Talk:Semitic people

Arabs outnumber Jews

Since Arabs outnumber Jews by about 30-to-one worldwide, I removed the reference to most people considering anti-Semitism to be Anti-Jewish -- since it is a mathematically dubious claim. Davodd 21:17, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with the number of Arabs versus the number of Jews. It only has to do with the people who use the phrase, who are English speakers since anti-Semitism is an English word. Most English speakers, most English authorities such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, and in fact most English literature that uses the word uses it to mean anti-Jewish. --Zero 08:46, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely controversial about the linguistic usage of "Semitic"; it is a term found equally in Arabic, Hebrew, and English to describe that language family. - Mustafa

To suggest that "anti-Semitic" does not refer to Jews is a childish cavil. Zero0000 is correct. The "controversy" that resulted in renaming this language group has arisen recently, motivated by Arabs' refusal to admit they were speaking a "Semitic" language, thus reinforcing the common meaning of "Semitic." This is not mentioned in the entry, needless to say. Wetman 18:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Arabic word for "Semitic" is سامية "saamiyya" - Semitic. I have yet to come across one Arab who claimed that Arabic was not a Semitic language - indeed, the first person to explicitly comment on the relationship of the Semitic languages was an Arabic-speaking Jew in the Middle Ages, and there is an Arabic Wikipedia entry on Semitic. Do you have any evidence for this alleged refusal? Or was it Ethiopians who objected, perhaps? This supposed controversy was formerly mentioned, but no evidence was given for it, so I have removed it. Certainly among linguists it is probably the single best-established language family name after Indo-European. Mustafaa 01:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wetman's point does not hinge on his assumption that the Arabs refuse to include themselves under the term "Semitic". I daresay "Semitic" is uncontroversial, referring to any of the five branches of the linguistic group, and to their speakers. "Anti-Semitic" on the other hand may be controversial, since logically it would mean "against anything Semitic" while in actual use it means "against anything Jewish". So, indeed, it is childish to pretend that, in English, "anti-semitic" does not mean "anti-jewish", although in my opinion the term should be avoided altogether, using the more logical "anti-jewish", "anti-hebrew" etc. (I don't think there's any actual "anti-semitism", since the "Semites" do not have any sort of ethnic unity. Of course anti-judaism is irrational already, but a concept of wholesale "anti-semitism" strikes me as completely and utterly bananas ;-) Dbachmann 16:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think a short list of current existing Semitic people's would be appropriate. I only know of the following: Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Armenians. MichaelD 03:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Armenians aren't Semitic anyway, and the term's ethnic use is fairly controversial. I suggest looking at Semitic languages for linguistically Semitic groups. - Mustafaa 05:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Armenians are an Aryan People (derived from the True Irano meaning of the word.) (User The Libyan)

Thus today's male Jews are in fact largely Semitic by descent, rather than being primarily European (Khazar) converts -- can we have a source for that? This seems like an overly simplistic statement consicdering the complexity of jewish world population (see Jew, section World population). And, even if correct, does the statement belong here at all?? Dbachmann 16:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, now I think about it. The sentence is highly controversial - population genetics being a field in its infancy in many respects - and there's no reason to get into the controversy in this particular article. - Mustafaa 22:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Can anyone verify the dramatic changes to this article made by user 68.173.29.113 ? No offence meant, if the changes are justifiable. Jez 00:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few are, but most aren't. The Ashkenazis are a mixed population, with significant Semitic as well as European ancestry, and the history is frankly confused. - Mustafaa 01:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the history of 68.173.29.113's edits, it's clear he is pushing a POV that is strongly at variance with the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are various Semitic peoples besides the Arabs and Jews, including Arameans and some Ethiopian/Abyssinian peoples. Some Jews speak dialects of Aramaic, but from what I can tell Jewish Aramaic is different from Aramaic as spoken by Arameans. Also, since there was reportedly a Proto-Semitic language, hypothetically there was a Semitic people who would have been called Proto-Semites or the Proto-Semitic people. Gringo300 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read things claiming that the Beta Israel aren't Semitic. Anyone know anything about this? Gringo300 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since 'Semitic' means 'speaking a language in the Semitic language family', then yes, they most certainly are Semitic, as any reliable source will attest. Perhaps you are confusing them with the Qemant, a group who live near to where they lived in Ethiopia, who claim to be descended from Canaanites, but are non-Semitic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Validity of calling the Ethiopic a "Semite" is very much in doubt. (the Libyan)

It's not doubted by anyone who actually knows anything about Ethiopic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In commenting on Gringos comments, Id like to say that Yes there is a Proto-semetic people these are the First Arabs of Yemen, they are commonly called Sabean (from saba)not to be confused with sabaens (or in hebrew Shevath) a people of the Himyarite valley of yemen. The Arameans origin is cleary within Yemen, and due to confusion amonsg the greeks who confused the wealthy Armenian traders of Syrian cloth with the Native people Armenians are called Armenians rather than their correct name the Hyaq or Haik. (the Libyan)

• There is no such thing as "Semitic ancestry". There is Near Eastern ancestry, however. Funkynusayri 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The widely accepted statement about "Semitic" as a linguistic family is a very false one. Semitic languages are those spoken by Semites and yes, Semites are ancestors of Sam. That is the origin of the word and not the languages.

Analogy could be drawn with the great Voltaire's remark, that "obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.63.80 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bible legend is just that, legend, not fact. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (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)

Clarification

I am not a linguist but from what I know western syriac (syriac) and eastern syriac ( also known as assyrian) are both aramean languages. I corrected the following statement which is misleading: among others, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian (Syriac), Phoenician, Canaanite, Akkadian, Amharic, and Hebrew. --equitor 20:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Cleaned up the introduction a little, but it has a long way to go. Added some comments asking for sources of claims, perhaps those that added the claims can state the sources? --User:Rpinz 23:55, October 23, 2005 (EST)

I don't think your alterations constiute a "clean up". The first sentence is now almost tautological ("Semitic is a linguistic term used to describe Semitic languages, cultures, and ethnicities.") In effect it now says that "Semitic is a term to describe Semitic". Can you explain why you added the NPOV tag? What was problematic about the POVs expressed here? Paul B 10:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The original first sentence was IMHO misleading and vague, ("Semitic is an adjective referring to the peoples who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages or to things pertaining to them."). Although the word Semitic in its most common usage is an adjective, it leaves out the important distinction of being a linguistic term. I made no claims of perfection above, quite the contrary, many sentences on this page need to be reworded and sourced to uphold the standards outlined in the Wikipedia style and how-to. I do agree with your critique of the tautology of the rewrite, and I made another attempt. I am still not happy with it, and welcome you or any other interested party to be bold and make an edit, I won't take offense, as none was meant by my edit or my comments. ;) As for the NPOV tag, many of the statements made in the intro and later seem to be there for no other purpose but to inculcate the reader with the various authors' points of view. I put up the flag in hope that others would agree and make the necessary edits to the offending statements. --User:Rpinz 12:12, October 24, 2005 (UTC)

The intro was cluttered with facts that really belonged in the appropriate sections below. I am still not happy with the intro, perhaps someone else cares to take a stab at it? --User:Rpinz 01:43, October 24, 2005 (UTC_

Clean-up.

I fixed up the spelling in this article, linked to some other Wikipedia articles that can be used as sources, and removed the NPOV tag, as there does not seem to be an issue in the current version of the article.--Rob117 01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Breed Proof

I just logged on today. I used genetic genealogy,a tool anthropologists use,to help confirm my Racial ancestry.Medical tests for certain ailments can also determine racial/ethnic ancestry.Most tribes are whole breed,but can include other tribes of man as well.Some of the gene sequences are from Arabia or what I'd call Arabic,since they aren't Mediterranean or North Europe. I was hoping to learn about Arab Race groups on this site,but the articles appear not to want to Identify Arabs by their race;but DNA labs say they are as distinct as any other race group is.I'm not racist but I like concrete proof and DNA always separates individual things from other things. There are many subgroups in each race group.The Arab gene sequences I looked at weren't from every Arab group.The sequences I saw contained no,Bedouin,Iranian,Syrian,or Egyptian, but DID have Turk,Iraqi,Armenian,Druze. What I'd like to know is how to learn of you particular racial background when everyone denys there is any such thing as a genetic makeup.Wonderwoman6 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Now this is not meant to start an International argument,but to help individuals trace their own background and you do have one,believe me.Many people from every breed can trace their ancestry with Genetic Genealogy-and they don't hardly show up all the same race or ethnicity.In fact most scientists and race groups know Exactly what they are,because they study it!

I hate to disappoint you. The only good way to know your background is to do genealogy — to spend years of meticulous research identifying your ancestors one by one. On the other hand, scientists deprecate the notion of race, because there are no clearly defined breeding populations of humans. We humans tend to breed without regard to "racial" characters. Attempts to measure such things have almost always shown that the differences are statistically insignificant. (This is especially clear among the Semitic-speaking peoples of Africa and Arabia, where skin color, hair texture, facial features, &c, form a continuum with no sharp boundaries.)

As for learning one's "racial background" or "breed" by analyzing DNA, please be aware that this tool is in its infancy. Know also that the results are always stated as probabilities. You can know with near-certainty that two samples of DNA come from the same person (or identical twins), but it can only give a guess as to whether you have Druze or Bedouin ancestry. Very likely you can do just as well (and save money) by carefully examining facial features.

I would be more impressed by the number of notable people in your family tree or high school class, regardless of their ethnic or linguistic background.

Solo Owl (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph from the section Ethnicity and race as it's NPOV, and irrelevant to the article.

Contrary to popular opinion the majority of Semites are Arabs and not Jews. By calling someone who speaks out against Israeli atrocities "anti-Semitic" is wrong, it halts discussion, mutes doubt, stops dialogues and crushes debate on Middle East policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sum0 (talk • contribs) 3:05, April 10, 2006

anti-Semitic

I keep trying to include a reference to the fact that the use of the term anti-Semitic is bigoted, but I see it keeps being removed. This last time the reverter describes it as being a "non-sequitur", which it surely isn't. If we are going to include hateful points of view then they should be labelled as such, as they are elsewhere on Wikipedia. Either let the comment stand, or remove reference to the term anti-Semitic altogether. Thank you. User:72.235.202.43 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How is that a "fact"? It sounds more like your point of view, that "anti-Semitic" is bigoted. It simply means someone or something that is against Semites. Since some people are or were historically against Semites, why shouldn't there be a term for this? -- ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If it only applies to Jews it is a bigoted expression. The proper term for describing anti-Jewish sentiments is, um, anti-Jewish, just as the proper term for describing anti-black sentiments is anti-black, ditto for anti-Catholic, anti-Chinese, etc. I wouldn't ordinarily make an issue of this, except for the fact that we are presently waging war against Afghanis and Palestinians and Iraqis, all of whom are Semitic people. To then state that anti-Semitism only applies to Jews even while we are killing non-Jewish Semitic people by the tens of thousands (if not more) is positively Orwellian. The ultimate expression of hatred is when you kill someone, is it not? Our language should reflect this. In any case, I appreciate your edit to my own, my grammar frequently needs correction. User:72.235.202.43 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the article already says using it only for Jews is a "misnomer", and if you read the talk section above, until recently apparently it mentioned that it could also be used for what you say "you" are doing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has offered no arguments that anyone but he/r considers the term to be "bigoted" other than the claim that "we are presently waging war against Afghanis and Palestinians and Iraqis, all of whom are Semitic people". Well, news flash - they aren't all Semitic people. In fact, this is simply a misuse of the word bigoted. Anti-semitism means, in English, anitpathy to Jews. The term arose when ethnoliguistic arguments were coming to the fore at the end of the nineteenth century. "Semitic" cultures were increasingly defined in opposition to "Aryan" cultures. Judaism was previously condemned for other reasons - the Christ killers argument. In many cases this modern form of condemnation included Arabic culture and Islam, but it was always dominantly directed against Jews and Judaism. "anti-Semitism" came very clearly to mean ethnolinguistic/racial antipathy to Jews. The writers who were labelled that way (or labelled themselves that way) almost always directed their opposition to Jews. By the 20th century this was the clearly established meaning of the word. There is nothing "bigoted" about this meaning. It was simply a term for an established ideology. By then it was extending its meaning to absorb the pre-modern religious antipathies, which is not surprising since many of the earlier accusations, blood libel etc, had simply been added into the racial model. Note that very little of this was applied to Arabs or other Semitic peoples, partly because they were not present in Europe. Of course negative stereotypes of Arabs and of Islam existed, but they were not readily articulated by the concept of anti-Semitism for the simple reason that Islamic culture is not exclusively Semitic, though of course its origins were. The reason is simple. Islam is a religion that has expanded by conversion. Judaism is almost exclusively inherited. So Islamic peoples are of many varied and distinct ancestries. Iranians are not Semitic (in fact they are "Aryans"). The Ottoman Turks were not. Pakistanis and Afghans are not either. Look up the histories of those countries. When we apply this to the modern world we see the same pattern. The US has intervened in Aghanistan and Iraq, and is now threatening Iran. Only one of these countries can reasonably be called "Semitic", so extending the term "anti-Semitic" to modern Western actions against Islamic countries is itself a "misnomer". Anti-Islamism is a far more meaningful term. As far as this article is concerned, we simply point out that the word "anti-Semitic" is used to mean "anti-Jewish". That is a fact. It most certainly is a non-sequitur to claim that the phrase as used in its current meaning is bigoted simply on the grounds that it is restricted to a specific Semitic people. Indeed as expressed by you, it was virtually unintelligable since there was no explanation of how it was supposed to be bigoted. I suggest that you read the article Anti-Semitism.Paul B 10:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully wikipedia's mission is to present a neutral point of view and so I've put the reference back. I find the arguments put forth by Paul Barlow to be hateful and racist, conferring preference to Judaism over Islam simply on the basis of racial identity. Furthermore, the argument that we should dehumanize the victims of violence simply because some of the people being victimized are not semitic is deeply offensive. Offering the term "anti-islamism" misses the point entirely. User:72.235.202.43 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A neutral point of view involves explaining the facts and established interpretations of them. The fact is that "anti-Semitic" means anti-Jewish. Look it up in any dictionary. There is nothing in what I wrote that confers "preference to Judaism over Islam simply on the basis of racial identity". In fact I was as clear as possible that Islam has no "racial identity". You miss the point entirely. Paul B 20:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also a fact that the term "colored" refered to African-Americans, but the mere fact doesn't change the racist implications of this term, any more than the prevalent use of the term "anti-Semitic" as a misnomer for "anti-Jew" is racist and offensive. The implication of the term "anti-Semitic" is to reserve special consideration for Jews at a time in history when hatred towards other Semitic people is being implemented through the worst kind of violence. Again, you can't get more hateful than that. The phrase was stricken without proper cause and I'm putting it back. User:72.235.202.43 22:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which got you another 3RR block, this time for 48 hours. You need to learn that Wikipedia works by consensus, not by unilateral action against the will of the community. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? Sell that crap somewhere else... Wikipedia was gamed a long, long time ago. User:72.235.202.43 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Coloured" does not refer to "African-Americans". Only an American would think that. It refers to people with noticable skin-pigmentation. In Apartheid South Africa it had a specific legal meaning which actually excluded native Africans. Yes, it was used at one time in the US as a label for people with visible African ancestry. I fail to see why it is "racist". It's at least as accurate as "black", since most people who are designated as such are nowhere near "black" in appearence. Often the reasons why some terms are considered racist has more to do with how they are used than what they actually mean. Will you please take on board the fact that Islam is not exclusively Semitic and that the article simply states a fact: that anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish. We don't decide what words mean, nor do we legitimate or disprove it, we report on it. We can, of course, report on established debates, but if you wish to discuss that in more detail, you should do so at the Anti-Semitism article. Paul B 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "colored" most certainly was used to refer to African-Americans, and it is a bigoted expression in that refers to people not for who they are but rather for what they are perceived to not be, e.g. white. Nobody is debating the conventional use of anti-Semitic to refer to anti-Jewish, I am only seeking to point out that the use of the term is offensive, for the reasons I have already explained. Moreover, the observation that Islam is not exclusively Semitic has no bearing on the term "anti-Semitic" being hateful, but what does have bearing is the fact that many if not most Jews are not themselves Semitic! So in it goes again. 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant that only an American would be so ethnocentric that they could imagine that "African-American" meaningfully replaced either "coloured" or "black", since only an American wouldn't even notice that the "hyphenated American" term has no meaning outside of the USA, so its value is wholly parochial. "Coloured" refers to what people are (in this context - i.e. racial labelling) just as "white" and "black" do. It's only prejudicial where there is a social context in which being "white" is desirable. It's easy to imagine another context in which "white" would be bad and "coloured" good, white being seen as something negative - the absence of colour. You could then say "white is a bigoted expression in that refers to people not for who they are but rather for what they are perceived to not be, e.g. coloured." The only point in discussing this example here is to try to get across the point that the word is often not the real issue. You are confusing the word with its context and usage. You fetishise the idea that there is something inherently wrong with expressions that in other contexts would be entirely neutral. Anti-Semitism has come to have an established meaning. That meaning was not created with any "bigoted" intention to exclude anyone. It just evolved for specific historical reasons. An expression like "Arab anti-Semitism" is quirky in the same way that "Australia is a Western country" is quirky. But both are meaningful. Paul B 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

When the term "colored" was conceived there was no "bigoted" intention either. That doesn't change the fact that it is in fact a bigoted expression. You seem unable to argue against the actual change I want to see made, preferring instead to argue peripheral issues for which you might be able to build a case. The fact of the matter remains that to use this term to refer only to Jews, most of whom are not Semitic, while we are killing Iraqis and Palestinians and Afghanis, most of whom are Semitic, is the very definition of hatred. It is to say that the worth of their lives is so insignificant that even their wholesale murder doesn't rise up to the standard of impolite speech towards Jews, which is all the term "anti-Semite" seems to be good for these days. Again, I have no expectation that this change will remain, I am only doing this to convince others of just how hateful jewish supremacists have become and how accustomed they are to always having their way in print. The mere fact that you cannot allow for an observation such as this, in the face of the horrors we are meting out to Muslims and Arabs and SEMITES is, as I said before, positively Orwellian. You may be able to control the definition of the term "anti-Semitism", but I do believe in doing so you will only see the problem grow worse. Indeed, I am now beginning to see that the problem was always entirely one of your own making. Congratulations. And good luck. User:72.235.202.43 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you attempt to seek consensus for this change; that's how Wikipedia works. If you could find verifiable reliable sources expressing this opinion, it might find a place in the article. Otherwise, you're just expressing a non-neutral point of view. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable, reliable sources? You mean Jewish sources, don't you? It's common knowledge that the term anti-Semitism is bigoted, the only people who object to such a definition are those who seek to continue to use it to justify killing more Muslims (e.g., Semites). It's talked about all over the Internet, as an example, here: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anti-Semitism User:72.235.202.4305:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "citation" is in fact a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article on Anti-Semitism. It says nothing at all about the term being "bigoted". It says some people have argued for the extention of the term, but that most commentators consider such an extension to be unwarranted and largely meaningless. A case could certainly be made for re-expanding the "scope" section there, which has, now been absorbed into Etymology and Usage. This is a debate that should be on the Anti-Semitism page.Paul B 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that is a lie. There are numerous comments within which complain about the bigoted use of the term. The change simply reflects that fact, do note that it only says that the term is "sometimes" perceived as bigoted. The most relevant evidence of all of course is the hatred that is on display here, your comment in your edit for instance that my changes are "nonsensical". The case I have presented here is anything but nonsensical, only someone who is racist would think otherwise. Furthermore, if this debate should be on the Anti-Semitism page, then let us strike the reference to anti-Semitism from this page altogether. You can't have it both ways. 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a citation: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/10-12-00.html . What is hilarious about this of course is that it will be dismissed because you consider the speaker to be an anti-Semite. Why is he an anti-Semite? Because jewish supremacists continually attribute to him things he never said. Meanwhile, these same jewish-supremacists essentially conceived of and endorse the war against Islam, against Semitic people, but not a single one of them are anti-Semitic, am I understanding this correctly? You kill Semites, but you are not anti-Semitic, while they complain about your killing Semites, and so then they are anti-Semitic. Man, that's beautiful. User:72.235.202.43 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. So Louis Farrakhan is your source? Fantastic. Here's a quote from this interview, demonstrating the great man's grasp of history: "There are Germans who were not involved in the Holocaust. There are Germans at this moment who never did share the view, philosophically or ideologically, of Adolph Hitler. But they, as a body, are paying reparations because of the sins of certain Germans that affected an entire people. Now the question in our research -- that we researched in Jewish libraries, from Jewish scholars who are not anti-Semitic -- is the fact that Jews were involved in the horrendous slave trade and therefore have some responsibility in the horrific results of our having been brought into slavery and robbed of culture, name, language, God, religion and history." The sheer silliness of this should be evident to anyone. No Germans are "paying reparations" for Adolph (sic) Hitler. In fact the US put a large amount of money into Germany (or, more properly, West Germany) after the war. Is he perhaps getting confused with the reparations payments demanded from Germany after the first world war? That disastrous decision is exactly why the opposite approach was adopted after WWII. And of course almost all Germans alive today were "not involved in the Holocaust" and no-one suggests that they were. Then we learn that "Jews were involved in the horrendous slave trade". Well, of course, some were, but why single them out? Far far more important to the slave trade were Muslim Arabs. See the article Islamic slave trade. And yet Farrakhan wants to blame Jews for it despite overwhelming historical evidence that it was Arabs followed by Christian Europeans who were the most important participants. This person knows nothing about history (he has even asserted the authenticity of the transparent forgery known as the William Lynch Speech). His opinion is citable as his opinion, but not as widespread view. Anyway, it's irrelevant here, where we just note the usage of the term. Detailed discussion should go on the Anti-Semitism page. Paul B 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"No Germans are "paying reparations" for Adolph (sic) Hitler. In fact the US put a large amount of money into Germany (or, more properly, West Germany) after the war." This is patently untrue. The Marshall Plan invested just under $1.5 billion American dollars into rebuilding Germany, and that aid ended in 1951. Immediately after the it ended, Jewish groups sued the German government for $1.5 billion in "reparations". There have been at least four major lawsuits brought by Jewish groups against the German Government and industries since then. In fact, in the 56 years since US aid ended, the taxpayers of Germany have paid reparations to Jewish parties to the tune of more than $120 billion. That works out to both a sizable percentage of Germany's GDP and a significant percentage of the taxes levied on all Germans since the War, regardless of their involvement (or even existence) during the war. To reiterate: Germans have been paying reparations for Adolf Hitler for 56 years now, and it appears that they will have to continue to do so indefinitely. Bricology 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What a load of baloney. The compenations and pensions you refer to are not reparations payments of a kind comparable to those demanded after WW1, nor will they continue indefinitely. Paul B 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the article, so I don't know if he's anti-Semite or not, but it doesn't prove what we were asking. One person considering it bigoted doesn't provide enough support for your citation. I could find a citation of someone saying that the word "racist" is misused by blacks, but it still fails to establish two things: that the term is seen that way by a significant minority (remember Wikipedia's policy - tiny minorities shouldn't be portrayed as if they are significant as it is not NPOV), and that such beliefs are increasing. If you can find a citation that says that the belief that the current use of the "anti-Semite" is bigoted, and that this group of people are increasing in number, then I will not revert the text. Alternatively, if you do not make the claim that it is "increasingly being seen as bigoted" (as opposed to seen as bigoted by a small minority), then you will only have to find a citation to establish the latter for your addition to be accepted. The citation above, however, does neither, regardless of what the man's beliefs might be (I didn't read much of the transcript, so I couldn't say if he's anti-Semitic, but your pre-emptory defense doesn't help your case).

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history page you will see that Yom is the one who asked for a citation, and yet here we see him rejecting the citation I provided without even bothering to read it. I'm guessing the status quo is OK with Yom. How many more Muslims before his appetite is sated? User:72.235.202.43 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, anyway. Anyone who uses phrases like "jewish supremacists" identifies their own political bias as being aligned with David Duke and the National Vanguard. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More like Nation of Islam than David Duke, it seems. Paul B 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, David Duke pretty specifically: [1]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet you use the term white supremacist freely. The two are identical in my mind, in that you both espouse hatred of those who you deem not of your kind, you both declare that God gave you this/that land, and you both derive from that the right to kill any others who you might find upon it. The difference is only in which group controls the media. That group gets to label the other as a hate group. In any case, you are right, it doesn't matter, I've met all of the conditions put forth for seeing the comment included, and so I will put it up again and allow everyone to see what a joke this system is. User:72.235.202.43 09:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of the joke is the three revert rule, and since you are wilfully violating it, you'll find yourslf blocked for longer and longer periods. See you in a few days. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres some context, i was simply doing some late night reading on the Phonecians where i discovered Semitic refers to an ancient family of language's. What a shock, ive always assumed Semitic was an old Hebrew term used for themselves. Heck, i travled to this topic just to confirm my previous ignorance...Now this wouldnt be a big deal if Semitic wasnt such a darn important word! Wow, what if years from now ooo lets say unjust and mythical negative associations are laid upon the peoples of Spain. They begin refering to it as anti-latinism(where the phrase is coined is beside the point). This term becomes so prevalent that the true importance of Latin is largley lost to everyone outside of academic circles..This would be a tragedy would it not? The term propagates ignorance and its sad thats not the conversation, the other posters motives for there positions couldnt be more transparent no matter how hard they try and shroud them in semantics. Its sad both groups insist on some mythical/fictional mandate from the past while there futures become ever more clouded

-Warder —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.74.201 (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

The last section of the superfluous antisemitism section here had two mistakes: 1) Anti-semitism refers to many semetic people where the discussion and interpretation has clearly stated it is convention to use antisemitism to only refer to prejudice against Jews. 2) The idea that Iran, as example, is somehow a country based on antisemitism (a charge the Israeli reference makes in its opening sentences) is clearly an ideological effort to recast Iran as a Nazi state according to current political agendas. It is wrong and unnecessary. In any case, right or wrong, it can be debated in the Antisemitism article. -- 21:55, 30 November 2013‎ User:DBlakeRoss

Antisemetism has its own article and belongs here only as an reference. Redirct this section to antisemetism. -- 21:55, 30 November 2013‎ User:DBlakeRoss

Egyptian

Dear anonymous,

Please stop adding the claim that the ancient Egyptian language is Semitic. Yes, it is related to the Semitic group as part of the wider Afro-Asiatic family, but it is sufficiently distinct to be placed in a separate category, formerly called "Hamitic", but now isolated, rather in the same way that Greek is within the Indo-European family. If you wish to discuss this please do so on the talk page. Do not just revert without explanation. Paul B 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Afro Asiatic does include both Egyptian and Semitic as distinct subgroups, however Egyptian is also influential for some semitic languages. the ethnolouge has a lot more languages under Afro-Asiatic (375)

sub group semitic but doesn't include Akkadian because its a dead language:

Semitic (77) Central (57) Aramaic (19) Eastern (17) Central (14) Mandaic (2) Syriac [syc] (Turkey (Asia)) Western (2) Western Neo-Aramaic [amw] (Syria) Samaritan Aramaic [sam] (Palestinian West Bank and Gaza) South (38) Arabic (35) Arabic, Algerian Saharan Spoken [aao] (Algeria) Arabic, Tajiki Spoken [abh] (Afghanistan) Arabic, Baharna Spoken [abv] (Bahrain) Arabic, Mesopotamian Spoken [acm] (Iraq) Arabic, Ta'izzi-Adeni Spoken [acq] (Yemen) Arabic, Hijazi Spoken [acw] (Saudi Arabia) Arabic, Omani Spoken [acx] (Oman) Arabic, Cypriot Spoken [acy] (Cyprus) Arabic, Dhofari Spoken [adf] (Oman) Arabic, Tunisian Spoken [aeb] (Tunisia) Arabic, Sa`idi Spoken [aec] (Egypt) Arabic, Gulf Spoken [afb] (Iraq) Arabic, South Levantine Spoken [ajp] (Jordan) Arabic, Judeo-Tunisian [ajt] (Israel) Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan [aju] (Israel) Arabic, North Levantine Spoken [apc] (Syria) Arabic, Sudanese Spoken [apd] (Sudan) Arabic, Standard [arb] (Saudi Arabia) Arabic, Algerian Spoken [arq] (Algeria) Arabic, Najdi Spoken [ars] (Saudi Arabia) Arabic, Moroccan Spoken [ary] (Morocco) Arabic, Egyptian Spoken [arz] (Egypt) Arabic, Uzbeki Spoken [auz] (Uzbekistan) Arabic, Eastern Egyptian Bedawi Spoken [avl] (Egypt) Arabic, Hadrami Spoken [ayh] (Yemen) Arabic, Libyan Spoken [ayl] (Libya) Arabic, Sanaani Spoken [ayn] (Yemen) Arabic, North Mesopotamian Spoken [ayp] (Iraq) Arabic, Judeo-Yemeni [jye] (Israel) Hassaniyya [mey] (Mauritania) Maltese [mlt] (Malta) Arabic, Chadian Spoken [shu] (Chad) Arabic, Shihhi Spoken [ssh] (United Arab Emirates) Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi [yhd] (Israel) Arabic, Judeo-Tripolitanian [yud] (Israel) Canaanite (3) Hebrew, Ancient [hbo] (Israel) Hebrew [heb] (Israel) Samaritan [smp] (Palestinian West Bank and Gaza)

Rktect 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Semites are Caucasoid.

Semites are Caucasoid I have proof.

"DEFINITION OF SEMITES - from the Collins English Dictionary. "Semitic: a member of the group of Caucasoid people who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the Ancient Babylonians (Iraqis), the Assyrians (Syria), and the Phoenicians (the Lebanese of today)."

It clearly says in this dictionary that Semites are a Caucasoid people. --CSArebel--

So what? Paul B 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• so, they are the Semitic branch of the caucasoid family, therefore they should be classified as Caucasoids.

--CSArebel--

Don't just stick in a huge chunk of text. It's not much of a revelation that Semitic peoples were classed in the Caucasoid category, but it may by just worth a mention, in which case it can be added to the sentence about race. I will do so. Paul B 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Paul.

--CSArebel--

What on earth is going on? I don't understand what the placing of Semitic people in the wider "Caucasoid" category has to do with "ignoring" Ethiopians. Firstly, Ethiopians were typically placed within the Caucasoid category too. See the article Extra-European Caucasoid. As it happens there is also currently extensive discussion of this point in the black people article and talk page. Secondly, this section is simply describing what was said by commentators at the time when "Semitic" was used with a racial meaning and when racial categories like "Caucasoid" were widely accepted as valid. Obviously even the most hard-line believers in the reality of racial categories - like the Nazis - accepted that there was no simple equivalence between language and race. Otherwise the Nazis could not have claimed that German-speaking Jews were "non-Aryan"! Paul B 12:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who put Ethiopians in the "Caucasoid" category is brain-dead. This is offensive and getting more and more offensive, it is not a significant viewpoint and never was, and really should not be given space here. This is neo-science trying as usual to re-write everything and brainwash everybody. The people they call "Caucasoids" originally corresponded to what had been the "Japhethic" groups, and now as usual they are trying to extend "Caucasoid" to "Semitic" and "Hamitic" groups while at the same time excluding the other groups. I will combat this lie and confusion as long as I have breath. Hence the flag to alert to POV pushing here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, we cannot say that they were "misplaced" in the category, since it is not up to us to decide who was right and who was wrong about such racial concepts. That there was such a category and that Semites were typically placed in it is surely not in dispute. The Collins cite dates from 1986. The fact that you are a biblical-literalist does not mean you have the right to declare well-established other views to be "offensive" or "lies". Read the well cited section in the black people article. Caucasoid is a category beased on anthropomentrics. It has nothing to do with alleged biblical ancestry. Paul B 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the kind of logic that allows them to co-opt and hijack a clearly Biblical term like "Semitic", change it to mean something else, then refuse to allow the Biblical definition anymore. This is and always has been a malicious agenda, and the reason I exist is to fight it. So I am not going away on this any time soon. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

People who don't believe the bible to be literally true are not "malicious" nor do they have any single agenda. The article already includes the fact that the use of the word Semitic by linguists and historians is not the same as the Biblical usage. We describe that fact. No historian would refer to Canaanites as "Hamitic" peoples. It is a fact that in its specifically ethnolinguistic use, the Semitic peoples were typically placed within the Caucasoid category, as were many Ethiopians. Paul B 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misconstrue me. I did not say or suggest that anyone who does not believe the Bible to be literally true is malicious. I am talking about a malicious subset of these who definitely have a racist agenda and you yourself referred to them above when you wrote Obviously even the most hard-line believers in the reality of racial categories - like the Nazis - accepted that there was no simple equivalence between language and race. Otherwise the Nazis could not have claimed that German-speaking Jews were "non-Aryan"!. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, the intentions of CSArebel are pretty clear for his interventions in other articles (and he probably got his Collins cite from the Stormfront website). I assume that "CSA" stands for "Confederate States of America". Paul B 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the way these "scientists" will come in and tell us what to believe like they have some kind of authority over our beliefs and can change everything around, and funny thing is, what they tell us to believe and what category we are now supposed to put things in always seems to be directly conected with the agenda of what government is paying their salary, but nobody has ever done a scientific study of that correlation! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it does stand for The Confederate States of America, and no, I did noy get that "Collins site" as you refer to it, off of Stormfront, They are extremely Anti-Semitic and think of Jews as another race, I myself have Jewish friends and I am not Anti-Semitic nor do i think of Jews or Arabs as a different race, do a Google search for "Semites are Caucasoid." --CSArebel--

The word was "cite" (i.e. citation), not "site". Yes, the notion that Africans are "degraded" in some way has a long history, and there are many many versions of bible-based migration narratives. We can pick our ancestors in Genesis almost at will. William Jones thought the Indo-Europeans were Hamites. I'm sure you and Codex can have a very productive debate about who is descended from which patriarch. AIDS is likely have passed from Ape to man, but I'm not aware of any evidence that sex was involved! Paul B 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I guess you didn't get your latest cite (oh, OK, citation) from Stormfront either.[2] Paul B 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Semites aren't anything. They're a linguistic group, any member of any race can thus be a Semite. Funkynusayri 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian

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.

Ancient Semites

A new user created the article Ancient Semites. It is a mess, and would probably be best as a redirect here with any of its useful information added in here. — Gareth Hughes 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree one hundred percent. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:24 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I thought that many of these "semitic" people had their origins from a Hamitic background?

I thought that the original Assyrians, the Canaanites and the Egyptians who were all a predominent force in the Middle East during the earliest recordings of history were all Hamitic?

Was not Mesopotamia the birth place and meeting place for all nations? In the Bible it recorded that Nimrod who was a son of Ham started the kingdoms in Shinar which the Bible clearly states was west of mountains of Ararat (Shinar = Asia = Turkey?) and then from there went on to Assyria. The Bible clearly states the Egyptians are sons of Ham as were the Canaanites. Abraham was a descendent of Peleg and we know he came from his father’s city which was the Chaldean city of Ur. It seems that the first recording of the sons of Abraham are amongst Egyptian text and lists them as being Canaanite due to the land theywere living in. What makes it obvious that they were not native Canaanites is that they were fair with red hair unlike the natives who were dark. Abraham it seems adopted the language of the native people which is where both Hebrew and Arabian would have come from.

The Elamites to the East of Babylon are assumable to be descendents of Elam who is also listed as a son of Shem. The Bible mentions that the Babylonians were Chaldeans and it seems that the Chaldeans took much of what was previously part of the Assyrian empire.

Is it correct to make assumptions that the descendents of Shem are all the Semitic people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Bible isn't fact. Funkynusayri 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Bible doesn't qualify as WP:RS on Wikipedia. Though there are facts included in the Bible, you cannot use it as the only source. We use preferably academic sources here. Hope that helps. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:00 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Removed Biased Link

I went ahead and removed this link: *Origin and Identity of the Arabs For the reason that it's a Pro-Israeli link (see bottom of the webpage which includes an Israeli webring and link to "Arabs for Israel") and it's loaded with political bias. The information provided isn't cited and is loaded with personal opinion. Furthermore in another of its webpages its motive is made clear as it attempts to refute the existence of the Palestinian people by distorting the facts regarding their race. Not NPOV in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moah (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• If Elias wants to keep adding that link, I suggest he adds this to the Assyrian people article: http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/assyrians1.htm

Chances are he won't, and if so, the link stays out. Funkynusayri 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. You can't remove this link with the reason that it's "biased." By the way, you are welcome to add that link into the Assyrian naming dispute. It's ridiculous of course, that you're trying to get even with me. But Aram-nahrin is a conspiracy theory site. I'm not saying imninalu is hundred percent objective, but it's an on topic site describing some of the Semitic peoples mentioned in this article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:32 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censorship. The fact that it's not censored does not mean you can add any old rubbish you like. The article is no more appropriate than a link to an online version of Mein Kampf - which also presents an alternative point of view on Semitic peoples. Paul B 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to remove the link, as you see, I simply added the other link to this article. This isn't about "getting even with you", but about balancing out ridiculous links with other ridiculous links. Now it's up to other editors to determine whether either link is appropriate at all. Funkynusayri 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would welcome an online version of Mein Kampf — or at least parts of Mein Kampf that focuses on Semitic peoples — in the external links. I believe that all points of views should be represented. Of course, needless to say, Aram-Nahrin is indeed a ridiculous link. Imninalu is indeed biased, and so was Hitler. But let the reader decide. Oh and by the way, you're trying to get even with me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Getting even with you? When have I had problems with you as a person before? It's the link I don't like. And by the way, Aram Nahrin didn't write the article, they just use it on their site. Funkynusayri 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the archived version. I don't trust Aram-Nahrin, so we'll go with this one instead. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:05 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't trust the Zionist guys you linked to either. Why the double standards? Funkynusayri 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't trust Zionists either. But AT THE VERY LEAST, they call us Assyrians, which is more than I can say about Arab nationalists, who call us "Christian Arabs." By the way, as we can see here, it's written by some dude who knows nothing about Assyrians and have only used biased Aramaeanist fanatic sites as his main source. I can also see that he's citing John Joseph, and Joseph has been refuted many times by Assyriologists and other real scholars. It's also interesting to point out that the Aram-Nahrin version, and the archived version, differ to some extent. That said, I think we should go with the archived version. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:16 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

• So what happened with "presenting different views"? Does it only apply when they are biased against Arabs? The alternative to the archived version isn't the Aram version, but simply the original article which has been archived. The only difference between the archived and the real version are the images, so I don't see any sense in linking to an archive for no real reason, unless you want to hide the images. Funkynusayri 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Dude, have you even read the articles you're linking to? You wanted to add the aramnahrin version first. The aramnahrin version is a corruption of the original source: http://web.archive.org/web/20010111074900/http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm Those deranged Aramaeanists have added a lot of crazy shit. Therefore, if we're going to use this source, I think it would be fair to use the original unmodified source. Now you want to use the castrated version of the original source. Well, that's fine with me, but if you want to balance out ridiculous links with more ridiculous links, you should go with the archived version, because that one is even more ridiculous than the original source in use now, since half the article has been removed. Well, it's up to you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:54 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

• What are you referring to? I've added the original source, the archived version isn't the original source. To be sure, this is it: [3] Funkynusayri 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Unbelieveable... Never mind, you haven't read the articles you're linking to. Either way, I can settle with the anti-Assyrian source in use now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:07 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

• Take it easy, man, you think I want to have the most ridiculous link added by any means? If there are slight differences between the real and the archived versions, I don't really give a fuck. This is not important to me at all, I honestly thought you'd see the idiocy in keeping either link, but well, you didn't. Funkynusayri 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is silly. This is an article on the general concept of Semitic peoples, not some particular sub-grouping, let alone some pet theories on a particular sub-grouping. Argue about the links on relevant pages, not this one. Paul B 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians

• Parpola: The Neo-Assyrian kings pursued an active policy of nation building, whereby the citizenship of Assyria was routinely granted to the inhabitants of newly established provinces. As a result of this, by 600 BC the entire vastly expanded country shared the Assyrian identity, which essentially consisted of a common unifying language (Aramaic) and a common religion, culture, and value system. This identity persisted virtually unchanged and was converted into an ethnic identity in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods (600-330 BC). After the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire (130 BC), several semi-independent Mesopotamian kingdoms (Osrhoene, Adiabene, Hatra, Assur) perpetuated Assyrian religious and cultural traditions until the third century AD. From the fourth century on, Christianity has been an essential part of Assyrian identity and has helped preserve it to the present day despite endless persecutions and massacres, which have reduced the present-day Assyrians into dwindling minorities in their home countries. The self-designations of modern Syriacs and Assyrians derive from the Neo-Assyrian word for “Assyrian”, Assūrāyu/Sūrāyu.[4]

Can you read? This is not arranged linguistically as you claim here. It's an article about Semitic peoples, all of which are basically the same race, but with different ethnicities and different Semitic dialects. Also, how come you left Hebrews>Jews intact while you removed Assyrians into modern Assyrians? Why the double standard? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:57 29 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

MIstake

The term anti-semitic does not mean anti-jewish in the english language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvarddream (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Paul B (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, everybody can see that the word "antisemitic" has been hijacked by the jewish cause

Whether you agree or not there is a controversy. So why not mention this instead of trying to cover it up. Mention the reasons for and against and let the reader sort it out himself. Maybe we live in an age where criticising jews is taboo but WikiPedia should not be controlled by the zeitgeist. It should be objective and represent all viewpoints. 83.95.192.185 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been 'hijacked', that's just what it happens to mean. This is not the page for discussion of the word antisemitism. The talk:antisemitism page is. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good lord....Wikipedia is controlled by the zeitgeist?!?!? Call Ghostbusters!! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The term doesn't seem to have ever meant anything else than "anti-Jewish". The Nazis had Arab ("Semites") allies when they murdered Jews. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait just a minute the myth of arab collaberation with the nazis is new and false.While the facist were murdering Jews in Europe a similar genocide was going on in Libya, 2.5 million and in Abbissinia about 4 mill. And historical researh has only found a handful of Arabs who helped the Nazis in any way. Most were killed after they were no longer useful.Just as Jews were used to clean out the ovens in the death camps. An antisemite is an antisemite if it't Arabs you hate or Jews you hate.Oldpanther (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NBPP

When the Black panther party says the true semites are peoples of africa and south america and western asia are they right? What do they mean and who are the real semites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.101.131 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea whether they said that or not, but there is a long history of people claiming to be the "true" Israelites (descendents of Shem), usually to claim some priveliged ethnic status. It's most notable among white supremacists (British Israelism) generating later counter-claims from black groups. See Black Hebrew Israelites. Paul B (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, these white and black supremacists reject what John the Baptist is said to have taught, about not claiming to be 'privileged' on account of whom they were born from... But seriously, if people would just read the article, 'Semitic' describes foremost, speakers of a language family, and secondly, any other attributes these disparate groups may share. So all of this debate about whether South Americans or whoever else are the 'true semites' is incredibly uninformed, to say the least. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The so-called NBPP or new Black Panther Party is really just an offshoot of that nutcase Farakkan and have NO CONNECTION AT ALL to the real or original Black Panther Party. The Original Black Panther Party would never indorse a silly statement like the one mentioned above, And opposed racism where ever they found it particularly from other Black groups.Oldpanther (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Semites and Europe

Weren't ancient Semites or Proto-Semites present all around Europe before Indo-Europeans came or paralelly to them? Weren't they in some way related to the "Old-European" population (if it existed)? I'm just asking, because I do know very little about this topic. Thanx in advance for your reply Critto (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of no good evidence that "Semites" existed in Europe before IE peoples, though there have been claims that some Semitic cultures existed in parts of Greece before IE advent there. See linear A. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is Theo Vennemann who claims pre-IE Europe was "Semitidic". It's a fringe hypothesis. See Atlantic (semitic) languages. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture of museum

Why is a picture of the Harvard museum at the top... that tells people NOTHING about semitic. Can't someone make up some picture of semitic writing or something? Fresheneesz (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a novice researcher into semitism and anti semitism, the picture of the Harvard Musuem was not as relevent as the accompaning link. The picture merely serves as a symbolic memory recall cue. Please consider those that use Wikipedia as students and novice researchers.

Most Iranians, all Kurds, Armenians, etc. NOT Semitic

Most ETHNIC Iranians, Kuds in Iran, etc. Armenians are an Indo-European and Aryan people. The semitic Iranians etc. are those near the border of Iraq who are mostly ethnically Arab, and not even Iranian. Iran is only 51% ethnically Iranian today. Northern and Central Iranians are in fact NOT semitic. The other person's reference also talks about the diversity of Iran. Most of the religious nuts in Iran are non-ethnic Iranians, with Khatami being an exception (least extreme Mulla). I am a non-Muslim, Zoroastrian descent Iranian-American, who is a practicing Catholic. I can tell you that it is easy to tell who is ethnically Iranian, and who isn't. The diversity in DNA supports the differences in race in Iran, just like any other country. My family has all tested to be part of Haplogroup HV and HV2, a mixture of Mediterranean and European - closest to Macedonians, Anatolians and Mediterranean people. Iranians are related to Greeks, Celts, Germans, Slavs, etc. They have the high-bridge Greco-Roman nose. There is even some Nordic blood. Our hair type: straight to wavy and curly (not kinky), near black, dark brown, red, to blonde hair, and brown (not black) to blue or green eyes are found among ethnic Iranians. Though there is mixture everywhere, ethnic Iranians are 88%+ white, give or take some Mongolian blood - similar to our Russian cousins. The Iranians in the deep South are descendants of slaves and have semitic and African blood. The Mongols live in the far east. Many Iranians have now moved to the U.S. and Europe, so for now, are barely the majority. Small admixtures that have probably long been diluted, do not change ones race. Small amounts of Mongol blood do not make Europeans or Iranians, or Russians Asian (orient). Though Russia and Iran are Eurasian, technically, their race is considered white - non semitic.

The contribution was not based on scientific study that is widely accepted by learned scholars, and therefore the biased portion was deleted. It made it seem as if all Iranians, Kurds (Iranian Kurds are Aryan and not semitic like Kurds in Arab countries), and Turks were all semitic - and there was no Aryan invasion. The links provided do NOT support the theory in the article. Iranians and Kurdish Iranians, and Armenians are more closely related to mediterranean peoples like Greeks and Sardinians than they are to Arabs. If some Arabs and Iranians share a mediterranean strain, that is due to the Iranian (mediterranean) and other Indo-European contribution. Shared mediterranean DNA does not make an Indo-European people semitic. It makes some semitic peoples to have Indo-European blood. Semitic people do not originate from the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean DNA come from the Indo-European peoples, for example, when the Persians invaded Babylon or when mixing with semitic peoples due to trade, etc.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? The article already makes the distinction Anyway, Semitic and Indo European are language families, which have nothing to do with genetics. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources refer to a genetic link not language. See my posts below. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Genetics are not black and white. It isn't saying Iranians are totally Semitic and totally not Indo-European, it's saying that a number of Semitic and Indo-European groups show signs of being related. That tends to happen with groups of people that live in the same geographic area. As FunkMonk pointed out, culture and genetics are not the same. As for the invasion theory, a migration where the IE peoples intermarried the locals is a bit more likely. Do you have a source countering those study? Something that shows there are significant genetic differences that indicate that Semites and eastern Indo-Europeans are far more distantly related? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that these are hypotheses and not accepted by the majority of scholars or scientists. In fact, these references aren't even reliable. The studies done by on these groups were not done on substantial portions of the population either. I have seen other people try to pull these "scientific papers" up elsewhere online as "proof" when in fact these theories are not widely accepted. Please don't add by unreliable sources and original research. I also sense that you are a troll following me around Wikipedia undoing my edits for your own purpose. I have no idea why you insist on portraying Iranians as associating with Ethiopians or as being semitic. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Most ETHNIC Iranians are nothing but Indo-European and not semitic. Iranians that are ethnic Arabs or Arab-Iranians are not Iranians and aren't considered such in Iran either except by those supporting the current regime. Second, the studies referenced are not widely accepted, considering they haven't tested the majority of Iranian people and that many ethnic Iranians have emigrated to European and United States during the Revolution. Ethnic Iranians are barely a majority in Iran today. Many Arabs have moved into Iran. Also, the links do not show papers, but small portions of text. That is not a source, that is a generalization. And how common Mediterranean blood makes one Semitic makes no sense. You might as well say other Mediterranean peoples: Greeks, French, Spanish are all Semitic. This is just another attempt by Arab Islamist to create their pan-Islamic alliance. Except through the Arab and Mongol invasion throughout Central Asia and parts of Europe, I doubt the intermarriage of Indo-Europeans with many Semitic peoples. First of all Zoroastrians were and are a very insular people, and even today Iranians rarely intermarry with non Indo-European/Aryan types. This is very much a part of Zoroastrian rule. The Islamization is acknowledged, but it's not very significant in terms of race, and also, it was highly fought against. See Iranian heroes like Perooz. There is a distinct difference among the ethnic Iranians (Indo-Europeans) and the non ethnic Iranians living in Iran today. They are especially separated by the support or opposition of the regime, strictness of religion, and where they live. Controversial studies like the one above have no merit because they aren't accepted by most anthropologists, scholars, etc. The links mention genetic affinities, which can be anything, like the Indo-European mediterranean strain I mentioned. The one abstract, not even a scientific paper, doesn't even make a distinction between which "Iranians" and "Armenians". In Iran today, ethnic Iranians make only 51%. There is no mention of the majority of Indo-European Iranians who are in Europe, the U.S., Australia, etc. And Iranians, Armenians, and Anatolians are NOT from the Arabian peninsula. These sources are full of holes. Not enough information to be reliable or take into account what I mention above.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources. Sources. You are not bringing in any sources refering to that study, you are just bringing in anecdotal claims that are more descriptive of culture, not genetics. You have not given any sources that show that the Zoroastrians were historically as insular as they are now, or that this included racial isolation and not simply cultural distinction. The sources used require accounts, which is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. You have not provided any sources that counter those studies. The studies do not conclude that Iranians are Semitic, but that they share common ancestry. You are not providing any sources that show that the study is not accepted by scholars. Anthropologists would not be concerned with the study because genetics isn't their field, culture is. Cultural groups and genetic groups might overlap but they are not identical, that is a major idea in anthropology (which I've taken a few courses in). As for the accusations of a "pan-Islamic" conspiracy, one study was conducted mostly by folks at Hebrew University (with one German and one Indian), the second is from Spain (which is majority Catholic), and the third is split between America, Portugal, Switzerland, and one fellow from Dubai. Out of the 23 researchers involved, only one comes from a country where Muslims aren't a minority. You have no evidence for any sort of pan-Islamic conspiracy, but you are constantly showing a frightening desire to see an Iranian racial and cultural purity regardless of what science finds. You have your identity wrapped up in this too much. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, one link shows a discussion on the Arabian peninsula - so this is not about Iranians, Aremenians or Turks. And again, this is one study that isn't widely accepted and DNA similar to mediterraneans does not make it semitic. Furthermore, a blurb is NOT a reference. it is removed.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Arnaiz-Villena, one of the so-called scientists in that study was recently suspended for embezelling money from where he worked and credible researchers HAVE debunked his study on Greeks being of sub-Saharan origin. The same is said for the studies on Iranians and Armenians, etc. There's obvious political bias involved in these "papers". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506?dopt=Citation http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/macedonia-articles/785-hla-genes-macedonians-sub-saharan-origin-greeks-critical-review.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122636/

Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b

Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.

The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews". They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."

It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.

Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...415115b_r.html

The man is not only an immunologist and not an anthropologist, but he is highly controversial and his findings are not widely accepted. Desist in adding these studies as reliable sources.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

is there a point to this section? I suggest you take your racial musings to a forum. --dab (𒁳) 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a point to this section when unreliable and controversial information is added to an article page with no basis whatsoever other referencing information by debunked so-called researchers. These are valid arguments and NOT racial musings. I suggest you take your racial accusations elsewhere. Referencing information not accepted by the scientific community for political purposes is unacceptable. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Embezzling is not a scholarly issue. Lots of scholars are screw-ups. You have found info debunking arguing against another piece of work by only 1 of the 28 researchers from three separate studies. You still do not have sources for your argument. Not that you're going to really read this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just read the post, and to tell the truth I am too sleepy now to understand, what is the key controntation point in the discussion. There is close problem relating to this discussion. The name of the tribes - Aryans, after the WWII became under tabu, and in the scientific literature it is substituted with Proto-Indo-Europeans. But owing to the Iranian people who preserve it in their language and culture the name "Arian" remained. None may say for 100 % what is the reason of the relation of the haplotype. It is understabdable in case of the Armenians, Iranians and Kurds, but none may trace the relation with Jews, until they will be eager to trace it. Some hint may be in the origin of Ashkenaz Jews. We have several common words in the languages, but they may not be the simple borrowings, i.e. "Partez". The idea of Partez may be found in Armenian petrograms with the images of male and female by the tree. But who may give the explanation? Or 1-2 weeks ago I came to the idea that so named "Armenoid" type is not the same, that may be seen in most of the Armenians at present and in Medival Armenian miniatures and in pre-historic arts. And it too much differs from the appearance of an average Jew as one may imagine. So, we all are related, but we all are unique, and it is the worth of our world. --Zara-arush (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to add to the discussion. I'd like to reiterate though that testing was only done on one strain of DNA. And the same claims could be made that the similarities are from the Mediterranean strain, NOT a semitic strain. But, as testing was poor, samples were from a few (was most likely done on mixed and non-ethnic Iranians, Armenians, etc.) a HUGE generalization was made. That is not science. Like I said before, the embezzlement is just one reason, not THE reason. If you read the other sources, you'd see that this is the ONLY author along with colleagues in his facility who put out these claims with no substantial proof. It was also shown that these men had a political bias with the Greek studies as well. One study even said that the Japanese were African? What? The fact that their studies were THROWN OUT of scientific journals should be enough. And the man is an immunologist, not an anthropologist, historian, or established scholar. How is an author with NO credible reputation in the field of DNA studies even allowed to be referenced on Wikipedia. Apparently, anyone can just write a paper, publish it, and it's a source - never-mind that the journal retracts the findings. So, a physician can write a paper on a disease, etc. and discuss some medical treatment with no proof, have his work discredited in a journal, and then he is referenced on here on a medical page? What would happen if people went under this medical treatment and died because of misinformation. I'm not phrasing this right, but I think people get my point. I'm just stunned. It's no wonder not many people take Wikipedia that seriously. At the very least, it should be a place for people to get some basic and general information on a topic, and use the reference list to do research on their own. It's a shame that disreputable sources are included. I see disreputable sources removed on Celebrity and musician pages all the time, including Mozart, regardless if it is a source. I don't see why debunked research should remain on here.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Standard practice is to bring in sources that debunk existing sources, and then add in stuff like "Other scholars disagree, stating that..." You found that a completely different paper that 1 of the 28 researchers worked on was debunked. The most that does in your favor is perhaps calling into question only 1 of the 3 sources. You have not found anything specifically debunking the existing sources. Iranians, Armenians, etc, are not culturally Semitic, but two studies you have yet to address found genetic similarities suggesting a common ancestry. My cousins on my mom's side of the family and I have common DNA because we have common genetic ancestry. This does not mean I am my cousins, it just means we have common ancestors. It does not change my last name to match their's, although it would be accepted practice to refer to all of us by the surname from my mom's side, since that is how I am related to them. That's all common ancestry means. The other study did not say that the Japanese were African, it said that they had some similar genetics and that completely unrelated study concluded common ancestry instead of a more likely explanation of natural selection favoring the rise of certain traits. You need to quit twisting around what others say, it is dishonest. As for the whole medical scenario, something deadly in a medical journal would be reviewed by the journal and rejected (the three sources in this article weren't rejected after review). If something deadly did make it into a medical journal, then articles would pour in countering the deadly article (to date, you have yet to show anything countering the sources used in this article). Finally, Wikipedia would leave the deadly source in their saying "Dr. Floggart P. Tabbimus claimed that excessively large, concentrated doses of Vitamin B cures the common cold(ref)medical journal issue 12(/ref), but several hundred medical doctors quickly pointed out that those levels of are deadly within a week(ref)medical journal issue 13-15(/ref)(ref)medical journal 17-20(/ref)(ref)Time Magazine issue blah(/ref)..." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad paragraph

The following paragraph has been the subject of argument:

Modern science, in contrast, identifies a population's common physical descent through genetic research, and analysis of the Semitic-speaking peoples suggests that they have some common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Semitic-speaking Near-Eastern peoples like Arabs, Assyrians and Hebrews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term "Semitic" has been applied. However, this correlation should rather be attributed to said common Near Eastern origin, as for example Semitic-speaking Near Easterners from the Fertile Crescent (including Jews) are generally more closely related to non-Semitic speaking Near Easterners, such as Iranians, Anatolians, and Caucasians, than to other Semitic-speakers, such as Persian Gulf Arabs, Ethiopian Semites, and North African Arabs.

Referenced to: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11380939?dopt=Abstract and http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000210448.

I don't think this is good writing. Can it be broken down more, and tied to references more closely? Which part of these references states "Modern science, in contrast, identifies a population's common physical descent through genetic research"? Surely it should be something like "Profs. Nebel (etc) say that..."? And each sentence should be referenced.

Also the references are not good. Instead of:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378

we should have:

Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, and Ariella Oppenheim, The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East, American Journal of Human Genetics (2001) 69(5): 1095–1112 (online here)?

I'm not interested in this article at all, so these are just comments on style. But I think if the paragraph was less sweeping, it would be less controversial. Claims that "modern science says" always make my flesh creep! Roger Pearse (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur entirely; "modern science says" always raises a red flag with me too... Besides, it is insulting to readers' intelligence. Centuries ago, it used to be "a monk says" whenever they wanted you to just accept something blindly, without noticing that the actual 'evidence' is held together with chewing gum and band-aids; and nowadays, with bigger government bankrolls pushing the agendas, it's "modern science says" - but it's still really the same old principle... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Roots

This important map http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg can explain where the Semitic came from and this map http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg support the future research. The map show ex: Kashmir or Nepal areas are Shem. Mid-East are descendants of Shem. More research (explain latter) found Java or Bali also the roots of Shem as they're the most closest sons of Manu (Vedic) or Nuh (Mideast) or Noah (Western) or Nu (local tribes called him). Bocah anon (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases), and a map from a tourist trap. Those don't amount to any sort of evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am modern scientist. Bocah anon (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any papers on the subject published by anyone named "Bocah anon". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Finalized

First, the so called Arabs come from a number of Ethnicities and perhaps are even part of a different race, depending on which country we are talking about.

Second, Ethnic Arabs are pretty much most people in Western Saudi Arabia but are different than those with Bedwen ancestry, whom mostly came from the East.

Third, Semitic refers to a number of languages

Forth, people are considered to be Arabs because they come from a country that is a member of the ALN, in order for a country to be eligible to enter the ALN it most speak Arabic as a first or at least a second language. Arabic is not a race and Ethnic Arabs are from the western part of Saudi Arabia.

Fifth, the term Semitic is historically and socially meant to be a reference to the Jews. So why not just use that?

Thank you and I hope you can post all these comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.147.50 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Jews are NOT SEMITIC

If you look from a realistic, scientific, skeptic, atheistic perspective - most Jews are NOT semitic people! This should absolutely be stated in the article --KpoT (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be a largely meaningless assertion, since "semitic" identity is not biologically identifiable. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jews come from a Semitic culture (and traditionally spoke a Semitic language), share certain genetic markers with accepted Semitic peoples, etc... Dunno how they can't be classified as "Semitic." However, some folks in 18th/19th century Britain liked to claim that they were the real Israelites (because it made those select Brits feel like special Christians), and since then it's become a popular myth in anti-Jewish circles that the Jews aren't descended from the Israelites (who would indeed be Semitic). At any rate, Wikipedia does not hold to an atheistic perspective any more than a theistic one (see WP:NPOV). Atheism is simply not believing in the existence of deities, it has nothing to do with genetics or language. Furthermore, you fail to provide any reliable sources, which you would need plenty of to keep your claim from being classified as a fringe theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Semitic culture"? What is that?

Also, semitic refers to languages (arabic and such) so if you say that "semitic" identity is not biologically identifiable then how does it make me, a Jew from Europe, semitic if I don't speak Hebrew (which, btw, is an artificially revived language)?

Despite what most of my Jewish brethren would like to believe, modern Jews are not related to teh biblical Hebrews (there is more biological differnce between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews than between Sephardic Jews and Arabs) and we are not semites.--KpoT (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. and oh yeah - god doesn't exist --KpoT (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Semitic culture is the culture of Semitic peoples, from which Judaism emerged. All ethnic labels are rough-and-ready models for categorising people, because groups merge, diverge and evolve in all sorts of ways in both cultural and biological senses. This page makes no claim that 'Semitic peoples' is anything other than an ethno-linguistic label that implies certain commonality in ancestry and cultural inheritace. So say that the "overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semitic" would imply that there is some way of literally defining "Semiticness", so that some people can be included and others not. That leads to racist model of thinking - 'these people are real Semites; these others are not'... Paul B (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There are no "Semitic genes", only genes shared by certain Near Eastern groups, which transcend linguistic boundaries. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

False identification of Moriya (European Amorite), Aramean, phoenician, Assyrians, Ugaritic, coptic as Semitic

Several aryan races par excellence Moriya (European Amorite), Assyrians, Aramean, phoenician, Ugaritic, coptic, cananites, perizittes, amalekites etc. are being labelled semitic. This is nothing but ignorance.

Babylonians, Nabateans etc. were also aryan but had alliances with Jews. Hence, they can be called Semitic but only politically.

On the other side, most modern jews - Ashkenazi are genetically Aryan and are only religiously semitic.

This article is about linguistics. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this is rubbish! Linguistically, it is beyond any doubt that all of those peoples you mention spoke/speak and always spoke Semitic languages. And genetically, they have markers tracking back to the ancient Near East. Nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Talloula, 22 September 2011

Please add a "t" to correct the typo by changing "Ehiopian highlands." to "Ethiopian Highlands." and make it link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Highlands Thanks,

Talloula

Talloula (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mandaens.

Is there any evidence to suggest that Mandaeans are the remnants of Akkaidians? I have since edited this out and gave Mandaeans their own bulletpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012

Under the third paragraph under 'Origins' the line 'It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry".' the title should be "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom". (ie the other way around). The correct title can be found under Wilipedia's page for Wilhelm Marr under the 'Works' heading and the traslation of such a work.

82.2.41.230 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Milhelm Marr does list it the other way, as does the only source we have (archive.org). However, the source also lists a slightly different title altogether, using "Jewdom" instead. I'm almost inclined to change it to that, but having a better source would be helpful. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Jewdom"[sic]is really not a commonly-used English word... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Mola Ali.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mola Ali.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mola Ali.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Persian is not a Semitic language

Old Persian is listed at the top of the article as an example of a Semitic language. It is not -- it's a member of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages (see the Old Persian Wikipedia article). Can someone fix this? Matthew Moppett (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It was only added a few days ago (the last edit to the article before the one removing it [5]). Still, it should have been spotted straightaway. Thanks for pointing it out. You can remove it yourself! Paul B (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Zeno of Citium

Why is Zeno of Citium added as a semitic person? Thanks 23x2 _φ 16:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably because his tutor Crates of Thebes referred to him as "my little Phoenician". Paul B (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering Crates of Thebes was a Cynic and if that is the reason, then i wouldnt say thats reliable to warrant Zeno being described as of semitic origin. It surprised me as it contradicts what i have read so far. For instance Britannica. I think he should be removed. 23x2 _φ 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty weak, sure. I don't know what Crates meant by it (or why his being a Cynic is relevant), but I've no idea how to alter the picture. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing is i don't know how to alter the picture either :) 23x2 _φ 16:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he should be removed. The fact that Crates of Thebes was a cynic is relevant, because it implies that he referred to Zeno as a phoenician in an ironic/derogatory way, probably because Zeno was a merchant before becoming a philosopher, even though he was Greek. In any case, Zeno was from Citium (plus he was born there), a Greek city in Cyprus, and he also only wrote in Greek, and every scholar refers to him as a Greek philosopher. His presence in this page is kind of irrelevant tbh.--46.246.170.61 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that only Cynics can make jokes? I hardly think so; still, it remains very weak evidence, since it might mean, as you say, that he was a merchant, or he "looked" Phoenecian from a Greek point of view, or had a odd accent, or ... whatever. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"non-semites"

This includes Indo-European peoples, such as Iranians, Anatolians, etc... There is no reason to remove Iranian from a bit listing non-Semitic Middle Easterners, because they from the Middle East but are not Semitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) (EDIT: Added "no" that I meant to type before my mom interrupted me because bugging me to get off to do absolutely nothing is somehow going to make me finish more efficiently instead of messing me up by making me skip a very important word...) Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense, Ian. What are you talking about, and why are you removing Iranian from a list of non Semitic Middle Easterners again? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dang it, I thought I put a "no" in there.

There's a bit reading "Semitic-speaking Near Easterners from the Fertile Crescent (including Jews) were found to be more closely related to non-Semitic speaking Near Easterners (such as Iranians, Anatolians, and Caucasians)."

I did not remove anything. Someone else removed Iranians from the above sentence, I restored it (pointing out that Iranians are non-Semitic), and I was reverted and told "yes, read the sentence! Iranians are described as non-Semitic." Because I had to revert more than once, figured I should start a discussion on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also my bad, I should have noticed you were the one restoring the word instead of deleting it... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Me being an eeejit. Paul B (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and "Semitic peoples"

This article has turned worse in a weird, pseudo-scientific way. First, there is no "Semitic people", only people who speak Semitic languages. Therefore there should be no list of "Semitic peoples" or ridiculous infoboxes. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Any reinsertion of the purely OR infobox will be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jews

It is a common fact that all the Jewish people are Semites. It was proven through several hundreds of researched (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(10)00246-6 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&adxnnlx=1276466486-+ZqzWCnAH+wZr3wU9gONXw).

May I ask, why the Jews are commonly called "Hebrews" on this page? Why there is no mentioning of Ashkenazi Jews as Semites here (as studies proved their connection to the land of Israel and their brothers from the Arab states). The Jews, as a whole, all denominations such as Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardic etc. - are Semites, just like the Arabs, the Assyrians, the Akkadians etc.

I ask you to add Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews to this article. P.S. Semitic peoples in Hebrew is עמים שמיים --Moto53|Talk to me! 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In modern non-racist usage referring to modern peoples (as opposed to tribesmen of 1000 B.C., or genealogies from the Table of Nations of Genesis 10), the word "Semitic" really has little meaning other than "speaker of a Semitic language"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet, the national language of the Jewish people is Hebrew - a semitic language. But it was genically proven that the Jewish people, as a whole (Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are originally from the Middle East, and are semitic by ethnicity. --Moto53|Talk to me! 16:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Relatively few of them outside Israel speak Hebrew as their main language, and "ethnically Semitic" has no real definable meaning in the modern period (any more than "racially Semitic" had any scientifically-valid meaning in the 1930's...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't? Then I suppose 'anti-semitic' can only refer to the language family? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's silly; it doesn't refer to the supposed "ethnic semites", either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- the term "antisemitism" has meant "Jew-hating" continuously since it was originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879. During the late Victorian period, "Semites"=Jews was actually one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated (but really slightly condescending) terms which were used to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves -- such as "Celestials" used to refer to Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, and a number of others. During that period, the term "Jew-hating" was a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "antisemitism" was accepted as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use. At that time, no one cared about Arabs etc. in this terminological context, since they weren't commonly encountered in the streets of northern European cities (as Jews were). The term "antisemitism" is theoretically etymologically incorrect, but the word "homophobia" is also theoretically etymologically incorrect, and that doesn't change its meaning. None of this affects the fact that the term Semitic has no meaningful valid "ethnic" or "racial" meaning in modern use. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Absence of Ashkenazi and European Sephardi Jews from the list, absence of Hebrew caption under "Semitic peoples"

I don't intend to try to make this article more objective since it would be quite stupid given the amount of Jew-hatred espoused on these pages and the abysmal level of education/reality awareness of some of the posters here e. g. blabbering about Ashkenazi Jews being "Khazars" while this so-called theory is thoroughly discredited and this can be freely read even on Wikipedia. However, I feel compelled to ask these obvious questions:

• Why are Ashkenazi Jews not included as Semitic? One could argue that genetic studies on Jews could establish only 50% of their "Semiteness", however it's not conclusive what genes constitute the other 50% of the pool. Might as well be mostly Semitic. And even if not, why Ashkenazi Jews qualify less than Maltese who also might be mixed quite heavily with Italians and other Christian peoples of Europe who happened to have interests/presence on the island? Also, it is needless to say (especially to the Europeans here) what the classical European anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews is - the famous "Jewish nose" and caricaturized Semitic (read East Mediterranean) facial traits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EwigerJudeFilm.jpg and try to deny it! Heck, even the argument "we don't classify by descent from ancient Near Eastern Semitic-speaking groups but by contemporary language usage" doesn't hold any water since Ashkenazi Jews in Israel do speak Hebrew, a Semitic language. It's all quite ridiculous, really.
• Same goes for "pure" Sephardi Jews like those from Greece, Holland, Bosnia.
• The very term "sons of Sem" and the character of Sem are biblical in origin. Needless to say in what language it was written. You guessed, it's Hebrew. So there should be a Hebrew caption (עמים שמיים), and not below, but above the Arabic one (since it's Arabs who borrowed this term from the Jewish scriptures and not vice versa). Why is there only an Arabic caption under the English one? For that matter, why there is no Syriac/Assyrian/Aramaic or Maltese caption as well? As if all the Semitic peoples are Arabs? This is quite blatant really.

But I suppose these points will be ignored and I won't waste my time on making edits here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.33.195 (talk • contribs)

Maltese is included because it's a Semitic language, not because the people of Malta are in some genetic sense "Semitic". Ashkenazis are not specifically mentioned, because specific Jewish populations are not discussed in terms of their degree of "Semitic" ancestry (which presumably means Middle-Eastern ancestry, since genes don't speak a language). If you think a Hebrew caption should be added to the image, go ahead. I think it would be better if the Arabic were just removed, otherwise we'll have an inclusion competition. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

81.218.33.195 -- In valid modern scholarly usage when describing current-day peoples (and not tribesmen of 1000 B.C.), the word "Semitic" has little accepted meaning other than "speakers of Semitic languages"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Jews or Mizrahi Jews

Considering the recent changes of "Jews" to "Mizrahi Jews" in the infobox and vice-versa, it strikes me that somebody clearly doesn't understand the meaning of who are Mizrahi Jews and what are their numbers. Just for general education - Mizrahi Jews (Eastern Jews) are the Jews of Mashreq or Mesopotamia, descendants of the Babylonian Jews and recently also including Yemenite Jews. Not all Mizrahim speak Hebrew today (Many Persian Jews in Iran and US don't, most Mountain Jews don't speak), but most of them of course use Hebrew as a liturgical language. Large majority of Jews from other denominations (Maghrebi, Ashkenasi, Hassidic, Karaite) use Hebrew as liturgical language as well, so what is the distinction then?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How is the point you making specifically relevant to the content of this article? What should be changed and why? Paul B (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some editors insist that the demographics infobox should mention Mizrahi Jews as Semitic and not Jews in general.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Because Jews in general are not Semitic; if you want to list all other Semitic Jews, g'ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't meaningfully do what you propose for reasons that have been given in other threads on this page. As soon as you argue that "Semitic" identity is somehow defined by some genetic quality, you get a mess. I mean, is Iran "Aryan" and Iraq "Semitic" because there is a clearly definable genetic difference between the two peoples? Should Egyptians be Hamitic or Semitic on these grounds? Paul B (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Genetics

Shouldn't genetics be mentioned? -- Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's some peer-reviewed reputable scholarly study which shows that there's some genetic marker associated with early Semitic-language speakers, then possibly yes. If it's an excuse to rehash Ashkenazi "Cohen" Y-chromosomal lines and other similar subjects which are quite tangential to the subject of this article, then definitely not... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of Sayyids

In infobox number of Sayyids is mentioned as 12.5 million but the reference provided (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Sayyid.aspx#1) nowhere gives no. of 12.5 million for Sayyids, only data provided is 'In 1901 the total number of Sayyids in India was 1,339,734.' On basis of this discrepancy I removed the entry from the infobox but it was reverted back, for now I have once more removed the entry. Please provide suitable reference or don't include the wrong info in the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Even the article for Sayyids don't give global number of Sayyids although it gives recent figures for 'South Asia' i.e. In South Asia there are more than seven million Sayyids in India, six to seven million in Pakistan, little over one million in Bangladesh and around seventy thousand in Nepal, that amounts to around fifteen million Sayyids in South Asia. But to quote this figure for global Sayyids will be inappropriate because there are lots of Sayyids living out of South Asia i.e. in Arab world, in Central Asia, in Afghanistan, Iran & Turkey stretch, in South-East Asia and even in West (mostly recent migrations).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am not the one who put the Sayyid number as 12.5 million. I have confirmed the source as not being truly reliable. But in fact Sayyid are of Semitic origins. But to my understanding and probably your understanding their has not been a count of them done worldwide unfortunately. But for now we would like to keep an accurate estimate, or in other terms a guesstimate, on terms of their population rate and growth statistics. But they do in fact have a considerable population. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom12345 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we don't include guesstimate in an encylopeadiac article at WP and even estimate has to be backed by relaible & verifiable source. If we don't have any such source for global number of Sayyids then no number for them should be mentioned in the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a small majority in favor of this move, but some of the opposers' views have a lot in common with the supporters. This move, by itself, can't fix the scientific quality of this article but anyone who is willing to remove the unsupportable stuff will be doing a good service. Per AnonMoos, 'Semitic people' may have no accepted meaningful definition other than 'speakers of Semitic languages' but there are ways to fix it up within policy. Finding modern scientific sources that address the various meanings of Semitic languages and peoples would be a good thing. It is hoped that normal editing can fix the remaining problems, together with further move proposals if necessary. (This might call for reorganizing the material). EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Semitic → Semitic people – I think this article should be renamed into Semitic people to be more specific on the content (there is already an article on Semitic languages). Please vote. Relisted. —Darkwind (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Greyshark09 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support though prefer plural "peoples" - The article says it is about Semitic people, we don't have French people at "French". What to do with Semitic (disambiguation)? My In ictu oculi (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article has very recently been changed to incorporate a lot of info about "Semitic people". I suggest all that info be split off into a separate page and this article keeps it broader scope, which was everything covered by the term Semitic itself. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, but what exactly is Semitic (term)? And if Semitic people and Semitic (term) are distinct, then why would Semitic (term) be the WP:PRIMARY rather than Semitic (disambiguation)? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Semitic" should be a disambig page then, if this one is moved. Or better, be an overview of everything covered by the term Semitic, see:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you change your vote or not?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Anonmoos, and I've made that clear before, there's no such thing as a "Semitic people", and the infobox is a complete insult to science. But There are so many weird nationalists around that I probably can't fight it alone, therefore the eventual compromise. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, generally a good idea to be careful about the language we use when trying to persuade people of our views.

Anyone can click on eg Google Scholar "semitic peoples" and then look through those sources after 1950 and then ask themselves, how many of these academics using the term "Semitic peoples" (better the plural) are entirely focussing on language with no relation to peoples, then of what is left who many Google Scholar sources are 'weird nationalists'? Admittedly in Google Books there's a lot of junk. Admittedly before 1950 there was more junk. But are we confidently able to say that "semitic peoples" with 3,480 results in GS is a speedy deletion on en.wp? Because if it isn't a speedy deletion then it is either a redirect or notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - my proposal is that upon renaming, the page "Semitic" should become a disambiguation page (now Semitic (disambiguation)) pointing to Semitic languages, Semitic people and maybe other terms.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Extended information on Semitic languages should be moved there. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the concept of "Semitic people" has no accepted meaningful definition other than "speakers of Semitic languages" in modern scholarship concerning modern peoples (as opposed to tribesmen of 1000 BC), name change would just create further confusion. AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty much obvious that Semitic people today are the speakers of Semitic languages - nobody argues to put here only the descendants of Biblical Shem (whose children were of course Ludd, Arpaxad, Assur, Elam and Aram).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The plural and past is more usual in academic sources "Semitic peoples were" not modern and singular. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; see AnonMoos, completely agree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support move the disambiguation page to the primary location. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOUN and prefer Semitic peoples. Using an adjective for a title is incongruous in this case because the article is largely not about the term. —  AjaxSmack  22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Since the page Semitic (disambiguation) has been deleted, this changes the dynamic of the request. Please comment/!vote with this in mind. —Darkwind (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A new disambgiuation page should be created then. Semitic peoples , Semitic languages can both be referred to as "Semitic" and a see also to anti-semitism ; and there's also Shem . -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The article is about a people (that is, "Semitic-speaking peoples" to quote the article), so seems reasonable. Semites may also be a fair title. The adjective struck me as odd. It'd be good to get a clearer distinction between this article and Semitic languages, making it explicit that this is about the people. Osiris (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, "Semites" has no valid meaning at all when referring to modern peoples in modern scholarly use. AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Numbers do not addup

According to you, there are only 100 million Semities, adding the numbers below of semitic people we will have 70 millions, where are the 30 million semitic people ? :+D -- 09:55, 27 January 2013‎ 89.211.50.131

It should be about Semitic language speakers, not about "Semites"[sic] (a term which is really almost completely meaningless in any modern context). Not sure why the number of Arabic speakers is very low, and the speakers of Ethiopian Semitic languages are omitted... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

peopl

Well, that worked well! Can we have admin interevention please? As we can't change over redirect. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

cool. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mikael Sehul

The picture for Mikael Sehul is not a picture of him, it's his wife. --Liquidmetalrob (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

ethiopian/eritrean languages/people (ge'ez,amharic,tigre,tigrinya) DID NOT come from yemen. Please change it. 

remove "originate fom yemen" 108.202.145.14 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CarnivorousBunny^{talk • contribs} 03:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Descendants of Ham

In the fifth paragraph of Origins subtitle, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and others are listed as being descendants of Ham. In the biblical account, they are descendants of Shem (Edomites are descendants of Esau, who is Abraham's grandson, etc) While I understand the Bible doesn't count as an academic source, I don't see a citation for the information given and it runs contrary to the historical account in Genesis.

---

aae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaapplejacks (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I removed the misinformation. Moab, Edom, Ammon and Midian are all called descendants of Abraham, not Ham. Also, I removed the uncited misinfo claiming that Hebrews considered all enemies in the region Cnaanites. Obviously untrue, they only considered the Canaanites Canaanites. I think it is some modern day muddled heads that want to repaint the Edomites, Moabites and Midianites as Hamitic Canaanites rather than Semitic from Abraham, not the ancient Hebrews! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)