See, this is precisely what I am talking about. Actual scholars who cover the topic are well aware that Japheth is mentioned and discuss this fact as may teadily be verified to the satisfaction of any reasonable person bothering to look up secondary sources like the one I just spoon fed you there. But evidently admitting that the texts really do mention "Japheth" and yes this really is of interest to scholarship, doesn't sit well with your alternate reality perhaps? But rather than quietly removing facts you are uncomfortable with for whatever reason, it was noticed, more eyes are needed to what's going on here, therefore it seems more opinions will be needed to establish consensus instead of a solitary editor claiming to be the sole authority over the published scholars