Talk:Cimbri

message: These Prussian entries seem to be more a bilingual dictionary of proper names that assumes that any etymological connection is meaningful than actual encyclopedia entries. --MichaelTinkler
-----
The Cimbri lived on the Jutland peninsula some 2000 years ago.
The Rome said:
The Cimbri lived by the a bay near Heligoland and near Elbe.
The Cimbri disappeared after a flood some 2000 years ago.
A crazy Dane about 1500 said: Cimbri lived on Jutland becorse Jutland have at place name
Himmersyssel, which have two letters in common.
who are most credible?
13:23, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
:User:Haabet, you are a serious problem to Wikipedia, since I have to verify everything you write. I am beginning to understand why you are the most banned user ever on Danish Wikipedia. I have checked with other encyclopedias and there is nothing but Jutland.--Wiglaf 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: If Himmerland is from that tribe's name, but they were defeated as Cimbri in 100 BC, Grimm's law would have been active in Denmark after 100 BC. That seems rather difficult to believe; cf. Negau helmet: If this is the case, Grimm's law has to be dated to precisely the 2nd to 1st centuries BC (a soundlaw may remain active over 200 years, I suppose, but hardly over 500 years). This is not impossible, of course, but it would mean that the Germanic tribes in the 2nd century BC still lived in close enough contact to be affected by it without exception. (the Cimri would then be the last pre-Proto-Germanic tribe...). dab (ᛏ) 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: their leaders being called Lugius and Boiorix, clearly Gaulish names -- I think it is dubitable that they were a "Proto-Germanic tribe" as asserted. They may have been composed of Germans and Gauls under Gaulish leadership, but it seems too confident to say they were Proto-Germans from Jutland. dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grimm's law

message: I removed the merge tag for merging with Cimbrian War (present since January 2006); both articles are long & well-developed at this point and should probably stay separate. The corresponding tag had already been removed from Cimbrian War some time ago. Please discuss here if there are alternate view -- phoebe 06:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The meaning given for the name of Wales is a folk etymology and has nothing to do with reality.  The Combes, Coombes or Coombs, are hollows of Britain, especially on the western coast.  Perhaps this error is repeated elsewhere, but I will not fix it for you lot.  Rhode Islander 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Germanic and Celtic is fiction without contents. If you accept Germania as a territory. The inhabitant had nothing together except your name of there territory. A tribe from Germania is not a Germanic tribe, because the originally Germanic tribe was a tribe in Gaul. In the same way as the originally Gaul tribe was a tribe in north Italy.Håbet 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The language of Wales is in family by some languages of Persia and in family by languages in most of Europe. If two tribes had the same name, it was often a coincidence. A new tribe, mixed of people from many tribes had need of a new name different from all the originally tribes, and a language have a limited number of word suitable for to a tribe name.Håbet 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Nazi sad the Germanic originated in Scandinavia, of that cause all other people was weeds who ought to gas. If you say "the Germanic language and culture originated in Scandinavia" your are a Nazi.Håbet 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The language of Cimbri is unknown. The Scandinavia Languages is mixing language of two original Languages. Nearly all fact about Celtic and Germanic and Gaulish Language is fiction, because they had no written language. The legend tell as three boats from Scandza and founded the Ostrogothic kingdom, but was all the Germanic Language in that three boats as the legend is fact?Håbet 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cymry means the same as Cumbria and Cvm, not Compatriot 

message: Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project
I have come up we this - Belgae DNA Modal through my Nordic-Celtic DNA project (1008 members).
http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view.asp?uid=&letter=&lastname=Belgae&viewuid=AX6GA&p=0
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic
Investigating the contribution that archaeology has made to accounts of human evolution
Accounts of human evolution usually revolve around well-publicised discoveries of the bony remains of our ancestors. These do allow us to piece together our family tree and to paint - at least in broad outline - a picture of the ancestors who appear on that tree. But it is the archaeological record that preserves actual traces of our ancestors' activities and intuition suggests that these ought to be fundamental to our accounts of human evolution. However, this is far from being the case and this project is designed to explore why this is so.
Masters Thesis
I would like to enroll into the Masters Thesis Research Degree
This is a link to my Research:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic
I could also research to what degree of social assimilation occurred between native European groups of people throughout the history of Australia - through dna?
The focus of the project is to gather a representation of evidence and interest in Native Scandinavians and Native Celtic-Iberians found in ‘all’ parts of Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.247.252 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project 

message: This is not a popular view at all and is unlikely. The name looks similar to Cymry but that doesn't mean a connecting. Celts and Germanic people are both Indo-European. If the words are related they could be to do with the Indo-European language. 
Also, old sources mention nothing about them being Celtic and historians and most etmologists don't either. So we shouldn't start off saying "they are a Germanic-cross Celtic' tribe! This is filled with weazel words trying to steer the article towards the conclusion that they were a Celtic tribe...which is unlikely. DR. Martin Hesselius 14:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cimbri-Cymry?

message: Please insert a proper identification instead of (Coxcomb 2007) interpolated into a sentence: it's foolishly pretentious without a bibliography directly attached. I worked out most of these little undergraduate puzzlers, but not all. I've commented out some questions where the text just couldn't be unknotted. ---- Wetman (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: I think its intellectually irresponsible to indiscriminately write "The Cimbri were a Germanic tribe" in the beginning of the article. We have lots of sources and information saying the Cimbri are Celtic, and a few "unreferenced" claims that they are Germanic. What is the reasoning behind labeling them Germanic as a standard, when the evidence possibly says otherwise? SenseOnes (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The names of the Cimbri's chiefs (Boiorix, Gaesorix, Lugius, etc.) are undoubtedly Celtic. The most famous archaeological item found on the territory of the Cimbri, the Gundestrup Cauldron, is distinctive of the Celtic art. The tribes names "Teutones" and "Ambrones" are Celtic too. The fact that the Cimbri spoke a Celtic Language is attested by Pliny the Elder, who quotes several words of the Cimbrian Language. Thus, assuming that the Cimbri are only Germanic or Germanic with a Celtic influence is uncorrect (see also David K. Faux "The Cimbri of Denmark" who mentions many other sources and "Les Gaulois" by Jean Grenier who discusses the question of the Cimbrian Chief Names eg.). As far as I know, there is no argument pointing toward the fact that the Cimbri were Germanic. For the Romans, "Germanic" did not refer to an ethno-linguistic entity, thus the fact that Cicero considered a given tribe as "germanic" isn't relevant.Kentel (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's surely not an established "fact" that a tribe-name like "Teutones" has to be Celtic. Fulcher (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanic/Celtic

message: "Common" to whom or what?
If you say the year of the dog, we know you mean the Chinese calendar and can get our bearings there. If you say 1400 years since the birth of Muhammed, we know you are referring to the Muslim Calendar. If you say some time during the reign of Cyrus the Great, we know you are referring to the Persian calendar. If you say some time until the end of the world, you may be referring to the Mayan calendar. But please understand that the Gregorian calendar is not the Authority on what is the Common Era. It is purely chauvinistic to assume that YOUR calendar is the Common One. Get over it because not everyone is on the same page and agrees with your idea of what's common. Just cite your calendar and let me take it from there, OK?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.31.2 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Era 

message: Sorry to re-arouse this debate, but we need to update how we are assessing this issue. I would argue that they were neither, with qualification. We need to ask what we mean when we propose they were Celtic, or Germanic ? Coz the recent trend of anthropology would argue that the notion of Celtic ethnicity did not exist, nor a Germanic one until at least 800s AD, but perhaps more realistically 1600 were the first of the Germanisists began writing. THus to call them GErmanic or CEltic is somewhat imprecise and anachronistic - especially that the terms are first and foremost lingusitic categories that have been (somewould argue inappropriately) extended to also refer to archaeological features or ancient tribes. 
If they really did come from Jutland, the fact that they might have lived in "Germanic" long-houses or used "Celtic" swords does not, in itself, designate ethnicity, but only informs us about their socio-economic mode of existence and the trade contacts they engaged in. We actually have next to no real evidence directly associated with the Cimbri. 
All one is left with is the language that they might have spoken. As it has already been mentioned above, if they were proto-Germanic speakers, then they should have been called Chimbri and Theutones. Unless the Romans got the name wrong, it would suggest that they spoke a not yet Germanized IE language. That's all we can leave it at, if we want to aviod false conclusions Hxseek (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was definitely a Germanic identity much earlier. After all, the Germanic people had a specific word, *walhaz, to refer to a non-Germanic person. I don't know about the Celts though. CodeCat (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This discurse is irrelevant. Germanic is a oldeuropean language and much older as Cymraec or celtic. The Cimber spoken nethergermanic. *valla (not stupid *walhaz reconstruction),  means a wandering. It comes from walla, wallfahrt, wallhall, valley.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.159.60.41 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial v is unlikely in proto-Germanic. Initial c/k is also unlikely. Anyway, the source given for the statement that they are simply unambiguously Germanic, in the lede, is inadequate. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Preceding speech of 5.159.60.41 is completely irrelevant and shows clearly that he never studied etymology. First, Celtic is documented (inscriptions on stones, lead, etc.) a long time before Germanic. For sure, it does not mean anything about the age of the language. Celtic and Germanic are both from Proto-Indo-European and they are certainly as old as one another. Second Wallfahrt (with W, not w) is a German word, only attested in mittelhochdeutsch wallevart and is based on the German verb wallen "go, make a pilgrimage" related to Old English weallian and Dutch wallen. It is only Westgermanic. The reconstructed Germanic form is *wāđlójan not *walla. Valley does not have anything to do with that, it comes from Old French val[l]ee (mod. vallée), the Old English word is only dæl > dale. Etymology of French vallée is Latin vallis + suffix -ATA, so Gallo-Romance VALLATA > vallee, -ee is the result of -ata only in French. Walhall[a]′s first element is the same as Walstatt "battle field, battle place" from OHG wal "place to fight", OE wæl, OI valr, related to Latin vellere and Old Irish fuil "blood", all from PIE root *uel.Nortmannus (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtic vs Germanic

message: Hi. Would it not be possible to get a better map? Cimbri is basically off the map, you can just see the name on it, but not even the whole of Cimri is on the map. Thanks, regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Chances are better that the cimbri were ethnically celtic. Anti-Germanic historians just call them Germanic because it is beneficial for celtic people to say that the reason why the romans went to war with the celtic tribes of Europe and destroyed celts and enslaved them is because Germanic tribes sacked rome. Historians often lie to make the Celts look like they are nice people who never did anything wrong while assigning blame for everything that is considered bad to Germanic males.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.28.100 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Total, unadulterated nonsense. Cagwinn (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historians call them Germanic to place the blame of Rome going to war with the Celts on Germanic males. 

message: Reviewing this article's history, I note a very long-running edit war over the matter of whether this article describes the Cimbri as a Germanic people, a Celtic people, or a people of debated but uncertain origin who may have been either Germanic or Celtic. The last is the closest to reality given that the sources are still in conflict, and stood for a long time until somebody edited it last fall to describe them as purely Celtic, following which somebody else revised it just a few days later to describe them as purely Germanic while not simultaneously editing the category from "Celtic peoples" to "Germanic peoples", a major screwup that makes Wikipedia look sloppy and stupid.   
The question of whether the Cimbri were Celtic or Germanic remains unresolved as things stand, with sources claiming evidence in both directions. It is not Wikipedia's role to take a stand either way as to which sources are more credible, however — until reliable sources establish a consensus one way or the other, our role here begins and ends at saying that the matter is unresolved. 
TLDR: cut it the hell out. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One improvement that could be made in this regard would be a smaller bunch of citations, focusing on the best known ones taking each position. At the moment, all sources given push the Germanic theory. An example of someone well know who accepts the Celtic idea is Walter Goffart: https://books.google.be/books?id=dM3kdRzztiIC&pg=PA282 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V|Verifiability]] 

message: https://www.academia.edu/10287326/SOUTHEAST_EUROPEAN_INFLUENCES_IN_THE_EARLY_IRON_AGE_OF_SOUTHERN_SCANDINAVIA_Gundestrup_and_the_Cimbri
I don't have time for it right now, but if anyone does...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful source? 

message: Characterizing the ethnicities of proto-historic groups is fraught, especially migratory ones we have conflicting information about, like the Cimbri. This article suffers badly from presuming it's necessary or even possible to sort proto-historic tribes into discrete buckets like "Celtic" or "Germanic," as opposed to simply sticking to the facts at hand (i.e., the Cimbri were Cimbric and may have had layers of influence from different other ethnic and linguistic groups).
Throughout the article, the writing argues and asserts a dubious preference for the Cimbri's Germanness, even verging on original research to do so. When the characteristically Celtic linguistics known about the Cimbri come up, the writing grasps at amateurish excuses to dismiss it, or vague handwaving of unequivocal statements from scholars.
Other absurdities include the opening claim under "Origins" that scholars "generally see the Cimbri as a Germanic tribe," which appears to cite a whopping six sources but, upon inspection, half of them turn out to be all Encyclopedia Britannica.
At a minimum, to untangle this, the article should do the following:
# Clarify its terms. Rather than treating "Celtic" and "Germanic" as self-explanatory and universally applicable concepts, articulate the distinctions between the linguistic criteria modern scholars use vs. the often merely geographic meaning such terms have in Classical sources (i.e., East vs. West of the Rhine).
# Quit making this foolish issue permeate the entire article as if it's the most important or defining fact about the Cimbri, and relevant to every section. It should get a brief mention in the intro, it should be touched upon (properly) when the linguistic evidence comes up, and the characterizations known from Classical sources should be noted (and properly contexutalized). That's it. Really nothing more.
# Quit priviliging simplistic and passing mentions from general-purpose encyclopedia like Britannica, while dismissing the more detailed analysis from field experts like linguists.
# Weed out all of the argumentative and original researching passages.
— Uiscefada (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is fundamentally flawed