Talk:Ostrogoths

Ermanaric death year?

This article puts Ermanaric's death in 378, while article on Ermanaric itself puts it between 370 and 376...

Wolfram's History of the Goths says after 375. His suicide after being defeated by the Huns most likely had a ritualistic character. The death of the king seen as an ultimate sacrifice. Nitpyck (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Did some of the Goths (specifically the Ostrogoths, of course) come from Norway too?

Who can tell? Rursus 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

78.151.173.120 (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)It, definitely, then comes from Lithuanian language where greut means to make to lie 'on the ground' (in Lithuanian will be 'ant grindu') or to destroy/flatten and from the same root comes another Lithuanian word 'griovys' meaning a groove/ditch.

But the real meaning of Goths comes from another Lithuanian name for one Baltic tribe 'Gud-ai/Gaut-ai/Gaudyto-jai' and originates from the name for herd hunters/catchers. And Ostro in Lithuanian language simply means 'Ausros' (an aurora/dawn). By the way, from that word originates and the word 'astral', because the rising star (Venus, this name simply means that she is the only in the sky such, because in Lithuanian language 'vienas' means one, and the god of the hell is named 'Velnius') in Lithuania is called Ausrine/Austrine (like Prometey in Lithuanian language means 'pramatejes' the man who started to see the truth or light, it is almost identical to another Lithuanian word 'Budha' which means mentaly elucidated).

Zeus Bottiaeus in Lithuanian language 'Dzevs Botiaus' means God of our ancestors (Aleksandre dedicated altar to Zeus Bottiaeus)...Aleksandras in Lithuanian language 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras' means born second and Macedon 'Manke Duona' means knead bread and Philyp 'Pilypas=Paliepias' means the man giving orders...Hun in Lith. 'Gunas/ganytojas' means pastor/shep-herd and Atila 'Eitila' means going/runing the office...Ainiai is the name of ancient Greece tribe and in Lithuanian language that means posterity/antecedents...The name Darius is of Lithuanian origin and still is very popular name in Lithuania. It originates from the verb 'daryti'=to make/to act/to be doing smth and consequently Darius means both and being making/being acting/being doing and the man who is doing/acting/making

Like Palace comes from Lithuanian 'pilis' meaning the castle on the artificial hill ('pilta' means poured by human hands and is the base word for the word spilt which in Lith. will be 'is-pilti'). And the Castle comes from the Lith. word kasti meaning 'to dig' a groove around your defensive palace.

Enjoy Lithuanian real Aryan (means 'arejai'=ploughmen and plough means 'plugas' and comes from 'plaukti' meaning to swim through the 'arid' land) language.78.151.173.120 (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bravo, your facts from Lithuanian confirms exactly the information what is available from Bulgarian "Djagfar tarikhy" describing the early history of Bulgar and Khazar history. It is in many sources said that the Goths were actually two old Lithuanian tribes by their names, not Germanic at all. Only common was the Indo-European language, and it is well known that ancient Lithuanian language with Latvian are the oldest Indo-European languages which came to Europe with Old Prussian. Peharps with Dareios I on his War against the Scythians in 512 BC or some tribes from loose Scythic confederation. They had in their neigbourghod older Finno Ugrians. The Bulgars under leadership of Alyp-bi were defeated by the Sadumeans somewhere between Dinjeper and Dinjester, before the battle of Kan-Dare (Adrianople) in 378.

• Galindians are also mentioned in a separate battle with Huns (Bulgars).

• Please do not forget Latvian -pils meaning exactly the same than Litti -pilis. Mäkilinna in Finnish and Mägilinn in Estonian, See Odenpeah (Otsonpää) in Southern Estonia, the main hillfort of Ugandi south of Tarbatu (Tartu), but east of Pihkova / Pihkva / Pleskavas / Pleskau / Pskov / Lith?

• Ermanarik died in 375. This year is confirmed in several sources. Not a single seriously taken scholar take the list of Peoples ruled by Ermanarik seriously. This is a list of all known people in the area, just placed to be sure, under Ostrogoth Kingdom. How could one quite small tribe even beat the much stronger Mordvin army, the Army of Mordskerler as they were described by Old Prussians, the western neighbours of Sadumians. Peharps Ostrogothos ruled the area south of line Tanais at the heigth of south of confluence of Tanais (Don)/ Pitjug - Kursk - Dinjeper at the conlfuence of Pripijet - to the upper sources of Dinjester, but not more north of this line. There might have been somekind of military alliance but nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.116.165 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

History Assignment 9th Grade Discussion (S.K.,D.S.,R.S.)

Ok I think that we should include something along the lines of what Cantor has to say on page 107, lines 28-39 and onwards till the end of the paragraph on the next page. In the article, currently, it mentions nothing about how Theodoric wanted "to resore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people". And also a crucial point to add is: "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the developmentof early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration.". So if we some how put those things into our own words I think it would be a decent contribution. In my oppinion, this furthers the understanding of the article. +SPQR 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"to restore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people", very well. This is what I've read in other sources. "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the development of early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration." That's speculation from Cantor's part, and not an encyclopedic NPOV view. Maybe a potential Frankish-failure combined with an Ostrogothic success, may have given rise to a very similar early medieval Europe, except the Franks were mentioned with nostalgy, and the Ostrogoths would have been the Italian national founders. Rursus 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should include Cantor's argument on page 109 lines 10-23. Religion was (and is) a very important part of cultures and I think this article could use some work in this particular area. Cantor makes a good point in showing that Theodoric did one thing that, until this time, (I believe) hadn't been done before. That is, he allowed "freedom of religion". He did try to appease to the pope (line 20). A very important part of this passage is when he says "he went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized the authority of the peope not only over the Catholic church but over the city of Rome". This was a bold implication and very true. If we could find a way to incorperate religion into the article a little bit more, I think that it would be helpful and a good contribution. XCluvr16 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a description of Theodoric's attempts at building up alliances and the effect it had on the Byzantine empire would be a worthwhile contribution. This would clear up some confusion about the sudden turning of the Byzantines and provide a reason for the rapid decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death, or at least something along those lines--Gesundheit 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Also good to include would be possible reason's for Theodoric risking that in the face of the Byzantine Emperor. For example, Cantor says on page 107 that Theodoric trusted too greatly in "the loyalty of the Italian people and at least the neutrality, perhaps even the support, of the pope and the Catholic church." This would easily tie into what has already been said in this article: "In Theodoric's theory the Goth was the armed protector of the peaceful Roman..." (see last paragraph in the "Zenith" section). ---Dewener

I think that maybe something should be included under Zenith — Theodoric the Great about theodorics relgon and relationships with other religons. On page 109 line 8 on to the top of the next page it talks about how theodoric was arian and how he did all he could to please the catholic church.In the first paragraph it talks about theodorics arian religon, and the second paragraph talks about his relationshis with the pope. This is kinda around the same part you said rachel and I thouight that the part you were talking about (his allowance of other religons) was also a very important piece. --Johnnybravo01 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you shiela and I think that I would be helpful to concider what Dewener and Gesundheit are saying. I dunno if we will/should put it in or not but I think that it would be worth considering. Shiela you and I were saying around the same thing but you added an important fact that I feel we should definately include which is the turning of the Byzantines and the decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death. This would also include what Gesundheit was saying (I think) ok im thinking that we should all be on around 7:30 tonight or so just so that we can talk and get this done...is that ok with everyone? XCluvr16 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I find any material pertaining to the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom completely lacking. The article discusses The "Zenith" and the reign of Theodoric, but in no way even considers possible reasons to it's collapse. I suggest a small section under "Zenith" that deals breifly with some of Theodoric's policies which cause the kingdom to collapse. Either in the main Ostrogothic article or in Ostrogothic this one more specifically pertaining to the Ostrogothic Kingdom. BB 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hostkingdom.net ??

Regarding this line in the references section:

"This article incorporates some information taken from http://www.hostkingdom.net/ with permission."

Who added this line? There is no such thing as "with permission" on Wikipedia. If this was added verbatim, and is copyright, it must be removed. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Titles

Would they require cleanup?100110100 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory speculations, not facts

I doubt the contents of Prehistory has any attested sources – it doesn't look like sourced fact, it rather looks like a qualified and plausible speculation, but then it should be presented as such. Rursus 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And sourced. Of course. Rursus 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

I suggest we move this page back to Ostrogoths. Jacob Haller 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• For once Wikipedia's obsession with singular titles is wrong. Unless someone wishes to move all the East Germanic tribes articles on to singular titles, this should stay on the plural title. -- RHaworth 04:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Jacob Haller 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture section

Just signalling here that the Culture section is not about the Ostrogoths at all. Maybe somebody would be interested in fixing it. Srnec (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The highest point/zenith of the Ostrogothic Kingdom is when?

The article says in the intro, "The kingdom reached its highest point under King Ermanaric ... " Then only a few sentences later it says, "Ostrogothic power reached its zenith under the Romanised king Theodoric the Great ..." It can't reach it's highest point twice! So which one is it? This needs to be clarified. Jrdx (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

For a long time, the image at right was the lead image in this article. It was changed today to an image of Theodoric's mausoleum. I wouldn't have a problem with that if the photograph were of high quality, which it is not. I think the image of a contemporary mosaic depicting Theodoric's palace (albeit a mosaic tweaked by the Byzantines later) is still the better image for the lead. Srnec (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Serious Historical Problems I: Greutungi as Ostrogoths

There is no scholarly consensus on the idea that the 5th/6th century Ostrogoths are a continuation of the 3rd/4th century Greutungi. Peter Heather certainly trashes the idea, and I think Michael Kulikowski might also do so. 71.191.233.216 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a well-sourced section on this. One of the sources is Heather. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You also have a lede which pushes the older view without mentioning newer views, and an Etymology section which is heavily biased toward the older view. 71.191.233.216 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious Historical Problems II: Ermaneric's kingdom

Ammianus' histories include several sections about Roman dealings with the Goths. But they are mostly dealing with the Teruingi, not the Greutungi. One would expect to see some mention of the empire Ermaneric is supposed to have built, but it's not there. There is one mention of Ermaneric, but many scholars argue that the empire was a fabrication for Theodoric's propaganda, probably invented by Cassiodorus. 71.191.233.216 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jan Marcussen

This person is a Seventh day Adventist minister, not a historian. As such, his opinion as to the fate of the Ostrogoths can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism City here

In case none of you have ever taken the time to research this, much of this article is verbatim plagiarization from the following book: De Puy, William Harrison. The World-wide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer (vol. 4). New York: The Werner Co., 1899., which is freely accessible in its entirety from Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=qmpLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA2865&lpg=PA2865&dq=in+every+conceivable+relation+of+friendship+and+enmity+with+the+Eastern+Roman+power&source=bl&ots=WRPoyGo04n&sig=EVUFB_VmeYcZSyVMvFvCQQf1vQE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAmoVChMIlYe1uYjkyAIVAygmCh3c6QjI#v=onepage&q&f=false

The overuse of this source was overstated by me and upon further review, is not as bad as it first appeared. I've cited a few places and will likely find a few more in the future. The page still needs quite a bit more work and yet lacks citations in many places. I'll do what I can when I have the time, but some assistance would be appreciated.--Obenritter (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles first picture needs a more clear description.

It is a mosaic with nothing on it. The byzantines removed the pictures of the Goths in the mosaic to stop them from appearing more "Roman" and moreover because they were Arianists. The current desc just says that it depicts Theoderic (which it did originally, but now it is just blank!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.40.128 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sentence in lead, not in body, not obvious if it is sourceable

I place this here for safe keeping. Anyone know if this can be sourced? The Ostrogoths were probably literate in the 3rd century, and their trade with the Romans was highly developed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Ostrogoths were probably literate in the 3rd century, and their trade with the Romans was highly developed." This is word-for-word from Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ostrogoth) We both know what editor would take verbatim chunks from Britannica.--Obenritter (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Date of Claudian

Obenritter thanks for your feedback and fixes. I notice one with a message (in red below) so I'll post an answer here.

The Ostrogoths were first mentioned only one hundred years later in 399, in a poem by [[Claudian]] which describes the Ostrogoths and Greuthungi inhabiting the land of [[Phrygia]] together, ready to be aroused by some small offense and return to their natural ways.{{sfn|Christensen|2002|pages=216–217}}{{efn|Wolfram uses Claudian's, ''Against Eutropius'', as his source here: [https://www.loebclassics.com/view/claudian_claudianus-eutropius/1922/pb_LCL135.197.xml]{{sfn|Wolfram|1988|pp=24, 387fn52}}}} Note Wolfram wrongly dates the poem to 392, though it was written after the death of [[Eutropius the consul|Eutropius (consul)]] (died 399).{{clarify|date=April 2020|reason=While this may be correct, this type of refutation of an established scholar requires academic substantiation. What other scholar claims this was written later and based on what exactly?{{efn|The poem associates this rebellious "[[Getic]] squadron (''alae'')" of Greuthungi in Phrygia with a leader it calls [[Tribigild|Tarbigilus]], who is also mentioned by [[Zosimus]] (as Tribigildus), also there mentioning his barbarian forces based in Phrygia and his rebellion against the eunuch consul Eutropius. He was an associate of [[Gainas]].}}

• You are right that this would be best practice, however what has now been split out as a second footnote, the reference to Christensen, would have been the reference to a more recent remark on this. This would be a case where I think a bundled footnote might be more appropriate. But more to the point maybe I should make the wording more clear within that footnote. I will try something and we'll see how it looks.
• As a secondary point, I notice the last sentence about the citation of Zosimus has been moved into the footnotes, but I am wondering about that. We have so few clear classical references to the Greuthungi, and only one to the Ostrogoths before the Amals, so this certainly seems to be a worthwhile classical source to mention in the main text? Is there a concern about sourcing/synthesis? I will try to make sourcing clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster Nice work on some of the consolidation. Let's use efn style notes for primary sources (adding a little explanatory context when doing so)--maybe we should also try and replace the late 19th century stuff too with more recent scholarship. Meanwhile, let's reserve the sfn style for the rest of the secondary sources and ensure they are harv refs. It looks far cleaner and more academic to do so. --Obenritter (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You might notice I edited the citations in several steps, and managed to hopefully managed to get them close to your specifications? :) I had never noticed that en dashes were used in page ranges before, so you learn something every day. There are a few cases were we make a short citation to a primary source, with a convenience link to the web, and in those cases I have used old-style ref tags so that the resulting footnote ends up with the sfn notes. On longer footnotes I have sometimes used ref tags at first, because I was cautious of how complex mark-up might work inside the efn template.

Concerning the article generally, I have not done much in any of the post Hunnic period yet, and have been thinking about it. To me it seems that the sub-sections might need review. The first sub-section is really general Gothic (pre?) history. The rest could perhaps better become one section about the generations leading up to Theoderic? I am thinking that the History section should mainly focus (a la Heather) on the Amal clan, and especially from the point where they become visible under Attila. For discussion of Ostrogoths/Greuthungi from before then, I think the section above is now doing a reasonable job, and it is a different kind of discussion - less narrative, and more hints and debates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

various sourcing points

Obenritter perhaps easier to note these issues raised in two edits [1][2] here, and try to understand what is needed:

1. edsum of the first edit: "ref section improve added since NOT one single source is used in this section" . I believe this applies to only the new intro paragraph to the section, because there are citations in the sub-sections? Being an intro with references to main articles it does not seem to contain anything controversial, or contested though.

That point is irrelevant, as any section missing sources is subject to this tag. It was not applied to an article "intro" or lead, but an early section and yes, we should source all material. Stop deflecting and just source the material; namely, since this resulted from your editing specifically.--Obenritter (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: thanks for the replies and new remarks. But just to be clear, you have written this AFTER I did put sourcing on pretty much every sentence, and no, demanding sourcing on every sentence is not at all seen as normal on WP, and what I wrote would not normally be considered irrelevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

2. edsum of the second edit (a revert): "add back DELETED academically substantiated content" . This comment is however not an obvious way of describing what has been re-inserted, as follows:

• Smatterings of the Gothic language can be found in Italian but its presence is minimal. No source. Not an obvious comment at all. As far as I understand it, Germanic words in Italian are difficult to attribute to Gothic specifically? Is there a source for this?

This may have come from the Dalby source cited in this next section, not sure as my reference works are in storage. Nonetheless, for a society to have interacted for several centuries, whether as vassals, through assimilation, or as conquerors does not make this statement seem like much of a stretch.--Obenritter (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: you were saying something about "we should source all material"? In any case I think this is non-obvious and needs a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• A language related to Gothic was still spoken sporadically in Crimea as late as the 16th and 17th centuries (Crimean Gothic language).{{sfn|Dalby|1999|p=229}} This is a complex subject which would need a bigger digression to do justice to it, for example on Gothic language. But more to the point it is not specifically relevant to Ostrogoths? The source being cited is not a specialist work for this topic, but a "Dictionary of Languages".

Wikipedia is for general knowledge and there is nothing especially controversial about this comment. It was moved to an efn note nonetheless as it is more an interesting factoid than directly applicable to the content. --Obenritter (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a little research and the following points are made in the tagged works, which completely substantiates Dalby and refutes your argument by inference that a non-specialist cannot be trusted.

• Green, D., “Linguistic and Literary Traces of the Ostrogoths”, in S. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 387–404.
• Murdoch, B., “Gothic”, in B. Murdoch/M. Read (eds.), Early Germanic Literature and Culture, Woodbridge 2004, pp. 148–70.

@Obenritter: do not misrepresent what I wrote, please. What we include should not just be interesting factoids, but also relevant to the topic of this article, which is Ostrogoths, not the Gothic language. There are clear community consensuses on that. I am aware of this topic, which has nothing to do with Ostrogoths, but there are doubts among specialists about whether the language which was recorded was a form of Gothic. I was saying that this is a topic which requires extended discussion to do justice to it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Much of the disappearance of the Gothic language is attributable to the Goths' cultural and linguistic absorption by other European peoples during the Middle Ages.{{sfn|Waldman|Mason|2006|p=572}} This is a vague sentence and it is apparently not specifically about Ostrogoths? Also this source is clearly not very "academic" but a tertiary work written by non-specialists. On other articles, Waldman and Mason have been a controversial source when used to state things not found in better sources, and also discussed on WP:RSN.

Waldman and Mason's statement could be made by any legitimate scholar as the disappearance of the Gothic language due to their interaction and assimilation into the other societies of Europe during the Middle Ages is not controversial in any way. As opposed to looking to discredit the scholarship of Waldman and Mason, it seems it would be better to find another source and cite that beside this, as nothing in that observation is especially in need of challenge.--Obenritter (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: it is apparently just a vague generalization about all Goths wherever they lived? So we do not need it in this article as far as I can see. What am I missing? How is this relevant to Ostrogoths? There might be 20 Goth-related articles right now. Do they all need to include such sentences? If there is specific information which we can source about Ostrogoths, then we should find sources for that before we start worrying too much about what to say about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I will look at edit 1, but I think the 3 sentences under edit 2 need better justification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I note the new tags and will work on those ASAP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparent verification failure

New paragraph has been added: There is some degree of surety among scholars that Jordanes penned the Sandza origin story based on oral tales, and so his efforts were undertaken to provide legitimacy to the stories, since Jordanes likely valued written over oral sources.[70][i] The sfn footnote is to Ghosh 2015, pp. 52–53, referring to:

• Ghosh, Shami (2015). Writing the Barbarian Past: Studies in Early Medieval Historical Narrative. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-9-00430-581-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The efn footnote is Like the Scandza origins' tale, oral stories provided the framework for the genealogy of the Amal kings recorded by Jordanes.[71] and this is citing Ghosh 2015, p. 53–54. Can someone help make it clear how this source says what we are reporting? As far as I can see, like our other sources for modern commentary on Jordanes, Heather, Christensen etc, Ghosh is showing how Jordanes (and Cassiodorus) seems to prefer written sources? For example:

"In terms of explicit references to oral sources, therefore, Jordanes gives us very little, and what we find in the Getica in this regard is of dubious value."

The "oral narrative" Ghosh refers to on p.52 is explicitly the special case Jordanes himself mentions as WRONG, and which Goffart writes about at length, comparing it to a remark by Procopius. There was gossip, Jordanes says, that the Goths were once led into slavery in Britain or some such northern island (Scandza also being one). Ghosh writes concerning Jordanes and Scandza:

it is clear that here, as elsewhere, Jordanes is making an appeal to the authority of written sources [] he seems to contrast it with oral material that is not to be trusted.

So it almost seems like Ghosh says the opposite of what we are reporting? (By the way, "surety" is not really a good word choice here. It has one common meaning, which would not fit here, and although it is sometimes used in a different way, I think most readers and editors who are familiar with the word would find it jarring.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps interesting to consider: while most recent publications seem sceptical of any oral source for the Scandza information in Jordanes, Wolfram had a well-known (often cited) speculation that maybe Jordanes (or Cassiodorus) got this information from a real Scandinavian visiting Italy. Note that thus also Wolfram understands the Scandza list as an attempt to describe who is living there in the 6th century, not something from the mythic past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster After rereading this source and your points here, corrections have been made to the text. This is definitely a case where my bias from Wolfram's lectures and writings bled through, as he did explicitly comment and imply that Jordanes had a Scandinavian source. To this end, I conflated the reading against that information and should have more carefully digested what Ghosh actually meant for this to say. Mea culpa entirely. Great catch by the way, as this example represents good editorial review.--Obenritter (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the collaboration. I had a feeling that the apparent problem might be a smaller slip than it seems. Keep in mind that I (like many readers) also read the footnotes, and that made it particularly confusing. I still find our summary a bit difficult to follow if you have not read Ghosh. What if we removed the first sentence and expand on the second one a bit, to explain those rumours more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Go for it brother.--Obenritter (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Franz Altheim

Recent edits to this page included adding the term "Nazi scholar" in front of Franz Altheim's name. Such a connotation would apply to hundreds, if not thousands of academics who researched and taught during the Nazi period. Altheim wrote his dissertation well before the Nazis came to power, and while he was dismissed for a time, was reinstated and taught at the Frei Universität in Berlin into the 1960s. We do not categorize other scholars by their political party (if but temporarily) anywhere on Wikipedia, but by their nation of origin. While the argument that Altheim contributed research that some might categorize as pseudo-archaeological, since he argues for deeper connections between the Germanic peoples and Rome; this does not justify explicitly calling him a Nazi scholar. An informational note could be added for further elucidation, especially since Altheim has a Wikipage of his own -- which would be a much better place for additional elaboration about this. The way it is used in the text in connection with Professor Wolfram makes him into a pariah, against which I object. Dr. Wolfram may have appropriated a few parts of Altheim's theories, but rest assured it was not without ample scholarly justification or contemporary insights.--Obenritter (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need a second Walther Kuhn issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC))