Talk:Semitic people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples

@Monochrome Monitor: please see Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples. This has been created as a split from Semitic languages. I believe this is what you were looking for?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We need an article than covers the ethnolinguistic group. Not the "racial" group, or the proto-group. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures

Woah, how did I link to signatures? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "ethnolinguistic group"?

As described in the sources in this article, modern scholarship does not accept the concept of the Semitic ethnic group. So how is an "ethnolinguistic group" different?

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistics is an established branch of linguistics, with some similarities in approach to philology. I'm not speaking of an ethnic group. I'm speaking of an ethnolinguistic group. Turkic peoples explains: "The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups that live in central, eastern, northern, and western Asia as well as parts of eastern Europe. They speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of peoples" @Oncenawhile: --Monochrome_Monitor 19:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a scholarly definition of the term "ethnolinguistic group"

In addition, your "Turkic peoples" analogy is best compared to "Arabs", which is also a pan-ethnic group, or Habesha people. "Semitic people" is thus a pan-pan-ethnic group, which is effectively meaninless. Why not do the same with "Hamitic peoples" or "Japhetic peoples"? Because these biblical terms are greatly misleading in modern scholarship when used in the ethnic sense. People speaking Semitic languages did not actually descend from Shem. That was just a romantic idea plucked out of thin air by a couple of 18th century German linguists. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Turkic peoples speak different turkic languages, as Semitic peoples do, and Arab people speak one native Arab language. "descend from Shem" is about mythology not science, but "Semitic peoples" is scientific term, although it is derived from Bible. Cathry (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course modern scholarship doesn't support a unified semitic race. Nor does it support an Aryan race. But we still rightly have an article on germanic peoples, which is based in anthropology, history, and linguistics, and not bizarre racial theories about indians and germans. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You've just proved my point for me. The reason we don't have an "Aryan peoples" article is exactly the same reason that we don't have a "Semitic peoples" article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, no. I'm not saying we should have an article on a semitic race. I'm saying we should have an article on SEMITIC PEOPLES. They're completely different. The aryan race is a made-up construct purporting to link indians or persians or whatever with germans. There is no "aryan studies". There IS "germanic studies" and there is also semitic studies. Semitic peoples are based in anthropology, history, and linguistics, just as germanic peoples are. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semitic studies is the study of the Semitic languages and of the Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples. No more, no less. I don't understand what you are trying to get at? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No it's also a study of culture, religion, history, etc. It's the same with germanic studies. You don't study england or denmark, you study germanic tribes, the angels and saxons, the swabs and the vandals and the goths. Again, "semitic speaking" is ridiculous. They were semitic and scholarship calls them semitic. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you bring some scholarly quotes to support your position here please? You will find that scholars use the word "semitic" differently to the way in which your last sentence implies. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

They don't. It's the same. Semitic religion, semitic language, semitic culture, semitic peoples. All are widely used terms. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway this is getting frustrating, I feel like you aren't listening to me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Disputation

I am listening intently. I think you are wrong. You have not provided a single source. Here are two for you:

• Journal of Semitic Studies:"The Journal of Semitic Studies is one of the leading international academic journals in its field. 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. Each volume contains items of interest to specialists in the main Semitic languages and in both Biblical and Islamic Studies. Extensive reviews of selected books are also featured in the journal." => Purely linguistics focussed
• Harvard Semitic Museum, who found it necessary to devote an entire page to the question "Why Semitic?": "In 1889 Professor David Gordon Lyon created the Semitic Collection (as it was first known) as a teaching tool--a set of archaeological and ethnographic realia—intended to complement the teaching of Semitic languages at Harvard. In Lyon’s conception, the term “Semitic” was in a strict sense a philological one, distinguishing a family of languages characterized by a system of triliteral roots. By extension, it encompassed the ancient histories and cultures of peoples who spoke and wrote in Semitic languages: Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Akkadians, Babylonians, Arabs. (Ugaritic was not discovered or deciphered until the 1920s). That Lyon’s principal financial supporter, Jacob Schiff, was himself Jewish, was an important though not central factor in the Museum’s original identity and mission." => They then go on to explain that the term Semitic was dropped from the Harvard department and courses.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

Are you willing to accept that all the sources you linked to refer to ancient peoples? i.e. the term as you have shown it is used in the archaeological sense? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course they talk about ancient peoples. Again, what do you expect? Them to study saudi arabia or israel? Germanic peoples is about ancient and medieval germanic peoples and their commonalities and how we believe they spread into europe and diverged. It's not about the history of every germanic people to the modern time. In fact it only covers the modern time in passing in the lead, "Modern Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Norwegians, Swedes and others (including diaspora populations, such as most European Americans." The same would be done with semitic people, ie it would cover phonecia but not lebanon.

Neither is the harvard source, as your own quote proves "By extension, it encompassed the ancient histories and cultures of peoples who spoke and wrote in Semitic languages: Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Akkadians, Babylonians, Arabs." The fact that it mentions Jacob Schiff as being Jewish as being "important though not central" to the identity of the exhibit acknowledges the fact that semitic history and culture extends into modern times.

There is no mention of "semitic race" in either source because it doesn't exist (in fact race itself is a very poorly defined and supported construct). The genetic part isn't even important to semitic studies, though it does exist (paternally), just as Germanic studies are about germanic tribes, culture, and religion rather than ancient or modern germanic DNA. I'm not saying every semitic speaking people is descended from a common ancestor named shem, I'm saying they're descended from a common civilization (in the Levant, Arabia, or maybe even north africa, we aren't sure) of proto-semites (proto-semitic speaking people) who settled in mesopotamia, the levant, arabia, bringing their language with them, which diverged into different civilizations with different but similar languages and culture. This is not original research, it's what we assume to have happened unless proved otherwise. Same with Proto-Greeks. History does not record a time when all the Greek-speaking peoples were united in one unified language/civilization, yet we believe that ancestral civilization/language to exist and call it "proto-greek". All of the Greek peoples began to adopt a common national identity around the 8th century BCE, but before that they considered themselves separate nations (and even after they still fought like separate nations). They unified and became the Hellenes. It's not racist at all to say that people speaking related languages have common origins, it's the most obvious explanation for a time when language was solely oral. Language cannot travel without human hosts. Well, before writing it couldn't. The spread of arabic into north africa is a good example of language via literature.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What you write above about the Greeks is claptrap, or more politely, romantic nonsense. When reading about this, remember that the word nation in modern English means something different to its ancient cognates. See here for some detail.

I note you wrote "began to adopt a common national identity around the 8th century BCE". They might just as well have adopted iPads as well. I suggest you read these books: Historiography_and_nationalism#Nationalism_in_general

Your last piece is circular and self-defeating logic. You wrote "Language cannot travel without human hosts. Well, before writing it couldn't." But everything we know about these ancient peoples is from their writing. We have no idea what their oral language was. They could all have had different oral languages, from different language families, but they wrote in a single lingua franca. Just like you and me - we are both writing in English, but that says nothing about our ethnicities. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oral communication both precedes and is far more innovative than written language. If a language is going to spread and change, it will be through migration of people and spoken word, not through schlepping 200 pound Akkadian stelae across the Syrian desert to Ugarit. Written Semitic language is first found in Mesopotamia, spoken semitic language does not originate in mesopotamia. We know that by reconstructing it. We can reliably distinguish spoken languages from written lingua francas by looking at proper names, that's how we found Amoritic, the first Northwest Semitic language. As for the Greeks, the formation of a shared hellenic indentity in 8th century BC in parallel with the emergence of a common national mythos/religion is uncontroversial. Here's a terse but good description of it.[1]

That's a good source, which you should read more closely. The page you linked to describes commonalities in civilization, not identity or "nation". The author handles that topic with care, just as it should be. For the author's view on identity and nation, see page 122 of the same book. As the author explains, such concepts were highly localized in the city states.

As to your first point, you write "We can reliably distinguish". Can you prove your belief here that such interpretations are thought to have a high level of reliability? Can you link to a source which confirms this view?

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The book's wording is more conservative then mine, naturally. They give evidence first and then conclusions, I skip to conclusions. But, they do describe the formation of a Greek ethnos. "The Archaic period (8th century bc-5th century bc) was a time when Greeks, as Greeks, came to recognize specific commonalities among themselves, articulating them in terms of common narratives, ethnic geneologies, awareness of a common language, and access to panhellenic cults, which were mostly reserved for Greeks alone."

Per wikipedia's article on ethnicity "Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance." I don't know what you think I mean by ethnicity, it's not "race". (And yes I read page 122, I read much of the previewable part of the book) But the Greek thing didn't matter much anyway. I want to get back to the part about linguistics and history. As for names, no I don't have a source that specifically uses the term "reliable", but it shouldn't surprise you that names are useful and dependable linguistic tools. Proper names are subject to the rules of the language(s) that conceived them. "The use of names is governed by language-specific subsets of grammatical and pragmatic rules. Additionally, within each language a complex system of protocols governs the ‘correct’ use of personal names."Proper Names: Linguistic Status Names also provide cultural insights, especially w/ regards to religious ideas. Again, it worked with Amoritic.[2] Comparative linguistics is very powerful, it's how we have reconstructed ancient languages and deciphered ancient texts.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

--Monochrome_Monitor 12:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Monochrome Monitor:

Perhaps the most sophisticated work on the Ancient Greek topic we have been debating is: Jonathan M. Hall (26 June 2000). Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-78999-8.

You might also read this brief review: JSTOR 4433421

Again, Hall (and Evans in the review) are very careful and precise when dealing with the concept of ethnicity. As Evans says, the concept of ethnicity is often used as a cover for racism. So we need to be careful too.

You should consider the fact that no works similar to Hall's exist for the concept of Semitic ethnic identity in the ancient Near East. I am not alluding to the obvious fact that the term "semitic" is only 250 years old, but instead to the more substantial fact that no ancient equivalent of the term exists. If there really was a pan-ethnic identity in existence in antiquity, surely we would have seen it written somewhere in 500,000 to 2,000,000 cuneiform script tablets which have been unearthed to date. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Again and again you are committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts. The race argument is a straw man. I'm not talking about race and I'm not talking about pan-ethnicity. People belonging to an ethnicity identify with eachother, not peoples belonging to an ethnolinguistic group.Do the english identify as ethnically German? No of course not, they are completely separate ethno-national groups with little feelings of kinship towards the other, except perhaps in their common protestantism (as opposed to the Irish and the Austrians respectively). But both are Germanic peoples. Of course there is no source of ancient semitic peoples identifying with eachother (in fact they mostly hated eachother) because the only time they formed an actual group was pre-writing by a few millennia (the proto-semites). The notion that peoples must have identified with eachother in ancient times to form an ethno-linguistic group today is patently absurd. History goes to show that doesn't happen. Many modern groups with a COMMON language were divided into separate groups in the past. I already mentioned the hellenic example, I'll give another one for good measure. The ancient Germanic tribes were separate "peoples" who were constantly warring amongst themselves. After the fall of Rome and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, these tribes remained separate and did not consider themselves part of a common nation. Till the middle ages they were swabians, bavarians, franconians etc., but not "Germans", and there was no word or concept akin to "German" in the German language. The word German itself is not germanic, it's a loan from from Tacitus's Germania. When Germania was discovered in the 15th century it served as a convenient way of unifying the german duchy-kingdoms during the Crusade against the Ottomans. Ethnolinguistics is a tool for philologists, historians, and anthropologists, groups rarely self-identify as such in a pan-ethnic sense, and when they do it's politically motivated, ie Celts--Monochrome_Monitor 22:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There are no goalposts to move here - this discussion is only for your benefit to help you understand why the sources say what the sources say. Only the sources themselves which specifically relate to the question of this article have any real relevance.

To the substance of your comment above, your point that the geographic term Germania was an exonym is irrelevant. Whether it was an endonym or an exonym doesn't change the fact that there was a widely attested name for the German-speaking people used more than 2,000 years ago. Whereas there was no name for semitic-speaking peoples in ancient or classical or medieval times at all, whether exonym or endonym.

There are other sentences in your comment above that are simply wrong. For example:

• "Do the english identify as ethnically German? No of course not, they are completely separate ethno-national groups with little feelings of kinship towards the other, except perhaps in their common protestantism (as opposed to the Irish and the Austrians respectively). But both are Germanic peoples." => The reason they do not is perhaps primarily because the English are seen to be a mixed stock of primarily Celts and Germanics, with some Latin / French influence mixed in. They are not simply a monolithic block of "Germanic peoples"
• "Of course there is no source of ancient semitic peoples identifying with each other (in fact they mostly hated each other) because the only time they formed an actual group was pre-writing by a few millennia (the proto-semites)." => This is a very confused statement. Proto-Semitic is an early writing system not an ethnic group. The idea that we could know that there was such a group pre-writing is silly - it is impossible. How exactly do you consider that such knowledge is possible?

Chag sameach. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The English are descended from anglo-saxons and the Kingdom of England was Anglo-Saxon. Celtic they were not. The British Isles themselves were Celtic and then British-Roman before they were Anglo-Saxon, but the influence of the native Celtic Britons was greatly reduced on much of the British Isles when the Angles and Saxons invaded. The heirs of the Britons are the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons, not the English. As for Latin and French, I assume you're talking about the Norman occupation. The anglo-normans formed an elite ruling class but did not by any means constitute the majority of the population, though they contributed significantly to the language of the Anglo-Saxons. Also, while the Normans spoke a language related to Old French, they were originally Norsemen who became Christianized. They adopted the language of the Franks (a germanic people) and the Gaullo-romans (a romanized celtic people). Franks and Gaullo-Romans are the progenitors of the French people. This is all basic history. If you don't think English is a Germanic language and that English people are descended from the Anglo-Saxons, please take it up with a historian, not me. Because this "but they aren't monolithic" argument is another straw man. Everyone has been influenced by their neighbors and invaders in some degree.

As for Germania, no, there was no "widely attested name for the German-speaking people used more than 2,000 years ago". "Germani" was never a word consistently applied by Romans to what we now call Germanic tribes. In fact the original sense of the word was the one employed by Julius Caesar to refer to Celtic tribes in northeast Gaul. Tacitus didn't even use it in the sense of "German-speaking tribes", he used it to refer to the non-Roman non-Celtic peoples of Europe whom he considered noble savages. "German" was unused till its "discovery" in the 15th century in Tacitus's manuscript, when it first began to denote Germans as a unified nation, not a group of loosely related tribes speaking the same language. Also I must have not been clear enough. I'm referring to German as in "of the German nation" (Deutschlander), not German-speaking people. I was saying that the ancient Germanic tribes did not have a word for "german people" or "german nation", and that the ethno-national concept of German was a foreign idea. If you're talking Germans identifying with eachother intra-ethno-linguistically, the term is die Deutschen, which dates from the 12th century.

Again, I don't want to get caught up in details. I'm providing examples to show that an ethnos can be non-linear and multi-faceted, with factors like culture, language, and religion, as opposed to a "race", which is strictly based on phenotypes.

The people who spoke a proto-language are eponymous to the language., since we don't know what they called themselves. For example, Proto-Indo-Europeans are the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the last common ancestor of all the indo-european languages. The people who spoke Proto-Semitic are called Proto-Semites.

Oh, and thanks. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 21:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am encouraged by the research you have done. As your understanding of these facts builds, at some point it will click. In the above you have proved what I am trying to explain numerous times. Perhaps the most stark is "Everyone has been influenced by their neighbors and invaders in some degree." Is this 1%, 5%, 20%, 50% influenced? Who knows? And does it matter?

Prior to modern nationalism and modern communication methods, all spoken languages were language continuums. And all peoples were cultural continuums. Nothing was binary, in the way you appear to imagine it (e.g. your first few sentences on the English above). But most written languages became standardized to some extent. So written language cannot provide a clear insight into historical ethnicity. Hence why the concept of ancient ethnicity is one in which most scholars are highly cautious.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me like I'm ignorant and need to be taught your version of the truth. I'm not agreeing with you, I'm saying the "does it matter" argument is just silly. Nothing can be proven 100%, certainly nothing about ancient history. But we can and do study it. Does it matter? That's not what I'm debating. My main concern is how inconsistently apply your self-proclaimed principles across wikipedia. Yes the view that modern English are descended from the Anglo-saxons and the Irish from the Celts is a historiographical simplification. But the english people were culturally very germanic prior to christianization (and still have the language), and the anglo-saxons and other German and later Norse tribes contributed significantly to the english genome. Yet, the english, though having some celtic and possibly even pre-indo-european ancestors (I myself think that theory of the english and irish being descended from a basque-like founder population is ridiculous), are categorized under Germanic peoples. Why not protest that? It's just Semitic peoples that bothers you, no other ethno-linguistic group does, and I take that to be a bias of yours. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. It's not inaccurate to include English in the Germanic peoples article - they are likely partially/mainly. My point about the significant mixing is that it is a primary reason why English do not usually self-identify as Germanic.

We should get back to the point.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think it's very cultural. When people consider their relations to others they don't look at a genetic plot and say, oh they're similar to me. The English living on their little island have really formed a separate identity from the whole of Europe. Similar to Americans. We are mostly English and German but identify strongly with neither. Of course the British we do to an extent because of our language, but white americans almost always call themselves "American" rather than "English" or "German". There are lots of factors. Finland is not Nordic country in the sense of "speaking a Nordic Language", (North Germanic language) but they are on the Scandinavian peninsula and identify more with their Swedish geographical neighbors than their Hungarian linguistic neighbors. Germans and Austrians, despite their shared history, language, and ethnicity, maintain very distinct identities, though this is less true with bavaria.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Monochrome Monitor

That exchange from 4 months ago was just a small part of a wider discussion, and one comment does not make consensus! As Ed says above, for such a move, an WP:RM discussion needs to be carried out.

Either way, it seems to me that we are saying the same thing.

MM, please see Talk:Semitic_people#Ancient_Semitic-speaking_peoples.

Hopefully this should adequately resolve this problem.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Transferring convo:

It should cover both ancient and modern peoples. Ancient semitic speaking peoples is not enough. (and that article should be renamed to "ancient semitic peoples". Semitic speaking is silly. And again, look at every other pre-modern ethnolinguistic group article. Now, the very earliest peoples (like akkadians) should be called semitic speaking simply because their civilization is so remote, (like the Mycenaeans are called greek speaking and not greek) but later peoples (phonecians, assyrians) are undeniably semites.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand this. I think you have a number of topics confused. Much of what you write above does not make sense. Most of the examples you list are accepted as ethnic groups. "Semites" are not. Scholars use the term as shorthand for Semitic-speaking. When talking about ancient people, ethnicity cannot be known because we have nothing more than inscriptions and archaeological digs to go by.

We should centralize this discussion at Talk:Semitic people. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

None of them are ethnic groups. They are all ethno-linguistic groups or pan-ethnic groups. Except for the linguistic isolates, finnic and greek, but that's because they are isolates. Celts are not an ethnicity. Irish, Welsh, scottish, are. Germanic is not an ethnicity. Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, English, are. It's exactly the same thing. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Per above, that may be, but they are certainly not "pan-pan-ethnic groups", nor do they include labels suggesting descent from Noah as imagined by a couple of German linguists 250 years ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

They ARE "pan-pan" ethnic groups. Germanic peoples include north germanic peoples, eg the Scandinavians, west germanic peoples, eg english german and dutch, and other subgroups. Semitic peoples include northwest semitic peoples (arameans/syriacs, phonecians/maronites, jews/samaritans) and south semitic peoples (berbers, a few indigenous tribes in yemen and oman who still speak south arabian).--Monochrome_Monitor 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your comparison, but either way this is all WP:OR.

You didn't answer my second point. Why do you believe it's reasonable to use Biblical terminology that scholars do not accept? Should we have a Hamitic peoples article too? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not OR. We have articles and categories for many of those. As for the second point, it doesn't matter what the hell you call it. There aren't hamitic or japhetic languages. There ARE cushitic languages. Cush is also a biblical character, Does that mean there aren't any cushitic peoples? No. Nobody is saying semitic peoples are semitic because they are descended from shem. "Shem" is not just a biblical character but a "nation". The nations fathered by the biblical shem happen to correspond well with the languages known as semitic, that's why it was called that.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So why don't we have a Cushitic peoples article then? The term exists in modern ethiopian/somali discourse, with racial overtones.

Separately, your last sentence misses a key point. When Eichhorn invented the term in the late 1700s, he realized there was a problem with the Canaanites being shown in the bible as being descended from Ham. He thought therefore that the Hamitic Canaanites must have originally written in Egyptian hieroglyphs and been later "Semiticized". More modern archaeology since proved that his assertion was incorrect. So the idea that these biblical nations correspond well is simply not true. And the fact that this interpretation of the biblical table of nations ignores south and east asia makes it totally absurd. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The bible is a straw man. It doesn't matter how and why it came to be called "Semitic". It's a term used in scholarship and you can't argue that it shouldn't be a page because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I'm not the only person who suggested this. Like 3 other people on the talk page agreed.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want this conversation to progress, you are going to need to provide some sources. Otherwise you are just wasting your time. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with @Oncenawhile:.

Jews trace their ancestry to Shem. However, this is a biblical lineage and depending on who you are speaking to can have vastly different connotation’s.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Secular Jews don't trace their ancestry to any mythic character. Cathry (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources from the lead

First source says "Serious scholars have pointed out–repeatedly and ineffectually-‑that “Semitic” is a linguistic and cultural classification". So this source is not against term.

Second " As an ethnic term, “Semitic” should best be avoided these days, in spite of ongoing genetic research (which also is supported by the Israeli scholarly community itself) that tries to scientifically underpin such a concept." It is very strange argument, because genetic is not depend on linguistics and culture. And any ethnic group, or set of groups, ancient and modern, has (or had) mixed genetic origin. Cathry (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

On the first source (Lewis), he is explicitly against the racial or "anthropological sense" or the word, and is sourcing the term "racial" in the article's sentence. The next two sources are explicitly against the ethnic use. All three sources are consistent if one considers the core of the term ethnic group - that is an active self-identification (as we say in the ethnic group article: "category of people who identify with each other"). The peoples who speak Semitic languages today do not self-identify as Semitic. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semitic peoples in not one ethnic group. it is scientific term, not every person knows similar terms, so it is not related to self-identification. Cathry (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Semitic people" is not a modern scientific term, it is explicitly racialist and racist. It is a meaningless term outside of racialist dialogues and should be discarded. What, exactly, is a "Semitic person"? There is no such thing. It has no genetic meaning. It has no cultural meaning. There are Semitic-language speaking peoples but even from the earliest days we cannot easily distinguish "Semites" from "non-Semites" in places like Mesopotamia. It is meaningless outside of racist arguments. Ogress 23:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"cannot easily distinguish "Semites"" - you can, as you can distinguish Slavs, Balts and many else . By language, in all stages of its use, from only names in use(when language is close to extinction) to literature. Or do you want to say that "Slavic person" or "Turkic person" is racist term? But it is ridiculous. Of course it is applied to some group of men rather than single person. It is not meaningless, because many similarities in modern folklore of various Turkic peoples for example can be found so it is possible to draw conclusions about earlier beliefs. Cathry (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Slavs are defined as a loosely-defined ethno-linguistic group who spoke a single language as recently as the 10th century. I can tell you what a Slav is, can you tell me what a Semitic person is? Ethiopians, Levantines and Egyptians are "Semitic", but Copts aren't. And Moroccans are... but not Berbers. There's no there there. Discussing the Fula people or the Slavs is not the same as discussing "the ethnic identity of all Indo-European speakers", which is approximately the same as discussing the "Semitic people". Ogress 23:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethiopians, Levantines and Egyptians are not Semitic. Amhara people and Arabs are, but citizen of Egypt or Levant can be of any ethnic origin. We are not discussing "the ethnic identity" of Slavs or Semites. I don't see any essential difference between Slavs and Semites. If you want to mention that modern Arabs have various genetic origins, as they conquered territories, Slavs have too in similar way. Cathry (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"who spoke a single language as recently as the 10th century" no, it was earlier. I understand, you want to point out Semitic peoples had single language several thousands years ago, but we don't say Indo-European peoples is obsolete term? Cathry (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not earlier. The Wikipedia article itself states so quite clearly. There is literally no term "Indo-European peoples" to refer to everyone from Gujarat to Ireland. How could there be? That's like at least a quarter of the ethnic diversity of humanity right there. Proto-Indo-Europeans are the proposed community of speakers of the early PIE language continuum; the term has no specific referent beyond "speakers of IE". Besides, the term "Semitic people" was literally invented for racialist theory. It literally exists because of racists dividing the world into a continuum of "most" to "least" human. Ogress 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, look at you assigning racial categories that make zero sense. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. Basic genetic analysis makes a lie of everything you are saying. Ogress 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. I don't see connection between population number and term. "the term "Semitic people" was literally invented for racialist theory" I don't know that, but Semitic languages term is still in use, and there are Semitic studies. Basic genetic analysis makes a lie of everything you are saying. of what it makes a lie? I am not assigning any racial categories. Cathry (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What about Britannica source? "Semite, person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews. " Cathry (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethnology is different from ethnography. An ethnolinguistic grouping is by definition a grouping of different peoples. It isn't about race. You're loading it with connotations it doesn't have. It's ridiculous. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: please provide a source for this claim. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"Racial term"

This term is not racial in fact, when it is used by non-racist scientists. Ther are no sources about that, it was only invention by some wikipedia users. It is rather correct modern term and synonym for Semitic-speaking people, while it only recommended for avoiding by two scholars and in use by many others (not only English-speaking). So i returned some data which was deleted from November 2015. Cathry (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Cathy, you are totally rewriting the page because you don't like what it says. "Semitic people" is being discussed ALL OVER THIS PAGE and your insistence on changing the page while this discussion is happening is extremely inappropriate. Ogress 18:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it because it is obvious POV without sources. And there was nice article based on sources before it was turned into article about "racial term". You ignored Britannica source i gave earlier, so i made conclusion you left discussion. Cathry (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT THE PAGE FOR ANCIENT SEMITIC PEOPLES. Please stop editing it as if it were; that's a different page. Those sources are now on that page. Ogress 18:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And I know you know it's not the right page because you changed the header, which states "For the history of ancient groups who spoke Semitic languages, see Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples", removing that. STOP. Ogress 18:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no article about such thing "ancient Semitic peoples" till this year. This page Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples appeared only on 3 april. And Brittanica do not divide Semitic peoples in that categories ("ancient" and "non-existent" modern). Cathry (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Where are sources stating "Ancient Semitic" - one thing and non-existent modern Semitic peoples another? What is the difference? Where are sources about "racial" origin of the term? Cathry (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And surprise! Ancient Semitic peoples redirects here. Cathry (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

First, this is not Britannica. Second, stop chasing my edits. Third, the term was invented by obsessed racists and is not used by "scientists", who talk about language communities. There is no "Semitic community". Your earlier statement that Amharas are ok Semitic people but other Ethiopians proves my entire point that this term has zero meaning outside the works of nationalists and is Bad Science. FunkMonk, this nonsense is coming up again. Ogress 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What is not Britannica? This link is not Britannica?? "the term was invented by obsessed racists " At first, please, tell me, where did you get that information? " is not used by "scientists", who talk about language communities" And where did you get this information? The first source in the lead says it is used. "There is no "Semitic community"." There is, as there are Semitic languages. "Your earlier statement that Amharas are ok Semitic people but other Ethiopians are not proves my entire point " Are your kidding about works of nationalists? Amhara are Semitic people because Amharic is Semitic language, but Oromo people are not Semitic people because Oromo language is not Semitic, it is Cushitic. Cathry (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As I've mentioned earlier, I think this article would attract less fringe-nationalists if it had another name. There is no "Semitic people". FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is. Any people with native Semitic language. Cathry (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, we don't have an article about "Indo-European people" either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to create such article with list of Indo-European peoples and similar category. At least it is not called "racial term" somewhere, although some racists can speak about "Indo-European race" or appearance. And racists will be against such article, because Latin Americans and African Americans will be there. Cathry (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The term for people who speak Semitic languages is '"Semitic speakers". This article is about the fictional theoretical "race" upon which antisemitism takes its origin. Just because there are antisemites does not make their category of "Semites" a valid one. Ogress 19:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, every ethno-linguistic group has native language, if this language Semitic (Slavic, Turkic) - it is Semitic (Slavic, Turkic) people. You help to convert nice article to article about race. There is Russophobia, so is "Russian" racial term? You do not have any sources for your position. Cathry (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I also direct to you the cites on this page, such as Pope, who as far back as 1964 wrote, "The term “Semitic,” coined by Schlozer in 1781, should be strictly limited to linguistic matters since this is the only area in which a degree of objectivity is attainable. The Semitic languages comprise a fairly distinct linguistic family, a fact appreciated long before the relationship of the Indo-European languages was recognized. The ethnography and ethnology of the various peoples who spoke or still speak Semitic languages or dialects is a much more mixed and confused matter and one over which we have little scientific control." Ogress 19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is only recommendation by one of scholars from the times, when apartheid and racial segregation was common in Western world. "is a much more mixed and confused matter" - it can be said about any people. I think there is racist sentiment in statement, that some peoples can be called Semitic, only if they had "not mixed" and "not confused" ancestry. Another modern scholar is not against ethnic use of term. And where do you find Schlozer was obsessed racist?Cathry (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your referencing Latin Americans is disingenuous: "Latin Americans (Spanish: latinoamericanos, Portuguese: latino-americanos) are the citizens of the Latin American countries and dependencies." You still have not provided a definition of Semitic people. There is no coherent definition. You can talk about "inhabitants of Latin America". You can talk about "speakers of Semitic". You can talk about "Amhara people". But unless you are dividing the world into arbitrary categories of whiteness based on your own racist ideologies, you cannot define Semites. It is not a coherent term outside of that narrative.

I can define Semites, as Britannica article can. It is only members of people, whose native language is Semitic. It is about language. And it is you who drag racial meanings, not I or Monochrome_Monitor. "You can talk about "speakers of Semitic"" Anyone can be speaker of Semitic language, if studies it. Oromo people probably are speakers of Semitic, but their native language is Cushitic, it not about pride or virtue, it is only scientific classification. Cathry (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And I have no idea what you mean about "Schlozer was obsessed racist", as I said plainly, I was quoting Pope. It's a quote reminding people that Schlotzer was naming a language family, not inventing some magical ethnic group. Ogress 20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Schlozer was first who use this term, and he used it for Semitic peoples. And earlier you said this term was "was invented by obsessed racists" So by some logic, you must have information about Schlozer's racism. Do you? Cathry (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As you are not against "Ancient Semitic peoples" can you explain me what is the difference? And where is margin between Ancient and non-Ancient? Cathry (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how you expect me to have a reasonable conversation with you when you post comments all over the page, including editing previous comments you have made to make them different from what I read and replied to originally and I had to warn you like three times to stop chasing my edits. This is not good faith behavior and I cannot possibly be expected to spend half-an-hour reviewing what you changed in your previous comments. Editing your comments like this is not a sign of good faith. Ogress 22:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me you have no answers at all. Only comment I completed after your written answer, was answer to FunkMonk's comment. Cathry (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have article about fictional race, you need to create Semitic race article, but it is unacceptable to misled readers stating "Semitic people" term is racial. There is Aryan race article. But Aryan peoples is outdated but still used in science term for Indo-Iranian peoples, and there is no alternative term for Semitic peoples. Cathry (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's important to understand how race concepts have remained in the background of many of these debates. For example, in this scholarly review in the first paragraph, the author describes how ethnicity has become a politically correct / more plaisibly neutral cover for racism. He urges great caution when considering these topics. The distinction you are trying to draw above is not held by the scholarly community, who do not talk about a Semitic ethnicity in the modern sense, nor the ancient. When Semitic peoples is used for the ancient world, it refers to Semitic-speaking peoples. This clearly has caused confusion, and we should continue to ensure that the distinction is clear for our readers.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I will not argue with the fact that ethnicity concepts sometimes used as cover for racism. But but it does not mean every ethnographer is racist. "The distinction you are trying to draw above" What distinction do you mean? "who do not talk about a Semitic ethnicity in the modern sense" But it is only your conclusion, that they do no talk, as you can not(?) find such works. And it is your conclusion they do no call modern ethnic groups Semitic because of anti-racist views. But real reason can differ. So this reason must be said clearly in some academic research, or it still be original research. Cathry (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ETHNOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY ARE DIFFERENT. There is no semitic ethnicity, though there was a proto-semitic civilization. However there are ethnic groups characterized as semitic. You're taking it on yourself to "prevent confusion" but are really causing confusion by obfuscating the matter into a racial or ethnic one.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claims. Liverani says exactly the opposite to what you are claiming. If you wish to disagree with well respected scholars, reprating yourself ad nauseum is not going to help you. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not what "exact opposite" means. He never said a Semitic ethnolinguistic grouping doesn't exist, only Semitic ethnicity. Since I never asserted the existence of the latter your source addresses nothing.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You said "though there was a porto-semitic civilization", Liverani said the opposite. All this stuff you keep repeating about ethnicity vs. ethnolinguistic is just your own imagination running wild. You have provided no sources to support your repeated claim. Please read WP:DEADHORSE. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not my imagination gone wild. Read ethnology. Where did he say a proto-semitic civilization didn't exist? That's ridiculous, of course they did... well, I guess not a "civilization" since the first real one was sumer, but a tribe or confederation of tribes. There's even a lively debate about where, but not if. (most used to think arabia or north africa but now the levant is winning out).[3] Well, of course it's hypothetical, but so are the proto-greeks. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have read ethnology. It does not say what you claim. Please quote what you are referring to and the underlying ref supporting it.

The Liverani ref in the article says Semite or Semitic should not be used outside of linguists and the concept of "proto semitic culture" should not be assumed. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Do Liverani and you think Proto-Semitic speakers had no culture? Cathry (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he didn't say proto-semites never existed. That's just wrong. Languages begin somewhere. As for ethnology the lead sums it up "Ethnology (from the Greek ἔθνος, ethnos meaning "nation"[1]) is the branch of anthropology that compares and analyzes the characteristics of different peoples and the relationship between them (cf. cultural, social, or sociocultural anthropology).[2]" Ethnolinguistics compares different peoples who speak similar languages. Nothing about race. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not the point you have been making. You have stated time and time again arguments about an "ethnolinguistic group". We need to see a scholarly definition of that term. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean that's not my point?!!? Ethnolinguistics is ethnology + linguitics. That's where the word comes from, it's a portmonteau. Am ethnolinguistic group is a related concept. One use of the term is an ethnic group defined by a common language, ie the Oromo people. Another use of the term is a pan-ethnic grouping where language is the defining characteristic, ie Bantu peoples. I'm using the second definition of the term. Check it out, here's a previewable book on ethnology. It basically gives a brief summary of what this page should look like (if it weren't the pathetic rag it is currently)"Ethnology"--Monochrome_Monitor 05:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is getting tedious - please provide sources underpinning your statement that "Another use of the term is a pan-ethnic grouping where language is the defining characteristic".

On your link above re Semites, please note that per WP:PSTS, secondary sources are preferable to tertiary sources. The first page of the "facts on file" preface explains that it is targetted at students, so is by nature simplified. The preface goes on to talk about ethnicity and the modern use of the term, and then contradicts itself in actual usage later. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it IS getting tedious. There's no rule that says "tertiary sources" are forbidden, now you're just wikilawyering.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not write "forbidden", did I.

And you continue to avoid my request for a source. This is not Candyman - if you say the same thing five times it isn't going to become real. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do I need a source saying exactly what I'm saying?!!? You can do basic reasoning and look at the context, the term ethnolinguistic group is used in the sense I describe thousands of times on the internet but these sources assume the reader knows what an "ethnolinguistic group" is. If I asked you to define "ethno-regional" group and source it would you be able to? No? Does that mean ethno-regional groups don't exist? Of course not. These things are too niche for a dictionary. I'm not going to go delving into the depths of the internet to placate someone who is never contented by logic. If I found a source saying exactly what I wrote, would that even matter to you? What would it prove? You'd still argue against treating semitic peoples as such a group. I'll look for a crystal clear definition when I get back from college orientation, though I doubt it would help in the end.--Monochrome_Monitor 09:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Monochrome_Monitor -- You seem to be very attached to the term "ethnolinguistic group", but for the purposes of the current article, if "ethnolinguistic group" means exactly the same thing as "linguistic group" then it's redundant; while if "ethnolinguistic group" has some differences in meaning with respect to "linguistic group", then such differences in meaning are probably invalid and useless here, since there's absolutely no valid useful definition of current-day "Semitic people" except in terms of which languages they speak. Meanwhile Ethnolinguistics on Wikipedia is about anthropological linguistics and quasi-Sapir-Whorf stuff, while Ethnolinguistic group on Wikipedia redirects to Ethnic group, which involves subjective identity and feelings of affiliation -- and I've explained in detail below why a "Semitic" ethnic identity is very problematic. AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)