Talk:Aquiline nose

message: Aquiline nose redirects here, but I always heard "aquiline" features to mean very fine, sharp, but not potruding (i.e. not hooknose, roman nose), like "aquiline cheekbones" to be high cheekbones. Though I suppose the etymology of beaklike takes over. Nagelfar 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquiline 

message: It would be great for this article to include some mention of the cultural effects and/or influences of the aquiline nose. For example, how had the "Roman nose" come out in art/literature, etc, and how has the Roman nose been used as a tool of prejudice in culture? I was reminded of this topic by a brief discussion of roman noses on "The View".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.212.225 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Roman Nose" implies that the nose is better. There has never been negative prejudice surrounding the aquiline nose. The aquiline nose has been associated with strong will, strong mind, and strong spirit--like the bald eagle and President Washington. The aquiline nose is an aristocratic nose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.146.251 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roman Nose" and prejudice 

message: I restored the old version because the redirect messed up several articles. This article is a stub of a main article.
--Root Beers 11:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Old Version. 

message: You're going to put Roman Hook Nose and not Jewish hook nose. Suppression of information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.235.251 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman hook nose 

message: "Of Native Americans, he wrote that they were "marked by a brown complexion; long, black, lank hair; and deficient beard. The eyes are black and deep set, the brow low, the cheekbones high, the nose large and aquiline, the mouth large, and the lips tumid and compressed". Other ethnic groups said to have aquiline noses were the Shagia (Africa), the Abipones (South America), and the Kabbabish (Africa)."
"Other ethnic groups" doesn't make sense - First, it implies that Native Americans are in themselves a single ethnic group, and second, it implies that the Abipones aren't Native Americans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.218.34 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't make sense 

message: I am finding, of late, wikipedia has a habit of unnecessarily disturbing images in its articles.
Why do I need to see a dead body just to understand a nose, people?
There's a second picture that illustrates it properly, without the Nightmare Fuel.
I would fix it myself but 1) I don't know how and 2) I don't want to keep looking at it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.212.69 (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello. you are totally wrong with your statement. The authentic mummy of the pharaoh Ramesses II is a GREAT example of an aquiline "Roman" nose, which is sometimes referred to as a Semitic nose (when the tip is slightly arched or when the nose is really convex). Why is the mummy a great example? Because it proves the theory that the Ancient Egyptians had hook-noses just like Jews, and this shows us that the ancient Egyptians were not Black Africans but Semitic Africans, only with some Black-African features. The mummy is an scientific material for Egyptology. If you are a little child and do not want to look at it, than just don't. 78.8.180.41 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's almost a worse reason for its inclusion then the suggested reason for removing it. We don't add images to articles to prove a point.Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The noses of mummies have been deformed by the fabric used to wrap them.  The nose becomes fragile after death and morticians take care, to this day, not to let anything compress the tissue, such as a sheet placed over the head and body.  It is highly doubtful that living Pharaohs had noses of this shape.Longinus876 (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbing Images 

message: The page Roman nose redirects here, but AFAIK the term "Aquiline nose" is only for humans. I know that the term "Roman nosed" is commonly used in animal conformation to describe an animal with a convex muzzle. The term is "roman nose", not "aquiline nose" for horses, goats, dogs and other animals. —Vandraedha (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed page move to Roman nose 

message: In case you hit a paywall:
Full Definition of HOOKNOSE :  an aquiline nose 
--NeilN talk to me 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hook nose cite 

message: I think that one of the biggest stereotypes about Jews is a big aquiline nose. This stereotype was not made up by the German-Nazi soldiers or by Adolf Hitler, it was however present among all the nations where the Jews lived. No matter if Ashkenazic, Sephardic or Oriental - all of the Jews were said to have a hook-nose. This racist stereotype should be stressed as being the most characteristic and popular when it comes to Jews. Nonetheless, aquiline noses are also said to be present among Arabs, Persians, Indians, Armenians, North African Berbers and Native Americans (especially Cheyenne and Cherokee). The article aquiline nose should be also edited in terms of Jewish stereotypes and the rhinoplasty popular especially among the Middle-Eastern ethnic groups. 78.9.133.139 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquiline nose is a stereotypical feature of Semitic peoples and other Middle-Easterners 

message: I read on a blog that the dorsal hump on the aquiline nose is nowadays the number one reason given to get a nosejob. Can this be verified? And any ideas why aquiline noses have become an unattractive feature lately? It is known by doctors that aquiline noses are actually a symptom of craniofacial disorders such as Crouzon syndrome and Apert syndrome. 72.53.106.158 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nosejobs

message: The final section on "Nordic" peoples uses, as references, Madison Grant and William Z. Ripley, a lawyer and economist respectively, whose Wikipedia pages note that they were eugenicists engaged in what is now recognised as racist pseudo-science, publishing between 1900 and 1930 in America, a country that was notably racist and even anti-semitic (e.g. Charles Lindbergh) at that time. Likewise references to Jan Czekanowski, publishing in Europe in 1934 about different classes of Jews, is also highly suspect, as is Carlton Coon in 1939. The individual Wikipedia pages for the different "races" listed such as Armenoid and Mediterranean all claim such classifications are no longer used. It's 2015, we've studied the human Genome, I'd expect classifications supported by DNA evidence, not 80-100 year old research based on ad-hoc categorisations and a knowledge of history which by today's standard's is incomplete.
If this page weren't locked I'd eliminate the nordic section entirely as WP:NOTRS, and either eliminate the rest of the race discussion, or else put it in context as a feature of WP:BIASED authors' historical and now unused methods of race classification unsupported by DNA or a modern understanding of history.
The comments on this talk page are also pretty suspect: here are a few
* "Roman Nose" implies that the nose is better. There has never been negative prejudice surrounding the aquiline nose. The aquiline nose has been associated with strong will, strong mind, and strong spirit--like the bald eagle and President Washington
* I removed the picture of the girl. She is not German, probably iranian ... Its a great example of a hooknose, but not very much of a roman nose - I challenge anyone to nominate a precise metric, measured in degrees of the angle at the bridge, or radius of its curve, that reliably distinguishes an "aquiline" from a "hook" nose, and then further to provide a reference to support it. The only thing truly distinguishing the two is POV bias
* German Jews do not have aquiline noses. German Jews have distinctly different noses
* You might be not aware of it, but in the past, in ancient Rome, Greece, Spain, and North Africa the factor of male attractiveness was an aquiline nose, while a woman shall have a short straight nose. That's why you won't find a statue or a painting of a woman with an aquiline nose, well, maybe a Romani/Gypsy woman, not a European.  What is it about gypsies that makes them so less fussy than the "Europeans". What is a "European" anyway?
* The typical nordic nose looks like this [followed by two photos of Nazi propaganda].
Feenaboccles (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't notice that this is "outdated gibberish" is in the section titled "In racialist discourse". At the same time I agree that not everybody would understand that "racialist" is "outdated gibberish" or at least pay attention to the title, esp. in a lengthy, subdivided, section. Therefore I would suggest that the corresponding text must prominently and repeatedly state that these views are no longer considered scientifically sound. -M.Altenmann >t 15:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Pseudo-Scientific Gibberish 

message: Can we add this image to the article? As Árpáds nose seem to be aquiline/arched/hooked.
:: I guess no, because if we would put it in the article like that, we had to restore [gallery of aquiline noses] again. To me the most ancient occurrence of an aquiline nose like the mummy of pharaoh Ramesses II, or the picture of a Native American warrior "Roman Nose" named after the shape of his nose, would be enough.
:: Anyway, the current version of the article is filled with some non-scientific data. The only information that should be preserved is those provided from the anthropological books written by anthropologists, of historical data. Racial theorists like Ripley are no reliable. Moreover, it's a scandal that some fiction characters from books are mentioned here. Too much unnneccessary or fake data, too few realistic information. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Árpád, the Grand Prince of the Hungarians 

message: I added an NPOV tag to the section on distribution. It seems like this section should be reflecting scientific literature on the geographical distribution of aquiline noses, not the outdated and unsubstantiated views of long deceased "racial scientists." 140.180.243.123 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite. Jan Czekanowski was and still is one of the most prominent figures on the racial anthropology field. What do you mean by "racial scientists"? Czekanowski was a physical anthropologist who travelled all across the world to measure, compare and document the differences in human body types. The section is OK, beside the so-called "racial-theorist" by the name of William Z. Ripley, who was not an anthropologist at all, who was an economist fascinated in theories, and who therefore cannot be taken seriously. 217.172.246.145 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The article itself tries to prove a false statement, that the aquiline nose has nothing to do with Jews (Semites) and North Africans in general. They even deleted the pharaoh Ramesses II mummy image! The information about the connection between the hook nose and the Teutonic race are pseudoscientific gibberish based on fantasy books as well as some economist's and traveller's private views. How come this be present on Wikipedia? It's unencyclopedic. Therefore I deleted the non-scientific sentences and added 2 authentic pictures of pharaohs Ramesses and Seti mummies in the "Among populations in North Africa" section. Thank you. 217.172.247.49 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is biased - It tries to prove a false point 

message: "An aquiline nose (also called a Roman nose or hook nose) is a human nose with a prominent bridge, giving it the appearance of being curved or slightly bent. The word aquiline comes from the Latin word aquilinus ("eagle-like"), an allusion to the curved beak of an eagle.[1][2][3]"
Can someone explain to me why a Spanish-English dictionary (1) is listed as a source for this passage, and why the other two works were deemed pertinent sources for the existence and/or description of the aquiline nose?
"While some have ascribed the aquiline nose to specific ethnic, racial, or geographic groups, and in some cases associated it with other supposed non-physical characteristics (e.g., intelligence, status, personality, etc., see below), no scientific studies or evidence support any such linkage. As with many other phenotypical expressions (e.g., "widow's peak", eye color, earwax type) it is found in many geographically diverse populations."
1. "Some" have ascribed, and in "some" cases associated? Who, and in which cases, pray tell? No source provided.
2. I'm not sure why it is necessary to inform the reader about what "some" people may or may not incorrectly believe about a particular topic, but status is incorrectly included among examples of non-physical characteristics.
Status is not an individual aspect; it is not internal, but external. Status does not exist within the individual, but within the eye of the beholder. It is absurd to state that an aquiline nose has not been linked with status, in the past and to this day. No source provided.
3. The author asserts implicitly that the expression of the aquiline nose occurs with equal frequency among all racial groups/genotypes, which is demonstrably false. That which the author claims "some" have ascribed to specific groups is nothing more or less than reality. This characteristic is found with much greater frequency among some groups, and much lower frequency, or not at all, among others.
The following section, 'Distribution' is illegitimate as well: "...it is generally associated with and thought to be more frequent..." . It's not associated with or more frequent, but "thought to be". What is that supposed to mean? And thought to be by whom?
It would not matter if a subject appears to be somewhat more accurately treated of at another point in an article. Incorrect or erroneously equivocal information is worthless and can only serve to confuse--whether unintentionally or otherwise. Again, no sources provided.
This entire introduction is ridiculous, and should be removed if Wikipedia is to have any pretense to the adherence of its stated principles. I am of course open to any argument as to why my criticisms are illegitimate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF09:D00:ECAD:3F44:27CE:1A0F (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an example as to why Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Just as there is an article for this nose, there should also be an article for the upturned nose, which is another form of nose, perhaps the most common in the world. Hastengeims (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article is better than it used to be, which is a relief, but Czekanowski's terribly-outdated theories are still given as a reasonable outlook on the matter ("Some writers in the field of racial typology have attributed..."). Severe edits have consistently been reverted (including my own, which was, I admit, too much too quickly). Does this article really need to exist? Jmauer7 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited and removed Czekanowski's theories on distribution. Jmauer7 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about the history of these ideas which is relevant. However, I can come to an agreement about the removal of certain references like Czekanowski, just don't clear out what is more than appropriate for this article. It is constantly having information cleared because of modern sensibilities, but the origins of these classifications are more than acceptable for this page in my opinion. Keyboard Editor (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-Science persists