Talk:Semitic people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:[2] 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.

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)

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)

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)

Antisemitism--Arabs and Assyrians

The last line of the antisemitism section doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source, which instead says: "In its broadest sense, anti-Semitism refers to prejudice and hostility towards Jews on the basis of their ethno-cultural and/or religious group membership."

I don't know how you can get "However, Antisemitism can also apply to other Semitic peoples also. In Iran, the minorities of Assyrians and Arabs in the country, as well as Jews, have suffered varying degrees of Antisemitism." From the above...

73.53.48.123 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like original research. They're hardly persecuted for being "Semites". FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It was added in this edit [3] by "Eddie Drood". It was recently removed, but the removal was reverted. I have read the source. There is nothing whatever in it to support the assertion. Indeed there is no reference at all to "Assyrians" in the article, and the references to Arabs are all to Arabic anti-Semites, not to Arabs as supposed victims. The author evidently wanted to justify the claim that Iran (a non-Semitic country) discriminated against ethnic groups with "Semitic" identities, but the article does not support that. Even if it were true, it would be a big leap to label that a form of "antisemitism". Paul B (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)