This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Since the first three references in this article confirm that the linguistic sense of "Semitic" is the primary usage of the term, I propose we redirect the Semitic page (which is currently redirected to here) to Semitic languages. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I made it a disambig page. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is utter crap and should be merged with Semitic language and simply be a redirect. We don't have an "Indo European people" article either. There is no such "people". The current article is used for nothing but useless POV pushing. FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Semitic people do not exist. There was once a proto-semitic population that carried the Semitic languages just like the proto-indo-europeans carried the language from India to Norway. But thats it, there is no Indo-european people nor a Semitic people. However, the term Semitic people is commonly used. Maybe this article should be a redirect and a new article for the proto-semites be created to explain how did an Ethiopean and an Assyrian came to speak languages belonging to the same family.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If there is a language, there have to be a people who speak it, therefore those who spoke Semitic language/s were Semitic by definition. That means there is such a thing as Semitic people. To have a description of something connected to a person you have to also have that person to start with. If there is a term "Semitic" describing a person there is obviously an actual person who is Semitic regardless of what other definitions/descriptions may also be applied to that person. This article is too comprehensive and too well-researched and imo needs to stay as a single unit as is, there is no reason to delete it or merge it. "People" is an overreaching term which sits at the top of the tree and other connected sub-topics can be easily linked through to from this page, and as you say "However, the term Semitic people is commonly used." which means many people will be searching using this term and that when people enter it they get a good comprehensive landing point to start from and they can then branch-out through links for further research. If they enter "Semitic people" and land on something obscure or not sought, it can lead to confusion. From purely the perspective of a standard Wikipedia user doing searches and study (and that is after all why Wikipedia exists - to lead people to the specific information they search for using specific search terms), this article definitely needs to stay here to avoid confusion and abiguity. Taurusthecat (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, proto semitic language article exist, but if a proto semitic language exist then there was a proto-semitic people like the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Maybe they should get an article and redirect this article to it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
But is there any reason why such an article should be separate? "Proto-Indo-European" speakers have been an obsession of 20th century nationalist scientists, therefore much has been written about them. I doubt the case is the same for proto-Semitic speakers. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You really have no appreciation for nationalists :) . That is true, there isnt much about the proto-Semites. If I found anything I will create an article for them. But this article should be redirected. Its silly to treat Axum and Babylon as the same cultures or people or talk about them in the same article just because of a language.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, my problem isn't with nationalism itself, but ethocentrism. Nationalism can even be cute, hehe... Anyhow, since this article was moved back from Semitic cultures, I'll make a formal move request soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your underlying views on the non-existance of a Semitic people. This is described best in the quotes shown for references 1, 2 and 3 in the article.
BUT, Semitic people is a historical concept, which still floats around in popular culture. Many Jews presume they are Semites, because of the confusion caused by the existence of the term antisemitic. So this article serves a purpose, which is to clarify that the concept is now obsolete.
We would serve the readership community best by working together to clean this article up and focus it on the deconstruction of the concept covered in many scholarly sources.
The thing is, the "people" concept is already dealt with in the article under "Ethnicity and race". What exactly is the reason for keeping "Semitic peoples" separate from "Semitic cultures"? The former is well within the scope of the latter. The latter title is just much more scientifically accurate, modern, and NPOV. And I stress again, we likewise don't have a separate article about "Indo-European people". FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the "Semitic cultures" proposal. I find it confusing in scope, and without clarification it feels like an awkward attempt at something in between language and ethnicity. You have referred to the Indo-European analogy a few times, but we don't have an article called Indo-European cultures either. I am not aware of good sources which group together something with the name Semitic cultures, unless they are referring only to the ancient world. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this article is not necessary, but should redirect to the language article - or to an article to be written about the semitic cultures of the ancient world and the spread of the semitic languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I was brought by this post on Wikiproject Anthropology. I agree with maunus and the other editors on this. The article seems rather POV, particularly the lead (three consecutive footnotes on what the term used to mean? That's silly). There was at some point a group of people who spoke proto-Semitic, but that doesn't seem to be the topic of this article, rather it seems to be about a number of different cultural groups who spoke branches of the Semitic language family. In fact, I don't see any real mention or evidence of some unified Semitic people, rather it is hinged upon the language family. That's like saying Indians, Australians, and Americans are all English people because we all speak branches of the English language family. This article should be redirected to Semitic languages. Wugapodes (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The trick is in the plural -s. It might indeed be possible to write an article about the many different Semitic peoples and their history. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the plural -s. I'd just assumed this was already at "Semitic peoples". I would have sworn I saw an "s" up there. Funny the way the brain works (or doesn't) sometimes. In any case, it doesn't invalidate the point, it just means the article should be moved to Semitic peoples.--William ThweattTalkContribs 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If it is unclear, my point and initial proposal is exactly the same as that put forward by Maunus. As for there not being an Indo-European cultures article either, good, there shouldn't be. But there is an article about Proto-Indo-Europeans. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't have a page on afroasiatic people either. Semitic is a subgroup of Afro-Asiatic... just like Germanic is a subtype of indo-european. Ethnolinguists grouping is firmly based in comparative linguistics/philology and is often supported by genetics. It's frankly stupid that this page treats Semitic peoples like an artificial construct... as compared to say Germanic peoples. I agree we should make this "people(s)" and rewrite much of the problem. It's the same with the article Arabs. It focuses on Arabs in a purely linguistic sense while all but ignoring genetics/ethnic components. @WilliamThweatt:@Maunus:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Monochrome Monitor: Asiatics / Semitic are both misleading terms. Much of Egyptology was written during the 19th century and early 20th, so some of these obsolete terms prevail. The actual term is Aamu. See Book of Gates. Connecting it to this article just causes confusion. If you are determined to do so, you need a good source explaining why it's relevant. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I know the actual term is aamu... but we have historians/archeologists/comparative linguists to reconstruct the past for us. I'm not bothered by it not being included, I thought it was interesting for its antiquity. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)