Talk:Semitic people/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Requested move 2 June 2016

The following is a closed 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: Not moved. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Semitic people → Semites
• Hamitic → Hamites

– In line with the Japhetites article and per community consensus as discussed at Talk:Belizeans. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be an improvement over the current situation, but the best title would really be "Semitic-language speakers". As for Hamitic/Hamites, that's not even even a valid linguistic grouping (as Semitic is) -- it's just what's left over in the formerly-named "Hamito-Semitic" linguistic grouping after Semitic is taken out. The semi-meaninglessness of Hamitic was a big reason why the name Hamito-Semitic was changed to Afroasiatic. So the Hamitic article just discusses the history of the term itself... AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

How is "Semitic-language speakers" an improvement, that's not even a coherent grouping. We don't have "Indo-European speakers" (or even "Germanic speakers"). The term is historical and has use in historical discussions of racism, full stop. And there's already a page that is ancient Semitic-speaking peoples qua Proto-Indo-Europeans. Ogress 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This page is consistently a battleground and this should sort things out as well as provide consistent naming. Ogress 20:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page must be renamed to "Semitic peoples" (or "Semitic-speaking peoples") and rewrited because it is valid term. Japhetites is not valid linquistic division of ethnic groups. Such scientists as Ilya Shifman or ru:Минц, Лев Миронович with Semitic (Jewish) ancestry used term "Semitic peoples" in their works (e.g. here (online version of ru:Мифы народов мира). I think such people can judge better racist this term or not. Cathry (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples. Usage for modern peoples is obsolete. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Term Semitic peoples includes any Semitic people, ancient or modern. So if your sources say "Semitic peoples" is "misunderstanding" they oppose Ancient Semitic peoples existense too. I think they do it either because they are antisemitic or because they are white racist. Cathry (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, is your argument actually that anyone who opposes the usage of Semitic peoples is automatically either an antisemite or "white racist"? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Any scientist who do it as scientific statement, seems to be so. Cathry (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, as suggested above, "Semitic-language speakers", or "Semitic-speaking cultures/peoples" is the only accurate and inclusive kind of title if we want to get rid of edit wars and fringe ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Should perhaps we turn the page into a redirect to Racialism? Why would we need a page called "Semitic-speaking peoples"? Is that a coherent grouping we can really write a page about? Ogress 02:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, whatever the name is, it will simply be about peoples who happen to speak Semitic languages... I'd prefer this simply being a redirect to Semitic languages or some such, but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Just like Indo-European people rightly is nothing but a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think it's impossible? A renaming seems a solid first step. Ogress 02:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has value in its current form as the concept of "modern Semitic peoples" is a well known common misunderstanding. This is attested by the various sources and quotes in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose only a few decades ago and within my living memory, anyone declaring that Semitic peoples did not exist would be rightly stared at as lunatic fringe. But this is how the historical revisionists operate. Absent any compelling proof for their revisionist viewpoints, they play semantic and peer pressure games that are always the tell tale giveaway there's nothing really substantial there. when they reach critical support then they feign mock indignance that anyone would dare disagree with their new views and may express frustration that not everyone is moving to the newer viewpoint fast enough to be "on the same page" with them "for consistency's sake" - this "consistency" then being made to appear as if it were the overall objective all along. No thanks, not again, not yet another wikipedia article. 71.246.154.72 10:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with the proposal. This discussion is to move them to Semites, not to declare them nonexistent. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support "Semitic peoples", "Semitic-speaking peoples" is misguided and used much less frequently.[1][2] I have explained on this page on end about the grotesque double standard where every other ethnolinguistic phylum in the world is legitimate except Semitic.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been challenged to provide evidence that this is a valid grouping and have not presented anything. Also it certainly is not "the only" grouping not considered valid. Ogress 03:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING?!!?! I PRESENTED A FREAKING TEXTBOOK! "Ethnology"--Monochrome_Monitor 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You provided a student's "facts on file" handbook which includes a preface with thoughtful commentary on ethnicity, and then contradicts itself later with its usage of the term Semitic that is never explained. The many scholarly sources which provide direct comment on the usage of the term on Semitic, many of which are in this article, take precedence. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It never contradicts itself. It's a textbook, sure. A text-book by multiple authors that was reviewed by a publishing company. More reliable than some individual intellectual saying "we probably shouldn't use this word, guys".--Monochrome_Monitor 08:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. Read the preface, page xii. It says that the key factor in determining ethnicity is how the people self-define themselves.

CUT TO CLIP: "Oh hello there Monochrome, my name is Mohammed and i'm a Semite. Nice to meet you".

Has this ever happened? No.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I never saw human said "Hello, I'm Slavic" So what? Cathry (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not today, but they did before World War I. Slavs formally self-defined as early as the Prague Slavic Congress, 1848, but Pan-Slavism was mortally wounded after WWI. The people speaking Semitic languages have never done so. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Уou confuse politics and science. Slavic peoples existed in 15h century without any Congresses, and they exist in 21th century. So do Semitic peoples. Individual person with Slavic or Semitic ancestry may not be aware of these scientific concepts at all. Cathry (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it science. Ethnicity and ethnology aren't sciences. It's anthropology. Anyway, there's no contradiction. It never says "semite" is an ethnicity. It says semitic peoples, plural. You're still stuck on the racial concept. It's not a race or an ethnicity. Its a grouping.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support - Oppose "Semitic peoples": I do not buy into the exceptionalism argument. Numerous reliable sources show the meaning of "Semites" as one of the Semitic-speaking peoples. Note that we also have Hebrews, not Hebrew-speaking peoples. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hebrews is the title because we have primary sources from over 2000 years ago that it was a word used by a group of people, not one made up by ethnologists in the 1800s and 1900s. Literally the first two lines of the article you linked: "Hebrews is a term appearing 34 times within 32 verses of the Hebrew Bible....the term was not an ethnonym..." Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not very convincing since that would have been in Hebrew, and the translation would not be exactly the same as its modern English form. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The people is Ivri עברי and the language is Ivrit עברית--Monochrome_Monitor 05:13, 19 June 2016 (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.

Inclusion of the broad term Indo-European

Despite being told so by another user that the discussion above has included a discussion about the inclusion of the term "Indo-European" in the "Ethnicity and race" section, I have decided to open a discussion that debates the inclusion of the entire term "Indo-European". I think it's incorrect to include Indo-European speakers as an entire group, for example Indo-European speaking south Asians do not look like Semitic people. For example, the Tharus of Nepal, Bengalis of Bangladesh, Assamese of India or Sinhalese of Sri Lanka who all speak Indo-European languages do not resemble Semitic people. I think it would be better to say Iranian peoples which refers to the native Indo-European speaking people of Iran, including the Kurdish people, Afghanistan and western Pakistan for example or say "certain Indo-European speaking people" as it will limit the diversity of the language group which is made up of numerous different ethnic groups". What does everyone else think? (120.144.45.227 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

It is a historical commentary about racialist theory, not a claim to reality. Ogress 03:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for clarifying @Ogress:. (120.144.45.227 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

Given the current and historical distribution of the Indo-European languages, defining what an Indo-European speaker looks like may be difficult, or even an absurd notion. Speakers of the Icelandic language, Yiddish, the Persian language, and Pashto are all Indo-European speakers, but that does not mean that the speakers of these languages are all similar in appearance.

And through the wonders of cultural assimilation, a language and its associated culture may spread to populations which have no genetic connection between them. The English language has ended up with a worldwide geographical distribution, but that does not mean all speakers have an actual descent from the Anglo-Saxons or resemble them in appearance. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Context is important: the section in question states, "In the racialist classifications of Carleton S. Coon, the Semitic peoples were considered to be members of the Caucasian race, not dissimilar in appearance to the neighbouring Indo-European, Northwest Caucasian, Berber and Kartvelian-speaking peoples of the region." (Emphasis mine.) This is a historical definition and you'll note it's not claiming "all IE speakers" at all. Ogress 15:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Semitic people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011005193846/http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp to http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the racial and ethnic term popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries

Is it OK to read "this article" in 21st century? What does this nonsensical banner suppose to mean - a warning sign for feeble minds? Who do you think YOU are?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.124.199 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Besides having no idea what you mean by "you", your problem seems to be more of a comprehension problem. Why shouldn't anyone be able to read something about an obsolete term in the 21st century? Doug Weller talk 19:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2018

The following is a closed 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: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Semitic people → Semites – Consistency with all other ethnic group articles, as well as the two related terms Hamites and Japhetites. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose that's not actually true most of those on the list (I counted 114 of them) if you go to the actual page it has people in the title עם ישראל חי (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. You can see it most clearly at Category:High-importance Ethnic groups articles. It is still messy, but the largest number do not have “people” in the title.

Consensus was achieved for this three years ago at Talk:Belizeans in a discussed led by GregKaye.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

so many of those do have people and regarding your second point those were all countries which is different than ethnicitys עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - also, a decision reached by one set of editors 3 years ago at Talk;Belizeans cannot possibly be binding upon a different set of editors on a different page 3 years later. There ought to be the real reason to do away with "people" in the first place and not just the "slippery slope" fallacy of saying 'because it is a fait accompli elsewhere'. 71.246.153.195 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME was the primary argument at that RFC. If you run the same here you get the following:

• "Semites": 711,000 results
• "Semitic people": 27,600 results

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment Wow, this one is IM*O an entertaining mind bender. Genetically[3] I don't think we would likely talk of "Hamite people" or "Japhetite people" though I think we might perhaps be more likely to talk of "Hamite peoples" or "Japhetite peoples". Quite simply there are a lot of them and, although bloodlines will have mixed and mingled, many of the cultures of the modern day Hamite or Japhetite peoples are very distinct.

Then we get to the even more loaded topic of the Semitic peoples. Now I can quite imagine, when coming up with the current article title, that someone may have decided to embark on some well intentioned shoehorning so as to WP:right great wrongs and pretend that the so-called 'semitic peoples' are one united whole. Sad to say but they aren't. As peoples go, Jews and Arabs could hardly be more divided. Islamic scripture even instructs not to trust Jews and Arabs have historically had an attitude, when opportunity came with the withdrawal of the British, to drive the Jews into the sea. I'd interpret that they are two peoples that are greatly divided by their different view of monotheism.

I've met Samaritans (joining them for Passover on Mount Gerazim) and think that they'd regard themselves as a separate people from the Jews and imagine Mandaeans, and Assyrians/Syriacs might have similar views. ping@AmYisroelChai:

GregKaye 19:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Do not refer to Jews Vs Arabs. To be CONTEXTUALLY accurate, you must refer to Hebrews Vs Arabs, or Jews Vs Muslims. Do not confuse categories. This subject is toxic, and must be handled with GREAT precision. Dave Smith, 24 Jul 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.94.41 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That was very forcefully and authoritatively delivered, well done! Part of your problem, though, is that for centuries before 1948, the population of Palestine were divided between "Palestinian Jews" and "Palestinian Arabs". Neither group traced any continuity from the ancient Philistines either, it was simply a geographic designation. In 1948 The Palestinian Jews became known as Israelis, allowing the Palestinian Arabs to be called just Palestinian for short. In the years since 1948, something like some kind of a mental coup has taken place in the minds of casual la-z boy armchair observers who inhabit other continents, that the Palestinians, merely by virtue of being called 'the Palestinians' nowadays, are the representatives of the ancient Philistines, when nothing could be more untrue. 71.246.145.227 (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Per Google, this does seem to be the common name. Also, Britannica[4] and Encyclopedia.com[5] also use "Semite". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Semitic languages#Semitic-speaking peoples and move content to Semitic race over the redirect, at the least oppose move. The proposed rational is just flat out wrong, the category link they provide under the first oppose shows there are numerous, 66 in just the first 200 pages in the category, articles which use "people(s)" in the title, far from the unanimity stated in the original proposal; there is not a widespread consistency. Like עם ישראל חי above, I'm not convinced that a three year old move request on a page about national groups is particularly informative or binding here, especially given that a proposal two years ago to move this page to the same place failed to gain consensus (and the article, besides the lead, has barely changed). Consistency with Hamites and Japhetites is misleading, both were originally at Hamitic people and Japhetic people. Hamitic people was moved in 2017 after a move request with one commenter; Japhetic people was boldly moved in 2013. I see no good reason to move this page, and thus oppose it. The only move I would support would be to something that points out this is an obsolete term used in race science such as Semitic race (which redirects here). Looking at Category:Historical definitions of race (of which this page is a part), this naming scheme is common. In fact, of the 7 outliers, three are the pages mentioned in the proposal.

The thing I am most strongly in support of, though, is a redirect to ancient semitic-speaking peoples given the sources provided by User:Rreagan007. Two other encyclopedias, Britannica and Encyclopedia.com, list "Semites" as speakers, ancient or contemporary, of a language in the Semitic language family. In fact this is what the first sentence of the article describes the terms as: "Semites, Semitic people or Semitic cultures ... was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group who speak or spoke the Semitic languages." The next two sections though do not discuss (see WP:COATRACK) what is--from the lead, reliable sources, and two other encyclopedias--the meaning of this word, but content that would fit better in History of Antisemitism. In fact, in the move request two years ago I linked above, a number of commenters pointed out that "semitic-language speakers" would be a better title given the common meaning and usage, and Semitic_languages#Semitic-speaking_peoples provides the coverage that this article has not. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:14, 20 July 2018 (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.

Misspelled word in the references section - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2019 Alkali Notes (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a misspelling of the word "publicized" under reference 21 in the references section of this article.

Change the word "publicizes":

Zimmermann, Moshe (5 March 1987). Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism: The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-19-536495-8. The term "anti-Semitism" was unsuitable from the beginning for the real essence of Jew-hatred, which remained anchored, more or less, in the Christian tradition even when it moved via the natural sciences, into racism. It is doubtful whether the term which was first publicizes in an institutional context (the Anti-Semitic League) would have appeared at all if the "Anti-Chancellor League," which fought Bismarck's policy, had not been in existence since 1875. The founders of the new Organization adopted the elements of "anti" and "league," and searched for the proper term: Marr exchanged the term "Jew" for "Semite" which he already favored. It is possible that the shortened form "Sem" is used with such frequency and ease by Marr (and in his writings) due to its literary advantage and because it reminded Marr of Sem Biedermann, his Jewish employer from the Vienna period.</ref>

To "publicized":

Zimmermann, Moshe (5 March 1987). Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism: The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-19-536495-8. The term "anti-Semitism" was unsuitable from the beginning for the real essence of Jew-hatred, which remained anchored, more or less, in the Christian tradition even when it moved via the natural sciences, into racism. It is doubtful whether the term which was first publicized in an institutional context (the Anti-Semitic League) would have appeared at all if the "Anti-Chancellor League," which fought Bismarck's policy, had not been in existence since 1875. The founders of the new Organization adopted the elements of "anti" and "league," and searched for the proper term: Marr exchanged the term "Jew" for "Semite" which he already favored. It is possible that the shortened form "Sem" is used with such frequency and ease by Marr (and in his writings) due to its literary advantage and because it reminded Marr of Sem Biedermann, his Jewish employer from the Vienna period.</ref> Alkali Notes (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2019

Please remove this made up nation called Assyrians and replace it with Arameans. We are not ancient assyrians. It's a made up nation just like Palestinians. 185.113.99.50 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done Clearly a suggestion to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Kwamikagami please revert back your move and open a move request since this is obviously a controversial move. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a controversial move. The Arabs, Jews, Chaldeans and Ethiopians are not a people. All of our articles for macro-ethnolinguistic groups like this have titles in the plural. What we could do is move the page to Semites, but the singular is inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree re move to “Semites”. But this is not the way - it needs a formal WP:RM. Open one and I will support. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing the () at the end of the article name? What does that mean? I am not a native speaker of English. Is the () needed?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Both Semitic people and Semitic peoples are appropriate. Isn't this a linguistic-biblical term? It means people who are descended from Shem son of Noah? So when we say Semitic people we mean all of those who speak Semitic language or all of those who are descended from Shem (based on the biblical myths)? I don't see the problem of the term "Semitic people" it seems a matter of using the commonly used term.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have asked here [6] for reversion. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

DNA studies section

The sources in this section do not use the terminology “Semitic” as far as I can see. Their inclusion appears therefore to be a synthesis, incorrectly suggesting that these studies are commenting on the appropriateness of the terminology, which they are not. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove it. It is original research. This article shouldn't have a DNA section at all IMHO. Something that I have noticed in Wikipedia that DNA studies sections most of time contain original researchs. --SharabSalam (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty common. I'd like to see a guide line stating that the only parts of genetic articles that can be used are the discussion/conclusion sections. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Semiticisation"?

Though this term is prominently featured in a section head, it never appears anywhere else in the article, so is never defined at all.

The few online uses I find either refer to (or plagiarize) this article, or refer directly to a publication apparently entitled "The Semiticisation of the Arabian Peninsula and its apparent absence from the archaeological record" — a potentially provocative subtitle. A comment appended by an antisemitic nutball at a "real news" site that appeals to that sort clarifies the term's usage:

Mongrel hybrid humans/sub-humans created when Caucasian civilisation came into contact with aboriginal 'Africans'. Process is called semiticisation.

https://www.academia.edu/2326496/The_Semiticisation_of_the_Arabian_Peninsula_and_the_Problem_of_its_Refl…

Back at W'pedia, the term only appears in one other article, at Racial antisemitism#Concept of a "semitic race" which (unhelpfully) mostly routes the reader right back to Semitic people, though at least it ascribes the term to one Arthur de Gobineau, a genteel 19th-century racist who left the legacy of Gobinism that influenced the founders of Nazism — given that context, it maybe could be properly explored here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If the word means anything in valid modern usage, it means groups who did not originally speak a Semitic language coming to speak a Semitic language as their native tongue... AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is what dictionaries are for. We don't need to define the words we use unless they're specialized jargon and aren't being used in their normal sense. The OED has 'Semiticize' as a synonym for 'Semitize' (noun Semitization), "to render Semitic in character, language, or religion." — kwami (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: the topic named Anti-semiticism is covered well in the article on Antisemitism.
Propose deletion of the section 'Antisemitism and Semiticisation' which, by accepted definition, does not relate to all Semites but only to those of Jewish decent. A link to the antisemitism article can be placed in the 'See also' section. GregKaye 16:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it as off-topic. That doesn't require a proposal & discussion. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedurally closed, pending a possible merge. Please reopen if the decision is made to not merge. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Semitic people → Semites – Per the five WP:CRITERIA: (1) Recognizability is clear; (2) more Naturalness as Semites is 20x more common on google and is the title at most other equivalent encyclopaedias: [7], [8], [9]; (3) equivalent Precision; (4) more Concise; (5) more Consistency per the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. – Uanfala (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. Onceinawhile listed all the logical reasons.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. This discussion was initially closed as "moved", but is now being reopened per the discussion below. The title "Semitic people" was the result of a 2013 RM, with subsequents RMs proposing a move to Semites from June 2016 and July 2018, both failing to achieve consensus. There was also a brief discussion in October on the use of plural or singular of "people/s". Pinging participants in the previous discussions: AnonMoos, FunkMonk, GregKaye, Kwamikagami, Monochrome Monitor, Ogress, Prinsgezinde, Rreagan007, SharabSalam, Wugapodes. – Uanfala (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reopening the requested move

Cwmhiraeth: a similar proposal had already been discussed and rejected twice in recent years: see the two RMs at Talk:Semites/Archive 6. – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC) @Uanfala: When I closed this discussion and moved the page I was unaware of the previous discussions. This nomination has been open for 8 days, there was a well-argued rationale and the consensus was clearly in favour of moving. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Both previous discussions were much better attended than this one. The fact that this time round only one person turned up to comment is probably because we're in the middle of the holidays. Given the extent of the controversy and the strong opposition to this proposal in the past, I don't see how there could be consensus here. I think it's best to reopen, notify the participants in the last discussion, and relist for at least one more week. – Uanfala (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC) OK, I will do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC) @Cwmhiraeth: thanks, I missed this. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Actually, I find I cannot reverse the closure, so rather than mess things up, it might be best if a new move discussion is held. Or somebody more competent than me can reverse the closure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC) I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, Cwmhiraeth. I've reverted the close (you can just get the pre-close version of the discussion from the page history) and relisted the discussion. I haven't moved the articles back (if that creates problems for the bots, you can just swap the pages back, using the same process you used to move them). Generally, starting a new discussion immediately after an old one is not a good idea, as it forces everyone who participated to come and make their point again. – Uanfala (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Fixed (returned page to original location) so discussion can proceed as usual. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 28 December 2019 (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.

• What a blast from the past; weirdly enough I still have this page watchlisted so apologies for not seeing this RM earlier. My 2018 comment hasn't aged great, but I think the spirit there and my opinion now converge broadly on redirecting. There's three articles in this series: Semites, Hamites, and Japhetites. Hamites has a ton of information in that article, and given the history of (pseudo)science to justify enslavement of Africans there's a great deal of analysis of the term and theory from historical abolitionists and contemporary critical race theorists. By comparison, this article and Japhetites are both little more than definitions (cf WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and what little content they have would probably better serve the reader if it were presented together in a single place (with information from Hamites summarized there per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). In 2018 I suggested redirecting to ancient semitic-speaking peoples, but I do not believe that's the best course of action right now. I think the best course is to consolidate the articles and make the whole titling question moot unless and until this article (and Japhetites) actually have enough content to spin out into articles that are more than embellished definitions. TL;DR Scrap the move, merge this article (whatever its name) and Japhetites into the relevant sections of Biblical terminology for race, and finally redirect Semites, Semitic people, and Japhetites to the relevant sections. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge them instead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suggested this above, but since it's outside the scope of an RM and involves more than this page, I'm spinning it out to its own section. Proposal: merge this article (whatever its name) and Japhetites into the relevant sections of Biblical terminology for race, and finally redirect Semites, Semitic people, and Japhetites to the relevant sections. There's three articles in this series: Semites, Hamites, and Japhetites. Hamites has a ton of information in that article, and given the history of (pseudo)science to justify enslavement of Africans there's a great deal of analysis of the term and theory from historical abolitionists and contemporary critical race theorists. By comparison, this article and Japhetites are both little more than definitions (cf WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and what little content they have would probably better serve the reader if it were presented together in a single place (with information from Hamites summarized there per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). The move discussion is still worthwhile to figure out where the history of this page should reside after a merge should there be a merger. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• I support Wugapodes' proposal. I suppose the page history of this article would be best kept at "Semites", though. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wugapodes' merge suggestion and also hope that the Biblical terminology for race article might be moved to something like Race in the Bible as per other content of Category:Biblical_topics including: Ethics in the Bible, Soul in the Bible and Theophory in the Bible. Note: there is also an article Generations of Noah. GregKaye 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The article covers the use of Biblical terminology in modern racial discourse, similar to the article Color terminology for race. The "...in the Bible" articles are different - they cover how specific items were covered in the bible, which race - in the sense we use the term today - never was. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the use of these terms for race is not biblical. Use of all 3 is modern, though based on the bible, and each one has a completely different evolution. For example, Johannes Magnus starts with a son of Japheth in List of Swedish monarchs, an appropriation more than a thousand years after. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I agree with Vici Vidi. There is more than enough detail on the concept of the racial use of the ter, “Semites” for it to have its own article. The article needs some work to build it out, but that’s not a reason to delete/merge it. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neither "Top-importance" nor "High-importance"

The article is rated as being of "Top-importance" or "High-importance" by some projects. Since (as the lede states), "the terminology is now largely obsolete ...", I don't think that such a high rating is justified. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested edit

The term "Semiticisation" is used in a section title but not defined in it or in the see also article. Suggest removing the term. --Kaledomo (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Kaledomo: Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence that the term is obsolete.

The term Semite, Semitic, anti-semite are all terms that still exist today. Pray do tell us how this term is obsolete? JasonMoore (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Read the lede, especially the references given. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

79.79.139.108 (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism covers all Semitic people & this includes the Arabs. Just because the Jewish nation used it to describe the terrible way they were treated, does NOT mean it is mainly used to describe a Jewish oppression.

For example, racism against place people covers all black people as noted in the BLM movement.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Could someone please revert this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semitic_people&diff=prev&oldid=711767446

In other words, remove the text "and the exclusion of discrimination against non-Jewish Semitic peoples" from the last sentence? It was added some years ago by an IP editor, but it's not supported by the cited sources. It also contradicts the general theme of the article, that "Semitic people", and thus "non-Jewish Semitic peoples" is an obsolete racial term from the 19th century, or else a shorthand for ancient Semitic-language-speaking peoples, and not a common term for contemporary ethnic groups. See also the comment from other editors at the main article: Talk:Antisemitism#Objections to the usage of this term as obsolete and exclusionary, where it was proposed to add this same sentence, but not accepted - particularly the comment about this part of the sentence, by RolandR.

Furthermore, it just seems a bit odd to claim that it's somehow "exclusionary" that the term antisemitism is only applied regarding Jewish people, as though there should be equal hatred for all! 89.14.104.88 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Other use of semite

It's also used in the word "antisemitism". Can, or should you guys add that to the page of modern uses? 24.161.12.83 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeming Contradiction

Hello! I'm not usually someone to contribute to Wikipedia pages. I ordinarily just like browsing articles I find interesting. But today I was struck by what has to be the most blatant contradiction between two Wikipedia pages I've ever seen, and I wanted to bring attention to it.

I want to preface this by apologizing if I am wading into a sensitive topic area. To be clear, my interest is purely academic and in the interest of Wikipedia's internal consistency. I understand that "Semitic people" as an ethnic category has been manipulated in the past, predominantly in the anti-Israel corners of the Arab world, in an attempt to escape justified accusations of anti-Semitic bigotry. The argument is usually something like: "We can't be anti-Semitic, we're Semitic people ourselves," ignoring the fact that, as used in the Western world, anti-Semitism is simply a way of referring to anti-Jewish prejudice. I'm not interested in excusing this type of disingenuous evasion.

Nonetheless, this article does seem to have a problem. I arrived here from Wikipedia's page for Arab People, as I was curious about the ethnic and cultural history of the Arab world and how it shapes contemporary politics in the Near East. That page has an early section on the ethnic origin of Arabs as a "Semitic people," which links directly to this page. Yet as soon as a curious reader actually arrives on this page, they are greeted with an article which abjures the concept as obsolete and pseudo-scientific.

So, which is it? I mean, the answer does actually seem pretty straightforward. The same page on Arab people has a subsequent sentence, backed with what appear to be high-quality scholarly citations, which states that DNA evidence indicates a close ethnic relationship between contemporary Jews and Arabs. Most of those citations are more recent than the ones cited on this page which suggest that the concept is obsolete.

Perhaps this is a manner of scholarly terminology, and I don't know the appropriate way to refer to this ethnolinguistic grouping. For other groups (Bantu peoples for instance) the curious reader can find a page which outlines the pre-historic origin of the grouping in question and trace it historically over time as people of those ethnicities have migrated and expanded. Yet here it is stated that an actually ethnolinguistic group encompassing Jews and Arabs (and probably several other groups of people besides) does not actually exist, in spite of both groups of people speaking Semitic languages and having a high degree of genetic overlap. In this case, the curious reader meets with a historical dead end, and a fairly blatant contradiction between two Wikipedia articles, one of which links to the other.

Some clarification would be helpful, perhaps on the state of contemporary scholarship on this topic. It would seem to me that this page itself needs to be edited to reflect such context, such as it is. It also seems like there should be a Wikipedia page, whether this page or a differently titled one, which also fills the broader role for talking about the common ethnographic origins of peoples in the Near East, similar to that of pages on Bantu peoples or Indo-European peoples. I am hopeful that one of the editors of this page can provide this context and suggest a constructive path forward. SetaceousCharacter (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. I have removed the link here from the Arabs article.[10] The problem is that "Semitic people" is still used as a shorthand for "speakers of Semitic languages". It would be better if we were to do away with this nonsensical 250-year old Biblical terminology for race altogether, but whilst it it still used in common parlance, we describe it here. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and the broader page is at Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the prompt reply, Onceinawhile! That certainly goes a long way to clearing up the problem. SetaceousCharacter (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to confess, though, that I'm not entirely satisfied. I understand your point that "Semitic" in this context is exclusively used to refer to the linguistic grouping, and that's fine. But the genetic evidence and common linguistic history seem to clearly indicate that Arabs, Jews, and other ethnicities do form a contemporary, extant ethnolinguistic group. So, taking that it should not be called Semitic, what is the name for this group? Is there an existing article about it on Wikipedia?

While I appreciate the link to the article on ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, these are not ancient peoples, but modern ones, and they share not just a linguistic heritage but also, apparently, ancestry. Maybe there just isn't scholarship formulating such a concept, but it does seem like there should be a page for a group which encompasses these contemporary ethnicities in the same way there are for Bantu or Indo-European peoples, in addition to many others. SetaceousCharacter (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no article on Indo-European people, only Indo-European languages, just as there are only Sino-Tibetan languages and Afroasiatic languages and nothing about the peoples. You are making an incorrect assumption that language = ethnicity. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Having said which, you make an interesting point. If enough people believe that they are Semitic people, does that make it a real thing, irrespective of the views of social scientists who say the concept is obsolete? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to to comment that I was incorrect about this. It is curious that there is a page for Bantu peoples, separate from the Bantu language family, which seems a bit anomalous. I had simply assumed there were ones for others. But Wikipedia is big place, so there's bound to be some variation.

I suppose it comes down to social construction, in terms of contemporary identification. In the US, many people now consider themselves to be "White" when generations ago they might have thought of themselves as separate European ethnicities. It depends on what labels people adopt.

I will try to defend myself and say that I am explicitly NOT trying to make that assumption, though I was clumsy with my framing. The common ancestry of Arabs and Jews is derived quite independently from linguistic roots, and relies on genetic analysis. It's understandable that, before such technology existed, people might object to the suggestion that common linguistic roots implied common heritage between Arabs and Jews. Anyone can learn a language, after all. And not being an expert in ethnography, perhaps some other Semitic-language speakers are not very closely related to Arabs and Jews. That's certainly true of most US English speakers.

I suppose I think that having a concept which enables one to trace back that common ancestry between these peoples would be useful, but maybe haplogroups already fill this role. In any case, this is getting byzantine and the main issue seems to be resolved. Thanks for your time, and for the information! :) SetaceousCharacter (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As an aside, the genetics points you are making are not quite that simple in reality. You might find Zionism, race and genetics and its talk page at Talk:Zionism, race and genetics an interesting read, showing the complexity and diversity of views around this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not about what people believe, it's about what WP:RS say. Andre🚐 17:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is a serious problem with this article. Since the semitic languages are related to each other, there was clearly at one point in antiquity a single semitic people who spoke a single semitic language. To deny this is like denying evolution; it is unscientific. This article is a glaring contradiction with articles like Germanic peoples, Celtic peoples, etc. Pro-Jewish bias has infected this article and made it non-scientific. What an embarrassment to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Westwind273: please sign your comments and please search for RS instead of unspecifically accusing editors of "pro-Jewish bias." Rsk6400 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Westwind is likely looking for Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on scientificity

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing for procedural reasons: WP:RFCBEFORE not met, question not clear. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

---

There's an ongoing disagreement about whether Semitic people constitute a valid ethnolinguistic grouping of Semitic-speaking peoples or is pseudoscientific. Any comments are encouraged. – anlztrk (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

antisemitism was always hostility towards Jews; not circuitous

The 'antisemitism' section currently opens with a misleading statement:

"The terms "anti-Semite" or "antisemitism" came by a circuitous route to refer more narrowly to anyone who was hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular"

There was nothing 'circuitous' here -- the term always indicated hostility towards Jews, which is affirmed by the citation for that section (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitism). Perhaps 'circuitous' refers to the 'semitic' in anti-semitism, but even in that case, it's a strange description for a single decision by an antisemite to obscure/redefine his prejudice.

AdamChrisR (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality needed

In my opinion, this article needs editing to remove opinions. Wikipedia articles must be neutral. Presentation of one viewpoint and another helps neutrality. Expressing one viewpoint only is not neutrality. Restewartjr (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the policy. Do you have a specific sentence/paragraph of concern, and a proposed replacement for it? DMacks (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete?

There is something seriously wrong with this article. Compare it with the article "Germanic peoples" or the article "Celts". Neither of those article say the term is obsolete. There is no separate Wikipedia article for "Ancient Germanic-speaking Peoples". Moreover, standard dictionaries do not say the term Semite is obsolete. This article is an example of pro-Zionist and anti-Arab bias in Wikipedia. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is pro zionist? Jews very much do consider ourselves semitic people. If anything, this article is trying to erase the our semitic heritage 192.30.52.22 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a sad but obvious attempt to circumvent the rational conclusion that Semites can't be accused of being anti-Semites unless one is arguing that they hate themselves. That's why the article follows with the narrow definition of the term anti-Semite which excludes hatred of all Semites except those who are Jewish. Fact of the matter is that term anti-Semite literally means hatred of Semites not Jews specifically. Had Hebrews not been known as members of Semitic peoples, the term anti-Semite would not have come into use because there would be no reason to associate hatred of Jews with the hatred of that which is Semitic, anti-Semitism.

Similar tactics used to circumvent what is genuinely America and American, hence the misconception of what is genuinely Anti-American. Using argumentum ad populum to defend the U.S. promoted fallacy.

America is to the United States as Notre Dame is to the Hunchback.

The truth is that the United States is of America not itself America. It derives its long form name by making use of the genitive case "of America," owe to the fact that the name of the hemisphere it was founded on is named America in honor of Amerigo Vespucci in 1507 by Waldseemuller and Ringmann.

Motivation behind promoting the United States as being one and same as America is the need to justify using the continental term American as if it were a nationality. The proper terms are in fact U.S. Citizen, United Statesian and U.S. American.

United States of America https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth251664/

Common sense -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.162.15 (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Language, especially English, is not strictly rational and self-consistent. Words mean now what they are used to mean now , not what we wish or think based on other words or our own attempts at analyzing historical/etymology. By policy, WP:OR has no place on Wikipedia, but instead WP:V is the policy supported by WP:RS and similar guidelines. The term anti-Semite was specifically coined to refer to the anti-Jewish concept and specifically chosen to give that concept an air of authenticity, based on historical non-facts.[11] Or of course see the explanation and cited refs in our existing article. DMacks (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Last comment. You can delete/censor this one too if you like.

For those reading this if given the chance by wikipedia moderators, note that the false claim of etymology is used to argue in defense of the narrow use of the term anti-Semite while factual etymology of the name America and term American goes ignored by the very same. In addition DMacks uses two fallacies respectively, argumentum ad verecundiam for the former and argumentum ad populum for the latter.

Wikipedia is replete with articles promoting falsehoods and misconceptions the authors of this forum defend with logical fallacies. 173.3.162.15 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

---

This was previously discussed at Talk:Semitic people/Archive 2. Here's a slightly different form of the explanation there: The term "antisemitism" has meant "Jew-hating" continuously since it was originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879. It has a slightly peculiar etymology, but insisting that etymology must override current usage (and the consistent usage of the last 130 years) is the "Genetic fallacy". By the genetic fallacy, the word "homophobia" could only mean "fear of those who are the same as oneself". Anyway, the reason why "Semitic" was used by the non-Jewish inventor of the word anti-Semitism was because it fit in with a whole series of 19th-century mock-grandiose euphemisms, such as "Celestials" for Chinese, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, "Romans" for Italians, etc. Some of them sounded rather elevated, but when used by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to refer to others, they were really rather condescending (not complimentary or respectful). Also, during the late 19th-century, the term "Jew-hating" could be considered a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" was more acceptable as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use. At that time neither Jews nor Jew-haters in northern European cities commonly encountered Arabs in their everyday lives, so that most of them didn't think about Arabs in the context of such terminology. Maybe they should have (according to you), but the plain fact is that they didn't. AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I really didn't mean for this to turn into a debate over the term antisemitism. I agree that the common usage of that term is racial discrimination against Jews. But this is not the Wikipedia article on Antisemitism. This is the Wikipedia article on Semitic People. The claim that "Semitic People" is obsolete, and the existence of the separate "Ancient Semitic-speaking Peoples" article, is an over-reaction to those who complain about the usage of antisemitism. The structure of Wikipedia on the Semitic People should be consistent with the structure on Germanic People and other historic ethnicities. There was at one time a single people called the Semitic People who did indeed exist; otherwise the Semitic languages would not be related to each other. Over-zealous defense of the term antisemitism has caused the structure of Semitic People on Wikipedia to be deformed, untruthful, and not in conjunction with articles on other historic ethnicities. Westwind273 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's very easy to classify languages as Semitic or non-Semitic -- so that people who speak a Semitic language are Semitic-language speakers -- and it's a convenient scholarly shorthand to refer to some ancient Semitic-language-speaking groups as Semitic tribes or such. However, deciding which modern groups, independent of language are or are not "Semitic" is a complicated task without clear guidelines or widely-accepted standard definitions, and some would consider it almost meaningless. I was always in favor of this article keeping its old title as just "Semitic", as can be seen in the talk page archives. AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your comment conflicts with the Origins section of the article Arabs. We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia does not do original research; Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. I think the Origins section of the Arabs article is well-sourced. The Origins section of the Jews article also says "Jews originally trace their ancestry to a confederation of Iron Age Semitic-speaking tribes known as the Israelites." I think the key problem is that there should not be two articles "Semitic people" (dubbed "obsolete") and "Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples". This is highly irregular and not at all congruent with how Wikipedia handles other historical ethnicities like Germanic peoples, Turkic peoples, Slavs, Celts, etc. Westwind273 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary as a Source

Source 12 references a dictionary, which is neither a primary or a secondary source and should therefore not be used. The sentence preceding it is also highly non-specific, does not specify a time frame and should therefore either be reworked or removed. PixelRayn (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)