    So far we have several arguments going.  I will simply mention my thoughts on each of them, for whatever it is worth, and then give my conclusion. A1: Barbarian is a slur and should be dropped :This has been refuted by reference to historians who have used the word in this context in an academic and non-derogatory manner, and also by the use of the term by barbarians themselves, as shown above.  Someone understanding the term in a derogatory way in this context is making a mistaken based on ignorance (see below). A2: People might, due to an equivocation, misunderstand the term :This has been refuted by the observation that the term is linked, and therefore any misunderstanding is due either to an insufficiency in the main article, or intellectual laziness on the part of the reader. A3:The word is a judgment on the unrefined nature of Germanic paganism :This has been thoroughly shown to be inaccurate, and the term describes something independent of religion, observed by showing that there were Christian barbarians as well A4:The term is not a useful descriptor because it is hopelessly vague, including such people as African tribesmen of the Sahara, Tibetans, Maya, Pacific Islanders and Goths :This argument is false because it is based on an improper understanding of barbarian in the given context and thus results instead from an anachronistic use of the term.  In the history of the sub-Roman period it does not refer to any of the above groups except Goths A5:The term is unnecessary because there were no people who were Germanic and pagan at the time who were not likewise barbarian :This is perhaps the only argument with a possible case, in my view.  Though there may perhaps be some exceptions.  For example, Germanic people who had been settled in the Roman empire as early as the second century, and in later times were Christian, sometimes found themselves or their Children sold into slavery beyond the frontier.  That would make their children Germanic, Christian, but not barbarian. In conclusion I will say that there is simply no good grounds for removal of the term.  The employment of quotation marks around the word seems a reasonable compromise.  This is the decision I will support, and my position shall not change unless another argument has been advanced, or until my reasoning above is shown to be in error.   