Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Europe (89 articles) Configured as topic=History Tag: Reverted |
|||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{FailedGA|19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)|topic=History|page=1}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=▼
}}▼
{{Tmbox|text=There is a [[Talk:Goths/Quotes|special page]] where '''scholarly quotes about the pre-3rd-century origins of the Goths''' have been collected, in order to avoid large blocks of quotations being pasted repeatedly and disruptively into this talk-page. Please, instead of pasting large repetitive blocks of text, try to link to the quotes page, or to previous versions of the same discussions in the archives etc.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 15 ⟶ 26:
}}
<!-- RFCBot Ignore Expired -->
▲{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
▲}}
▲{{WikiProject Dacia|class=b|importance=Mid}}
▲{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=High|hist=yes|ethno=yes}}
▲{{WikiProject Spain|class=B|importance=High}}
▲{{WikiProject Portugal|class=B|importance=High}}
▲{{WikiProject France|class=B|importance=Mid}}
▲{{WikiProject Italy|class=B|importance=High}}
▲{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=B|importance=High}}
▲{{WikiProject Romania|class=B|importance=Low}}
▲{{WikiProject Norse history and culture|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{Annual readership|days=90}}
Line 231 ⟶ 209:
--[[User: Joe Flats 123|Joe Flats 123]]
== another re-appearance of the DNA section ==
@[[User:Isacdaavid|Isacdaavid]] I don't know who reintroduced the genetics section, but you have reintroduced strong claims into another section, about the name of the Goths, indicating that DNA proves the "Goths" to be from Scandinavia. There is no such evidence, and this has been discussed and agreed here several times in the past. Of course there could be new evidence one day, but I don't see it?
*The Genomic Atlas website you are now citing as a new source does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia norms. If necessary please take it to [[WP:RSN]] and ask for someone else's opinion.
*The Stolarek et al. article from 2023 only mentions the Goths once: "Some theories link the emergence of the Wielbark culture with the migration of people commonly referred to as Goths". (There is a lot more that could be said about the problems of using a research report like this, with vague conclusions.)
*The Antonio et al. article of 2023 does not mention Gothic DNA, or the Wielbark culture.
On this basis I believe the genetics section, and also this misplaced genetics digression in the name section, should be removed or stripped down quite a lot. At the moment this is basically [[WP:OR]]. (I also don't see why all these things need to be repeated in a section which is supposed to be about the name of the Goths?) [[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 21:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::Concur entirely with {{u|Andrew Lancaster}} about this matter. This topic has been repeatedly argued on pages related to the ancient Germanic peoples in general and this page especially. There is overwhelming consensus about the speciousness of these sorts of claims.
:::As an update {{u|Isacdaavid}} you posted on RSN (thank you) and received two very clear negative responses concerning the new source. I think we are going is that the DNA claims need trimming or deleting. If anyone has other evidence, or good proposals on ways of trimming it, now would be a good moment to get involved in this discussion.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with deletion or trimming. And I know it's a new and fast paced field, but there is no exception to the requirement that we use secondary and not primary sources to write encyclopaedic articles. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
| |||