According to Eric Cline (1177 BC), the Shekelesh and Sherden, two of the Sea people groups mentioned in Egyptian writings, likely came from Sicily and Sardinia respectively. The Peleset, who would end up settling in modern day Palestine and Israel, are assumed to be the biblical Philistines. Linguistic and archeological evidence points to an origin in the Mycenaean Greek culture zone.
The Denyen are hypothesized to be Homer's "Danaans", referring to the Mycenaeans.
What consensus is there on this topic in general today? Any new revelations or theories as of late?
What consensus is there on this topic in general today?
The consensus, such as it is, is dealt with pretty well by Eric Cline in his book. (You can also check out the AMA he did.) His book is essentially an update to Robert Drews's The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC (1993), if you want to get an idea of how scholarship has progressed over the course of twenty years. (As an aside, "Sea Peoples" is not a term used by the Egyptian sources themselves, and suggests a unity to this disparate group of peoples that is misleading, as Cline also writes on p. 1; see also Drews's book, pp. 48ff.)
But debates are obviously ongoing and unlikely to get settled in any definitive sense without further discoveries. It's always difficult/problematic to identity ancient peoples (or places) based on how their names – in Egyptian sources, in this case – look sort of similar to names from later times. I assume this is what you mean with "linguistic" evidence, since there's no record of the languages that any of these peoples spoke (the Egyptians refer to people from the north, etc., but that's it).
For example, the Ekwesh (or Eqwesh) mentioned in Egyptian sources have been equated with "Achaeans" (one of the terms used by Homer to denote the Greeks in general), and from this then follows that Ekwesh = Mycenaeans. But the fact that the Ekwesh are specifically mentioned as lacking foreskins (see the transcription in Cline's book, p. 7) would argue against this interpretation, since as far as we know (and can tell from Aegean iconography), Mycenaeans weren't circumcised.
Then there are the Peleset (= Philistines), a name that isn't easily linked to anything from the Aegean, who seem (!) to be associated with Mycenaean pottery in their Levantine settlements (cf. Cline's book, p. 157), and so -- the argument goes -- may have come from the Aegean. But associating "pots with people" is a perennial problem in archaeology, because material culture cannot be connected simply with ethnic identity.