Jump to content

Talk:Semitic people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Clarification

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

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

I don't think your alterations constiute a "clean up". The first sentence is now almost tautological ("Semitic is a linguistic term used to describe Semitic languages, cultures, and ethnicities.") In effect it now says that "Semitic is a term to describe Semitic". Can you explain why you added the NPOV tag? What was problematic about the POVs expressed here? Paul B 10:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The original first sentence was IMHO misleading and vague, ("Semitic is an adjective referring to the peoples who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages or to things pertaining to them."). Although the word Semitic in its most common usage is an adjective, it leaves out the important distinction of being a linguistic term. I made no claims of perfection above, quite the contrary, many sentences on this page need to be reworded and sourced to uphold the standards outlined in the Wikipedia style and how-to. I do agree with your critique of the tautology of the rewrite, and I made another attempt. I am still not happy with it, and welcome you or any other interested party to be bold and make an edit, I won't take offense, as none was meant by my edit or my comments. ;) As for the NPOV tag, many of the statements made in the intro and later seem to be there for no other purpose but to inculcate the reader with the various authors' points of view. I put up the flag in hope that others would agree and make the necessary edits to the offending statements. --User:Rpinz 12:12, October 24, 2005 (UTC)
The intro was cluttered with facts that really belonged in the appropriate sections below. I am still not happy with the intro, perhaps someone else cares to take a stab at it? --User:Rpinz 01:43, October 24, 2005 (UTC_

Clean-up.

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

anti-Semitic

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

How is that a "fact"? It sounds more like your point of view, that "anti-Semitic" is bigoted. It simply means someone or something that is against Semites. Since some people are or were historically against Semites, why shouldn't there be a term for this? -- ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If it only applies to Jews it is a bigoted expression. The proper term for describing anti-Jewish sentiments is, um, anti-Jewish, just as the proper term for describing anti-black sentiments is anti-black, ditto for anti-Catholic, anti-Chinese, etc. I wouldn't ordinarily make an issue of this, except for the fact that we are presently waging war against Afghanis and Palestinians and Iraqis, all of whom are Semitic people. To then state that anti-Semitism only applies to Jews even while we are killing non-Jewish Semitic people by the tens of thousands (if not more) is positively Orwellian. The ultimate expression of hatred is when you kill someone, is it not? Our language should reflect this. In any case, I appreciate your edit to my own, my grammar frequently needs correction. User:72.235.202.43 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that the article already says using it only for Jews is a "misnomer", and if you read the talk section above, until recently apparently it mentioned that it could also be used for what you say "you" are doing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous editor has offered no arguments that anyone but he/r considers the term to be "bigoted" other than the claim that "we are presently waging war against Afghanis and Palestinians and Iraqis, all of whom are Semitic people". Well, news flash - they aren't all Semitic people. In fact, this is simply a misuse of the word bigoted. Anti-semitism means, in English, anitpathy to Jews. The term arose when ethnoliguistic arguments were coming to the fore at the end of the nineteenth century. "Semitic" cultures were increasingly defined in opposition to "Aryan" cultures. Judaism was previously condemned for other reasons - the Christ killers argument. In many cases this modern form of condemnation included Arabic culture and Islam, but it was always dominantly directed against Jews and Judaism. "anti-Semitism" came very clearly to mean ethnolinguistic/racial antipathy to Jews. The writers who were labelled that way (or labelled themselves that way) almost always directed their opposition to Jews. By the 20th century this was the clearly established meaning of the word. There is nothing "bigoted" about this meaning. It was simply a term for an established ideology. By then it was extending its meaning to absorb the pre-modern religious antipathies, which is not surprising since many of the earlier accusations, blood libel etc, had simply been added into the racial model. Note that very little of this was applied to Arabs or other Semitic peoples, partly because they were not present in Europe. Of course negative stereotypes of Arabs and of Islam existed, but they were not readily articulated by the concept of anti-Semitism for the simple reason that Islamic culture is not exclusively Semitic, though of course its origins were. The reason is simple. Islam is a religion that has expanded by conversion. Judaism is almost exclusively inherited. So Islamic peoples are of many varied and distinct ancestries. Iranians are not Semitic (in fact they are "Aryans"). The Ottoman Turks were not. Pakistanis and Afghans are not either. Look up the histories of those countries. When we apply this to the modern world we see the same pattern. The US has intervened in Aghanistan and Iraq, and is now threatening Iran. Only one of these countries can reasonably be called "Semitic", so extending the term "anti-Semitic" to modern Western actions against Islamic countries is itself a "misnomer". Anti-Islamism is a far more meaningful term. As far as this article is concerned, we simply point out that the word "anti-Semitic" is used to mean "anti-Jewish". That is a fact. It most certainly is a non-sequitur to claim that the phrase as used in its current meaning is bigoted simply on the grounds that it is restricted to a specific Semitic people. Indeed as expressed by you, it was virtually unintelligable since there was no explanation of how it was supposed to be bigoted. I suggest that you read the article Anti-Semitism.Paul B 10:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully wikipedia's mission is to present a neutral point of view and so I've put the reference back. I find the arguments put forth by Paul Barlow to be hateful and racist, conferring preference to Judaism over Islam simply on the basis of racial identity. Furthermore, the argument that we should dehumanize the victims of violence simply because some of the people being victimized are not semitic is deeply offensive. Offering the term "anti-islamism" misses the point entirely. User:72.235.202.43 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A neutral point of view involves explaining the facts and established interpretations of them. The fact is that "anti-Semitic" means anti-Jewish. Look it up in any dictionary. There is nothing in what I wrote that confers "preference to Judaism over Islam simply on the basis of racial identity". In fact I was as clear as possible that Islam has no "racial identity". You miss the point entirely. Paul B 20:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is also a fact that the term "colored" refered to African-Americans, but the mere fact doesn't change the racist implications of this term, any more than the prevalent use of the term "anti-Semitic" as a misnomer for "anti-Jew" is racist and offensive. The implication of the term "anti-Semitic" is to reserve special consideration for Jews at a time in history when hatred towards other Semitic people is being implemented through the worst kind of violence. Again, you can't get more hateful than that. The phrase was stricken without proper cause and I'm putting it back. User:72.235.202.43 22:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Which got you another 3RR block, this time for 48 hours. You need to learn that Wikipedia works by consensus, not by unilateral action against the will of the community. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus? Sell that crap somewhere else... Wikipedia was gamed a long, long time ago. User:72.235.202.43 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Coloured" does not refer to "African-Americans". Only an American would think that. It refers to people with noticable skin-pigmentation. In Apartheid South Africa it had a specific legal meaning which actually excluded native Africans. Yes, it was used at one time in the US as a label for people with visible African ancestry. I fail to see why it is "racist". It's at least as accurate as "black", since most people who are designated as such are nowhere near "black" in appearence. Often the reasons why some terms are considered racist has more to do with how they are used than what they actually mean. Will you please take on board the fact that Islam is not exclusively Semitic and that the article simply states a fact: that anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish. We don't decide what words mean, nor do we legitimate or disprove it, we report on it. We can, of course, report on established debates, but if you wish to discuss that in more detail, you should do so at the Anti-Semitism article. Paul B 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The term "colored" most certainly was used to refer to African-Americans, and it is a bigoted expression in that refers to people not for who they are but rather for what they are perceived to not be, e.g. white. Nobody is debating the conventional use of anti-Semitic to refer to anti-Jewish, I am only seeking to point out that the use of the term is offensive, for the reasons I have already explained. Moreover, the observation that Islam is not exclusively Semitic has no bearing on the term "anti-Semitic" being hateful, but what does have bearing is the fact that many if not most Jews are not themselves Semitic! So in it goes again. 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant that only an American would be so ethnocentric that they could imagine that "African-American" meaningfully replaced either "coloured" or "black", since only an American wouldn't even notice that the "hyphenated American" term has no meaning outside of the USA, so its value is wholly parochial. "Coloured" refers to what people are (in this context - i.e. racial labelling) just as "white" and "black" do. It's only prejudicial where there is a social context in which being "white" is desirable. It's easy to imagine another context in which "white" would be bad and "coloured" good, white being seen as something negative - the absence of colour. You could then say "white is a bigoted expression in that refers to people not for who they are but rather for what they are perceived to not be, e.g. coloured." The only point in discussing this example here is to try to get across the point that the word is often not the real issue. You are confusing the word with its context and usage. You fetishise the idea that there is something inherently wrong with expressions that in other contexts would be entirely neutral. Anti-Semitism has come to have an established meaning. That meaning was not created with any "bigoted" intention to exclude anyone. It just evolved for specific historical reasons. An expression like "Arab anti-Semitism" is quirky in the same way that "Australia is a Western country" is quirky. But both are meaningful. Paul B 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
When the term "colored" was conceived there was no "bigoted" intention either. That doesn't change the fact that it is in fact a bigoted expression. You seem unable to argue against the actual change I want to see made, preferring instead to argue peripheral issues for which you might be able to build a case. The fact of the matter remains that to use this term to refer only to Jews, most of whom are not Semitic, while we are killing Iraqis and Palestinians and Afghanis, most of whom are Semitic, is the very definition of hatred. It is to say that the worth of their lives is so insignificant that even their wholesale murder doesn't rise up to the standard of impolite speech towards Jews, which is all the term "anti-Semite" seems to be good for these days. Again, I have no expectation that this change will remain, I am only doing this to convince others of just how hateful jewish supremacists have become and how accustomed they are to always having their way in print. The mere fact that you cannot allow for an observation such as this, in the face of the horrors we are meting out to Muslims and Arabs and SEMITES is, as I said before, positively Orwellian. You may be able to control the definition of the term "anti-Semitism", but I do believe in doing so you will only see the problem grow worse. Indeed, I am now beginning to see that the problem was always entirely one of your own making. Congratulations. And good luck. User:72.235.202.43 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Verifiable, reliable sources? You mean Jewish sources, don't you? It's common knowledge that the term anti-Semitism is bigoted, the only people who object to such a definition are those who seek to continue to use it to justify killing more Muslims (e.g., Semites). It's talked about all over the Internet, as an example, here: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anti-Semitism User:72.235.202.4305:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your "citation" is in fact a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article on Anti-Semitism. It says nothing at all about the term being "bigoted". It says some people have argued for the extention of the term, but that most commentators consider such an extension to be unwarranted and largely meaningless. A case could certainly be made for re-expanding the "scope" section there, which has, now been absorbed into Etymology and Usage. This is a debate that should be on the Anti-Semitism page.Paul B 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that is a lie. There are numerous comments within which complain about the bigoted use of the term. The change simply reflects that fact, do note that it only says that the term is "sometimes" perceived as bigoted. The most relevant evidence of all of course is the hatred that is on display here, your comment in your edit for instance that my changes are "nonsensical". The case I have presented here is anything but nonsensical, only someone who is racist would think otherwise. Furthermore, if this debate should be on the Anti-Semitism page, then let us strike the reference to anti-Semitism from this page altogether. You can't have it both ways. 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a citation: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/10-12-00.html . What is hilarious about this of course is that it will be dismissed because you consider the speaker to be an anti-Semite. Why is he an anti-Semite? Because jewish supremacists continually attribute to him things he never said. Meanwhile, these same jewish-supremacists essentially conceived of and endorse the war against Islam, against Semitic people, but not a single one of them are anti-Semitic, am I understanding this correctly? You kill Semites, but you are not anti-Semitic, while they complain about your killing Semites, and so then they are anti-Semitic. Man, that's beautiful. User:72.235.202.43 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. So Louis Farrakhan is your source? Fantastic. Here's a quote from this interview, demonstrating the great man's grasp of history: "There are Germans who were not involved in the Holocaust. There are Germans at this moment who never did share the view, philosophically or ideologically, of Adolph Hitler. But they, as a body, are paying reparations because of the sins of certain Germans that affected an entire people. Now the question in our research -- that we researched in Jewish libraries, from Jewish scholars who are not anti-Semitic -- is the fact that Jews were involved in the horrendous slave trade and therefore have some responsibility in the horrific results of our having been brought into slavery and robbed of culture, name, language, God, religion and history." The sheer silliness of this should be evident to anyone. No Germans are "paying reparations" for Adolph (sic) Hitler. In fact the US put a large amount of money into Germany (or, more properly, West Germany) after the war. Is he perhaps getting confused with the reparations payments demanded from Germany after the first world war? That disastrous decision is exactly why the opposite approach was adopted after WWII. And of course almost all Germans alive today were "not involved in the Holocaust" and no-one suggests that they were. Then we learn that "Jews were involved in the horrendous slave trade". Well, of course, some were, but why single them out? Far far more important to the slave trade were Muslim Arabs. See the article Islamic slave trade. And yet Farrakhan wants to blame Jews for it despite overwhelming historical evidence that it was Arabs followed by Christian Europeans who were the most important participants. This person knows nothing about history (he has even asserted the authenticity of the transparent forgery known as the William Lynch Speech). His opinion is citable as his opinion, but not as widespread view. Anyway, it's irrelevant here, where we just note the usage of the term. Detailed discussion should go on the Anti-Semitism page. Paul B 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"No Germans are "paying reparations" for Adolph (sic) Hitler. In fact the US put a large amount of money into Germany (or, more properly, West Germany) after the war." This is patently untrue. The Marshall Plan invested just under $1.5 billion American dollars into rebuilding Germany, and that aid ended in 1951. Immediately after the it ended, Jewish groups sued the German government for $1.5 billion in "reparations". There have been at least four major lawsuits brought by Jewish groups against the German Government and industries since then. In fact, in the 56 years since US aid ended, the taxpayers of Germany have paid reparations to Jewish parties to the tune of more than $120 billion. That works out to both a sizable percentage of Germany's GDP and a significant percentage of the taxes levied on all Germans since the War, regardless of their involvement (or even existence) during the war. To reiterate: Germans have been paying reparations for Adolf Hitler for 56 years now, and it appears that they will have to continue to do so indefinitely. Bricology 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What a load of baloney. The compenations and pensions you refer to are not reparations payments of a kind comparable to those demanded after WW1, nor will they continue indefinitely. Paul B 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the article, so I don't know if he's anti-Semite or not, but it doesn't prove what we were asking. One person considering it bigoted doesn't provide enough support for your citation. I could find a citation of someone saying that the word "racist" is misused by blacks, but it still fails to establish two things: that the term is seen that way by a significant minority (remember Wikipedia's policy - tiny minorities shouldn't be portrayed as if they are significant as it is not NPOV), and that such beliefs are increasing. If you can find a citation that says that the belief that the current use of the "anti-Semite" is bigoted, and that this group of people are increasing in number, then I will not revert the text. Alternatively, if you do not make the claim that it is "increasingly being seen as bigoted" (as opposed to seen as bigoted by a small minority), then you will only have to find a citation to establish the latter for your addition to be accepted. The citation above, however, does neither, regardless of what the man's beliefs might be (I didn't read much of the transcript, so I couldn't say if he's anti-Semitic, but your pre-emptory defense doesn't help your case).
ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history page you will see that Yom is the one who asked for a citation, and yet here we see him rejecting the citation I provided without even bothering to read it. I'm guessing the status quo is OK with Yom. How many more Muslims before his appetite is sated? User:72.235.202.43 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, anyway. Anyone who uses phrases like "jewish supremacists" identifies their own political bias as being aligned with David Duke and the National Vanguard. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
More like Nation of Islam than David Duke, it seems. Paul B 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, David Duke pretty specifically: [1]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And yet you use the term white supremacist freely. The two are identical in my mind, in that you both espouse hatred of those who you deem not of your kind, you both declare that God gave you this/that land, and you both derive from that the right to kill any others who you might find upon it. The difference is only in which group controls the media. That group gets to label the other as a hate group. In any case, you are right, it doesn't matter, I've met all of the conditions put forth for seeing the comment included, and so I will put it up again and allow everyone to see what a joke this system is. User:72.235.202.43 09:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, part of the joke is the three revert rule, and since you are wilfully violating it, you'll find yourslf blocked for longer and longer periods. See you in a few days. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Heres some context, i was simply doing some late night reading on the Phonecians where i discovered Semitic refers to an ancient family of language's. What a shock, ive always assumed Semitic was an old Hebrew term used for themselves. Heck, i travled to this topic just to confirm my previous ignorance...Now this wouldnt be a big deal if Semitic wasnt such a darn important word! Wow, what if years from now ooo lets say unjust and mythical negative associations are laid upon the peoples of Spain. They begin refering to it as anti-latinism(where the phrase is coined is beside the point). This term becomes so prevalent that the true importance of Latin is largley lost to everyone outside of academic circles..This would be a tragedy would it not? The term propagates ignorance and its sad thats not the conversation, the other posters motives for there positions couldnt be more transparent no matter how hard they try and shroud them in semantics. Its sad both groups insist on some mythical/fictional mandate from the past while there futures become ever more clouded

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

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

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

Ancient Semites

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

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

Egyptian

Dear anonymous,

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

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

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

Semitic (77) Central (57) Aramaic (19) Eastern (17) Central (14) Mandaic (2) Syriac [syc] (Turkey (Asia)) Western (2) Western Neo-Aramaic [amw] (Syria) Samaritan Aramaic [sam] (Palestinian West Bank and Gaza) South (38) Arabic (35) Arabic, Algerian Saharan Spoken [aao] (Algeria) Arabic, Tajiki Spoken [abh] (Afghanistan) Arabic, Baharna Spoken [abv] (Bahrain) Arabic, Mesopotamian Spoken [acm] (Iraq) Arabic, Ta'izzi-Adeni Spoken [acq] (Yemen) Arabic, Hijazi Spoken [acw] (Saudi Arabia) Arabic, Omani Spoken [acx] (Oman) Arabic, Cypriot Spoken [acy] (Cyprus) Arabic, Dhofari Spoken [adf] (Oman) Arabic, Tunisian Spoken [aeb] (Tunisia) Arabic, Sa`idi Spoken [aec] (Egypt) Arabic, Gulf Spoken [afb] (Iraq) Arabic, South Levantine Spoken [ajp] (Jordan) Arabic, Judeo-Tunisian [ajt] (Israel) Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan [aju] (Israel) Arabic, North Levantine Spoken [apc] (Syria) Arabic, Sudanese Spoken [apd] (Sudan) Arabic, Standard [arb] (Saudi Arabia) Arabic, Algerian Spoken [arq] (Algeria) Arabic, Najdi Spoken [ars] (Saudi Arabia) Arabic, Moroccan Spoken [ary] (Morocco) Arabic, Egyptian Spoken [arz] (Egypt) Arabic, Uzbeki Spoken [auz] (Uzbekistan) Arabic, Eastern Egyptian Bedawi Spoken [avl] (Egypt) Arabic, Hadrami Spoken [ayh] (Yemen) Arabic, Libyan Spoken [ayl] (Libya) Arabic, Sanaani Spoken [ayn] (Yemen) Arabic, North Mesopotamian Spoken [ayp] (Iraq) Arabic, Judeo-Yemeni [jye] (Israel) Hassaniyya [mey] (Mauritania) Maltese [mlt] (Malta) Arabic, Chadian Spoken [shu] (Chad) Arabic, Shihhi Spoken [ssh] (United Arab Emirates) Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi [yhd] (Israel) Arabic, Judeo-Tripolitanian [yud] (Israel) Canaanite (3) Hebrew, Ancient [hbo] (Israel) Hebrew [heb] (Israel) Samaritan [smp] (Palestinian West Bank and Gaza) Rktect 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Semites are Caucasoid.

Semites are Caucasoid I have proof.

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

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

So what? Paul B 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • so, they are the Semitic branch of the caucasoid family, therefore they should be classified as Caucasoids.

--CSArebel--

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

--CSArebel--

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

Anyone who put Ethiopians in the "Caucasoid" category is brain-dead. This is offensive and getting more and more offensive, it is not a significant viewpoint and never was, and really should not be given space here. This is neo-science trying as usual to re-write everything and brainwash everybody. The people they call "Caucasoids" originally corresponded to what had been the "Japhethic" groups, and now as usual they are trying to extend "Caucasoid" to "Semitic" and "Hamitic" groups while at the same time excluding the other groups. I will combat this lie and confusion as long as I have breath. Hence the flag to alert to POV pushing here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Codex, we cannot say that they were "misplaced" in the category, since it is not up to us to decide who was right and who was wrong about such racial concepts. That there was such a category and that Semites were typically placed in it is surely not in dispute. The Collins cite dates from 1986. The fact that you are a biblical-literalist does not mean you have the right to declare well-established other views to be "offensive" or "lies". Read the well cited section in the black people article. Caucasoid is a category beased on anthropomentrics. It has nothing to do with alleged biblical ancestry. Paul B 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

People who don't believe the bible to be literally true are not "malicious" nor do they have any single agenda. The article already includes the fact that the use of the word Semitic by linguists and historians is not the same as the Biblical usage. We describe that fact. No historian would refer to Canaanites as "Hamitic" peoples. It is a fact that in its specifically ethnolinguistic use, the Semitic peoples were typically placed within the Caucasoid category, as were many Ethiopians. Paul B 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not misconstrue me. I did not say or suggest that anyone who does not believe the Bible to be literally true is malicious. I am talking about a malicious subset of these who definitely have a racist agenda and you yourself referred to them above when you wrote Obviously even the most hard-line believers in the reality of racial categories - like the Nazis - accepted that there was no simple equivalence between language and race. Otherwise the Nazis could not have claimed that German-speaking Jews were "non-Aryan"!. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, the intentions of CSArebel are pretty clear for his interventions in other articles (and he probably got his Collins cite from the Stormfront website). I assume that "CSA" stands for "Confederate States of America". Paul B 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I love the way these "scientists" will come in and tell us what to believe like they have some kind of authority over our beliefs and can change everything around, and funny thing is, what they tell us to believe and what category we are now supposed to put things in always seems to be directly conected with the agenda of what government is paying their salary, but nobody has ever done a scientific study of that correlation! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, it does stand for The Confederate States of America, and no, I did noy get that "Collins site" as you refer to it, off of Stormfront, They are extremely Anti-Semitic and think of Jews as another race, I myself have Jewish friends and I am not Anti-Semitic nor do i think of Jews or Arabs as a different race, do a Google search for "Semites are Caucasoid." --CSArebel--
The word was "cite" (i.e. citation), not "site". Yes, the notion that Africans are "degraded" in some way has a long history, and there are many many versions of bible-based migration narratives. We can pick our ancestors in Genesis almost at will. William Jones thought the Indo-Europeans were Hamites. I'm sure you and Codex can have a very productive debate about who is descended from which patriarch. AIDS is likely have passed from Ape to man, but I'm not aware of any evidence that sex was involved! Paul B 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I guess you didn't get your latest cite (oh, OK, citation) from Stormfront either.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=333259&page=4] Paul B 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Wikipedia is not censored. You can't remove this link with the reason that it's "biased." By the way, you are welcome to add that link into the Assyrian naming dispute. It's ridiculous of course, that you're trying to get even with me. But Aram-nahrin is a conspiracy theory site. I'm not saying imninalu is hundred percent objective, but it's an on topic site describing some of the Semitic peoples mentioned in this article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:32 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with censorship. The fact that it's not censored does not mean you can add any old rubbish you like. The article is no more appropriate than a link to an online version of Mein Kampf - which also presents an alternative point of view on Semitic peoples. Paul B 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't want to remove the link, as you see, I simply added the other link to this article. This isn't about "getting even with you", but about balancing out ridiculous links with other ridiculous links. Now it's up to other editors to determine whether either link is appropriate at all. Funkynusayri 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I would welcome an online version of Mein Kampf — or at least parts of Mein Kampf that focuses on Semitic peoples — in the external links. I believe that all points of views should be represented. Of course, needless to say, Aram-Nahrin is indeed a ridiculous link. Imninalu is indeed biased, and so was Hitler. But let the reader decide. Oh and by the way, you're trying to get even with me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Getting even with you? When have I had problems with you as a person before? It's the link I don't like. And by the way, Aram Nahrin didn't write the article, they just use it on their site. Funkynusayri 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I added the archived version. I don't trust Aram-Nahrin, so we'll go with this one instead. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:05 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't trust the Zionist guys you linked to either. Why the double standards? Funkynusayri 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't trust Zionists either. But AT THE VERY LEAST, they call us Assyrians, which is more than I can say about Arab nationalists, who call us "Christian Arabs." By the way, as we can see here, it's written by some dude who knows nothing about Assyrians and have only used biased Aramaeanist fanatic sites as his main source. I can also see that he's citing John Joseph, and Joseph has been refuted many times by Assyriologists and other real scholars. It's also interesting to point out that the Aram-Nahrin version, and the archived version, differ to some extent. That said, I think we should go with the archived version. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:16 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • So what happened with "presenting different views"? Does it only apply when they are biased against Arabs? The alternative to the archived version isn't the Aram version, but simply the original article which has been archived. The only difference between the archived and the real version are the images, so I don't see any sense in linking to an archive for no real reason, unless you want to hide the images. Funkynusayri 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Dude, have you even read the articles you're linking to? You wanted to add the aramnahrin version first. The aramnahrin version is a corruption of the original source: http://web.archive.org/web/20010111074900/http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm Those deranged Aramaeanists have added a lot of crazy shit. Therefore, if we're going to use this source, I think it would be fair to use the original unmodified source. Now you want to use the castrated version of the original source. Well, that's fine with me, but if you want to balance out ridiculous links with more ridiculous links, you should go with the archived version, because that one is even more ridiculous than the original source in use now, since half the article has been removed. Well, it's up to you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:54 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you referring to? I've added the original source, the archived version isn't the original source. To be sure, this is it: [2] Funkynusayri 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Unbelieveable... Never mind, you haven't read the articles you're linking to. Either way, I can settle with the anti-Assyrian source in use now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:07 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Take it easy, man, you think I want to have the most ridiculous link added by any means? If there are slight differences between the real and the archived versions, I don't really give a fuck. This is not important to me at all, I honestly thought you'd see the idiocy in keeping either link, but well, you didn't. Funkynusayri 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, this is silly. This is an article on the general concept of Semitic peoples, not some particular sub-grouping, let alone some pet theories on a particular sub-grouping. Argue about the links on relevant pages, not this one. Paul B 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MIstake

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

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

Arabs outnumber Jews

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

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

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

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

The Arabic word for "Semitic" is سامية "saamiyya" - Semitic. I have yet to come across one Arab who claimed that Arabic was not a Semitic language - indeed, the first person to explicitly comment on the relationship of the Semitic languages was an Arabic-speaking Jew in the Middle Ages, and there is an Arabic Wikipedia entry on Semitic. Do you have any evidence for this alleged refusal? Or was it Ethiopians who objected, perhaps? This supposed controversy was formerly mentioned, but no evidence was given for it, so I have removed it. Certainly among linguists it is probably the single best-established language family name after Indo-European. Mustafaa 01:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wetman's point does not hinge on his assumption that the Arabs refuse to include themselves under the term "Semitic". I daresay "Semitic" is uncontroversial, referring to any of the five branches of the linguistic group, and to their speakers. "Anti-Semitic" on the other hand may be controversial, since logically it would mean "against anything Semitic" while in actual use it means "against anything Jewish". So, indeed, it is childish to pretend that, in English, "anti-semitic" does not mean "anti-jewish", although in my opinion the term should be avoided altogether, using the more logical "anti-jewish", "anti-hebrew" etc. (I don't think there's any actual "anti-semitism", since the "Semites" do not have any sort of ethnic unity. Of course anti-judaism is irrational already, but a concept of wholesale "anti-semitism" strikes me as completely and utterly bananas ;-) Dbachmann 16:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


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

Armenians aren't Semitic anyway, and the term's ethnic use is fairly controversial. I suggest looking at Semitic languages for linguistically Semitic groups. - Mustafaa 05:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Armenians are an Aryan People (derived from the True Irano meaning of the word.) (User The Libyan)

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

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

  • Can anyone verify the dramatic changes to this article made by user 68.173.29.113 ? No offence meant, if the changes are justifiable. Jez 00:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A few are, but most aren't. The Ashkenazis are a mixed population, with significant Semitic as well as European ancestry, and the history is frankly confused. - Mustafaa 01:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the history of 68.173.29.113's edits, it's clear he is pushing a POV that is strongly at variance with the facts. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

I've read things claiming that the Beta Israel aren't Semitic. Anyone know anything about this? Gringo300 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since 'Semitic' means 'speaking a language in the Semitic language family', then yes, they most certainly are Semitic, as any reliable source will attest. Perhaps you are confusing them with the Qemant, a group who live near to where they lived in Ethiopia, who claim to be descended from Canaanites, but are non-Semitic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

Semites and Europe

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

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

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

Picture of museum

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

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

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

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

It hasn't been 'hijacked', that's just what it happens to mean. This is not the page for discussion of the word antisemitism. The talk:antisemitism page is. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Good lord....Wikipedia is controlled by the zeitgeist?!?!? Call Ghostbusters!! Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait just a minute the myth of arab collaberation with the nazis is new and false.While the facist were murdering Jews in Europe a similar genocide was going on in Libya, 2.5 million and in Abbissinia about 4 mill. And historical researh has only found a handful of Arabs who helped the Nazis in any way. Most were killed after they were no longer useful.Just as Jews were used to clean out the ovens in the death camps. An antisemite is an antisemite if it't Arabs you hate or Jews you hate.Oldpanther (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NBPP

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

I've no idea whether they said that or not, but there is a long history of people claiming to be the "true" Israelites (descendents of Shem), usually to claim some priveliged ethnic status. It's most notable among white supremacists (British Israelism) generating later counter-claims from black groups. See Black Hebrew Israelites. Paul B (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, these white and black supremacists reject what John the Baptist is said to have taught, about not claiming to be 'privileged' on account of whom they were born from... But seriously, if people would just read the article, 'Semitic' describes foremost, speakers of a language family, and secondly, any other attributes these disparate groups may share. So all of this debate about whether South Americans or whoever else are the 'true semites' is incredibly uninformed, to say the least. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The so-called NBPP or new Black Panther Party is really just an offshoot of that nutcase Farakkan and have NO CONNECTION AT ALL to the real or original Black Panther Party. The Original Black Panther Party would never indorse a silly statement like the one mentioned above, And opposed racism where ever they found it particularly from other Black groups.Oldpanther (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


removed paragraph

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

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


Assyrians

  • Parpola: The Neo-Assyrian kings pursued an active policy of nation building, whereby the citizenship of Assyria was routinely granted to the inhabitants of newly established provinces. As a result of this, by 600 BC the entire vastly expanded country shared the Assyrian identity, which essentially consisted of a common unifying language (Aramaic) and a common religion, culture, and value system. This identity persisted virtually unchanged and was converted into an ethnic identity in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods (600-330 BC). After the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire (130 BC), several semi-independent Mesopotamian kingdoms (Osrhoene, Adiabene, Hatra, Assur) perpetuated Assyrian religious and cultural traditions until the third century AD. From the fourth century on, Christianity has been an essential part of Assyrian identity and has helped preserve it to the present day despite endless persecutions and massacres, which have reduced the present-day Assyrians into dwindling minorities in their home countries. The self-designations of modern Syriacs and Assyrians derive from the Neo-Assyrian word for “Assyrian”, Assūrāyu/Sūrāyu.[3]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Semitic_people/Archive_1&oldid=1137179694"