text:
Psychological abuse

Psychological abuse, often known as emotional abuse or psychological violence, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another person to a behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder amongst other psychological problems.

It is often associated with situations of power imbalance in abusive relationships, and may include bullying, gaslighting, abuse in the workplace, amongst other behaviors that may cause an individual to feel unsafe. It also may be perpetrated by persons conducting torture, other violence, acute or prolonged human rights abuse, particularly without legal redress such as detention without trial, false accusations, false convictions, and extreme defamation such as where perpetrated by state and media.

General definition
Clinicians and researchers have offered different definitions of psychological abuse. According to current research the terms "psychological abuse" and "emotional abuse" can be used interchangeably, unless associated with psychological violence. More specifically, "emotional abuse" is any abuse that is emotional rather than physical. It can include anything from verbal abuse and constant criticism to more subtle tactics such as intimidation, manipulation, and refusal to ever be pleased. This abuse occurs when someone uses words or actions to try and control the other person, to keep someone afraid or isolated, or try to break someone's self-esteem.

Emotional abuse can take several forms. Three general patterns of abusive behavior include aggressing, denying, and minimizing; "Withholding is another form of denying. Withholding includes refusing to listen, to communicate, and emotionally withdrawing as punishment." Even though there is no established definition for emotional abuse, emotional abuse can possess a definition beyond verbal and psychological abuse. Blaming, shaming, and name calling are a few verbally abusive behaviors that can affect a victim emotionally. The victim's self-worth and emotional well-being are altered and even diminished by the verbal abuse, resulting in an emotionally abused victim.

The victim may experience severe psychological effects. This would involve the tactics of brainwashing, which can fall under psychological abuse as well, but emotional abuse consists of the manipulation of the victim's emotions. The victim may feel their emotions are being affected by the abuser to such an extent that the victim may no longer recognize their own feelings regarding the issues the abuser is trying to control. The result is the victim's self-concept and independence are systematically taken away.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines emotionally abusive traits as causing fear by intimidation, threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends, destruction of pets and property, and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school or work. More subtle emotionally abusive behaviors include insults, putdowns, arbitrary and unpredictable behavior, and gaslighting (e.g. the denial that previous abusive incidents occurred). Modern technology has led to new forms of abuse, by text messaging and online cyber-bullying

In 1996, Health Canada argued that emotional abuse is "based on power and control", and defines emotional abuse as including rejecting, degrading, terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and "denying emotional responsiveness" as characteristic of emotional abuse.

Several studies have argued that an isolated incident of verbal aggression, dominant conduct or jealous behaviors does not constitute the term "psychological abuse". Rather, it is defined by a pattern of such behaviors, unlike physical and sexual maltreatment where only one incident is necessary to label it as abuse. Tomison and Tucci write, "emotional abuse is characterized by a climate or pattern of behavior(s) occurring over time ... Thus, 'sustained' and 'repetitive' are the crucial components of any definition of emotional abuse." Andrew Vachss, an author, attorney, and former sex crimes investigator, defines emotional abuse as "the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event."

Intimate relationships
When discussing the different types of psychological abuse in terms of domestically violent relationships, it is important to recognize the 4 different types; Denigrating Damage to Partner's Self-Image or Esteem, Passive Aggressive Withholding of Emotional Support, Threatening Behavior, and Restricting Personal Territory and Freedom:

 * Denigrating Damage refers to an individual using verbal aggression like yelling towards their partner that is delivered as profane and derogatory.
 * Passive Aggressive Withholding of Emotional Support refers to an individual intentionally avoiding and withdrawing themselves from their partner in an attempt to be neglectful and emotionally abandoning.
 * Threatening Behavior refers to an individual making verbal threats towards their partner that could imply eliciting physical harm, threats of divorce, lying, and threats of reckless behavior that could put their safety at risk.
 * Restricting Personal Territory and Freedom refers to the isolation of social support from family and friends. This could include taking away partner's autonomy and having a lack of personal boundaries.

It has been reported that at least 80% of women who have entered the criminal justice system due to partner violence have also experienced psychological abuse from their partner. This partner violence is also known as domestic abuse.

Domestic abuse—defined as chronic mistreatment in marriage, families, dating, and other intimate relationships—can include emotionally abusive behavior. Although psychological abuse does not always lead to physical abuse, physical abuse in domestic relationships is nearly always preceded and accompanied by psychological abuse. Murphy and O'Leary reported that psychological aggression is the most reliable predictor of later physical aggression.

A 2012 review by Capaldi et al., which evaluated risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV), noted that psychological abuse has been shown to be both associated with and common in IPV. High levels of verbal aggression and relationship conflict, "practically akin to psychological aggression", strongly predicted IPV; male jealousy in particular was associated with female injuries from IPV.

Attempts to define and describe violence and abuse in hetero-normative intimate relationships can become contentious as different studies present different conclusions about whether men or women are the primary instigators. For instance, a 2005 study by Hamel reports that "men and women physically and emotionally abuse each other at equal rates." Basile found that psychological aggression was effectively bidirectional in cases where heterosexual and homosexual couples went to court for domestic disturbances.

A 2007 study of Spanish college students aged 18–27 found that psychological aggression (as measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale) is so pervasive in dating relationships that it can be regarded as a normalized element of dating, and that women are substantially more likely to exhibit psychological aggression. Similar findings have been reported in other studies. Strauss et al. found that female intimate partners in heterosexual relationships were more likely than males to use psychological aggression, including threats to hit or throw an object.

A study of young adults by Giordano et al. found that females in intimate heterosexual relationships were more likely than males to threaten to use a knife or gun against their partner. While studies allege that women use violence in intimate relationships as often or more often than men, women's violence is typically self-defensive rather than aggressive.

In 1996, the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, for Health Canada, reported that 39% of married women or common-law wives suffered emotional abuse by husbands/partners; and a 1995 survey of women 15 and over 36–43% reported emotional abuse during childhood or adolescence, and 39% experienced emotional abuse in marriage/dating; this report does not address boys or men suffering emotional abuse from families or intimate partners. A BBC radio documentary on domestic abuse, including emotional maltreatment, reports that 20% of men and 30% of women have been abused by a spouse or other intimate partner.

Child emotional abuse
Psychological abuse of a child is commonly defined as a pattern of behavior by parents or caregivers that can seriously interfere with a child's cognitive, emotional, psychological, or social development. According to the DSM-5, Child Psychological Abuse is defined as verbal or symbolic acts given by parent or caregiver which can result in significant psychological harm. Examples are yelling, comparing to others, name-calling, blaming, gaslighting, manipulating, and normalizing abuse due to the status of being underage.

Some parents may emotionally and psychologically harm their children because of stress, poor parenting skills, social isolation, and lack of available resources or inappropriate expectations of their children. Straus and Field report that psychological aggression is a pervasive trait of American families: "verbal attacks on children, like physical attacks, are so prevalent as to be just about universal." A 2008 study by English, et al. found that fathers and mothers were equally likely to be verbally aggressive towards their children.

Elder emotional abuse
Choi and Mayer performed a study on elder abuse (causing harm or distress to an older person), with results showing that 10.5% of the participants were victims of "emotional/psychological abuse", which was most often perpetrated by a son or other relative of the victim. Of 1288 cases in 2002–2004, 1201 individuals, 42 couples, and 45 groups were found to have been abused. Of these, 70% were female. Psychological abuse (59%) and material/financial abuse (42%) were the most frequently identified types of abuse. One study found that the overall prevalence rate of abused elderly in Hong Kong was 21.4%. Out of this percentage, 20.8% reported being verbally abused.

Workplace
Rates of reported emotional abuse in the workplace vary, with studies showing 10%, 24%, and 36% of respondents indicating persistent and substantial emotional abuse from coworkers. Keashly and Jagatic found that males and females commit "emotionally abusive behaviors" in the workplace at roughly similar rates. In a web-based survey, Namie found that women were more likely to engage in workplace bullying, such as name calling, and that the average length of abuse was 16.5 months.

Pai and Lee found that the incidence of workplace violence typically occurs more often in younger workers. "Younger age may be a reflection of lack of job experience, resulting in [an inability] to identify or prevent potentially abusive situations... Another finding showed that lower education is a risk factor for violence." This study also reports that 51.4% of the workers surveyed have already experienced verbal abuse, and 29.8% of them have encountered workplace bullying and mobbing.

Characteristics of abusers
In their review of data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (a longitudinal birth cohort study) Moffitt et al. report that while men exhibit more aggression overall, sex is not a reliable predictor of interpersonal aggression, including psychological aggression.

The DARVO study found that no matter what gender a person is, aggressive people share a cluster of traits, including high rates of suspicion and jealousy; sudden and drastic mood swings; poor self-control; and higher than average rates of approval of violence and aggression. Moffitt et al. also argue that antisocial men exhibit two distinct types of interpersonal aggression (one against strangers, the other against intimate female partners), while antisocial women are rarely aggressive against anyone other than intimate male partners or their own children.

Abusers may aim to avoid household chores or exercise total control of family finances. Abusers can be very manipulative, often recruiting friends, law officers and court officials, and even the victim's family to their side, while shifting blame to the victim. A victim may internalize the abuse and may form future relationships with abusers.

Abuse of intimate partners
Most victims of psychological abuse within intimate relationships often experience changes to their psyche and actions. This varies throughout the various types and lengths of emotional abuse. Long-term emotional abuse has long term debilitating effects on a person's sense of self and integrity. Often, research shows that emotional abuse is a precursor to physical abuse when three particular forms of emotional abuse are present in the relationship: threats, restriction of the abused party and damage to the victim's property.

Psychological abuse is often not recognized by survivors of domestic violence as abuse. A study of college students by Goldsmith and Freyd report that many who have experienced emotional abuse do not characterize the mistreatment as abusive. Additionally, Goldsmith and Freyd show that these people also tend to exhibit higher than average rates of alexithymia (difficulty identifying and processing their own emotions). This is often the case when referring to victims of abuse within intimate relationships, as non-recognition of the actions as abuse may be a coping or defense mechanism in order to either seek to master, minimize or tolerate stress or conflict.

Marital or relationship dissatisfaction can be caused by psychological abuse or aggression. In a 2007 study, Laurent et al. report that psychological aggression in young couples is associated with decreased satisfaction for both partners: "psychological aggression may serve as an impediment to couples' development because it reflects less mature coercive tactics and an inability to balance self/other needs effectively." In a 2008 study on relationship dissatisfaction in adolescents Walsh and Shulman explain, "The more psychologically aggressive females were, the less satisfied were both partners. The unique importance of males' behavior was found in the form of withdrawal, a less mature conflict negotiation strategy. Males' withdrawal during joint discussions predicted increased satisfaction."

There are many different responses to psychological abuse. Jacobson et al. found that women report markedly higher rates of fear during marital conflicts. However, a rejoinder argued that Jacobson's results were invalid due to men and women's drastically differing interpretations of questionnaires. Coker et al. found that the effects of mental abuse were similar whether the victim was male or female. A 1998 study of male college students by Simonelli & Ingram found that men who were emotionally abused by their female partners exhibited higher rates of chronic depression than the general population. Pimlott-Kubiak and Cortina found that severity and duration of abuse were the only accurate predictors of after effects of abuse; sex of perpetrator or victim were not reliable predictors.

Abuse of children
The effects of psychological abuse on children can involve a variety of mental health concerns such as post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, personality disorders, low self-esteem, aggression, anxiety, and emotional unresponsiveness. These effects can be exemplified by the constant criticism, regular living with threats, or being rejected, that can be exemplified by withholding love and support as well as not having any guidance from the guardians of the children.

English et al. report that children specifically whose families are characterized by interpersonal violence, including psychological aggression and verbal aggression, may exhibit these disorders. Additionally, English et al. report that the impact of emotional abuse "did not differ significantly" from that of physical abuse. Johnson et al. report that, in a survey of female patients, 24% suffered emotional abuse, and that this group experienced higher rates of gynecological problems. In their study of men emotionally abused by a wife/partner or parent, Hines and Malley-Morrison report that victims exhibit high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and drug addiction, including alcoholism.

Glaser reports, "An infant who is severely deprived of basic emotional nurturance, even though physically well cared for, can fail to thrive and can eventually die. Babies with less severe emotional deprivation can grow into anxious and insecure children who are slow to develop and who have low self-esteem." Glaser also informs that the abuse impacts the child in a number of ways, especially on their behavior, including: "insecurity, poor self-esteem, destructive behavior, angry acts (such as fire setting and animal cruelty), withdrawal, poor development of basic skills, alcohol or drug abuse, suicide, difficulty forming relationships and unstable job histories."

Oberlander et al. performed a study which discovered that among the youth, those with a history of maltreatment showed that emotional distress is a predictor of early initiation of sexual intercourse. Oberlander et al. state, "A childhood history of maltreatment, including... psychological abuse, and neglect, has been identified as a risk factor for early initiation of sexual intercourse ... In families where child maltreatment had occurred, children were more likely to experience heightened emotional distress and subsequently to engage in sexual intercourse by age 14. It is possible that maltreated youth feel disconnected from families that did not protect them and subsequently seek sexual relationships to gain support, seek companionship, or enhance their standing with peers." It is apparent that psychological abuse sustained during childhood is a predictor of the onset of sexual conduct occurring earlier in life, as opposed to later.

Abuse in the workplace
Psychological abuse has been found present within the workplace as evidenced by previous research. Namie's study of workplace emotional abuse found that 31% of women and 21% of men who reported workplace emotional abuse exhibited three key symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (hypervigilance, intrusive imagery, and avoidance behaviors). The most common psychological, professional, financial, and social effects of sexual harassment and retaliation are as follows:

 * Psychological stress and health impairment, loss of motivation.
 * Decreased work or school performance as a result of stressful conditions; increased absenteeism in fear of harassment repetition.
 * Having to drop courses, change academic plans, or leave school (loss of tuition) in fear of harassment repetition or as a result of stress.
 * Being objectified and humiliated by scrutiny and gossip.
 * Loss of trust in environments similar to where the harassment occurred.
 * Loss of trust in the types of people that occupy similar positions as the harasser or their colleagues, especially in cases where they are not supportive, difficulties or stress on peer relationships, or relationships with colleagues.
 * Effects on sexual life and relationships: can put extreme stress upon relationships with significant others, sometimes resulting in divorce.
 * Weakening of support network, or being ostracized from professional or academic circles (friends, colleagues, or family may distance themselves from the victim, or shun him or her altogether).
 * Depression, anxiety or panic attacks.
 * Sleeplessness or nightmares, difficulty concentrating, headaches, fatigue.
 * Eating disorders (weight loss or gain), alcoholism, and feeling powerless or out of control.

Abuse of the elderly
Elderly who have suffered psychological abuse have been found to experience similar outcomes as other population groups such as depression, anxiety, feelings of isolation and neglect, and powerlessness. One study examined 355 Chinese elderly participants (60 and older) and found that 75% of reported abusers were grown-up children of the elderly. Within this study, these individuals suffered outcomes from the abuse, specifically verbal abuse which contributed to their psychological distress.

In intimate relationships
Recognition of abuse is the first step to prevention. It is often difficult for abuse victims to acknowledge their situation and to seek help. For those who do seek help, research has shown that people who participate in an intimate partner violence prevention program report less psychological aggression toward their targets of psychological abuse, and reported victimization from psychological abuse decreased over time for the treatment group.

There are non-profit organizations that provide support and prevention services such as the National Domestic Violence Hotline, The Salvation Army, and Benefits.gov.

In the family
Child abuse in the sole form of emotional/psychological maltreatment is often the most difficult to identify and prevent, as government organizations, such as Child Protective Services in the US, is often the only method of intervention, and the institute "must have demonstrable evidence that harm to a child has been done before they can intervene. Due to this a lot of victims may stay in the care of their abuser. Since emotional abuse doesn't result in physical evidence such as bruising or malnutrition, it can be very hard to diagnose." Some researchers have, however, begun to develop methods to diagnose and treat such abuse, including the ability to: identify risk factors, provide resources to victims and their families, and ask appropriate questions to help identify the abuse.

In the workplace
The majority of companies within the United States provide access to a human resources department, in which to report cases of psychological/emotional abuse. Also, many managers are required to participate in conflict management programs, in order to ensure the workplace maintains an "open and respectful atmosphere, with tolerance for diversity and where the existence of interpersonal frustration and friction is accepted but also properly managed." Organizations must adopt zero-tolerance policies for professional verbal abuse. Education and coaching are needed to help employees to improve their skills when responding to professional-to-professional verbal abuse.

Popular perceptions
Several studies found double standards in how people tend to view emotional abuse by men versus emotional abuse by women. Follingstad et al. found that, when rating hypothetical vignettes of psychological abuse in marriages, professional psychologists tend to rate male abuse of females as more serious than identical scenarios describing female abuse of males: "the stereotypical association between physical aggression and males appears to extend to an association of psychological abuse and males".

Similarly, Sorenson and Taylor randomly surveyed a group of Los Angeles, California residents for their opinions of hypothetical vignettes of abuse in heterosexual relationships. Their study found that abuse committed by women, including emotional and psychological abuse such as controlling or humiliating behavior, was typically viewed as less serious or detrimental than identical abuse committed by men. Additionally, Sorenson and Taylor found that respondents had a broader range of opinions about female perpetrators, representing a lack of clearly defined mores when compared to responses about male perpetrators.

When considering the emotional state of psychological abusers, psychologists have focused on aggression as a contributing factor. While it is typical for people to consider males to be the more aggressive of the two sexes, researchers have studied female aggression to help understand psychological abuse patterns in situations involving female abusers. According to Walsh and Shluman, "The higher rates of female initiated aggression [including psychological aggression] may result, in part, from adolescents' attitudes about the unacceptability of male aggression and the relatively less negative attitudes toward female aggression". This concept that females are raised with fewer restrictions on aggressive behaviors (possibly due to the anxiety over aggression being focused on males) is a possible explanation for women who utilize aggression when being mentally abusive.

Some researchers have become interested in discovering exactly why women are usually not considered to be abusive. Hamel's 2007 study found that a "prevailing patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence" led to a systematic reluctance to study women who psychologically and physically abuse their male partners. These findings state that existing cultural norms show males as more dominant and are therefore more likely to begin abusing their significant partners.

Dutton found that men who are emotionally or physically abused often encounter victim blaming that erroneously presumes the man either provoked or deserved the mistreatment by their female partners. Similarly, domestic violence victims will often blame their own behavior, rather than the violent actions of the abuser. Victims may try continually to alter their behavior and circumstances in order to please their abuser. Often, this results in further dependence of the individual on their abuser, as they may often change certain aspects of their lives that limit their resources. A 2002 study concluded that emotional abusers frequently aim to exercise total control of different aspects of family life. This behavior is only supported when the victim of the abuse aims to please their abuser.

Many abusers are able to control their victims in a manipulative manner, utilizing methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the abuser, rather than to force them to do something they do not wish to do. Simon argues that because aggression in abusive relationships can be carried out subtly and covertly through various manipulation and control tactics, victims often do not perceive the true nature of the relationship until conditions worsen considerably.

Cultural causes
A researcher in 1988 said that wife abuse stems from "normal psychological and behavioral patterns of most men ... feminists seek to understand why men, in general, use physical force against their partners and what functions this serves for a society in a given historical context". Dobash and Dobash (1979) said that "Men who assault their wives are living up to cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society--aggressiveness, male dominance and female subordination--and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance," while Walker claims that men exhibit a "socialized androcentric need for power".

While some women are aggressive and dominating to male partners, a 2003 report concluded that the majority of abuse in heterosexual partnerships, at about 80% in the US, is perpetrated by men. (Critics stress that this Department of Justice study examines crime figures, and does not specifically address domestic abuse figures. While the categories of crime and domestic abuse may cross-over, many instances of domestic abuse are either not regarded as crimes or reported to police—critics thus argue that it is inaccurate to regard the DOJ study as a comprehensive statement on domestic abuse.) A 2002 study reports that ten percent of violence in the UK, overall, is by females against males. However, more recent data specifically regarding domestic abuse (including emotional abuse) report that 3 in 10 women, and 1 in 5 men, have experienced domestic abuse.

One source said that legal systems have in the past endorsed these traditions of male domination, and it is only in recent years that abusers have begun to be punished for their behavior. In 1879, a Harvard University law scholar wrote, "The cases in the American courts are uniform against the right of the husband to use any chastisement, moderate or otherwise, toward the wife, for any purpose."

While recognizing that researchers have done valuable work and highlighted neglected topics critics suggest that the male cultural domination hypothesis for abuse is untenable as a generalized explanation for numerous reasons:
 * A 1989 study concluded that many variables (racial, ethnic, cultural and subcultural, nationality, religion, family dynamics, and mental illness) make it very difficult or impossible to define male and female roles in any meaningful way that apply to the entire population.
 * A 1995 study concluded that disagreements about power-sharing in relationships are more strongly associated with abuse than are imbalances of power.
 * Peer-reviewed studies have produced inconsistent results when directly examining patriarchal beliefs and wife abuse. Yllo and Straus (1990) said that "low status" women in the United States suffered higher rates of spousal abuse; however, a rejoinder argued that Yllo and Straus's interpretive conclusions were "confusing and contradictory". Smith (1990) estimated that patriarchal beliefs were a causative factor for only 20% of wife abuse. Campbell (1993) writes that "there is not a simple linear correlation between female status and rates of wife assault." Other studies had similar findings.  Additionally, a 1994 study of Hispanic Americans revealed that traditionalist men exhibited lower rates of abuse towards women.
 * Studies from the 1980s showed that treatment programs based on the patriarchal privilege model are flawed due to a weak connection between abusiveness and one's cultural or social attitudes.
 * A 1992 study challenge the concept that male abuse or control of women is culturally sanctioned, and concluded that abusive men are widely viewed as unsuitable partners for dating or marriage. A 1988 study concluded that a minority of abusive men qualify as pervasively misogynistic. A 1986 study concluded that the majority of men who commit spousal abuse agree that their behavior was inappropriate. A 1970 study concluded that a minority of men approve of spousal abuse under even limited circumstances. Studies from the 1970 and 1980s concluded that the majority of men are non-abusive towards girlfriends or wives for the duration of relationships, contrary to predictions that aggression or abuse towards women is an innate element of masculine culture.
 * In 1994, a researcher said that the numerous studies establishing that heterosexual and gay male relationships have lower rates of abuse than lesbian relationships, and the fact that women who have been involved with both men and women were more likely to have been abused by a woman "are difficult to explain in terms of male domination." Additionally, Dutton said that "patriarchy must interact with psychological variables in order to account for the great variation in power-violence data. It is suggested that some forms of psychopathology lead to some men adopting patriarchal ideology to justify and rationalize their own pathology."

A 2010 study said that fundamentalist views of religions tend to reinforce emotional abuse, and that "Gender inequity is usually translated into a power imbalance with women being more vulnerable. This vulnerability is more precarious in traditional patriarchal societies."

In the Book of Genesis God specifically punishes women after Adam and Eve disobey Him: "in sorrow, thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"; God also condemns Adam to a lifetime of work, for the sin of listening to his wife.

Some studies say that fundamentalist religious prohibitions against divorce may make it more difficult for religious men or women to leave an abusive marriage. A 1985 survey of Protestant clergy in the United States by Jim M Alsdurf found that 21% of them agreed that "no amount of abuse would justify a woman's leaving her husband, ever", and 26% agreed with the statement that "a wife should submit to her husband and trust that God would honor her action by either stopping the abuse or giving her the strength to endure it." A 2016 report by the Muslim Women's Network UK cited several barriers for Muslim women in abusive marriages who seek divorce through Sharia Council services. These barriers include: selectively quoting religious text to discourage divorce; blaming the woman for the failed marriage; placing greater weight on the husband's testimony; requiring the woman to present two male witnesses; and pressuring women into mediation or reconciliation rather than granting a divorce, even when domestic violence is present.

In today's world, various forms of abuse are increasingly being recognized in all parts of the world. The level of awareness regarding abuse varies from one country to another. Both victims and perpetrators around the world are being acknowledged more readily compared to past eras.

title: Psychological abuse


text:
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
thanks for your feedback and fixes. I notice one with a message (in red below) so I'll post an answer here.
 * {|border=1

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. Note Wolfram wrongly dates the poem to 392, though it was written after the death of Eutropius (consul) (died 399).{{clarify|date=April 2020|reason= {{color|red|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 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)
 * 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
perhaps easier to note these issues raised in two edits 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)
 * 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)
 * 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). 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.
 * 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. 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)
 * 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: 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)
 * 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))

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ostrogoths


text: User:Secretlondon/Photo Gallery Lambeth

title: User:Secretlondon/Photo Gallery Lambeth


text:
Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock

William John Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock, (8 December 1907 – 14 October 1985) was a British barrister and judge who served as a lord of appeal in ordinary between 1968 and until his death in 1985. Appointed to the English High Court in 1956 and the Court of Appeal five years later, Diplock made important contributions to the development of constitutional and public law as well as many other legal fields. A frequent choice for governmental inquiries, he is also remembered for proposing the creation of the eponymous juryless Diplock courts. Of him, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell wrote that "to his generation Diplock was the quintessential man of the law".

Early life and legal career
Kenneth Diplock was born in South Croydon, the son of solicitor William John Hubert Diplock and his wife Christine Joan Brooke. He was educated at Whitgift School in Croydon and University College, Oxford, where he read chemistry and graduated with a second-class degree in 1929. He was Secretary of the Oxford Union for a term in 1929. He later become an honorary fellow of University College in 1958.

Diplock was called to the bar by the Middle Temple in 1932. After two years in the chambers of Sir Valentine Holmes, KC, he transferred to the chambers of Sir Leslie Scott, KC. In 1939, he left legal practice for serve in the Second World War; in 1941, he joined the Royal Air Force, in which he reached the rank of squadron leader. From 1939 to 1948, he was secretary to the Master of the Rolls, Lord Greene.

Returning to the bar in 1945, Diplock was made a King's Counsel in 1948, at the early age of 41. He acquired a large practice in commercial work and in advisory work for Commonwealth governments. He was Recorder of Oxford from 1951 to 1956, and served on the Law Reform Committee.

Judicial career
In 1956, Diplock was appointed to the High Court of Justice, receiving the customary knighthood. Assigned to the Queen's Bench Division, he was appointed President of the Restrictive Practices Court in January 1961. He was promoted to be a Lord Justice of Appeal in October 1961, and was sworn of the Privy Council. He was chairman of the Security Commission from 1971 to 1982.

He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary on 30 September 1968 and was elevated as a life peer with the title Baron Diplock, of Wansford in the County of Huntingdon and Peterborough to the House of Lords.

He became the senior Law Lord upon the retirement of Lord Wilberforce in 1982. He resigned his seniority in October 1984 but remained a Law Lord until his death the following year.

As Lord Diplock, he chaired a commission set up in 1972 to consider legal measures against terrorism in Northern Ireland, which led to the establishment of the juryless Diplock courts with which his name is now often associated.

In September 1985, Lord Diplock sat as a judge for the last time, in a special sitting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council during the Long Vacation for an urgent civil case from Trinidad and Tobago. Severely ill from emphysema, Diplock came to court from the hospital in a wheelchair and with an oxygen cylinder.

At the time of his death, Lord Diplock was the longest serving law lord as well as the last serving superior judge to not be covered the mandatory retirement age of 75 introduced by the Judicial Pensions Act 1959.

Personal life
He married Margaret Sarah Atcheson in 1938; they had no children.

Contributions to legal thought
He made many contributions to legal thought and pushed the law in new and unique directions, not least UK courts without juries ('Diplock courts)'. His rulings, especially those on administrative law, are often considered as authoritative not only in England but across the Commonwealth and even in the United States, where he has been cited by the Supreme Court.

Examples include Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9 or R (National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 617, on grounds of review and locus standi respectively.

He also made important contributions to contract law.

The current typology of grounds for judicial review is owing to Lord Diplock.

 * Procedural impropriety
 * Nemo judex (Bias rule)
 * Audi alteram partem (Hearing rule)
 * Illegality
 * Ultra vires
 * Simple ultra vires
 * Extended ultra vires
 * Procedural ultra vires
 * Fettering
 * Irrationality
 * Wednesbury irrationality
 * Lack of proportionality
 * Innominate Terms
 * Primary and Secondary Obligations

High Court

 * Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 743

Court of Appeal

 * Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
 * Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [1963] 2 QB 606
 * BBC v Johns [1965] Ch 32
 * Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
 * United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood [1966] 2 QB 431
 * R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421

House of Lords

 * Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777
 * Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004
 * Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
 * Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1971] AC 912
 * American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
 * Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v C&K (Construction) Ltd [1976] AC 167
 * Town Investments v Department of the Environment [1978] AC 359
 * DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55, 68
 * Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd [1979] AC 731
 * Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294
 * Whitehouse v Lemon; Whitehouse v Gay News Ltd [1979] 2 WLR 281
 * IRC v Burmah Oil Co. Ltd 1982 SC (HL) 114
 * Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183
 * Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1983] 1 AC 366
 * R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
 * Cheall v APEX [1983] 2 AC 180
 * O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
 * R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156
 * Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
 * Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207
 * R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

 * Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] AC 648
 * Mitchell v DPP [1986] AC 73
 * Haw Tua Tau v. Public Prosecutor [1981] UKPC 23

title: Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock