a page that aspires to get an FA candidature.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I'm flattered by Nishidani's confidence, but I'm not competent to take this on, either; Obenritter, on the other hand, is eminently qualified and has access to the needed academic sources. Despite his reservations, I believe he could be an impartial "umpire" or "overseer" of the process, and he seems to get along well with all the involved editors. I think Nishidani's idea to "design a page that aspires to get an FA candidature" is a splendid one. I hope Obenritter has the inclination and the time to shepherd this article. Krakkos seems to be fully on board, and Andrew Lancaster seems to be as well, I think, with some qualifications. He suggests having a few more RFCs on some of his red line principles, but may I say that he has complained several times that the RFC regimen imposed by EdJohnston is unworkable. Working with the aim of an FA candidature looks like the way forward for the article, in my opinion. I will help any way I can, and there is a lot of talent that's commented lately on the RFCs—surely some of the commenters would join in. I've just got a big commission, so my time will be limited, except on random days off. PS: Nishidani knows gardening is good for the soul. More WP editors should take it up.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC) @Carlstak: I am not against all RFCs. My concern on this article is EdJohnston's proposal that all types of editing proceed by RFCs. To be honest this does not suit what I contribute best. I am accustomed to the back-and-forth of BRD rather than having to write perfectly. I am not someone who finishes off "award winning" articles. I like criticism. I see myself as a contributor, and I enjoy the dialogue and learning process. OTOH, I should clarify that I am not strongly proposing any RFCs right now, just pointing out that we've effectively stopped them, whereas I am still concerned that we should not yet count our chickens. There seem to be some "red line" issues hanging around which could keep opinions far apart. Indeed though, if we have a strong synthesizing step at the end which has enough support, rather than a winner-take-all contest, it sounds worth trying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Carlstak Not sure Andrew would agree that I am the appropriate "interventionist" editor here, given my connection to one of the aforementioned "schools" of thought. Likewise, I am also extremely busy (like you) and edit Wikipedia to relax. Based on the seemingly vitriolic nature of this long-standing debate between these two, which is an ironic simulacra of what's been occurring within academia for some time, I am not sure it's a task anyone would want. Nishidani has more or less baulked at this undertaking, citing other more enjoyable things to do and you've pointed out being busy as well. That's one of the fundamental difficulties when things get a bit "ugly" on Wikipedia; namely, who has the time or (borrowing your word), the 'inclination' to mediate such wrangles. Baulk? Me?!! Give me a minefield and I'd volunteer to dance the light fantastic over it, almost instinctively. Building a 7 metre-long a stone wall (photo proof available on request), among a dozen other tasks, really does have me, as they say downunder, flat out like a lizard slaking its thirst. By the way, we are being thrown masses of sources, but, chaps and chapesses, there's quite a lot of obvious stuff to be done. I just noted, looking in over a tea break and smoko, that the Historia Augusta's mention of the sacking of Istria in 238 is taken at face value. That's under challenge archaeologically, surely? Apologies in any case.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Nishidani, that comment was not meant negatively, I understand being otherwise preoccupied with gardening tasks. My own life is replete with similar objectives, having recently built a new house from the ground up (but a 7-metre stone wall--good grief). My landscaping work is enough to keep me occupied for months too, let alone work, academic commitments, and family obligations. You're right of course, there are loads of sources and materials through which to sift, atop the deconfliction and appropriate balance of what those sources say. We need a disinterested and neutral somebody who has not already been involved in some of this disputation (unlike me) and who has the right disposition (somebody like you or others I've mentioned) to parse the material and find the happy medium.--Obenritter (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC) A 7-metre wall? What are you doing, Nishidani, rebuilding the hanging gardens of Babylon? ;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Both of these editors can intransigently argue something to death like few I've known (sorry if that hurts either of your feelings, it's just my opinion). It's one of the reasons why I completely abandoned the Germanic peoples page a few years ago. Every edit on that page became an arduous disputation, even in cases where chronology and readability corrections were attempted. Like Krakkos rightfully stated, Andrew either deleted or rewrote mounds of well-written, mainstream, academically substantiated content without discussion. When I attempted to restore it, the hefty Talk page discourse disinclined me entirely from engaging further. It's not that Andrew is unwilling to work with others (he always means well from what I can discern), it's the degree and scale of the enterprise that dissuaded me. The "time-suck" is just too significant. Carlstak, it's rather unfortunate that you're too busy, since you dexterously handle prose and content about as masterfully as anyone. Perhaps Berig, Ermenrich, or SMcCandlish has the time and predilection to mediate this matter, but real-world commitments, would likely impede my ability to do this task justice. I'll do what I can when I have the time or energy, but somebody else will need to honcho this effort. --Obenritter (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC) FYI, I'm in the same boat; I can't keep up with just the discussion part of it any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks Obenritter, I do enjoy a challenge.;-) Ermenrich has done really superb work on the article he recently created, Germanic heroic legend, with input from Berig, for anyone who hasn't seen it. I do understand his position here, though. Berig and Andrew Lancaster had a rather contentious exchange, not sure about the status of that. Carlstak (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Sorry, Obenritter, I'm busy both with other Wiki-activities that I'd like to complete and also the whole atmosphere around Goths and Germanic peoples is fairly unpleasant and I, like you, have preferred to stay away. We've seen what, like 5 RfC's in the last week? This is like the last time this topic exploded... I'm happy to offer occasional comment, but I'm certainly not allowing myself to get sucked into the endless disputes here.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC) I don't think it is necessary to burden anyone with being me and Andrew's babysitter. I think the best way forward is for Andrew and me to begin writing drafts for the origins and early history sections of Goths. While working on our drafts we can seek community input and continuously develop them through being inspired by each others work. Ideally we could try to merge both drafts into a single whole. If that doesn't work, a third-party editor could present both drafts to the community as an RfC and ask which version that is preferable. I think this would be an efficient way to create a higher quality article. In such a scenario our arguments would be presented through the quality of our drafts. There would be no need for Andrew and me to argue over anything at talk. That would probably benefit both Andrew and me and the community as a whole. Krakkos (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC) This sounds good, Krakkos, but it will only work if you two work independently, and stay off each other's draft talk pages. This saga has gone on too long. Carlstak (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the encouragement, Carlstak. I think it would benefit all parties concerned if Andrew and i spent more time on article development and less time on talk page squabbling. Drafting is a great way to ensure that. Rather than writing drafts for individual sections at the time, i suggest that we could each write a draft for the rewrite of the entire article. That would prevent the talk page from being continuously clogged with new proposals and squabbles. If we could merge our drafts that would be perfect. If not, the community could decide which version they prefer, and then build further upon it. I believe this is the best way to ensure a swift and happy ending to the saga for all parties concerned. What do you say Andrew? Krakkos (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Krakkos my answer is that actually I think our discussions yesterday, though long, were a bit different, because we got to some real topics a few times. But if you want to make a big point of the history of problems, honestly you make the talk page discussions difficult for other editors in ways which are clearly un-necessary. (Why did you restart a thread from a week ago yesterday as if it were new, and refuse to allow me to archive any of the closed threads? Why do you never you short forms or diffs but always post the longest possible quotes, post quotes multiple times, post quotes from unrelated topics into the middle of threads? Why do you constantly start new talk page discussions when there is a thread already existing? etc.) Secondly, this is unfortunately one of your traditional attempts to get me eliminated from a talk page. As long as that is your main focus of your actions, you lose credibility as an editor working with other editors, because you clearly can't be properly focused on the sources and making the best article. Stop it please. Learn from the past. (BTW I'm not sure you read Carlstak's post properly. Carlstak asked you not to post here anymore. Your hasty misreadings of sources and posts is probably connected to the intense focus you have on looking for ways to battle on WP. Please learn to avoid that.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC) That's it. Sorry, I'm out. I can't do this anymore; I'm too old, and I want to make the most of the time I have left. These "discussions" require too much of that time, as well as the mental energy that I'd rather spend on the many drafts I have in my own text editor. Good luck. Carlstak (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Ermenrich WP is very flexible, but your input, even if only occasional, can definitely help I think. I understand your reluctance. It would however be great if you can watch the discussions and drafting a bit and comment occasionally. While difficult, this is definitely a talk page that has always tended to be helped greatly when more people contribute. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is to try to create an article which has a better atmosphere. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC) NishidaniObenritterErmenrichCarlstakSMcCandlishNorth8000KrakkosSrnec just saying: A "fail" would be a result which does not create a consensus (or, being less naive, creates more bad feelings than were necessary). Both a simple win/lose RFC "vote", or a simple "dictatorship" option have a higher risk of creating such a result, if they go wrong. The most likely dynamic which would cause this would be if the drafting and discussions become highly polarizing, rather than converging. I much prefer that we close no doors, and think of these drafting discussions as probably leading to an eventual synthesis (while also not ruling out the option of simply using someone's draft holus bolus). In other words, if we end up with highly polarized ideas, then we want to avoid a win/lose decision and go for a synthesis process of some kind? I furthermore think that using material from either draft, at any time, to simply improve the article bit-by-bit, or to fit into other drafts or whatever, should be encouraged, because this is not a competition, and the real aim is to improve this article. This way might even end up being more successful. In terms of remarks about me above, it is all taken in good spirit, but I do fear that one misperception has been spread which causes problems: I have been criticized in many ways, because I like working on articles where others can't be bothered, but when people have said that I am more sceptical than many editors, or more concerned with understanding the scholarly debates than other editors, I think they sometimes have a point. Inconsistent with that, when people involved in controversial articles describe me as having whatever intransigent position is the opposite of theirs, for example on this article or Germanic peoples, this is just human nature in such situations. Please don't slide into that warm bath. Obenritter, Germanic peoples keeps getting mentioned, but I want to remind you that on Goths most editors seem to agree to farm out detailed sections when possible. I would say that is also what was begun on Germanic peoples a year ago, and it really had to. Sometimes your descriptions to others about what happened shock me a bit. I say this only so we can both try to avoid that history getting in the way. FWIW BTW it seems people still find that article too long, and it probably needs more farming out. For a long time, I have done very little, and others have added to the article while complaining about the length. The difficulty is that everyone agrees that the article is too long, except in whatever their favorite section is (e.g. languages, which are clearly the most easily seperable topic). The one topic which has no other home article is the much published-about question of who the Germanic peoples were, and different ways of defining them, which was actually hardly handled at all previously. We will continue to see some editors argue, in effect, that this should not even be mentioned on Wikipedia. I think that is just typical in this type of situation. My opposition to that can be thought of in the terms explained above: If I am intransigent, one of the things I am intransigent about is converting uncertain, complex, or debated positions into simple, certain facts. (Note: I obviously have no problem with the idea of shortening or summarizing things. That is different than turning uncertain things into certain things.) So that is what guides me, and how I can be understood best IMHO. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC) The "bit-by-bit" approach isn't working very well though. I think most editors are tired of being pinged on a daily basis and asked to comment on one proposal after the other. A better approach would be to make a large draft encompassing the entire article and submit it as a single proposal to the community. During the drafting process we can seek community input and gradually adapt material from each others drafts, with the ideal aim of the drafts merging into a single whole. The community consists of many knowledgeable editors, and i doubt these editors would appreciate either of us pushing specific narratives. We will also be able to identity key sources of dispute which may be presented to the community for discussion. If a merger of the drafts can't be done, we can present both drafts to the community for a review, and replace the current version with the version preferred by the community. This would be an effective way to create a coherent and balanced article with a solid foundation for future work. Krakkos (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Andrew, the things I stated were indeed facts and not intended to denigrate you in any way. Intransigence means you stick to your guns as much as it does anything else. It can be a good and bad trait at the same time. Like I stated before, sometimes as subject matter experts and scholars, we can get in our own way and encumber Wikipedia, forgetting that it is an encyclopedia and not the Oxford Journal of Ancient Studies. Always consider audience when editing here. You avowal of being intransigent about "converting uncertain, complex, or debated positions into simple, certain facts" is great, but it's also why I explained that we should just summarize these matters (cite a source with page numbers) vice exhaustively elucidating them on Wikipedia. Your assertion that the "much published-about question of who the Germanic peoples were, and different ways of defining them" was "hardly handled at all previously" is not especially accurate. It was not comprehensively explained in the Oxford Journal style discourse you prefer, but it is decidedly disingenuous to claim that it was more or less ignored. You used that issue as a pretext to overemphasize that aspect. It is part and parcel to this discussion as well, since a similar problem has been identified. If you're trying to deny that you obliterated many months worth of work from the Germanic peoples page at your unilateral discretion, we can take a quick review together (independent of this forum) to see that was indeed the case. Why would the "truth" shock you in any way and if you're trying to stay out of that "warm bath" as you intimate, why bring it up again? Instead of fighting through every edit with you on that page, I walked away from it—just like I will do now on this one. I'm out, you've succeeded in sucking the life from me and I'll permit no more. Servus alle. Happy editing.--Obenritter (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC) @Obenritter: to be clear, obviously I deleted a lot of material on Germanic peoples. (Mostly by you, me and Krakkos. All three of us were filling it up in 2019 with no real coordination between us. If you want to look at old diffs look at the article in December 2019.) What surprises me is how often you write about it still, in a seemingly bitter way. I am not the one constantly bringing it up in various places, so indeed, let's not. Here is what I find important for Goths in your post: being intransigent about "converting uncertain, complex, or debated positions into simple, certain facts" is great, but it's also why I explained that we should just summarize these matters (cite a source with page numbers). Exactly! I agree. The reason I spend time on the scholarly debates on talk pages and draft pages during situations like this is exactly because we are trying to reduce it on the mainspace article page. Good summarization, which does not distort the meaning/balance, is not a simple job, but requires some double-checking of how the field works, how they define their terms, how their argumentation fits together, and so on. It can't just be done by googling for isolated words for example. I hope you will support that approach. OTOH IMHO, for Goths the field is not that complicated, and so a lot of the talk page space etc is being taken up with explaining apparent disagreements about (IMHO) obvious misreadings or distortions of sources. In my experience on working in such situations, there really have been an extraordinary number of very long-lasting issues on this article concerning interpretation of sources. That is playing a major role in the appearance of our discussion threads on Goths, IMHO. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

second discussion

A criticism of Lead draft Not sure where to put this, Andrew Lancaster, so feel free to move it wherever you see fit. You've solicited criticisms, so to begin, the first sentence of your "drafting notes after RFCs" version is too complex, with too many subordinate clauses, effectively piling relative clause on top of relative clause. It does not compare favorably to the prose of the first paragraph in the 2 April version for readability. Also, you've placed the "prehistory of the Goths" paragraph at the end of the lede, out of chronological order; that device can be effective, but doesn't seem to work here, causing the reader (this one, anyway) to pause and backtrack mentally. Carlstak (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC) @Carlstak: thanks. You are right about the first paragraph and I'll accept your point about the chronology. In my mind there is another simpler proposal for this section which is simply to return to the 18 March version which I will now add for comparison. This keeps the chronological order which Krakkos also argues for, but then I wonder if we are happy with the way that second paragraph focuses all attention on "Pre Goths" as Goths. More important for me was reintroducing some sort of boundaries in the first paragraph to define when and where a reader might expect to find Goths, which was removed after 18th March. (I suppose this is in order to blur the line between Goths and Pre-Goths, which is something I am strongly opposed to.) A penny for your thoughts on the March 18 version. Background. I've started a new section for this, as you can see. Your comments are on the Lead draft, not the Origins section draft. That's fine by me, but just to be clear it has a different back-story to the new Origins section, which was the subject of the latest RFC and discussions above. Put simply, this section draft has had less work or discussion. This section was discussed here and in my RFC, but then SMcCandlish put the breaks on that RFC discussion. The concerns with the recent changes to this section does not necessarily need any RFC or special actions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Of the three leads presented here I'd say the 2 April version is the best so far. It deals with the basics chronologically without going to much into Jordanes and other questionable details, and is the shortest and most readable. Krakkos (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks Krakkos. Of course that is your version, so that is no surprise, but I certainly don't want any of us ignoring your points. FWIW though, it is shortest because it removed anything which might distinguish Gutones from Goths, and now simply equates them. This is of course being discussed in other places, but I just register it as relevant to the lead changes you made (without prior discussion or consensus).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC) The coverage of Gutones is the same in both versions and was never changed. Both versions state that they are "possibly early Goths". Krakkos (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Sure, but surely we all admit that the overall effect of the changes, including the removal the typical type of "where and when" sentence from the first paragraph, and the leap to Jordanes, and changes in other sections, is to make the Gutones the "Early History" of the Goths. That is indeed the intention you've defended elsewhere. If it was not your intention, then why not try to tweak it to avoid it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Carlstak FWIW I have made a much shorter lead draft. It avoids the Gutones etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC) While slightly shorter than the current version, this lead draft is not an improvement. It misrepresents the cited sources. The cited sources from Heather (2012) and Heather (2018) says the Goths were a "Germanic people"/"Germanic tribe", but your draft uses the neologism "East Germanic-speaking people". Likewise, the lead draft states flatly that "They were first reported by Graeco-Roman authors in the 3rd century AD", but the cited source from Heather (2018) says that they were "first attested immediately south of the Baltic Sea in the first two centuries". In addition, your lead draft has completely removed information about the Wielbark culture, Chernyakhov culture, Thervingi and Greuthungi, which Heather includes in his recent summaries of Gothic history. Instead you further increased coverage on Roman perspectives. This is contrary to the consensus at Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus, which suggests that emphasis of Roman perspectives should be reduced in favor of perspectives in modern scholarship. Krakkos (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC) We should not be taking all our cues from the little tertiary article by Heather. We can split up our articles as we want, and that changes over time. Thanks for the feedback.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Best practice, in an intensely documented topic, is to avoid highly synthetic overviews, even by noted authorities. The compression required for short articles can lead to simplifications that underestimate controversies in the real world of a discipline. Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC) The body of the article should certainly prioritize the use of secondary sources, and we should of course not take "all our cues" from a single work. The purpose of the lead is to present an overview of our topic, and i think overviews on this very topic by our foremost authorities should serve as a source of inspiration with regards to structure and weight. Krakkos (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC) As far as I can intuit (and I must admit I haven't read most of these exhausting exchanges) Andrew and yourself differ in terms of two ground themes (a) Are Goths originative to Scandinavia, or were they formed more westerly, and (b) in using the ethnic descriptor Goths, are we suggesting a coherent ethnic group, or does the term allow for a congeries of multiethnic groups coalescing into the historic people who irrupted into the Roman empire. The two views can be, if this is correct, reconciled by tactful balancing of the opposed viewpoints, per sources, surely? Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC) @Nishidani: those would be two issues that have been active, but I think you could would both our disagreements differently. In both cases, the position of Krakkos is that Wikipedia "voice" should take the position of one scholar or group of scholars, who we know do not agree with the whole field, and others should preferably not be mentioned, but if mentioned, then only as an aside (as a compromise). In the case of the Gutones, the proposal is to treat them as Goths and call them Goths on the basis that it is possible to find sources which do this in places. I think the argument is wrong to begin with, but also wrongly executed even if the method was approved, because it relies cherry-picking and actually won't be explaining things the same way as those sources. Obviously a longer text which argues for a complex type of equation between two concepts with distinct names always also contains other passages which contain the two distinct words being contrasted. I believe/hope there is no difference of opinion between us about the fact that many scholars see the Gutones and Goths as sharing the same ethnic name, and being somehow culturally connected. And also that very few scholars actually see one population as the ancestor of the other, except in the sense of small numbers of people moving. (Heather takes one of the strongest positions, saying it was probably many small groups over a long time.) Equating the two groups, without all the extra explanation, will be telling our readers they are literally the same population, moved from one place to another. That would clearly be wrong. In the case of Swedish origins I am actually wondering if there has been convergence if Krakkos sees my latest draft and looks at our discussions of yesterday. I think this topic was made artificially difficult in recent weeks by the various attack posts etc which were not done by Krakkos. The concern of me has again be an issue of making uncertain or complex things into a simple story (such as a simple movement of a whole population from one place to another) which is actually a changed story.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC) I'm also sorry that the discussions have developed into such exhaustive exchanges. There are indeed quite a few questions of disagreement between Andrew and me. Many of these questions, such those outlined above, are of fundamental nature and affect multiple sections of this article. That's why i have proposed above that Andrew and i with community input start working on drafts covering the entire article, which over time will hopefully merge into a common whole. This method will help us avoid exhaustive exchanges, and will hopefully ensure that we reach a more coherent, consensus-based and balanced version over time. Krakkos (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC) There are no 'truths' in history (let alone elsewhere), only positions, logically /and or empirically stronger and weaker. So, Goths/Gutones is, in this sense not an aut/aut identity or difference question, but an hypothesis of similarity which has varying degrees of support or disagreement. One just, in a line or two, synthesizes this aspectual discord, without groaning in the bowels of doctrinal issues about which line is correct. We won't know. But one can describe the divergences of view concisely. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Questions of a "fundamental nature"? Can you name one? We must be in completely different discussions. I spent a day in discussion with you yesterday but most of the discussions were simply about what sources say, and whether or not a certain way of summarizing them is neutral. I could summarize them in a short paragraph, because none of them should be as difficult as they are. What is so fundamental about them? I fear that you are seeing your preferred draft competition format, where discussion stops until the magic win or lose day, as a way of avoiding the sorts of discussion that are needed if we really just want a better article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC) A quick glance at User:Andrew Lancaster/Goths and User:Krakkos/sandbox/Goths makes it evident that we have quite differing views on fundamental questions such as structure, topic, weight and style. We did spend a day discussing, but we have almost nothing to show for it. I want to avoid such pointless squabbling, and it seems to me like there quite a few other editors who are wary of this squabbling too. Presenting our visions for the future of the Goths article in draft is a much better way to improve the article than hammering the talk page with new proposals and repetitive squabbles on a daily basis. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Please name an example of a "fundamental question", and explain what you think our disagreement is in that case. I can see it is very important to you that everyone sees hopeless squabbles on a daily basis, but I don't know of any real solid basis to them. I only see basic questions of what sources say, and how to summarize them, which would normally be over much more quickly. I think anyone interested in better consensus would simply answer Nishidani's question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Well, at this point, I suggest that you both just desist from talk page discussions on any of these pages, and work respectively on your ideal versions. I'm sure very few editors are following this, and therefore it is only a timesink for the very editors concerned themselves. One suggestion is that much can be boiled down, and, to avoid losing valuable material, relocate on sister pages whatever is weeded out or, even (as I often do) leave the details to footnotes in a efn template. I reckon the details about Pliny Strabo etc., Gutones, can be done in two lines, Andrew sourcing them to Roland Steinacher, 'Hintergründe und Herkommen der Barbaren am Schwarzen Meer im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. und die Meistererzählung von der Wanderung,' in in Crisis: Gothic Invasions and Roman Historiography, Wien 2020, 403–421 p.409 for example and Krakkos to the sources (with quotes) he thinks appropriate, for example. A break is needed as there are clear signs of exhaustion here. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) @Nishidani: If it is a competition between two people working on their own I really fear the artificial polarization and deliberately circular discussions have worked and won't go. The best we'll end up with temporarily will be something like the place we were at on March 18, which was changed quickly and easily when an opportunity arose, and apparently can't even be returned to that level of hard-won consensus. I would much rather the drafting to be a community process and if it is being made impossible on the article talk page then the obvious solution is to have it here. I can collapse the above sections and ban Krakkos from this page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Rivalry is the curse of the ivory tower, only vanquished when scholars take to the subject with such an intrinsic curiosity that research becomes, rather than a contest with peers, a competition with oneself: mastery of the topic, its various ideological drifts, one's own assessment of how to synthesize the conflicting narratives, and, then, above all, writing it all up with constantly in mind the awareness of what an informed reader who shares one of the two positions would see as defects in the resulting draft, so, taking these imagined objections into consideration, the version that emerges is relatively foolproof to idle nitpicking. For example, Andrew, I think privately that the Scandza story is a rhetorically contrived piece of imitative Roman ethnogenetic rhetoric of someunusable tidbit of skewed information. But when I do think of it, I keep in mind that Dumézil, for one, found (Romans de Scythie et d'alentour Payot 1978 passim), after he mastered Ossetic in the late 1920s, that they retained core elements of traditions that their Scythian forefathers had entertained over two millennia earlier. This means I can't allow my personal skepticism to interfere in such cases with what authorities right in regard to an issue like that. The method above explains how I did the Birkat HaMinim page: reading for years, making notes, and then, quietly in three weeks, writing it all up, and plunking it down into wikipedia. It's not perfect, but every line is balanced to take into account the objections I imagined would arise from the various schools who have exhaustively researched that tabu topic. It has barely been touched. I think because it succeeded in being fair to viewpoints that in the literature have frequently been either antagonistic or uncomfortable with each other.(Sorry for appearing to blow a narcissistic trumpet. But arguments get nowhere, usually, as opposed to example). At this point, you have both lost too many of the clueyest area experts in Wikipedia on the topic, and therefore, the options are: (a) do what Alfonso describes (hostilely) Torquato Tasso doing: er mehr Die Einsamkeit als die Gesellschaft sucht. Verzeih ich ihm, wenn er den bunten Schwarm Der Menschen flieht, und lieber frei im Stillen. Mit seinem Geist sich unterhalten mag, Torquato Tasso| Act 1, Sc.2,5-9, in order to have the serenity and equanimity to complete respectively your drafts without the excuse or confusion of writing with the haunting feeling there's a Moriartyish doppelgänger looking over your shoulder. That, or, run the gauntlet, a strong option, of suffering a community ban, if this impasse persists, and end up taking into perma-exile, as Ovid did in Tomis rich private abilities and a vision that will be denied to the community of readers. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Oh, one last point, which I wrote days ago. I get the impression the core difference between you both relates to the question:'what do we mean by Goths?' Andrew, you appear to take it to be a fluid term referring to a congeries of perhaps distinct identities in prehistory, whereas (correct me if I am wrong) Krakkos tends to see it as a descriptor of one overarchingly similar cultural and linguistic group. The former view reflects a revisionist caution against traditions of modern retroactive nationalist readings of ethnogenesis. The latter,essentialist, rests confidently on the fact that there is a broad pattern over a vast area suggestive of a technocultural unity of identity. The two positions are not necessarily diametrically opposed and incompatible. Krakos. In my own reading of early ethnographical issues in numerous societies, early identities are extremely 'liquid' Zygmunt Bauman. In the classical world, identity was, mostly, cultural, not 'ethnic' in the way we understand that. Seneca, reflecting on the shifting unsettled nature of populations, wrote:- Vix denique invenies ullam terram quam etiam nunc indigenae colant; permixta omnia et insiticia sunt.Ad Helviam matrem, de consolatione 7:10 'In short, you will scarcely find any land in which there dwells to this day a native population; everywhere the inhabitants are of mongrel and ingrafted stock.'John W. Basore, Seneca, Loeb Classical Library 1932 vol.2, pp.416-489 p.439. I have to be Pfizered in Rome tomorrow, and won't be online for a few days. I hope on my return that you both put aside this Wikipedia tit-for-tatting and tak e a tip from my favourite author, James Joyce, who has Stephen Dedalus declare (pilfering a Carthusian motto -fuge, late, tace via Balzac's Le Médecin de campagne): I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defense the only arms I allow myself to use -- silence, exile, and cunning.'A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in Harry Levin (ed.) The Essential James Joyce, Penguin 1963 p.247Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fresh start

Just as well; I missed the first two rounds, busy doing other stuff. I like the third draft of the lead best; it's simple, with short and uncomplicated sentence structure, and it avoids dwelling on ancient source material that's controversial at best. However, I don't think it should lose all mention of "Germanic", per the "don't bury the lede" principle. If there's some controversy about whether the Gutones were, technically, of Germanic stock (is there any haplogroup evidence from ancient DNA?), we can be quite certain they were speaking a Germanic language, and the lead should at least in passage mention that their language is called Gothic and is well-attested. I'm rather time-pressed, so that's all the feedback I have right this moment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: no DNA won't help at this stage, and I think it will be a long time before it can. Partly this is discussion scholars have about how they use words. I will reintroduce "Germanic", but yes it is a term some scholars avoid for the Goths these days, unless they mean "Germanic language speaking". Problems is that "Germanic" has other meanings. Of course you are correct that the Goths used an (East) Germanic language. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, SMcCandlish. There was once a so called Celtosceptic movement which argued that there were never any Celts in the British Isles because Roman sources never said so. There are historians who says Goths were not "Germanic" for the same reasons. For Gutonic/Gothic genetics, see Stolarek et. al (2019). I think we should avoid spending too much space on uncertain things in the lead, and we should certainly avoid making definite statements on such uncertainties. One such uncertainty is when Goths are first mentioned. Peter Heather writes in his works on the Goths, such as his 2018 entry on them in the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, that the Goths are first attested in the 1st century AD. Other scholars argue that they were first attested in the 3rd century. I have made a fourth draft which seeks to improve the lead by avoiding such controversial uncertainties and sticking to the basics. Krakkos (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Krakkos thanks, but... I am concerned to avoid what happened with previous discussions on this page which clearly overloaded other editors, so I am collapsing this, and I have to keep open the option of deleting both this and your draft. Please do keep things short on my drafting space. We've certainly used enough space on other parts of WP. I think that we all know that the problem with the term Germanic is completely different to Celtic, at least considering scholars right now, who are supposed to be our sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos: I've done enough reading in genetic studies of European populations by this point to know that describing people in this place or that as "Germanic" or "Celtic" or whatever, in a genetic race/ethnicity sense, is generally b.s. anyway. These really are best thought of linguistic and cultural terms. But "Germanic" is one that will certainly be expected to be here. Maybe "spoke the Germanic language Frankish" or something like that rather than an assertion like "a Germanic people who...". I agree with Krakkos's general idea of avoiding uncertainties, but we cannot always do this totally; the lead is going to be expected to provide a time-frame, even if we have to be vague, like "appeared in the West some time between the 1st and 3rd centuries", and then explain in more detail in the article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: in the meantime I added "Germanic" to my draft anyway, although I feel the claim the Goths have to being Germanic is far more controversial than the Franks. I have also proposed on the article talk page that the lead proposal of Krakkos could go ahead as far as I am concerned. [1] (I mentioned a small concern about going too quick from Adrianopolis to Visigoths.) You raise an issue about naming a timeframe, and if necessary perhaps explain your preferences on the article talk page where I posted? I would prefer to say that the Goths are not seen before the 3rd century. It is acceptable to me that the Krakkos draft mentions the 3rd and 4th century without going into the earlier possibilities. I think in any case the connected question is how to make a new Origins section where this will be further discussed. That RFC is still going and I've just posted a linked to my shortest draft so far [2]. Any thoughts on that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"the claim the Goths have to being Germanic is far more controversial" – This is exactly what I'm getting at with focusing on language groups rather than making assertions about ethnicity. More and more, the entire idea "this group is Germanic and that one is Celtic and that one is Slavic" is turning out to be presumptive nonsense. In reality, the underlying genetics of populations over large areas of Europe have barely changed since the Neolithic, and even where and to the extent they have, it's just been an additional layer with the Neolithic haplogroups also remaining ensconced in the area to the present day. It's already a norm to write about, say, ancient Galicians as being "Celtic-speaking", not "Celtic", and it's about time that this conceptual shift happened more with regard to Germanic-speaking cultural groups, whose actual genetics may remain a mystery for some time (or even all time; depends on whether enough bones that can absolutely be ascribed to them can be found still containing viable ancient DNA).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Observations on some details. (It is my userspace, so I'll let myself. Maybe I'll collapse it all later.)

• I'll defend Krakkos a bit and say that so far DNA has shown a post Neolithic population change in this region - the one associated with wheels, milk, wool-use, metallurgy, haplogroup R1b and Indo-European. However, it was clearly a major thing, as shown by all those non-DNA changes I just mentioned, whereas these movements during classical time might have been a constant swirl of small movements for all we know so far. For example, not only did the Goths and Romans not seem to notice that the Goths were Germanic, but Goths are invisible archaeologically. They have the same material culture as their neighbours. If the changes are of that nature then there will need to be a lot of data before it starts making sense.
• A second observation I'd make is that this is not just a conceptual argument. Nor is it a simple confusion caused by linguistics having its own scheme of classification. Classifying the Goths as Germanic, although it has the excuse of being language-based and therefore "objective", is currently connected to a specific "hot" argument about the fall of Rome. The argument is that Rome fell mainly because of a massive surge of migrants who had been building up as part of a single long-run tendency. If, like Heather, you call Goths "Germanic", you connect them to a bigger wave, and you are implying coordination and unity, even a sort of "manifest destiny". Kulikowski on the other hand emphasizes different things. The Goths did not see themselves as Germanic, nor share a language they could understand with Germanic people in western Europe. They were actually just one of a series of different short-term hegemonic groups in a very large region which seems to have been a linguistic patchwork (which was NOT always dominated by Germanic speakers). The Romans had been manipulating the various peoples to their north for centuries, and keeping them weak. If there was a new factor, it was the non-Germanic Huns. All this matches his own argument that Rome fell as a result of its own internal issues. It is surprising that the two historians actually agree on more facts than you might expect. So in effect a classification scheme from the 19th century is being used, even though the methodology of the old model are now rejected. It is apparently being used in an artificial way, as part of a specific debate. This does give challenges on WP.
• I can think of one relevant "fact" debate, but it is a fuzzy one and I think it is something more for a spin-off article. Heather does have a couple of weak arguments that the Goths moved in relatively large numbers - though this is a fine point because he still says this would only be mainly in small groups over a long period. (Otherwise how can we explain why all the peoples in the Ukraine had the same material culture?)
• One argument is that a successful ethnic group would never recruit people from other ethnicities. In contrast, Wolfram argued that maybe the Gothic kings, in order to become successful, did exactly that. Wolfram's idea still seems quite popular. I've never seen anyone cite Heather at all on this.
• Another argument Heather uses is that if there were not large numbers, including women, the Goths would not speak a Germanic language once they arrived in the Ukraine. But he admits himself that several of the peoples who were there before the Goths were ever mentioned (Bastarnae, Peukini) seem to have been Germanic. (In fact he goes out of his way to describe this as a reconquest on behalf of the Germanic peoples, which is an example of a sort of "Germanic destiny" theme in his story that other scholars have been criticizing.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I liked the shape your short draft is taking Andrew (as requested on my page). Two points re above. (a) successful ethnic groups don't recruit'. The Khazar Ashina elite definitely did just that, to cite one case (b) you don't need large numbers to impress a language on another people: the Hungarians genetically are IE, but the language reflects the stamp of its conquering warrior elite.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)