![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it may be a good idea to make clear, in the text of the article, that this is an historical classification and has no scientific validity. To be clear - by no means am I arguing in favor of deleting the article, as it is important to understand the history of racism. However, I worry that young students will take such an article for scientific consensus. Thank you. Greedyhalibut ( talk) 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Oriental and Orientalid can refer to both Arabid and Iranid, so it should not be here. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
McCullogh, Richard. The Races of Humanity, 2010: this author specifically subdivides Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews into different subraces, Mizrahim - into the Oriental race whereas Sephardim - into the South Mediterranean subrace («South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt), primary element among the Sephardic Jews, common element [circa 20-25%] in Spain, Sicily and southern Italy[...]»). STUTTGART thus lumped them together without any supportive sources.-- SimulacrumDP ( talk) 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
According to Deniker the Spanish Sephardi Jews were mainly of Arabid (not Saharid) type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.36.30 ( talk) 09:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, Oriental can also refer to Iranids by some authors. See Biasutti: http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/ FunkMonk ( talk) 20:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this article to Arabid, since, yet again, Oriental referred to many Eastern types of Caucasoids, not only Arabids. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Arabid.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
I have removed a phrase on Mizrahi Jews being mainly Arabid in type, which was attributed to a self-published webpage by Richard McCulloch. He is not a scientist/authority on human biology. Soupforone ( talk) 12:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
This entire article is a massive shxtshow. It is beyond obvious that no one involved in the creation of this article has a degree in anything, and certainly not anthropology. This debate you're all having about races and "subraces", none of you have any idea at all how genetics works, do you? And your sources, "theapricity.com"? Are you freaking kidding me? Why don't you just cite "Buzzfeed". Between "theapricity.com" and "theracialcompact.com", 8 of the 9 sources for this article HAVE NO REFERENCES (because the only literature supportive of these ideas is more than 80 years old and has been abandoned by the anthropology community for 8 decades). The ideas presented in this article were overwhelmingly abandoned by anthropologists 80 years ago. Any legitimate anthropologist with an actual degree (like me) who reads this article is going to have the exact same reaction I did, "WOW, what a massive shxtshow this article is".
HOW IN THE WORLD does this article qualify as a WikiProject Anthropology article when no legitimate anthropologist with a degree would acknowledge any of the ideas presented in the article?
This article should just be deleted. It is a massive shxtshow relying entire upon uncited ideas derived from a white-supremacist website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F ( talk) 00:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Photomenal: According to WP:PSTS, articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. For his own theories, Coon is a primary source. That's the first problem. Another problem is that you need secondary sources to establish that Coon's 1939 theory is notable enough to be covered in depth in 2021. See also WP:PROFRINGE. The next problem is that based on Coon you can only say, "Coon considered it predominant", but not, "it was considered predominant". Finally, parts of your version still present pseudoscience in the voice of Wikipedia, although there are some improvements compared with your first version. And, please: Always using an edit summary makes things easier for all of us. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Are we going to better understand the development of astronomy by deleting details of "outdated" and "antiquated" Copernican or Galilean models? Will an understanding of the history of philosophy be improved by a similar policy? The affect on the pages devoted to various cultures and religions would be staggering. Knowledge is not merely the bare facts of reality (as we know them today). Perspectives of reality and how knowledge is acquired and organized are also facts of reality and is knowledge. Why delete knowledge from these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.169.205 ( talk) 12:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Error: The "Arabid race" never was anything but pseudo-science. True, it was promoted by anthropologists, but by physical anthropologists. That part of anthropology that is included in Arab studies always had its focus on language and culture. In other words, no scholar of Arab studies would care to measure a Cephalic index. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting you, but I think that if we add this to Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab world, we might as well add Jinns to that category. The Arabid race simply doesn't exist outside the phantasies of some people. And Seligman is - as far as I know - not even important for the Arab world. Category:Stereotypes of Arab people doesn't match either, because of the very limited notability of the concept of the "Arabid race". Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it may be a good idea to make clear, in the text of the article, that this is an historical classification and has no scientific validity. To be clear - by no means am I arguing in favor of deleting the article, as it is important to understand the history of racism. However, I worry that young students will take such an article for scientific consensus. Thank you. Greedyhalibut ( talk) 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Oriental and Orientalid can refer to both Arabid and Iranid, so it should not be here. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
McCullogh, Richard. The Races of Humanity, 2010: this author specifically subdivides Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews into different subraces, Mizrahim - into the Oriental race whereas Sephardim - into the South Mediterranean subrace («South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt), primary element among the Sephardic Jews, common element [circa 20-25%] in Spain, Sicily and southern Italy[...]»). STUTTGART thus lumped them together without any supportive sources.-- SimulacrumDP ( talk) 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
According to Deniker the Spanish Sephardi Jews were mainly of Arabid (not Saharid) type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.36.30 ( talk) 09:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, Oriental can also refer to Iranids by some authors. See Biasutti: http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/ FunkMonk ( talk) 20:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this article to Arabid, since, yet again, Oriental referred to many Eastern types of Caucasoids, not only Arabids. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Arabid.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
I have removed a phrase on Mizrahi Jews being mainly Arabid in type, which was attributed to a self-published webpage by Richard McCulloch. He is not a scientist/authority on human biology. Soupforone ( talk) 12:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
This entire article is a massive shxtshow. It is beyond obvious that no one involved in the creation of this article has a degree in anything, and certainly not anthropology. This debate you're all having about races and "subraces", none of you have any idea at all how genetics works, do you? And your sources, "theapricity.com"? Are you freaking kidding me? Why don't you just cite "Buzzfeed". Between "theapricity.com" and "theracialcompact.com", 8 of the 9 sources for this article HAVE NO REFERENCES (because the only literature supportive of these ideas is more than 80 years old and has been abandoned by the anthropology community for 8 decades). The ideas presented in this article were overwhelmingly abandoned by anthropologists 80 years ago. Any legitimate anthropologist with an actual degree (like me) who reads this article is going to have the exact same reaction I did, "WOW, what a massive shxtshow this article is".
HOW IN THE WORLD does this article qualify as a WikiProject Anthropology article when no legitimate anthropologist with a degree would acknowledge any of the ideas presented in the article?
This article should just be deleted. It is a massive shxtshow relying entire upon uncited ideas derived from a white-supremacist website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F ( talk) 00:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Photomenal: According to WP:PSTS, articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. For his own theories, Coon is a primary source. That's the first problem. Another problem is that you need secondary sources to establish that Coon's 1939 theory is notable enough to be covered in depth in 2021. See also WP:PROFRINGE. The next problem is that based on Coon you can only say, "Coon considered it predominant", but not, "it was considered predominant". Finally, parts of your version still present pseudoscience in the voice of Wikipedia, although there are some improvements compared with your first version. And, please: Always using an edit summary makes things easier for all of us. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Are we going to better understand the development of astronomy by deleting details of "outdated" and "antiquated" Copernican or Galilean models? Will an understanding of the history of philosophy be improved by a similar policy? The affect on the pages devoted to various cultures and religions would be staggering. Knowledge is not merely the bare facts of reality (as we know them today). Perspectives of reality and how knowledge is acquired and organized are also facts of reality and is knowledge. Why delete knowledge from these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.169.205 ( talk) 12:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Error: The "Arabid race" never was anything but pseudo-science. True, it was promoted by anthropologists, but by physical anthropologists. That part of anthropology that is included in Arab studies always had its focus on language and culture. In other words, no scholar of Arab studies would care to measure a Cephalic index. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting you, but I think that if we add this to Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab world, we might as well add Jinns to that category. The Arabid race simply doesn't exist outside the phantasies of some people. And Seligman is - as far as I know - not even important for the Arab world. Category:Stereotypes of Arab people doesn't match either, because of the very limited notability of the concept of the "Arabid race". Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)