Talk:Japhetites

message: For no other son of Noah is this considered so lets not confuse people
Who cares? :/  ---kim
Arabs are Caucasians and they are Shemitic, Shem is the father of Caucasians, Japheth of Mongolians, and Ham of Negroids and Australoids. 71.89.6.90 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japhet = white people 

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

message: The article throws in stories about the traditions surrounding the origins of the Aryans and Georgians without any indication that those stories are have, or are even supposed to have, anything to do with Japheth or his children. Can someone fill in the missing piece? Otherwise I'll remove the material. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means remove it. This article is riddled with dubious claims and (mis)associations often as not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or romantic notions of racial/national origin. In my thankfully limited experience, however, any such edit will probably provoke a response by those who actually believe all this to be gospel truth. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the very conversation that all of our policies are meant to avoid.  We aren't supposed to be commenting or passing judgement on anyone else's preferred belief system here, one way or the other.   We ARE supposed to discuss what sources there are that mention the article subject.  It isn't a question of what you think people "ought" to believe, Enaidmawr.  If it can be sourced to an outside reference and it is on topic, it can be mentioned neutrally in the article, regardless of what your or my personal take on it might be. Simple as that. 70.105.34.221 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, this is a talk page not an article. I'm free to express an opinion and comment, particularly if it is relevant to the subject matter, which it is. And I'll stand by what I say above. This - and related articles - has a long history of unencyclopedic material being added, often unsourced and of doubtful relevance. Fringe theories, which would include the belief that European peoples are descended from Japhet, should be treated as such: that too is a fundamental Wikipedia policy central to its credibility. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are limits to what you can use a talkpage for, and there are policies such that, if it is your personal opinion that your neighbour's belief system is a "fringe theory", that you take it elsewhere. You don't get appointed to decide which religions you consider to be "fringe" just because you don;t subscribe to them. 70.105.34.221 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And exactly which religion do I consider to be "fringe"? I said nothing of the sort. If you are referring to Christianity then I would suggest that there are few modern Christians other than some Bible fundamentalists who believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken at face value, such as the legend of Japhet. And you yourself are here expressing your personal opinion, to which you are entitled. And if you don't believe that 'the belief that European peoples are descended from Japhet' is fringe theory, that's up to you, you are welcome to believe that but it remains a fringe theory for the simple reason that it is not accepted by the vast majority of scholars, any more than the Flat Earth theory is: see WP:FRINGE. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems that you have unilaterally declared belief in the Bible "fringe".  That ain't your call, buddy.  If you claim that Wikipedia has somehow "determined" that it is "fringe", cut the crap and show where. 70.105.34.221 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what I've clearly explained, several times, about the Japhetic theory - not the Bible itself, which has been and still is read and interpreted in any number of ways, by Christians and others - seems to be matched only by your incivility. Anyway, believe what you will, think what you will: you won't win many converts by using coarse language and insults, thank God. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of this discussion with you, Anon. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

message: In a historical context, there is no such thing as "Turk". The original Turk is related to the Altaic-Mongolian peoples, closely associated as east Asians, not Caucasians. Some of today's Turks in Turkey may look Caucasian, even "European" but they also look East Asian, Arab, Persian, Kurd and whatever else people they came across along the way from their original homeland - meaning that today's Turks are as a result of centuries of forced assimilation since they migrated and invaded from central Asia to Anatolia. The Turks being a mixed people are unworthy of any racial study from a historical perspective, and any "writers" in relatively modern times attempting to place them within a biblical historic context are obviously not informed of the realities and history of Turkic people, in short, such references are unreliable and dubious. Furthermore, before about 1000 years ago, there were no "Turks" (Turkic tribes) in the regions of the Caucasus to the Balkans, as they were starting to newly arrive. For this article, and anything else Biblically associated, TURKS = IRRELEVANT. 99.7.123.116 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was also raised at Talk:Togarmah and I responded there. That may be the best place to discuss this since mention of "Turks" under Gomer in this article derives from the traditions of Turk descent from Togarmah s. Gomer. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "TURKS" - Give Me A Break 

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

message: Fist paragraph: "Japhetite (in adjective form Japhethitic or Japhetic) in Abrahamic religions is an obsolete historical Biblical terminology for race coined in 18th century"
Second paragraph: "In medieval ethnography, the world was believed to have been divided into three large-scale racial groupings, corresponding to the three classical continents: the Semitic peoples of Asia, the Hamitic peoples of Africa and the Japhetic peoples of Europe. "
Was it coined in the 18th century or was it already in use in medieval ethnography? 😂 96.242.144.8 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradiction