Talk:Gomer

message: Please merge any relevant content from [ Gomerian] per Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Gomerian]] 

message: :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)
thread_title: British-Israelites?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good. Then there isn't any further issue with that paragraph.--Cúchullain t/c 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the "Proof"??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New dispute?