Talk:Semitic people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ethnicity

This article is confusing. It appears as though references to ethnics have been added within the context of language where they don't belong. Semitic does not refer to ethnicity, it is a language classification. Modern anthropology does not use Semitic to classify any ethnic or racial group. All references to ethnics should be referred to as the Hamitic and Japhetic articles are written, noting the terms are outdated and biblical and do not refer to modern ethnic or racial groups.

We all know that politics dictate this term's continued usage as a racial/ethnic classification. But this is an encyclopedia and thus the appropriate thing would be to make a distinction and elsewhere use the term for language classification which is the only academically appropriate use of the term. The term anti-Semitism specifically refers to anti-Jewish and has nothing to do with Semitic as a language classification. Nor does it seriously refer to Semitic as a modern ethnic group. It was coined in the 19th century to discriminate against European Jews by equating them with Middle Easterners alien among the European "Aryans" and was meant in that context. The "Aryan race" is not taken seriously in academics. The term anti-Semitism has survived though to refer to discrimination against Jewish people but only in the context of anti-Jewish discrimination. Ethnics are not seriously implied in the context. In more recent times, the I/P conflict and it's politics have led to inappropriate ethnic use of this term and this article is not only guilty of this, but some editor as even modified the language context to mention ethnics. It's a confusing mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.173 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should not be a "Semitic peoples" article at all, and this article was only called "Semitic" at one point, which made more sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It might make sense just to have a single article at Semitic languages, but there is so much on all the various peoples who speak the Semitic languages, that having this article seems justified. I'm not sure, but "Semitic peoples" (plural) might be a slightly better title than "Semitic people". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

198.228.228.173 -- I thought the article should have kept its old name of "Semitic", as you can see above... AnonMoos (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

i'm sorry but semitic people is an ethnic race ! when some people speak a comon language that's mean they have a common ancestor and this ancestor is SEM ! Semitic people is a good title become it resume the situation etnically the semitic people are different than other they are haplogroup J and the indo european people are haplogroup R the genetic prooves than semitic,japhetic,hamitic does exist so please stop dreaming or something like that if the term anti semitism exist is not for nothing man the jew come from were ? israel ! israel is a semitic state with people who speak semitic language.....semitic one race divised in different people hebrew/arabs/arameans/pheniciances etc some of them survived some other not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiane2k6 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not true that when some people speak a common language they have a common ancestor. English is the common language of a great many people whose only common ancestor is so far back in prehistory to be meaningless. And race is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Semitic Peoples might be a better title. However there are some genetic studies that show genetic links between Semites, and Semites to some degree at least are an ethno-linguistic group specific to a certain region of the world, so I cannot see a problem with this article as it stands. The idea of Hamites and Japhites is largely defunct, but with Semites, not so. I think the article is a pretty good one, the Origin and History sections are good, the Genetic section does mention a common ancestry which is to some degree proven, but it also mentions a connection to non semites from the region, which is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly some readers and editors believe that "semitic" refers to an ethnic/racial group. And they're wrong. Obviously this cannot be confused with what is the truth. Anthropologists do not consider "semitic peoples" (especially Ashkenazi Jews, a European ethnic group) a race or an ethnic group. "Semitic" refers specifically to the language groups which beyond Arabic are few and far between. Arabic, yes. Aramaic to an extent as well. "Hebrew" perhaps if you consider this phony 19th/20th century re-creation of a long-dead language (which in reality is basically Phoenician with Aramaic characters.... ) to be an actual unique language despite the fact that very few speak it.... There is no such race or ethnicity as a semitic people. It is purely a biblical grouping and in the modern era in which nobody refers to others as Japhetic or Hamitic. Not anybody who is serious from a realistic perspective anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.58.40 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into details, but I advice you to read that article and that may answer some of your questions. in short, what you said about the Hebrew language (or Modern Hebrew) is very misleading and inaccurate, and regarding your claim that "Ashkenazi Jews [are] a European ethnic group" - this is completely false and this lie has been debunked time and again. All modern studies and DNA tests have come to the conclusion that Ashkenazi Jews have both Levantine/Middle Eastern origins and varying degrees of European admixture. And the same thing applies to all other ethnic groups, none is 100% "pure". Shalom11111 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Worse, Semitic languages are spoken natively by people who are as "Caucasian" or "Negroid" by appearance as they come, whose ancestors may never have been outside Africa and who may have no drop of "Semitic" blood (i. e., no biological connection to the speakers of Proto-Semitic). The phenotypical variation among speakers of Arabic and Hebrew in particular is vast. So the biologically based notion of "Semitic people(s)" is completely useless. Neither can a group of "Semitic people(s)" be based on ethnic self-identification. Never mind the biblical Semites, who excluded some groups who spoke Semitic languages and included others who did not. It's a purely language-based notion. At best, "Semitic people(s)" is an ethnolinguistic group.

As for there being no 100% "pure" ethnic groups, I agree – well, some extremely isolated (or formerly isolated) groups such as Sentinelese come pretty close to the general idea, I suppose, but of course, we know nothing about their prehistory, so even if there were 100% "pure" ethnic groups, we could never prove it due to lack of evidence. Even genetic analysis cannot provide such certainty. Anyway, the phenomenon is extremely marginal, provided it exists at all. The Sentinelese and other isolated groups are probably not concerned with their "purity"; those who are obsessed with it live in civilised parts of the world where "purity" of this kind is historically out of the question. The idea of a "Semitic race" (where adopting a language magically transforms your genes and ancestry) is not a whit less obsolete (and bogus) than that of an "Aryan race". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

i want to edit a part of this article because there is an offensive part when it says 'hitherto largely uninfluental arabic language' thank you

82.201.191.190 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The list of tribes has some problems.

• There is no archaeological evidence for Ubarites, Amalekites and Sabians. Theodor Nöldeke (Ueber die Amalekiter, Göttingen, 1864) the information on the Amalekites is conflicting and not useful, and Winckler's ("Gesch. Israels," p. 211) claims they are mythological. Immanuel Velikovsky says they probably didn't exist since they are never mentioned in Egyption sources. (see the talk page for Amalekite). This page reads as if these groups existence is certified and when this is far from the case.
• The Ahlamu is just another name for Arameans and it even redirects to that page.
• The Magan (civilization) location is unclear and possibly didn't speak a Semitic language.
• The Hyksos debates are endless and while scholars lean to the rulers being Semitic the commoners may not have been.

The list should be shortened of these groups to the tribes with physical evidence. Possibly mention them in a paragraph about other groups that may have existed or may have been Semitic but don't make a reader believe there is certainty about these 6 groups. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Left the Hyksos, removed the rest. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The article wrongly distinguishes Canaanites, Phoenicians and Israelites/Jews as members of different ethnic groups when in fact both the Phoenicians and the Israelites/Jews are of Canaanite origin.

The article wrongly distinguishes Canaanites, Phoenicians and Israelites/Jews as members of different ethnic groups when in fact both the Phoenicians and the Israelites/Jews are of Canaanite origin. I suggest that this should be fixed. Guy355 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Many different ethnic groups have common origins. It doesn't stop them being different. They become different when they evolve into distinct identities. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine, the thing is that the article makes Canaanites a distinct people while also making the Israelites and Phoenicians distinct people, if you want the Israelites and Phoenicians distinct, then don't type Canaanite, without Israelites/Phoenicians there are no Canaanites. Guy355 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The groups listed above had been distinct from each other for longer than current day Scandinavians and Balkan peoples. So no, they're not the same just because they have common origins. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted because there is no consensus for the change. The Bible clearly distinguishes Canaanites from Israelites. Of course modern scholars see Israelites as a group that emerged from the Canaanites, but in some ways it's just a question of terminology. The term "Canaanites" is being used in different ways for different purposes. I think it's wholly inappropriate to force an interpretation on the reader. It's better to keep the ethnicities separate unless there is an absolutely clear case of duplication or false separation. As for Phoenicians, yes, they are usually seen as an ethnic identity that evolved from the older and more inclusive concept of "Canaanite". It might be appropriate to bracket them with Canaanites (and Carthaginians). Paul B (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

... Just because the bible says something doesn't makes it so, the bible claims there was an Exodus, however there's no evidence for that and most experts agree there was no Exodus and that the Israelites were in fact Canaanites. Israel and Judah developed out of Canaanite culture - their inhabitants were Canaanites, they spoke Canaanite dialects and worshiped Canaanite gods (with the important exception of Yahweh, who was not Canaanite) and were generally indistinguishable from Canaanites. In the 8th century a prophetic movement arose in Israel (northern kingdom) dedicated to the idea that Israel (the kingdom) should worship Yahweh alone. They pretty much failed. Then Israel was destroyed and the prophets came south to Judah, where Yahweh was worshiped. They blamed the destruction of Israel on the failure of the kings of Israel to worship Yahweh, and, through a series of largely accidental events (the murder of a king, the accession of an 8 year old child to the throne, their success in becoming the child-king's guardians), they managed to become the single most powerful faction in Judah. These were the Deuteronomists. Their basic idea was that the kingdom should worship Yahweh alone, under the terms of a covenant between Israel (now seen as the people of God, not the kingdom) and Yahweh. "Canaanites" were those who were not "Israel". Judah was destroyed by Babylon. Catastrophe, especially for the Deuteronomists - the covenant had failed. They could have reacted by declaring they'd been wrong - quite probably many Judahites did. Those who didn't, however, circled the wagons and insisted that if the covenant had failed it was Israel's fault for sinning - and sin was defined purely as not worshiping Yahweh alone. It's this period that many of the great prophetic books come from - half of Isaiah, all of Ezekiel, some of Jeremiah. It's also in this period that the history books get re-written - that's the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. There are many voices in the books, but they all try to explain why God abandoned Israel, and put the blame on Israel. The third act began with the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539, just one long lifetime after the Exile. Not everyone had been exiled, by the way - back in Judah there were Judahites who'd stayed on. They'd taken over the lands of the exiles. Some of them worshiped Yahweh, some didn't (remember how prophets right down to Jeremiah excoriate the Judahites for following other gods - Yahweh-worship was an ideal more than a reality). And now the Yahweh-alone exiles were coming back, and they were more self-righteous than ever - Yahweh had delivered them, using Cyrus as his instrument! (Remember that Isaiah calls Cyrus the messiah, meaning the God-anointed king over Israel). The fourth and final act was what happened when the exiles and the non-exiles met in Jerusalem in the last decades of the 6th century and the early 5th. There were questions to sort out, notably who really, truly owned all that land. The exiles had the upper hand - the Persians had recognised them as the rightful rulers of the province of Yehud (see Ezra-Nehemiah). The exiles effectively laid down the law to the non-exiles: join us and worship Yahweh and generally follow us, or else. They were Israel (holy community of Yahweh), everyone else, whether Judahite or not, was Canaan ... which was quite true, because they were indeed Canaan, but not the sort of Canaan that had or has any significance outside the history of the formation of early Judaism. That's my personal potted version. I'd like to point you to the books that led me to this view, but it's not easy to find it set out like this. Some of the names you could look up are Albertz, Grabbe, Ska, and Blenkinsopp. Til would call them minimalists, but they're not - minimalists hold that the bible was complete fiction written in Hellenistic times or later, while these people agree that it was written first the mid-1st millennium and then revised heavily in the Exile and immediately after. That's mainstream these days. The evidence contradicts the bible, those who wrote the bible had an agenda, and you can't put the bible over the evidence. Guy355 (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S the way you reverted my edit makes it illogical again, and for what? Just in order to make things clear with the bible? The Phoenicians called themselves Canaanites, the name "Phoenician" comes from Greek. The Israelites also considered themselves Canaanites at least until the Babylonian captivity (look at what I typed above ^). From what I see, the only opposition comes from you, and why? Because of the bible, which contradicts a lot of evidence, so what? Are we now supposed to say the Exodus actually happened? That the Israelites and Phoenicians were distinct from Canaanites? Let me give you an example, saying the Israelites, Phoenicians and Canaanites are distinct people, is like saying Germans, Danes and Germanics are distinct people, the first 2 are distinct groups of a shared common ancestry i.e Germanic ancestry, the Israelites and Phoenicians are 2 distinct groups of a shared Canaanite ancestry, I hope I explained it well, there seems to be a misunderstanding. Guy355 (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Canaanites in Race/Ethnicity because The Canaanites weren't a distinct group, they were a larger group in which the Israelites, Phoenicians and their descendants belong to. The same way that Germans and Danes descend from a larger group (Germanic peoples). Alright? Guy355 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC

There is no edit war! I waited for anyone to show opposition, no one did! It's a fact that the Canaanites themselves aren't a distinct group, it's like saying Germanic peoples are a distinct group or that Slavic peoples are a distinct group, WRONG! They're a larger group made up of smaller groups who share a common ancestry. What do you mean wait for consensus? No one is showing opposition. Guy355 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

There was an error spotted. Your article referred to Canaanites as "Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew".Canaanites are likely the ancestors of the Philistines, who are today called the Palestinians (the Romans changed the name over 2000 years ago). Phoenicians were the ancestors of the Lebanese. Carthaginians are ancestors of those of today's Tunisians.Hebrews originated in Mesopotamia, now Iraq.

Jonathan Buttall (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you admit it is speculation ("likely") and have not cited reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jonathan Buttall Inaccurate, the Canaanites were a native Levantine population. The Philistines were foreign invaders, their name derives from the Hebrew (Hebrew being a Canaanite language) word "Polesh", which means Invader. They were part of the larger migration of sea peoples i.e people who came from the sea i.e outsiders, they most likely came from the Aegean sea. The modern Palestinians descend largely from the Arabian invaders with the rise of Islam as well as descendants of Israelite Canaanites who remained in Israel and converted to Christianity and later Islam (1. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf 2. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316). The Phoenicians were in fact Canaanites, the name "Phoenician" was first coined by the Greeks i.e not the Phoenicians who identified as Canaanite (1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians#Etymology 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians#Origins:_2300.E2.80.931200.C2.A0BC). The Maronites claim descent from the Canaanite Phoenician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites). The Carthaginians descended from Phoenician colonists as well as the local Berbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthaginians#814_BC_to_146_BC). the modern Tunisians largely descend from the local Berbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_people). The Hebrews were culturally and linguistically Canaanite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#Historical_Israelites), they were local Canaanites, Hebrew is a Canaanite language, derived from Phoenician(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language). The story of the patriarchs, who supposedly came from Mesopotamia, is largely mythical, the Israelites/Hebrews drew their descent largely, not from Egypt or Mesopotamia but from Canaan, since they were native Canaanites, only during the Babylonian captivity did the Israelites, then heavily influenced by radicals who adopted a Midinite god known as Yahweh (according to the Kennite hypothesis. Link 1. http://www.archives.upenn.edu/faids/upt/upt50/barton_ga.html 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenite#Kenite_hypothesis) decided that they're going to worship Yahweh alone (until that time the Israelites, being a Canaanite people, worshiped local Canaanite gods like Ashera and Baal), and called anyone who didn't "Canaanite", thus attempting to severe their Canaanite heritage as can be seen in the Torah. The current article is fine, representing modern understanding of the region, backed up by archaeological, historical, cultural and linguistic evidence. 84.108.30.185 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dating Shem

At the present the second paragraph of Semitic_people#Origin reads:

"The word "Semitic" is derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in Genesis 5, Genesis 6, Genesis 1021, or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite."

One problem is that the Biblical links provided either connect to a French translation of the text or don't work at all and, in any case, similar references are provided in following paragraphs.
I propose that something along the lines of the following be used.

"The word "Semitic" is derived in connection to Shem (from Hebrew שֵם, Sheim), (one of the three sons of Noah who, according to chronologies of the Bible, was born ~2569 BCE) with the word being more precisely derived from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite."

A previous version that read: "The word "Semitic" is derived in connection to Shem (from Hebrew שֵם, Sheim), (one of the three sons of Noah who, according to chronologies of the Bible, was born ~2569 BCE) with the word being more precisely derived from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite." was reverted by User:日国. I have since presented the tilde (~) on the date to provide a more general indication time according to Biblical history.

I think this information is of use in connection to concepts like Generation time in relation to issues such as population biology (mentioned later in article) and demography.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't any point to changing a clear sentence for a more turgid one. How is "derived in connection to Shem" better than "is derived from Shem"? Nor do I see what the origin of the name has to do with "generation time", or why we need to know when Shem was supposedly born. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Semitic "people" ??

There is no such thing as Semitic "people". Semitic is a language classification, not an ethnic or racial group. It would be one thing if the article was written regarding the (antiquated) biblical use of the term but the bulk of it implies or alludes to ethnicity. Of course, we all know the reasoning behind this which is related to the term antisemitism used exclusively for jews, the vast majority of who do not even speak a Semitic language or are otherwise not Middle Eastern (most of the Ashkenazi who are of European ancestry). Jewish supremacism seems to be tolerated here which is quite unfortunate. Political Zionism also most likely is one of the other primary motives behind this whole "Semitic" thing as it helps re-inforce the biblical claims to Palestine (which in the real world are baseless anyways) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.57.65 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is strictly for discussing possible improvements to the article content, see WP:SOAP! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and the article is misleading. Semitic either refers to the biblical nations in a biblical context (Hamitic, Japheitic, Semitic), Anti-semitism, or the Semitic languages. There is no such thing as a Semitic people. The ethnic context is misleading because such an ethnicity does not exist because Semitic is not an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.157 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, most editors feel this topic warrants having a referenced article to explain what it means. Your saying that there is no such thing wouldn't be your "viewpoint", would it by any chance? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just my viewpoint, it's an objective fact. The editors in question as well as the sources mostly seem to fall within the realm of jewish supremacism and other forms of nationalist bias. Are you saying that "Semites" are an ethnicity and/or race? Only (mostly) Jews and Arabs would argue with this and mostly within a biblical or political (ex - I/P) context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.57.68 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since obviously not everyone would agree with your version of the "facts", I'd say it's actually more like a "pov" than "facts".Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Semitic_people#Ethnicity FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I get the impression that people may be getting overly hung up on linguistic analysis and genetic comparisons. What it seems to me is that we have Biblical claims from a religious text whose oldest surviving documents are dated at 33 CE plus or minus 200 years and which talk about a supposedly common ancestor of "Semitic peoples" who is dated at around 2569 BCE. All we really have is a Biblical claim regarding a list of nations that are purported to have descended from a claimed flood survivor called Shem. I think a key question for speculation relates to the timings of the development of the final draft of the Biblical text. When did the story come together and what was the understanding of "the nations" at the time. For whatever reason, assuming there was a reason, the nations were considered within a format of a three strand family tree. All we have is a Biblical interpretation regarding national groupings (or peoples) that were known at the time of writing. There's nothing more too it than that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

These two IP addresses will be reported next time the use terms like "jewish supremacism" (note how he purposely put the J in lower case while properly writing other words - a common tactic). In case these IPs were to lazy to read what the article's lead section says, I'll do the job for them to answer their question: "As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[1]" Shalom11111 (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semitic-Speaking People

While I was reading this article I noticed that for the for the list of ancient and modern Semitic speaking people you said that only the Lebanese Maronites are descendants of the Phoenicians. This has been proved inaccurate in a genetics study done in Lebanon which found the Phoenician marker in all the religious sects of the Lebanese. I would appreciate it if you could change it so no one reads inaccurate information or gets offended. Thank you.

It's done. AcidSnow (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

West Asian origin?

I find it really weird that the article is saying that Semitic peoples are of west Asian origin, in reality they are not Asian because Semitic is not a race or ethnicity, it's a language family please don't get it mixed up with ethnic origin, Semitic is a melting pot and has no own physical appearance, there are Black Semitics such as Amharas (Ethiopia) and one of Semitic peoples they were are whites such as Amorites and there are Semitic-speaking peoples in East Africa and Malta, The Semitic languages probably originated in East Africa around late Neolithic look at that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.49.59 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם‎) was first used to refer to a language family of West Asian origin."

In other words... the article already says language family, and doesn't say Semitic peoples are of west Asian origin, it says that the language is of West Asian origin. Please actually read articles before complaining about them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have read the article before complaining, I mean the article say that Semitic-speaking peoples are of West Asian origin ("In linguistics and ethnology") but Semitic languages are of East African origins according to the most popular theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.49.59 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please point to where it says "people" in the sentence that also places the language family's origin in West Asia. The article clearly says it's the language that's from west Asia, not necessarily the people. In other words, while the people are ultimately from East Africa, they mostly spoke some other Afro-Asiatic language until some migration to West Asia, at which point Semitic languages branched off and spread back to east Africa. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment below I think the IP's comment highlights how confusing this article is. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

193.174.90.94

User talk:193.174.90.94 seems to be a serial vandaliser, with a particular desire to promote Aramean and delete references to other languages/cultures on a variety of pages. Paul B 17: 15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a health warning

It also needs some tidying up (e.g. the current lead waits until its last sentence to explain what the term refers to.

Re the health warning, here are two relevant articles:

• On the use of the terms “(anti-)Semitic” and “(anti-) Zionist” in modern Middle Eastern discourse, Orientalia Suecana LXI Suppl. (2012) by Lutz Eberhard Edzard:

In linguistics context, the term “Semitic” is generally speaking non-controversial... 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.

• Review of "The Canaanites" (1964) by Marvin Pope:

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.

The point being that the concept of a "Semitic people" was very fashionable in the days of the mid to late 19th century romantic nationalism, but it has little credibility today. Not least because, as explained in the article Arabs, the largest group of people who might be called Semitic today are no longer thought to be of a "single ethnicity".

Does anyone disagree with this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

So ? you tried to show that we shouldn't use the term Semitic people, so do you want the article to be deleted ? what is your demand, what is the change you want to make ?? do you want to add these two paragraphs to the article ? or do you object the existence of it ?? because you only showed that this term is controversial which is stated in the article ! from the lead : As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.... where is the misleading ? --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think it should be deleted, as the term is used in modern discourse (as is the term "Semite"). I simply think that the lead needs to be clear what we think "Semitic people" are, and what are the views of the modern scholarly community on its usage. The lead of the article Hamitic includes much of what this article needs. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, understood, could you please write the sentences that you want to insert (or delete), so that they be added to the lead if no one have objections or be discussed and modified until a consensus is reached ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I will do. Am just gathering WP:RS to base the additions on, including: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7],[8], [9], [10], [11] Oncenawhile (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Modern political usage of the term should not be a focus of this article. Antisemitism doesn't exactly mean "hatred of semites", after all. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Is the above still an ongoing project? —Telpardec  TALK  08:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Telpardec, yes it is but I just need to find the time to get round to finishing it. Do you have any thoughts on the topic that you would like to share? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: OK. No particular thoughts. I was setting up auto-archiving and noticed things were left hanging in this thread.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  11:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian (2)

While reading this article, I was quite alarmed to see that the Egyptians were listed as "Ancient Semitic Peoples". Although the ancient Egyptians are related to the Semites due to the fact that they both spoke Afro-Asiatic languages, the Egyptian branch is independent from the Semitic branch. That is, the relationship between the Egyptians and Arabs is analogous to, for example, the relationship between the Arabs and the Berbers, another Afro-Asiatic peoples. Please correct this immediately as it is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.171.81 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Berbers are partly (not all tribe) is semitic (example descent from ancient Israelite). Only Egyptian elite (royal, priest) is semitic Hebrew/Israelite not all Egyptian is semitic, and not all Egypt ancient people is not semitic-Hebrew. This article is full of errors, and the old lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.6.125 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Amorites

Amorites are of Hamitic iorigin but speak a Shemitic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:7094:B300:16CC:20FF:FE12:405C (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect of Semitic

Since the first three references in this article confirm that the linguistic sense of "Semitic" is the primary usage of the term, I propose we redirect the Semitic page (which is currently redirected to here) to Semitic languages. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I made it a disambig page. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Book of Gates

@Monochrome Monitor: Asiatics / Semitic are both misleading terms. Much of Egyptology was written during the 19th century and early 20th, so some of these obsolete terms prevail. The actual term is Aamu. See Book of Gates. Connecting it to this article just causes confusion. If you are determined to do so, you need a good source explaining why it's relevant. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I know the actual term is aamu... but we have historians/archeologists/comparative linguists to reconstruct the past for us. I'm not bothered by it not being included, I thought it was interesting for its antiquity. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Overlap with Semitic languages

I have tidied up some over the overlap with the Semitic languages article. This has been discussed in various now-archived threads such as:

• Talk:Semitic_people/Archive_3#This_article_needs_a_health_warning
• Talk:Semitic_people/Archive_3#Semitic_.22people.22_.3F.3F
• Talk:Semitic_people/Archive_3#Ethnicity

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• This article is utter crap and should be merged with Semitic language and simply be a redirect. We don't have an "Indo European people" article either. There is no such "people". The current article is used for nothing but useless POV pushing. FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semitic people do not exist. There was once a proto-semitic population that carried the Semitic languages just like the proto-indo-europeans carried the language from India to Norway. But thats it, there is no Indo-european people nor a Semitic people. However, the term Semitic people is commonly used. Maybe this article should be a redirect and a new article for the proto-semites be created to explain how did an Ethiopean and an Assyrian came to speak languages belonging to the same family.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a language, there have to be a people who speak it, therefore those who spoke Semitic language/s were Semitic by definition. That means there is such a thing as Semitic people. To have a description of something connected to a person you have to also have that person to start with. If there is a term "Semitic" describing a person there is obviously an actual person who is Semitic regardless of what other definitions/descriptions may also be applied to that person. This article is too comprehensive and too well-researched and imo needs to stay as a single unit as is, there is no reason to delete it or merge it. "People" is an overreaching term which sits at the top of the tree and other connected sub-topics can be easily linked through to from this page, and as you say "However, the term Semitic people is commonly used." which means many people will be searching using this term and that when people enter it they get a good comprehensive landing point to start from and they can then branch-out through links for further research. If they enter "Semitic people" and land on something obscure or not sought, it can lead to confusion. From purely the perspective of a standard Wikipedia user doing searches and study (and that is after all why Wikipedia exists - to lead people to the specific information they search for using specific search terms), this article definitely needs to stay here to avoid confusion and abiguity. Taurusthecat (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The article was renamed, not deleted. Before anything, tell me, why is there no Indo-European people article? And Attar Aram, Proto-Semitic already exists. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, proto semitic language article exist, but if a proto semitic language exist then there was a proto-semitic people like the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Maybe they should get an article and redirect this article to it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

But is there any reason why such an article should be separate? "Proto-Indo-European" speakers have been an obsession of 20th century nationalist scientists, therefore much has been written about them. I doubt the case is the same for proto-Semitic speakers. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You really have no appreciation for nationalists :) . That is true, there isnt much about the proto-Semites. If I found anything I will create an article for them. But this article should be redirected. Its silly to treat Axum and Babylon as the same cultures or people or talk about them in the same article just because of a language.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my problem isn't with nationalism itself, but ethocentrism. Nationalism can even be cute, hehe... Anyhow, since this article was moved back from Semitic cultures, I'll make a formal move request soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your underlying views on the non-existance of a Semitic people. This is described best in the quotes shown for references 1, 2 and 3 in the article.

BUT, Semitic people is a historical concept, which still floats around in popular culture. Many Jews presume they are Semites, because of the confusion caused by the existence of the term antisemitic. So this article serves a purpose, which is to clarify that the concept is now obsolete.

We would serve the readership community best by working together to clean this article up and focus it on the deconstruction of the concept covered in many scholarly sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, the "people" concept is already dealt with in the article under "Ethnicity and race". What exactly is the reason for keeping "Semitic peoples" separate from "Semitic cultures"? The former is well within the scope of the latter. The latter title is just much more scientifically accurate, modern, and NPOV. And I stress again, we likewise don't have a separate article about "Indo-European people". FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the "Semitic cultures" proposal. I find it confusing in scope, and without clarification it feels like an awkward attempt at something in between language and ethnicity. You have referred to the Indo-European analogy a few times, but we don't have an article called Indo-European cultures either. I am not aware of good sources which group together something with the name Semitic cultures, unless they are referring only to the ancient world. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this article is not necessary, but should redirect to the language article - or to an article to be written about the semitic cultures of the ancient world and the spread of the semitic languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was brought by this post on Wikiproject Anthropology. I agree with maunus and the other editors on this. The article seems rather POV, particularly the lead (three consecutive footnotes on what the term used to mean? That's silly). There was at some point a group of people who spoke proto-Semitic, but that doesn't seem to be the topic of this article, rather it seems to be about a number of different cultural groups who spoke branches of the Semitic language family. In fact, I don't see any real mention or evidence of some unified Semitic people, rather it is hinged upon the language family. That's like saying Indians, Australians, and Americans are all English people because we all speak branches of the English language family. This article should be redirected to Semitic languages. Wugapodes (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is going to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I only bring it up to rebut the argument that "We don't have an "Indo European people" article either. There is no such "people"." While it may be true that we don't have an Indo European people article (yet), these "Foo peoples"-type articles, where "Foo" is a language group are quite common on WP. We have: Indo-Aryan peoples, Tai peoples, Austronesian peoples, Polynesian peoples, Uralic peoples, Pearic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, Samoyedic peoples, Celtic peoples, need I go on? I'm not saying this article, as currently written, is particularly good, but "Semitic peoples" is a valid concept. It just needs to be rewritten with a different focus.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The trick is in the plural -s. It might indeed be possible to write an article about the many different Semitic peoples and their history. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the plural -s. I'd just assumed this was already at "Semitic peoples". I would have sworn I saw an "s" up there. Funny the way the brain works (or doesn't) sometimes. In any case, it doesn't invalidate the point, it just means the article should be moved to Semitic peoples.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• If it is unclear, my point and initial proposal is exactly the same as that put forward by Maunus. As for there not being an Indo-European cultures article either, good, there shouldn't be. But there is an article about Proto-Indo-Europeans. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a page on afroasiatic people either. Semitic is a subgroup of Afro-Asiatic... just like Germanic is a subtype of indo-european. Ethnolinguists grouping is firmly based in comparative linguistics/philology and is often supported by genetics. It's frankly stupid that this page treats Semitic peoples like an artificial construct... as compared to say Germanic peoples. I agree we should make this "people(s)" and rewrite much of the problem. It's the same with the article Arabs. It focuses on Arabs in a purely linguistic sense while all but ignoring genetics/ethnic components. @WilliamThweatt: @Maunus:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

History section

I find this section very difficult to read, and primarily focused on the languages. To my mind Semitic_languages#History does a much better job. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this article, most of this History section was added in 2013-14 by the now-blocked sockpuppets EddieDrood and Sinharib99.

It is also mostly unsourced.

I propose to merge anything useful with Semitic_languages#History and remove the rest.

Any comments appreciated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking

This page was blanked, and then a new page was created at Semitic peoples, based on an earlier version of this page. This mess has now been reverted.

Monochrome Monitor, you need consensus for any major changes, and your blanking plus recreation should have been done via WP:RM. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting the procedural mess aside, I think I understand what you were hoping to achieve. I suggest you create an article called Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples or similar, to avoid confusion. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing is known about the ethnicity of those ancient peoples; their written language is all we have to connect them to each other. And no serious scholar today believes that those ancient peoples descended from the biblical Shem. So the ethnic concept of Semitic peoples in the ancient world is just as misleading as it is in the modern world. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: please see above. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. We don't know that ancient celtic tribes were actually celtic ethnically, but they are still included in celts. You have so many double standards for Semitic peoples it's ridiculous. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, no one is saying semites are a race. they are an ethnolinguistic group. It's not just a common language, it's a very similar culture (particularly with regards to religion) and of course as this article demonstrates a similar y-chromosome. Of course they are diverse, but so are all peoples. English culture and Icelandic culture are very different, but both are germanic.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semites are not a myth. Or else there wouldn't be Semitic studies. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a large number of straw man arguments here.

If you focus on what I've written, rather than any imagined subtext, you will see that we are broadly in agreement.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Hahaha I'm just so used to you disagreeing with everything I say. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)