Talk:Gomer

Merge from Gomerian
Please merge any relevant content from [ Gomerian] per Articles for deletion/Gomerian. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:54Z 
 * I fixed the double redirect and left only a phrase that explains the redirect, but unless a citation is found, this should be dropped as well. Tikiwont 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

British-Israelite nonsense
The section connecting the Welsh to the Cimmerians and the Cimmerians to Gomer is nonsense. There is no relationship between the word Cymru, which comes from the Brittonic *kom-brogos, and Cimmerian, just as there's no evidence that the Welsh were Scythian, Hebrew, or any other pseudohistorical foolishness. MaryJones (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Scythian is pronounced ˈsiTHēən and has the letters "cy" similar to Cymru and Cimmerians is pronounced at least two different ways səˈmirēən and səˈmerēən and another way to spell their name is Cimmeri Greek Kimmerioi and Crimean pronounced krīˈmēən and the Cimbri Greek Kímbroi and Kimmerioi we can tell there related.
 * Even though Cimbri is described as Germanic tribe, and the Cimmerians of Crimea are described as an eastern Iranian tribe there all related to each other and descend from Ashkenaz and Madai the sons of Japheth.
 * The Miautso people (Miao) of China called Gomer by the name Go-men and the Japanese associated him with the Komari tribe another name for the Cymry (Assyrians called them the Gimmerai) the descendants of Kimmérioi (Cimmerians) of Crimea the son of Taari "Tauri" (Taurians), grandson of Tubal and great grandson of Japheth.
 * Raamah son of Cush was also known as "Regma" and "Reema".
 * "Reema" means “White Antelope” and refers to the Arabian oryx that was native to the Arabian Peninsula and was declared extinct back in the 1970s.
 * In the Chaldean account of Genesis by George Smith he actually mentions the name Ragmu which is similar to "Regma" pronounced reg-muh and refers to dry fruit and fruit trees have been grown in the Jordan Valley as far back as 7,000 years ago.
 * Even the people of Cambodia descend from Gomer the son of Japheth-Nese "Japanese" the son of Noah
 * Cymru and their language Cymraeg and the Khmer rōɡ as in Rouge (rogue) GomerRaug (rags) rag-and-bone man we can tell that there all related to each other.
 * pronounced raɡ ən ˈbōn ˌman was a man who traveled to different locations buying things that people no longer wanted and sold them to other people.
 * Gomer is connected to Gomorrah pronounced ɡəˈmôrə is a spelling variation of Moray in the northeast of Scotland and Garmouth is the name of a village in Moray Scotland clearly named after Togarmah son of Gomer.
 * Even Tiger Moth is another spelling variation of the name Togarmah.
 * About 80% of the Jewish people are Ashkenazi and descend from Ashkenaz the son of Japheth
 * Japheth's daughter Shushan "Susan" married Elam and they are the ancestors of Hua-Mu'ak the mother of Eber "Heber" (Hebrews) the ancestor of the people of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England through the Tribe of Dan as in (Danmark) the original name of Denmark and that is why their people are called Danes because Dane is pronounced dān (Danmark)
 * Japheth's son Madai is also the ancestor of the Hebrews through Selah the father of Eber "Heber" (Hebrews). Dfndusa (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be foolishness, but this is about a particular theory which believes otherwise. Perhaps it should be stated as only a theory, but not completely eliminated, as it is relevant. ---G.T.N. (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is no evidence for these claims, it's not a theory but merely an undocumented hypothesis and probably should be marked as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.124.149 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Preceding comment is mine.Bengt (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've restored and amended my original edit. The theory or hypothesis should indeed be mentioned as it was quite influential, however it was just that. I object very stongly to the edit made to revert this by User:Til Eulenspiegel, describing it as "OR and POV" etc (is that a joke?!). This is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is now well referenced and worded neutrally. No one, least of all those sources, are claiming that the word Cymry actually derives from Cimmerians, but as the sources demonstrate the theory was widespread at one time and therefore ought to be mentioned here. This version doesn't actually say anything more than the other, it just clarifies and elucidates what was already there.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, this is the only referenced paragraph on the entire page.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

British-Israelites?

 * This dispute has NOTHING to do with "British Israelites".  Gomer and Israel are entirely separate, so even if one assumed that Celts were descendants of Gomer or Japheth, it still wouldn't make them one of the lost tribes of Israel, or validate any "British Israelite" claims. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the "Proof"???
Several times, claims have been added to this page that such and such an author or experts has "proven" the etymology of the Welsh name Cymru, or has "disproven" that it has anything to do with the name Gomer. Where is the proof? Do these sources actually use the word "proof" or is that perhaps editorializing by someone with an agenda to push? Most reliable sources by reliable authors are cautious about using words like "proof" if there actually isn't any "proof", and "proofs" in etymology are rare. Whenever anyone insists they have "proven" something like this, it raises a red flag with me that there is biased wording. I have no objection to including any of these quotes that actually do mention the article subject, or any other quotes that pertain to the subject; but unless compelling proof was shown, it seems a bit opinionated to make wikipedia unreservedly endorse any one speculation on the origin of the name "Cymru" and declare the case "closed". I seriously doubt this would do justice to opposing povs that do not accept that the case has been solved to everyone's complete satisfaction. So if these authors really have "proof" their etymology is the only possible one (as opposed to a bald, authoritative-sounding assertion), then please do share it with me. Otherwise policy dictates that we follow WP:ATTRIB and state exactly WHOSE pov it is -- not render our "decision" that one contemporary school of thought is "proven correct" and another is "proven wrong". Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It didn't say "proof", it just indicated the consensus among modern scholars and included reliable sources to back it up. I've now changed the wording per your suggestion, however. The bottom line is, modern scholars don't accept the "Gomer" hypothesis for the derivation of the word "Cymry", and Wikipedia goes by what the experts say; it's not our prerogative to include every possible point of view. Not all opinions are equal. From WP:UNDUE: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all..."--Cúchullain t/ c 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that certain views easily found elsewhere, with little effort, regarding the article subject, Gomer, be excluded from wikipedia, or declared false? But yet, despite my request, you cannot furnish the "proof" you allege these authors present?  ("Because they said so, and they are the only acceptable experts" is not explaining how they "proved" anything, or even claimed to "prove" anything).  What are you afraid of by acknowledging that there are other povs beside your own? Your assertion that it is a "tiny minority view" is just another bald assertion with nothing to back it up; I can easily find several rss discussing the Cymru / Gomer,  and please do not pretend there is consensus among editors to declare one school of thought "correct" and the other "incorrect". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not my point of view, it's the point of view of the experts referenced in the article (which are, incidentally, the only experts referenced on the entire page). Again, the article doesn't say they "proved" anything, it just indicates what the current academic consensus is. That is how Wikipedia works. If you have any sources that contradict the scholars mentioned here, bring them forward, and we can discuss (though I'd be very surprised if you found any modern academic sources arguing for the view that the word Cymry actually comes from Cimmerians and Gomer).--Cúchullain t/ c 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised, but that is fair enough; I'll see what all can be found. The word "shown" currently in the article seems a little strong as well, though; especially if we are not going to share how your sources have "shown" this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a case of "proving" anything, as Cuchullain notes, merely stating what is the accepted academic consensus. I suggest you try to find a modern academic dictionary or other reliable work on Celtic philology that does not accept that consensus but proposes a derivation from Gomer and the Cimmerians instead. Good luck to you: you'll be searching for a very long time indeed. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will indeed try to find some; and will mention whatever I find here on the talkpage; as for the article page itself, I don't have any major dispute with the current collaborative version and I'm glad to see we seem to have at least some consensus at present. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Then there isn't any further issue with that paragraph.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New dispute?
Just when I thought a compromise had been reached, User:Beland threw a new NPOV dispute tag up, with only the comment "reports Biblical characters as if they were real people", but no explanation or discussion here. I'm removing this, because the article does not, in fact, 'report Biblical characters as if they were real people'. If anyone feels the article is not currently neutral enough on the question of whether Biblical characters were real people (which should certainly be as neutral as possible) please provide a more specific explanation of the dispute here on this page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think neutrality is the real issue here. I've added fact tags to the sentences where they are needed, I hope that clears it up. I also combined the section on Gomer's descendants, as there wasn't any more than a sentence or two in each subsection, and I made all the citations inline for the sake of consistency.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The two Gomers
I've removed the "In Hosea" section of this article, as there is little evidence that I can see that there is any connection between the male Gomer in the Book of Genesis and the female Gomer in the Book of Hosea. The article previously asserted that there was a connection thus: "Some analysts, following Felix Ernst Peiser, have suggested that this marriage is really a figurative or prophetic reference to a union between the 'lost tribes of Israel' with the above-mentioned people of Gomer, following the Assyrian deportation." No source was provided, and I have been unable to establish that there is a noteworthy connection asserted by analysts. This search was fruitless. Please do not add the section back without citing a reliable source establishing a connection. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop deleting information you're evidently not too familiar with, when you clearly can't be bothered to do the research properly after a single flawed google search. As we've been through before, this article currently covers all mentions of Gomer in the Bible, Gomer is mentioned in Hosea, therefore we cover the mention of Gomer in Hosea and what biblical scholars such as Peiser have stated about a possible connection.  Very simple.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right; I'm not too familiar with this particular subject, except for having read Genesis and Hosea myself. But I do know that (a) Wikipedia is based in large part on verifiability and (b) the burden of evidence is supposed to be on the editor who is restoring the disputed material. So, I'm sorry for my failure to research this to the degree to which you would like me to research it; however, if you can do a better job, by all means do so. If my search was flawed, perform a better one. At this point in time, you have not provided any evidence of scholars drawing a connection between the two Gomers. If you can do better than I, please add a source.
 * And for what it's worth, this article is clearly about the Gomer in Genesis; anyone can tell that simply by reading the lead. If it's going to be a treatment of both Gomers, the lead should reflect that – but frankly, unless you can show that scholars have drawn the connection, it makes no sense to cover the two Gomers in the same article. Having the same name is not enough. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I criticised your googling skills without being constructive. I should have suggested better search terms. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)