Talk:Jews

For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox.

Portraits

I suggest replacing Emmy Noether with Rita Levi-Montalcini. The latter was also a female scientist but not an Ashkenazi (who at this point represent all Jews since the times of Spinoza in the Infobox). Also, Levi-Montalcini, unlike Noether, was a Nobel laureate. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A good article about an interesting person. I enthusiastically endorse this proposal. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was also thinking, nearly all of them are modern Jews. Instead of George Gershwin (who was influential but did little on the subject of Jews/Judaism) we could instead use Josephus. Thoughts?
Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that a criterion for inclusion was doing something big for Jews/Judaism. In fact, I think there's something to be said for including Jews who are known for other areas of notability. I don't think all of them fit that criterion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Prinsgezinde, I'd mildly oppose that proposal. I see nothing wrong with having mostly modern people in the collage. After all, a collage is supposed to appeal to people, and modern people, who may be recognized by the readers of this encyclopedia, appeal more than ancient people. Please note that I am not saying that I oppose having ancient people in collages, but I definitely do not see having ancient people as a must. By the way, Josephus, even though he is know as being a Jewish general and from the priestly tribe, was very much a Hellenist. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about Josephus. This article ignores about 2000 years of recorded Jewish history. If not Josephus, why not Judas Maccabeus? He's the opposite of Hellenist.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these portraits do not accurately represent the diversity of the Jewish population. There should be photos of Jews from Ethiopia (Beta Israel), India (Bene Israel), China (Kaifeng Jews), etc. Not all Jews are Ashkenazic or Sephardic. Userapd758 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of Jews are Ashkenazic, Sephardic, or Mizrahi. We should be representative of the Jewish population. I still think we should include older Jews though. It's a shame we skip over so much history. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these portraits even of Mizrahi Jews? It is ahistorical and perhaps discriminatory to not represent Jews from diverse backgrounds. I am Ashkeazic, and it is easy for me to find photos of Jews that look like me. This page should be inclusive as it is a page for all Jews, not specifically Ashkenazic or Sephardic. Some examples: Famous Bollywood dancer Ruby Myers (Bhagdad), former Miss Israel Yityish Aynaw (Beta Israel), internationally acclaimed singer Ofra Haza (Yememite), the activist Abbie Hoffman (Persian-Jewish ancestry), singer Paula Abdual (Mizrahi ancestry), famous Rabbi Yosef Qafih (Yemenite) etc. This page should be inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userapd758 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from signing your comments with my signature. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead cleanup

The lead is too long. It can't stay that way. I was trying to remove the least important paragraphs but I got reverted. Please let's discuss a way to shorten the lead. Huritisho 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right that it's too long. A bit too much about the history of the Jewish people. What do you suggest we remove? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would remove what I already tried to remove, as a start. See the history. Huritisho 18:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest trimming small amounts from many topics in the lead rather than completely eliminating the info on Israel. Israel is very important in Jewish identity, both historically and currently. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who did the job of shortening the lead Huritisho 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sundayclose that the short paragraph about Israel is paramount. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Infantom addition

Infantom has attempted to add "in the end of the 2nd millennium BCE" and similar comments to a sentence in the Lead. I have reverted, explaining that the resulting sentence "descended from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East in the end of the 2nd millennium BCE" is ungrammatical, is unclear, and the change is unsupported by the existing references. If you could rework the paragraph/sentence to be grammatical, clarify (the modified sentence would say that the Jews "descended" in the 2nd millennium BCE?) and provide some references for whatever is supposed to have happened then. Thanks. Editor2020, Talk 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1) Both "2nd millennium BCE" and 13th century BCE are specified in the sources, read them.

2) I rather not change much the current sentence as it's a long standing consensus, well sourced and appropriate as it is.

3) What is exactly unclear? The date indicates the era the Israelites were originated in. Infantom (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my latest changes to the lead? I tried to incorporate both of your ideas. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made some changes, i relocated the Israelite-related sources to the right spot, added Semitic definition with sources and added wikilinks. I have also changed "Ancient Near East" to the Land of Israel, since in this new context it is about the Jews as an ethno-national group and not Israelites anymore. Infantom (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Musashiaharon:, you did an excellent job. Editor2020, Talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can we replace Portman in the infobox with The Divine Sarah? Seriously, she's awesome. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you being bold and making the edit, but please see the WP:BOLD page in the WP:CAREFUL section, that in areas that have been the subject of frequent disagreements, you should avoid being bold. I have undone your edit, till such time as this has been discussed and a consensus established. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt is a an acting legend. She's infinitely more infobox worthy than Portman. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, not sure why we got rid of Nuer. She was more influential than the other. Ethnic subgroup should not matter.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one with an enthusiasm for the legitimate theatre? I suppose now that I think about it I have an enthusiasm for every "obsolete" medium- hence the monochrome monitor. Irredisregardless, I'm going to be militant about getting Portman switched to Bernhardt. If we want to show a Jewish actress, that's the most famous jewish actress of all time. Arguably the most famous actress of all time. I can't see any cons. Also, can someone crop the spinoza pic? It's bothering me with its wideness.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite grouping

In the lead paragraphs the numerous cites get disruptive. Yes, people deny Jewish descent from Israelites and need a firm reminder, but isn't there a way to group cites into one [x] box-type thing? --Monochrome_Monitor 14:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph is one of the dumbest pieces of WP:SYNTH on Wikipedia, patching up a general definition out of several features each of which forms part of some Jewish identities. The last time I checked many of the sources, they also do not correspond, or are too dated. I won't touch this stuff of course, but some insider who has a grasp on how groups are defined would do this place a favour if they could work out an intelligent reformulation. There's a very substantial literature on Jewish definitions of Jews, and almost none of it is used here, I suspect because obtaining a 'Jewish' consensus is, thank goodness, all but impossible.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, those sources you mentioned have already been replaced by others. What kind of Jewish definitions are you referring to that are not used here? Infantom (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources that quite clearly state, and I could give dozens, that the definition itself (as with most historic groups) is very complex.I.e.,Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Morris N. Kertzer What is a Jew?, Simon and Schuster, 1996 p.7 says fundamentally all Jews are Jews by choice and that the ‘ethnic definition is going the way of the dinosaur.
• Michael Greenstein The American Jew: A Contradiction in Terms, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 1990 pp.1ff.
• Marc Lee Raphael, Judaism in America, Columbia University Press, 2012 pp.22
• Alain F. Corcos Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist : An Essay Dedicated to the Jewish and Non-Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust, Wheatmark, 2012 Ist chapter.

Most of the sources are not linked to pages, many of them are pointless (definition of Semite, or question-begging (saying Israelites became know as Hebrew does not testify to the descent of modern Jews from Israelites: it is an inference left to the reader) etc.etc.etc..Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

These sources recognize the definitions that are used here. We know Jews have a complex variety of definitions: ethnic, religious, national, cultural etc.. and they are all acceptable. Do you have a better way to briefly express these complicated definitions, including origins (ethnic, geographic and national), than the current paragraph? Infantom (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me construe the definition. Remember, a definition must fit all constituents of the set it describes.

The Jews are a Semitic ethnoreligious group and nation native to the Land of Israel, also referred to as an ethno-cultural group and a civilization. With origins dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE, they are descended from the Israelites and the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

That means that a Jew has all of those elements, he is 'semitic', native to the Land of Israel (a religious, not a topological concept) descended from Israelites and Israel and Judah.

All of the above sources, and dozens more, would deny elements of all of this, since many Jews are known not to be of semitic origin (given conversion, even now), many ancient Jewish populations were not native to the soi-disant Land of Israel, and no one can descend from a kingdom (Judah and 1srael). You descend from people, not from territories, unless you have a genetic relationship to mythical Thebans. It is like saying I am descended from the Kingdom of Munster. The idiocy is not only in that, but in trying to patch up all the relevant identitarian terms (race, nation, religion) to make them coextensive. You can be a Jew by descent but not religion, a Jew by religion but not descent, etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Converts are a minority, and when drawing up a description minorities should be ignored. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not speaking of contemporary converts, Debresser. Both genetics and history indicate that there is a substantial ethnic diversity within Jews. Large numbers of Mediterranean peoples converted, before and after the CE. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

1) Semites are a linguistic group, Jews are Semites because of their belonging to that group. But we can drop that if editors think it's unnecessary.

2) Do you have a better name for the geographic origin of the Jews except for the "Land of Israel"? It is the most frequent name used by Jews to refer to their geographic origin. The nativity to the land is in the sense of where the Jews were originally formed as an ethnic group and nation, not implying that every Jew in the world is native to this land. Are all French or English people native to France and England?

3) We can change to "originated from" (Judah and Israel) and solve it. These two kingdoms are the national origins of the Jews.

4) Neither of the used definitions contradict your last argument. Nobody claimed that belonging to the Jewish ethnicity or nationhood is dependent on descent.

Jews, as a collective, are descended from the Israelites. Even if not necessarily by genetics(some of them), still by their culture, religion, language, nationhood and collective identity. How would you define the origins of the Jews then? Infantom (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone else who actually understands the issues raised please address them. This is not a website for asserting one's personal beliefs.Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't very civil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this on the NOR noticeboard.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetics have established that most actual Jews descend from the ancient Israelite population, with some admixture from other people, mostly converts during the Roman era. There is not one group of people today that is exactly the descendant of their ancestors of 2000 years ago. Even the Chinese Han population is genetically a mix of diverse South-Eastern populations that have been incorporated into the Han ethnos. Bu all accounts and definitions, the actual Jews are the descendants of the Israelites - biologically (mostly), culturally, religiously... All this is pretty well known and standard. Benjil (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetics has not established that. The Jews were in diaspora from at least the 6th century B.C.E. esp. in Egypt (Elephantine). The ancient Israelite population was a great mixture of peoples. It is fantastically absurd to say, as the definition does, that all Jews descend from people resident in either the kingdom of Israel or that of Judah, furthermore. There is simply no historical or genetic method capable of determining the veracity of such an assertion. It is made up, and if conversion and interbreeding were widespread, the descendents come from several places, and peoples, not one. Even quite a few of the genetic papers speak of a Levantine component, not Judah and Israel kingdoms, meaning the Near East generally not a specific zone in Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani Yes, there have been converts through all ages. Still, that doesn't change the fact that as a group, Jews trace back their national and religious sources to Israel. Converts are neglected in this regard, regardless of the degree of admixture of converts for any specific person.

To even more directly answer your question, the reason is probably that after a few generations, the convert origins are forgotten. But the real reason is the first, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As an exercise for reader, compare Nishidani's insistence here that a definition "fit all constituents of the set it describes" to his comments on another ethnic group where he insists the definition be deliberately vague and that it doesn't necessarily need to fit all constituents of anything. It starts here and then goes on over several pages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Delightful hypocrisy. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, he has a simple problem: that there exists no Palestinian people, and never has. It is a modern term, originated in certain interests. But there definitely is a Jewish people! Debresser (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, 3 useless comments. The first is stupid, because the single phrase is not a composite sentence or definition, and is backed by several sources, whereas the Jewish definition is modeled on it, and has several constituent elements, each documented, in a sentence for which there is no single source or set of sources corroborating the definition. I know that to edit here, the first step is to throw away logic, the second to think in terms of POV advantages, and the third to rally support. As to Debresser's remark, it shows why he should not be editing articles in the I/P area, since he openly declares my people exist, the other 'people' don't exist as a people.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, that reminds me of an interview with Azmi Bishara I once saw [1]. Interestingly, when I tried to add definitions made by actual Palestinians to the other article, some editors had a problem with that. But here we must use "Jewish definitions of Jews". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Try not to be an idiot. The atmosphere against 'outsiderts' is so toxic, it is obvious that one recommends that those enveloped by the kind of animosity you show in my regard at least should accept that what Jews determine to be Jewishness is more cogent than anything I or anyone else might say. The definitions you added to Palestinians were stale political declarations from ages back, cherrypicked.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not allow any Palestinian definition into that article. There still isn't one in that SYNTHy ref list there, which you protect as if your life depended on it. Your interest in this article is part of a pattern any idiot can see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani I am entitled to my opinion, as long as I edit according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and abide by consensus. Also, please note that my opinion is perhaps a minority opinion, but has been voiced frequently and prominently. You can read more about the dispute regarding this issue in our Palestinians article. It is even in the lead. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but they are generally uninformed by any familiarity with the kind of scholarship required for writing encyclopedic articles. I have provided evidence from sources above, and what do I get as a reply: 3 pieces of chat about one's personal opinions, or opinions about Nishidani.If you want to be useful, attend to the merits of the evidence, and keep the rest out of this place.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, you guys missed the point, dammit. Pay attention. I was saying we should group cites together so they are less disruptive. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point. You missed the point that the group cites are all rubbish in a composite sentence in which none of the 19 sources foraged from the internet corroborate the generalization made, which, please note, does not make sense, is grammatically inept, and would not be underwritten by any professional scholar of the area, particularly since of the 19 citations only about 4 are given page numbers, the links linking to a book name, and at least 2 were published a century and a half ago, which is barrel-scraping. Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:RX for reference sources relating to this topic. I will forward the material I receive, when I do, to anyone who chooses to give me an e-mail address that I can send them to. On reception, I will also look over various reference sources I may have access to which aren't included in the e-mailing from RX.John Carter (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My email is available on my userpage, Always happy to receive some sources. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, notwithstanding our differences, we once worked together to fix a similar problem at Ashkenazi Jews, and your sober mediation was decisive in the solution obtained. I accept that you often find my editing worrisome, but there can be no hiding the fact that this is blatantly an unacceptable piece of synthesis. The problem is complex, and needs attentive care to fix. I hope you see your way round to finding some amenable answer, based on sources, that will find a consensus here. 21:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

Since you are calling on my better virtues, let me ask you. Where is the synthesizing? WP:SYNTH refers to combining two things to make a third. In this article I see a text which combines two things by stating these two things without making or even implying a third. That is simply and legitimately culling information from various sources. Please show me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not two things to make a third only: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Any definition of this kind should be sourceable, and I have never come across any source which combines these elements in this comprehensive manner. I laid out the case in simple terms on the NOR page, and it has been endorsed by Doug Weller, who is as independent as you get, but since you ask for a repeat. One synthetic sentence contains 9 independent attributes each of which is independently sourced (poorly) and run up into a generalization that must apply to all Jews. The definition, to use a much abused phrase by Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, is an übles Flickwerk. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that every statement, apart from that of a civilization, represents one of several possible opinions. You can easily find (infra-Jewish) sources denying that the idea of a common Middle Eastern lineage (connected to Judea and Samaria) is factual, as it is asserted to be here. The notion of a Jewish nation was common in the 19th century, but not after the Shoah Alain Gresh & Dominique Vidal, The New A-Z of the Middle East I.B. Tauris 2004 pp.174-177 p.175 The majority of modern Jews have therefore, apparently, no direct links with the Hebrews. . Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Gresh and Vidal are not exactly neutral sources, and they have no qualifications on the subject. The notion of a Jewish Nation has been more common *after* the Shoah than before, but whatever, to do not seem to care for facts and cherry-pick only from dubious sources what fits your ideology. Benjil (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear me, dear me: zero argument, zilch counter-evidence, large on whimsical assertions and personal innuendoes. Sources are never neutral and no editor is required to seek them. Texts are edited for neutrality by balancing. No one can obtain a qualification on an issue like identity. Cherry pick again everyone's favorite verb when one can't find an argument (for another example see my page this morning). I don't have an 'ideology': I have a lifelong interest in the way ideologies interfere with natural perceptions. The way you use 'ideology' illustrates how McLellan defined it, 'ideology' in usage, ' is what someone else thinks (Ideology 1986 p.1). The problem with the I/P zone is that it attracts people who read to a purpose, rather than read broadly: they teach themselves, before making any judgement on the evidence, where this or that editor appears to be coming from, what is his POV in the I/P dispute. Once one thinks one has identified the POV, every edit is construed as a reflection of that imputed POV. So Nishidani has, for a goy, this rather suspect interest in us. It can't be from sheer curiosity, it must be motivated by some hang-up, obsession or problem he has with 'Jews'. Meaning, no goy can comment on a subject about us without being for us or against us. This is quite understandable, given the history of antisemitism, but it has one gaping hole: my understandings of this matter are informed only by what Jews themselves say, and therefore the objection to what I state is an objection to what many Jews, noted for their admirable diversity of views,* think. So the gambit becomes, rather than one that seeks to fix a problem, an issue of stopping the person who suggested there was a problem in the first place. It's puerile.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dalia Karpel, 'History Professor Yehuda Bauer: 'Netanyahu Doesn't Know History',' Haaretz 21 February 2013.

Why do you call Jews the “impossible people”?

“The Jews were always in opposition to the whole world. The Jewish people would be endangered by unity. The quarrels and disputes are the engine that drives its culture forward, backward or sideways. That is its elixir of life.”

And that healthy quarrelsomeness is one reason why, unlike other pettily nationalist mind-set ridden nations, defining Jews to the satisfaction of all Jews will always be arduous.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"I am only saying what other Jews say" is one of the most common sentence from anti-semites so you'd better use something else. Gresh and Vidal are far-left French intellectuals known for their strong anti-zionism. They are not experts, they have no academic credibility, an they publish opinions and pamphlets. Which they are perfectly entitled to. I used to read the "Monde Diplo" every week when I was a student because it was hilariously funny. But this is not a credible source for Wikipedia. Benjil (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I get it. You're not too bright tonight (tempted as you are to insinuate the yawn-inducing anti-Semite innuendo gambit). I'll make it simple for you. The definition of a people with a triimillenarian cultural history has nothing to do with the state of Israel which has enjoyed a mere blink of about 70 years of existence. That means that what one's position is re Zionism has fuck all to do with being a Jew. Your remark is fatuous because it suggests that for a definition to be studied one must subject all thinkers to a background security check to certify that they have the right political credentials with regard to Israel. Jeezus, sheesh. Try to think what your declarations might or do imply before replying. Better still, drop it. Because so far, you hav e an attitude and no evidence. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: It seems that Nishidani deemed it necessary to open a parallel discussion about this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition_of_Jews._Gross_original_research.2FWP:SYNTH_violation. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note (to show how disattentive 'readers' here are). 'I have opened a discussion on this on the NOR noticeboard.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC). I notified you all here 5 days ago. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Semitic

I suggest we remove the word "semitic" from the lead, but discuss it later in the article. It is an antiquated and problematic term when used to describe ethnicity:

• 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 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".

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still widely used, including in academic circles. So we can use it. There are always those who say a certain term might not be appropriate for this reason or the other. Let's stick with mainstream. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, if you make a statement (as this applies to others) document it from high quality academic sources. You may be right, but our work here is premised on what sources say, not what we just assert.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Debresser, please prove your statement that it is widely used in academic sources. I think you are wrong. It is widely used to refer to a language family, not to an ethnic group. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schäfer,Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Harvard University Press 2009 p.297 Semite is a ‘dubious racial category’.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is blatant POV pushing. Drsmoo (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)