Talk:Japhetites

Japhet = white people

Not a forum to discuss Japhetites
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For no other son of Noah is this considered so lets not confuse people Who cares? :/ ---kim Arabs are Caucasians and they are Shemitic, Shem is the father of Caucasians, Japheth of Mongolians, and Ham of Negroids and Australoids. 71.89.6.90 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC) japhet is historically the father of white people ! white people speak an indo-europpean langage and share the R haplogroup when arab semitic people speak a semitic langage and share the J haplogroup ! ham is the father of the negroes people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiane2k6 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC) It's pretty clear that Caucasians, Mongoloids and Negroids are three distinct race groups. The Islamic and opinion of many christian/jewish scholar that specifically seperates them, Caucasians as Semitic, Mongolions as Japhetic and Negroids as Hamitic makes the most sense. Why do people think only the arabs/israelites are semitic? was abraham's descendents the only ones descended from Shem? what happened to all the others? And where do chinese/turkic people fit according to this view? are they semites, hamites or japhetites? the view that japhetites = white people makes little sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.73.86 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Map Problem

Can somebody find or make a correctly orientated map for this article? The T&O map is meant to be rotated 90° clockwise. Notice how at the top of the map the word oriens can be seen. This is derivitive of Latin and means "east" (the map looking like it is Latin script). Also upon rotating 90° clockwise, the continents are geographically correct.

--- That's only a problem if you assume north has to be up. There's no reason why a medieval cartographer couldn't have made a map with east up. Also, if you rotate it 90 degrees, it's no longer a T&O map.

"Isles of the Gentiles"

Can someone provide a cite for this? I don't see it in Genesis 10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.103.197.157 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps I can be of some assistance. If you read Genesis 10:1-5 you will probably understand it better. After the geneology of Japheth,and his generations (decendants. you will come to verse 5 which states, and I quote: "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"

This is stating that the decendants of Japheth all migrated to the Isles, or the location which we know today to be the Isles of Europe. Europeans were called, Japhetic, properly pronounced "Yahphetic) and later called Europeans. I hope this was of some help to you.

Jasher

What are the "geneologies" in the Jasher section, just long lists of family names believed to be descended from e.g. Gomer? Is this from the Book of Jasher, or other sources? Specific citations would be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, so I looked over the Book of Jashur. The long lists of names don't appear to be there. The Book of Jashur may indeed be one source for a few of the names, but I've no idea where the rest come from. -- TimNelson (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google turned this up, but I don't know whether it copied Wikipedia, or the other way around.

Those lists were added in this edit.

HTH, -- TimNelson (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This material was moved here from another article. I don't remember the full details now, but there was an editor who was a biblical literalist and who was insisting on some sort of biblical lineage of 'white people'. I can't even recall which article it was originally in. Essentially it was moved here as a compromise to end an edit war. Paul B (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was something to do with edit wars involving user:CSArebel. He was some sort of white supremacist. He originally added it to the Japheth article. [1] Paul B (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, CSArebel seems to have been marginally involved, but it was mainly an edit war between an anonymous IP and user:Codex Sinaiticus, who was the editor who asserted that the information derived from the Book of Jasher [2]. Codex Sinaiticus nowadays edits under the name user:Til Eulenspiegel. Paul B (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of these names appear for the first time in a 1497 forgery by Annio of Viterbo that traced European nations to Gallic descendents of Japheth {son of Noah}: Druides, Bardus, Celtes ect. 72.196.169.184 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Aryans and Georgians

The article throws in stories about the traditions surrounding the origins of the Aryans and Georgians without any indication that those stories are have, or are even supposed to have, anything to do with Japheth or his children. Can someone fill in the missing piece? Otherwise I'll remove the material. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means remove it. This article is riddled with dubious claims and (mis)associations often as not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or romantic notions of racial/national origin. In my thankfully limited experience, however, any such edit will probably provoke a response by those who actually believe all this to be gospel truth. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the very conversation that all of our policies are meant to avoid. We aren't supposed to be commenting or passing judgement on anyone else's preferred belief system here, one way or the other. We ARE supposed to discuss what sources there are that mention the article subject. It isn't a question of what you think people "ought" to believe, Enaidmawr. If it can be sourced to an outside reference and it is on topic, it can be mentioned neutrally in the article, regardless of what your or my personal take on it might be. Simple as that. 70.105.34.221 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this is a talk page not an article. I'm free to express an opinion and comment, particularly if it is relevant to the subject matter, which it is. And I'll stand by what I say above. This - and related articles - has a long history of unencyclopedic material being added, often unsourced and of doubtful relevance. Fringe theories, which would include the belief that European peoples are descended from Japhet, should be treated as such: that too is a fundamental Wikipedia policy central to its credibility. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there are limits to what you can use a talkpage for, and there are policies such that, if it is your personal opinion that your neighbour's belief system is a "fringe theory", that you take it elsewhere. You don't get appointed to decide which religions you consider to be "fringe" just because you don;t subscribe to them. 70.105.34.221 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And exactly which religion do I consider to be "fringe"? I said nothing of the sort. If you are referring to Christianity then I would suggest that there are few modern Christians other than some Bible fundamentalists who believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken at face value, such as the legend of Japhet. And you yourself are here expressing your personal opinion, to which you are entitled. And if you don't believe that 'the belief that European peoples are descended from Japhet' is fringe theory, that's up to you, you are welcome to believe that but it remains a fringe theory for the simple reason that it is not accepted by the vast majority of scholars, any more than the Flat Earth theory is: see WP:FRINGE. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have unilaterally declared belief in the Bible "fringe". That ain't your call, buddy. If you claim that Wikipedia has somehow "determined" that it is "fringe", cut the crap and show where. 70.105.34.221 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what I've clearly explained, several times, about the Japhetic theory - not the Bible itself, which has been and still is read and interpreted in any number of ways, by Christians and others - seems to be matched only by your incivility. Anyway, believe what you will, think what you will: you won't win many converts by using coarse language and insults, thank God. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of this discussion with you, Anon. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Japhetic theory is another article. This article is about something in the canonical Christian Bible. But I'm not here to win any converts, which is something you apparently don't get. I just don't like to see arrogant people pushing their own disparaging POVs on Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion's doctrines or historical views as "fringe", just because they personally don't practice or believe them. It's a matter of freedom of our readership to believe what you want, without some self-appointed "authority" coming in and saying "no, you can't seriously have that belief, because it's been determined by us as fringe, or heresy". 70.105.34.221 (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article

At the moment most of the article lacks references, with editors adding ethnic groups over the years. Some of this can be referenced, eg from [3]. Is anyone going to clear this up before we start deleting unreferenced material? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unverified, but promising:

http://www.soundchristian.com/magog/

"Gog and Magog in History" - by Tim Osterholm

A "brief" but detailed account of migrations starting at Japheth, through Gomer and Magog, up to the "Peoples of present-day Russia, Siberia, Eurasia, Asia Minor"

Many references listed, but no footnotes.

More here:

http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

Wikicat (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

this page certainly was terrible, but it will probably not help to try fixing it based on a random webpage from "soundchristian.com". Also, it is always nice to find an article on the internet which uses maps which I have personally drawn for Wikipedia, under the GFDL, with no attribution ("Copyrights: There aren't any"). Especially when these Wikipedia ripoffs are fed back into Wikipedia as independent references.

It is better to reduce a page to minimal content than to keep unreferenced nonsense around for years. Seriously, no information is better than false information, and correct information interspersed with false information without any clue as to which is which is exactly as bad as information that is all false. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"TURKS" - Give Me A Break

In a historical context, there is no such thing as "Turk". The original Turk is related to the Altaic-Mongolian peoples, closely associated as east Asians, not Caucasians. Some of today's Turks in Turkey may look Caucasian, even "European" but they also look East Asian, Arab, Persian, Kurd and whatever else people they came across along the way from their original homeland - meaning that today's Turks are as a result of centuries of forced assimilation since they migrated and invaded from central Asia to Anatolia. The Turks being a mixed people are unworthy of any racial study from a historical perspective, and any "writers" in relatively modern times attempting to place them within a biblical historic context are obviously not informed of the realities and history of Turkic people, in short, such references are unreliable and dubious. Furthermore, before about 1000 years ago, there were no "Turks" (Turkic tribes) in the regions of the Caucasus to the Balkans, as they were starting to newly arrive. For this article, and anything else Biblically associated, TURKS = IRRELEVANT. 99.7.123.116 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This issue was also raised at Talk:Togarmah and I responded there. That may be the best place to discuss this since mention of "Turks" under Gomer in this article derives from the traditions of Turk descent from Togarmah s. Gomer. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement "the Hamitic group is now recognized as paraphyletic within the Afro-Asiatic family" is nonsense. It is the Afro-Asiatic family that becomes paraphyletic if Hamitic is recognized as a separate group. Paraphyly always refers to the larger group out of which one of the internal lineages is excluded. The correct version would be "the Hamitic group is now recognized as one of the internal lineages within the Afro-Asiatic family" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96C9:A762:F15A:D010:E775:B41D (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote. Esp the paraphyletic. The Turkic people are Mongols. As are the languages. Historiaantiqua (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote. Esp the paraphyletic. The Turkic people are Mongols. As are the languages. Whoever wrote that bit is grossly misinformed. Slavs especially being grouped into this category with Turks and Khazars is totally false. Slavs have R1a and i2 haplos. Those are older than R1b (Germanic). The argument was advanced by Nazis that they are "invaders" or "foreigners" but it's completely false. Germanic people branch from out of the Slavic people. The R1a lineage in the Brahmin in India confirms these are the people who bring Hunduism and farming to India, and begin the Royal lineage in Persia as foreign kings

Historiaantiqua (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"Only the Semitic group forms a proper group"

I'm not sure what is meant by this since it isn't even correct. If Japheth is Indo-Europeans, that is a far more cohesive linguistic group clearly descended from the same language. The Semitic languages ARE a subset of Afro-Asiatic, as are African languages which the article says is not, ie reference to Ham, which is odd, given that Ham and Shem would both thus be Afro-Asiatic, and only the Japhetite myth branch would form their own cohesive family, not the other two. ??? Historiaantiqua (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

Fist paragraph: "Japhetite (in adjective form Japhethitic or Japhetic) in Abrahamic religions is an obsolete historical Biblical terminology for race coined in 18th century"

Second paragraph: "In medieval ethnography, the world was believed to have been divided into three large-scale racial groupings, corresponding to the three classical continents: the Semitic peoples of Asia, the Hamitic peoples of Africa and the Japhetic peoples of Europe. "

Was it coined in the 18th century or was it already in use in medieval ethnography? 😂 96.242.144.8 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)