Talk:Togarmah

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

On what basis is this claimed history denigrated as mere myth? Mdotley 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Gomer's son Togarmah confused with his COUSIN Torgom son of Tiras (Tiras was the brother of Gomer) in this article? Even the evidence presented shows that they had two different sets of offspring. Sort it out please. Kaz 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And why does the article start with this? "Togarmah ... is a figure in the "table of nations" in Genesis 10, the list of descendants of Noah that represents the peoples known to the ancient Hebrews." It makes it sound like the ancient Hebrews descended from all the descendants of Noah, named in the list of Genesis 10. The Hebrew people descend from Noah, yes, but specifically through his son Shem (his line only). Abraham, the first patriarch of the Hebrew people, was a direct descendant of Shem. Abraham begot Isaac and then Isaac begot Jacob who became the father to the first 10 tribes of Israel (his son Joseph had two sons whose names were given to the remaining two tribes, to make the 12 tribes of Israel). If one reads Genesis 10 this can be seen. I think if we're going to cite Genesis 10 then we need to cite if correctly. Thanks!172.58.125.174 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tocharians

Is there a relationship with the Tocharians? --41.151.250.113 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any of Togarmah's relationships would be a point of dispute. But the purpose of the talk page is not really to get answers like that. (We are not Yahoo!) This page is for hashing out potential changes to the article content. So if you wish to suggest that the article mention such a connection, the thing to do would be to research it, and see what sources can be found discussing the two names together. (You or anyone could do this). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged etymology

turks are saying that they originate from oguz and kogturk. this is mistranslation and mistyping from ugar/ungar and kotrak. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kotrag

gar means tribe. hungar means xiongnu/huni tribe. the term turkestan originates from kotrak. modern turkish language is influenced by islam and has no connection to past turkestan or past turkestan must be called kotrakstan and not turkestan.

altsek, aljigar, kanbina, ragbina these are all the same but they were mistyped over the centuries. also some latin historians refer to aljigar as arkadius, althouth the root of the word gar means tribe,

ungar,magar,bulgar(bugar/buzar/kuzar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

This article needs a lot of cleanup. Currently it is a confused mixture that utterly fails to distinguish between original biblical ethnology, modern historiography and the various medieval claims of descendance. There's a whole lot of very bad OR here, and a complete lack of proper context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Khazars are not equivalent

Recently, an anonymous IP address changed the name of a section from "Jewish traditions" to "Jewish aka Khazar traditions." The title contains two problems. First, the section does not include only material from Khazar Jews. It only begins with Khazar material, and then introduces regular medieval Jewish sources. Second, there is a fringe theory that modern Jews aren't "really" Jews, but are simply the descendants of Khazar converts to Judaism. The title "Jewish aka Khazar" traditions gives credence to that title. While it may be true that some Khazars converted to Judaism in medieval times, it is unjustifiable to put such a sweeping generalization as "Jewish aka Khazar" in a Wikipedia section title. It would be just as inappropriate as "Jewish aka British" or "Jewish aka African." So I reverted the change to "Jewish."

Immediately, what is apparently another anonymous IP address came along and reverted it to "Jewish aka Khazar traditions," with a talk summary as follows: "Undid revision 764319024 by Alephb (talk) even the section correctly notes Khazars became Jewish so this isn't "fringe" so much as "a truth you don't like". As stated above, whether some Khazars converted to Judaism or not is irrelevant for our purposes right now. What is relevant is this: is "Khazar" another word for "Jew." It isn't. Alephb (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]