Talk:Semitic people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Some sources

Regarding the debate around when this term was invented, the best sources are as follows:

• A note on the history of 'Semitic', 2003, by Martin Baasten. This explains the history of its usage, primarily as a language group but with some early ethnic use
• Taal-, land- en volkenkunde in de achttiende eeuw, 1994, by Han Vermeulen. This is in Dutch, but was quoted as the key reference by Baasten above in his note 35 (page 67, Baasten) regarding the early ethnic use of the term. Baasten / Vermeulen say that the first ethnic use of the term was Gatterer in 1771
• Einleitung in die synchronistische universalhistorie, Gatterer, 1771. In German. This is the source pointed to by Baasten and Vermeulen as the first ethnic use of the term Semitic. My ability to read German blackletter is mediocre, but it appears to define the term quite differently from a geographic point of view versus just Semitic-language speakers, perhaps because the concept of Semitic languages was still being invented when this was written.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One more source referenced by Baasten and Vermeulen:

• Schlözer, August Ludwig (1771). Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte. Gebauer. p. 266.

Vermeulen explains that August Ludwig von Schlözer and Johann Christoph Gatterer were colleagues and rivals at the University of Göttingen, and created this "Biblical ethnology" together. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Another good source here, explaining the role of Johann David Michaelis in the story:

• Jonathan M. Hess, Johann David Michaelis and the Colonial Imaginary: Orientalism and the Emergence of Racial Antisemitism in Eighteenth-Century Germany, Jewish Social Studies, Volume 6, Number 2, Winter 2000 (New Series), pp. 56-101 | 10.1353/jss.2000.0003

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hess, Jonathan M. (2002). Germans, Jews and the Claims of Modernity. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09701-6. For with his vision of sugar island Jews, Michaelis articulates a racial antisemitism that marks due ultimate embodiment of German Orientalist fantasies of both intellectual hegemony and colonialist power.

Hess explains that originator of the concept, and the teacher of Schlozer, was an antisemite. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

==Term in modern works applying to modern ethnic group== "The music of Semitic people of the Tigray and Amhara regions, and that of the Hararis" From Paulos Milkias. Ethiopia.2011 Author: Paulos Milkias, is Professor of Humanities and Political Science at Marianopolis College/Concordia University in Montreal Canada.

"Amhara - a member of a Semitic people ..". "Arab - a member of a Semitic people, inhabitig .." Angus Stevenson, Maurice Waite. Concise Oxford English Dictionary.2011

The scholarly community has heavily criticized the use of Semitic in Ethopian nationalist discourse, defining it as racist with colonialist undertones.

A good source on Ethiopian nationalist identity is:

Jalata, Asafa, "Being in and Out of Africa: The Impact of Duality of Ethiopianism" (2009). Sociology Publications and Other Works. [1]

See for example this quote:

"By using the dis- credited racist categorization of human groups, such as Semitic, Hamitic, Negroid, and Cushitic, Habashas have a stratified hierarchy in which they place Oromos between themselves and the people that they wrongly call Shankillas—people they consider Negroid (Donham & James, 1986, pp. 123- 124). Despite the fact that Habashas are Black, they consider themselves Semitic to associate themselves with the Middle East and dissociate from Africa, whose peoples they consider both racially and culturally inferior."

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I bringed quotes which are not on racial categorization. I know nationalists who think that Russians "racially and culturally inferior" to Ukrainians and vise versa (that peoples borth Slavic). At example, this person Dmytro Dontsov and his followers. But we can not call racist any person, who use words "Russian" or "Ukrainian". Cathry (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In this work you gave link to, Semitic is used in two meanings, as racial category, and as linguistiс: "ruthlessly suppressing the history and culture of non-Semitic Africans " By the way, it seems this author (Jalata, Asafa) has some antisemitic and Oromo nationalst sentiment, as he use quotes for "Semitic identity", but do not use it for "Oromo identity", praising Oromo national movement. So this source is not good. Cathry (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And he praises Afrocentrism "to challenge Eurocentrism should and expose African collaborators who have denigrated and underdeveloped Africa. " It is not far from the hate speech. Cathry (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

He is a Professor at the University of Tennessee, has written eight books published by major academic publishers, numerous peer reviewed articles and received a Fulbright grant last year. The article itself was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Black Studies.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So Journal of Black Studies is not unacceptable racial name, but "Semitic" - is. Ook. It is amusing. Cathry (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Either way, we don't need to reference this in our article. The importance of the above is simply to illustrate that the use of "Semitic" in the Ethopian context is deeply political and highly controversial. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Any word can be controversial, i gave plenty examples. Cathry (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. "Turkic" is used controversially by pan-turkists, that doesn't make it an illegitimate ethnoreligious categorization. An article "semitic peoples" should definitely exist. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cathry is arguing that it is a valid ethnic categorization, not that the page should exist, so I'm a bit confused by your comment that "An article 'semitic peoples' should definitely exist." It does exist, but it is not a valid ethnic categorization. (What exactly makes the Muslim Harari of Ethiopia members of the same ethnic group as German Jews, Assyrian Christians and Tunisian Muslims but by definition excludes Copts, Berbers and Somalis?) Ogress 05:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"What exactly makes" - Language makes. Excuse me, are you semitologist? It seems me - no, you are not. So it is only your opinion, that it is not valid, racist term, and so on. I gave examples when term used by scientists in cases of modern ethnic groups. You can find plenty uses of it if you look for it on google scholar. Cathry (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that explicitly state the validity of the term? There are many scholars explicitly stating the opposite (i.e. that it is not valid), so for your argument to hold you need to bring evidence that another side to this supposed debate exists. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Such scholars explicitly fooling around. They do not propose other term instead of semitic, they do not challenge use of similar terms (e.g. germanic, turkic, and else). So it is not debate, it is entanglement. I am tired of this debate. I hope, some specialists will come here someday and will write satirical article about this. Cathry (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Like the four scholars who wrote the first four references in this article? Yes it would be helpful if they were to come here and write about why some editors have found the modern scholarly position so hard to believe. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I cited first source already and will repeat one more and last time "As a kind of shorthand, it was sometimes retained to designate the speakers of those languages." Cathry (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added this to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The argument that "Semitic people is a valid ethnic group" is metaphorically identical to the argument that "Indo-European people is a valid ethnic group", i.e. native Hindu speakers and native English speakers are part of the same ethnic group. Ogress 14:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

My native language is not English, so I may not understand some connotations of English terms. As I see "native Hindu speakers and native English speakers" are part of the same collection of ethnic groups, which is collected by language family. And Arabs and Maltese are part of the same collection of ethnic groups, which is collected by language family Cathry (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah you can think that all you want but that's your fanon of how things work, not how they actually work. Ogress 18:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Indo-european is a very broad grouping, Semitic is more specific. An analogous term is Turkic peoples, a collection of related peoples speaking Turkic languages. Or Germanic peoples, Uralic peoples, Celts... All of these exist and not having Semitic peoples is a ridiculous double-standard. At a certain point as proponents of this hypocrisy continue to totally ignore the vast evidence against them (see my talk with onceinawhile) I'm going to ask for outside opinions from the Linguistics and Ethnic groups wikiprojects.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Small correction: Turkic and Uralic languages are language families, so analogous term is Samoyedic peoples (part of Uralic peoples) along with Germanic peoples and Celts. Cathry (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I counted them since Uralic and Turkic are isolate families, so it's more specific than a big family encompassing many subfamilies like Afro-asiatic or indo-european. 19:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I object in the strongest way: look at the actual cites on this page. More have even been added since these discussions have begun and they all underline the highly-charged polemical nature of the term and I have yet to see anyone explain what a Semite is. Ogress 23:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't be so passionate about the subject that you object in "the strongest way". That seems a bit extreme. As for this page, you can't cite this page that we want to change as a reason we shouldn't change it, that's circular logic. Yes, semite is contentious as a RACIAL term, but in the mainstream it is used ethno-linguistically. As for defining Semites, easy, any ethnic group which traditionally speaks a Semitic language. (Ie, a Kuwaiti born in Canada who doesn't know Arabic is still semitic) The journal of semitic studies describes semitic peoples in detail. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's funny, because the actual page of the Journal for Semitic Studies specifies that "The term 'Semitic Studies' indicates a linguistic limitation to the languages of the Semitic family and includes the modern as well as the ancient and medieval periods. Special emphasis is placed on the publication of research on the languages and literatures of the Near and Middle East and material accepted for publication is always focused either on particular texts or authors or on linguistics and philology." A review of the papers in their most recent issue only contains articles on languages and literatures. Ogress 03:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What's funny is that you didn't read what I wrote in response to that very same assertion.

The journal of semitic studies is not limited to linguistics. About this Journal "The Journal of Semitic Studies was established in 1955 and since then has built up a reputation as one of the leading international academic journals in its field. Semitic Studies has always been understood by the editors to include the modern as well as the ancient Near (Middle) East, with special emphasis on research into the languages and literatures of the area. The editors continue to maintain the policy of ensuring that each volume contains items of interest to Orientalists and Biblical Scholars. Extensive reviews of selected books, as well as general review notices, remain a feature of the Journal.

Special emphasis does not equate to sole emphasis. Special emphasis on language and literature is expected, considering it's the most obvious thing linking the semitic civilizations, for many ancient semitic nations (akkad, assyria, babylon) literature provides nearly all we know about them. Literature is also culture. In fact a quick perusal through this journal shows they do indeed talk (albeit infrequently and often with specificity, ie northwest semitic for phonecia/israel) about Semitic culture and Semitic religions, Semitic peoples, and Semites, and proto-semites. Jews (who earlier on the talk page you said "assumed themselves semitic") are mentioned nearly a thousand times, more than half as much as the word "Semitic" itself. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

MM, your argument continues to be highly tenuous. The sources in the article on this point are now extremely clear. At some point you are going to have to accept that your understanding of all this is simply incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources you added rightly rebuff the notion of a semitic race. You have found no source saying that a broad ethnolinguistic group of semitic-speaking peoples does not exist and I have found many to prove it does.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding of the term "ethnolinguistic" group as it relates to Semitic people is (a) incorrect, (b) unsourced, and (c) confused. Again, without proper sources you are wasting your time.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything you disagree with you call "incorrect" or "confused", it's a very myopic way of thinking. I've given sources but here's one spoon-feeding it to you. Values in Islamic Culture and the Experience of History, Volume 1

"The peoples of the Horn [of Africa] divide into three major ethnolinguistic groups: Semitic peoples, Cushitic peoples and others. Among the major semitic peoples are (listed in terms of their numbers) Amhara, Tigrayans, Gurage, Tigre, and Harari."

--Monochrome_Monitor 09:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the reason we keep going round in circles. Sources like the above are covered by what Lewis calls "shorthand". Because of that shorthand, just finding sources which use the term in passing is not going to get us anywhere. We are debating usage, so you need a proper source explaining usage. That's what all the scholars currently used in the article are doing. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ogress is removing cited relevant material

Can I ask Why?Jonney2000 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You added two long sentence fragments about how antisemitism shouldn't be hyphenated; I feel they are inappropriate for this page and belong at Antisemitism - where such statements already exist. I suggested you take it to talk. Since you want to add something, why don't you discuss why instead of making this section OGRESS IS REMOVING CITED MATERIAL because this is not a great way to open a discussion. Ogress 01:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Look the section is about antisemitism. Why not object to the whole “non-Jewish Semitic peoples” thing which cites the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in some archean non sequitur? What I added should come right after that.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

... what? Talk about nonsequiturs. Just write it "antisemitism" without the hyphenation, as I edited it to. Your argument does not demonstrate why it should appear on this page, it's a tangential issue to the topic and belongs on the page about antisemitism proper, not here. Ogress 04:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To rename

I propose to rename this article in "Semitic race", if it is only about "racial term". Because "Semitic people" as all can see is not only racial term in any case, but valid term for peoples speaking Semitic languages. Cathry (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, as many of the sources are referring to more than race when explaining that the topic is extinct. They mostly use the term "Semites" - I would be happy to change the article to Semites. It would also be consistent with the move discussion at Talk:Belizeans. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No, "Semites" can be valid term too, Britannica article is one example. Unfortunately, you have distorted the sources used in the article. Cathry (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't throw around wild accusations. If you have a change you want to make, please make it per WP:BRD or propose it here. The sources are crystal clear, with quotes given. You should try reading some of them. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for other editors. It is useless to dispute with you and Ogress. Cathry (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ding. Agree completely, let's just wait for more editors to come along because this is hopeless.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Cathry -- this article's name change to "Semitic people" was kind of stupid, because when referring to modern times there's no useful or valid definition of "Semitic people" which is not based on the languages they speak. A change to "Semitic race" would be even worse, unfortunately calling to mind 1930s pseudo-science... AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There are people who self identify as Semitic people all over the world, it is a very real self designation for millennia, but there is understandable doubt among those who spend their lives in ivory towers reading propaganda and never get out in the real world. They are so clever they have determined for all the Semitic people that they don't exist, for being possessed of a greater inner wisdom than the rest, these ivory towers have discerned mysteriously and conclusively that the relevant writings are all a myth, see, so that settles it, they are all therefore a myth and you may NOT believe these beliefs, for they are unapproved beliefs. 71.246.157.117 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There are some people that identify as Aryan as well. And some who identify as Hamitic. That doesn't change the fact that such identities have been discredited. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "Discredited" is your pov pushing, empty crowing or cheerleading, "Yay, bully for my pov agenda, we done discredited it." But obviously, if you had discredited it to everyone's satisfaction, we would not need to be having this discussion. 71.246.157.117 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't personalize this. This debate is not about us editors, it's about the sources. Please read the sources in the article - clear quotes are provided. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The word 'discredited' doesn't appear in the article. So please tell us, which "reliable source" is reckless andpolemic enough to use your rhetoric and say "The concept of anything 'Semitic' has now simply been discredited and done away with... except only wherever we cannot empirically deny a relationship, as in linguistic affinity." 71.246.157.117 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

[2]

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So this is the reckless polemic written for those in ivory towers who wouldn't know Semitic if they fell on one. Now the hard part is using "appeal to color of authority" to convince all those poor dupes who still feel they are what this guy has proclaimed "extinct". 71.246.157.117 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is your reaction to scholarly works published by the Stanford University Press, then frankly you have no place on Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

that comment of yours is a sterling example of what I mean - 'Appeal to color of authority'. our sources are officially approved by the politburo, yours are not. Hence you do not exist, and neither does your point of view exist. It's a logical fallacy used by those who lack actual logic, not to mention bloody arrogant and megalomaniacal to tell whole ethnicities of millions of people in their face they don't exist as such anymore thanks to the agenda of big culture deniers such as yourself. `71.246.157.117 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies (see WP:LOP). Verifiability is a key policy. If you don't like the policy, you can discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Good luck. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Who does identify as Hamitic? And Indo-Iranians and Aryans, are synonyms. First indeed preferable now, but for Semitic peoples such synonym was not coined. Cathry (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have met many in the Somali diaspora who believe themselves to be Hamitic.

There is a reason there is no synonym for Semitic ethnicity - it's because it is a ridiculous concept. To suggest that Mauritanians, Omanis, Syrians, Azkhenazi Jews and Ethiopians are all the same is patently absurd. There is no commonality except for language. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

AnonMoos, do you see what is stated above all text? - "This article is about the racial term". And racial term is "Semitic race", as we have Aryan race article. So this article, if it about racial term, must not call to mind 1930s pseudo-science, but explicitly mention it. Cathry (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - if anything, the title should be moved to an even less ethnicity based title (as I did earlier with "Semitic cultures"). FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, do you suggest we scrap the current article and write an entirely new article about the cultures of Semitic speakers? I literally don't understand how that would work, it runs back into the "yo, there's no such thing as a 'Semitic culture'" issue. There is, after all, ancient Semitic-speaking peoples about that particular historical situation. But what exactly is a "Semitic" culture outside of that? There's no coherency there at all, no such thing. Ogress 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Liverani reference I added states this about "Semitic cultures". Oncenawhile (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the article be moved and the "racial" BS be toned down. This is at best an overview of various cultures that happen to speak Semitic languages. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand. Indo-Aryan peoples, which has roughly the same timeframe as Semitic (actually, it's probably younger), says basically "this term can be used for speakers of IA languages." and then has a paragraph that's basically "IA-speakers arrived in India a long time ago; these are identified with X archaeological cultures." That's it. That's the page. Why? Because the idea that there is commonality because the languages are descended from a common ancestor is ridiculous. Maybe it makes sense when there is a shallow history, like the Slavs, but "Semites" covers a significant percentage of Eurasia and Africa, is spread across multiple major world religions, and includes groups as disparate as the Harari and the Aramaic speakers of the Levant. Meanwhile, even the word "Arab" is disputed as having any real meaning by Arabic speakers outside of outdated Arab Nationalist discourse. Ogress 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to state peoples which have some more related common ancestors than others, can not have any commonality. "groups as disparate as the Harari and the Aramaic speakers of the Levant" Why are they "disparate"? It seems you do not know much about their folk cultures, which is not only about "major world religion". Cathry (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The question is one of "relative commonality". For example, is an Iraqi more ethnically similar to an Iranian or an Ethiopian? Is an Ethiopian person more similar to a Somali or to a Syrian person? Is a Syrian more similar to a Turk or a Mauritanian?

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, what is measurement unit of ethnical similarity? Ethnography a social science, there are no such classifications as in biology, where one plant can be member of only one plant family. Both Iraqis and Iranians are ethhic groups of West Asia, they are included in appropriate wiki-categories. It is natural, if they have many common in culture, as they are related too, as neighbors. But it does not mean Iraqis don't have common with Ethiopians as a result of common ancestry. Cathry (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You tell me a measurement and I'll use it to illustrate that your interpreation of all of this is illogical. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ethnography does not have measumerent unit of ethnical similarity. Ethnic culture and history is composite thing with many relations in every case. Cathry (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You are saying that it is impossible to prove either way. That is correct. When considering any theory you ever learn, finding out that it's impossible to prove should be a big red flag! Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your idea and what proof you have in mind. Cathry (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you define "ethnicity" in its original sense from Greek "ethnon" people, gens, the Semitic ethna have more common history with one another as well as linguistic terms, their language (like machine-languages for machines) is similar outlooks and not Somali, Turkic or Iranian. 71.246.157.117 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

To be specific, do Iraqis have more common history with Iranians or Ethiopians? Do Ethiopians have more common history with Somalis or Syrians? Do Syrians have more common history with Turks or Mauritanians? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you go by superficial appearance, and ignore the actual history which is far more complicated and tangled. For example Jordan is currently Hashemite, but Hashemite descendants went all over the Arab and Muslim world and the Sulu Sultanate was Hashemite from around 1400 to 1900. But in each case the Semitic groups knew their origins from Arabia different from the Turks, Somalis and Iranian Aryans. 71.246.157.117 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has reached rock bottom (at least I am struggling to imagine it getting any more ridiculous).

The Hashemites are the ruling family of Jordan, not the Jordanian people. This is as ridiculous as saying that the English are all from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Anglicized as "Winsdor") or the Russians are all from the house of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov (Russified as "Romanov"). Did the English and Russian people suddenly become ethnically German?

This conversation is an embarrassment to humanity. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as a sock of Til Eulenspiegel. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Lots of straw men here. This page is wildly biased and not reflective of academic consensus at all. The double standard needs to stop. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is very poor behaviour Monochrome. You have had ample chance to provide sources showing your view of the scholarly interpretation. You have also ignored the many high quality sources in the article. Apologies for my crudeness, but here is some direct advice for you. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I did provide sources. You ignored them. The "high-quality sources" are meaningless because they address an ethnicity or race. Not a single one denies the existence of a semitic etho-linguistic group. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

An "ethnolinguistic" group is a group of people who share both language and ethnicity. The scholars sourced in this article have explained clearly that there is no such ethnicity shared. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that is untrue. An ethnolinguistic group does not imply a shared language or ethnicity. It is much more cultural. Please read the article ethnolinguistics.--Monochrome_Monitor 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please show me the specific source which you are referring to. It is not clear from the article you linked to. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're confusing ethnology with ethnography. Ethnolinguistics is the study of ethnology and linguistics. Ethnology compares DIFFERENT ethnic groups. Saying a semitic ethnicity does not exist is VERY different from saying an ethnolinguistic grouping does not exist. Unless you can find direct or even indirect evidence to the latter I will be unconvinced, since I have provided evidence that such a grouping does exist.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless you provide a source, this is a waste of time. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Monochrome_Monitor -- Not sure the term "ethnolinguistic group" would be commonly applied to groupings whose linguistic relatedness is not obvious without advanced scholarly researches, who speak a number of mutually incomprehensible languages, and do not have any particular cultural unity or identity or commonality outside of the results of linguistic research which are somewhat theoretical and remote as far it as concerns most people in their daily lives. AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You know little about Semitic languages then. Trying reading Semitic root and you'll get the point. If your standard is mutual intelligibility, then almost no ethnolinguistic groups described here on wikipedia exist except maybe north germanic peoples. You also know nothing about ethnology if you think cultural unity is a prerequisite for an ethnolinguistic group. I'd really like to debate people who are somewhat informed on the matter rather than continually wail on the same straw man over and over. Please leave your pre(mis)conceptions at the door. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I'm the one who first started the "Semitic root" article (back when it was two separate articles Triliteral and Quadriliteral), but the fact that a language has a system of morphological derivation based on abstract consonantal roots is something in the realm of abstract linguistics which has very little implication for how most people think of themselves (or think of those who speak other languages based on consonantal root derivation). AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not an arcane or abstract concept at all... its the basis of semitic etymology. Anyway, you haven't addressed everything I said after "semitic root". What makes semitic peoples different from any other ethnolinguistic grouping of peoples? If you can answer this with a substantive argument I'll drop the matter. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No knowledgeable and linguistically-competent person doubts that the Semitic languages are a valid linguistic grouping, but that's quite a bit different from saying that there's any meaningful "ethnic" Semitic identity. Consonantal roots are a basic part of the structure of Semitic languages, but this is by no means always intuitively obvious (without overt linguistic analysis) to those who speak such languages -- and it would be quite a stretch to say that speaking a language with consonantal-root derivations creates any form of fellow-feeling or shared identity towards those who speak other languages with consonantal-root derivations. In the case of the Slavic languages, there have been active Pan-Slavic political movements for over a century and a half (at least since 1848), the great majority of Slavic-speakers have been Christian for about a millennium, and a form of written language (Old Church Slavonic) is attested which, if not the same as proto-Slavic, dates from a period when the different Slavic languages were basically mutually intercomprehensible. All this doesn't apply to Semitic. AnonMoos (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No knowledgeable and linguistically-competent person doubts that my view of the matter is the correct one. Having just established that fact now, it therefore is good logic that anyone who disagrees with my views is incorrect and should be ejected from the discussion, in the name of neutrality and even-handedness of course. Oh, there may be those who disagree with my view - but per what I just stated above, these cannot be "knowledgeable and liguistically competent persons" as I have just now defined them, they are wrong and they must be ejected from this neutral discussion in the name of fairness. 71.127.128.21 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)