Talk:Armenoid race

message: Shouldn't this article be renamed? Shouldn't it be called "Armenoid race" for the sake of consistency?
217.236.197.21 (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. Most others use this convention. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: Just what I like to read, an entire page going deep into how white a race is, comparing them to "darker" races, and how much blonde hair and blue eyes they have, and of course we need pictures!
Oh the whitey goodness!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.190.39 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is a description of the ethnic group / race a cause for concern? 24.131.27.231 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just maybe Stormfront gets its information from the same sources as this article? The retards there are hardly able to come up with anything new in this field. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This looks like an article from stormfront.org 

message: An IP and a Iraqi Christian user obsessively adding some absurd personal opinions to the article despite there are cite errors and other problems with the sources. Someone must control the page. Lamedumal (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Semitic speakers have Armenoid skulls, particularly Levantines, Syriacs and Jews. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? Only the Ashkenazi Jews are tend to show brachycephalic skull and it is because of they are mixed with Central Europeans such as Hungarians vica versa. So what now? Does it mean that I can add the Jews to the Alpinid race or something? Still most of Jews seems like Semitid. There are always exceptations but we do not take them account. Levantines, Iraqis, Mesopotamians etc have nothing to do with Armenians. The only races that similar to the Armenoid are the Pamirid, Dinarid and Alpinid(particularly Pamirid). Anthropology is clear. Lamedumal (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing as a "Semitid". Read the actual sources instead of nationalist websites, "Armenoids" are found among Semites as well as non-Semitic speakers. The term "Semite" has nothing to do with race or physical features, not even ethnicity. It is merely linguistic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me one scholarly source that uses the term "Semitid" Seems to be a term invented on Internet fora. As for the Armenoid type, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, only physical features. See for example the Lebanese Armenoid pictured in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

text: No, "Semitid" is made up by laymen on internet fora, and does not mean anything at all in the real world. And no, Armenoid is simply one of several physical types found throughout the Middle East, it is prevalent among Armenians, but it is not exclusive to them. This is what the sources say, and there is no way we can interpret this to our own personal preferences. You seem to have some weird, nationalist agenda. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Coon on Armenoids, the last word should be the sources, not some Armenoid nationalists with an obscure agenda. Ripley and Coon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-Pushing Despite the Information's Ridiculousness and "CITE ERRORS" 

message: This article is based on racialist pseudoscience from before WW2. It is representing the statements of pseudoscientists with no expertise in the study of humans such as Ripley as fact, without noting that no respectable scientists today would consider this kind of racial typology to have any validity whatsoever. The article probably will need to be stubbed, since it will be very difficult to write a reasonable article about this topic, which onlu existed briefly in the minds of some pseudoscientists and today flourishes in neo-racist circles, at Stormfront.org and metapedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a popular assertion among American social scientists, some of whom want to pretend theirs is the only view. However, looking at genetic charts, we see there is indeed a Armenoid cluster, composed of Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Georgians and Iranians. 211.200.178.175 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is Original Research. Go publish it. No one should be surprised that neighboring populations with long histories in the same area share genetic markers. But the racial typology of Ripley and Coon was not based on genetic markers. It was a crude typology based on a few phenotypical traits. In any case the article needs to take the perspective that is most "popular" among contemporary social scientists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny how genetic clusters match phenotypic clusters isn't it? Almost as if American social scientists are full of shit. 211.200.178.175 (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly funny, no, since they both epiphenomenal to the geographic population clusters that cause them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know that there are "geographic population clusters" (races) because sets of correlated variation demonstrate shared ancestry? If not how? 203.226.201.22 (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armenoid race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511091339/http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/ to http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ RPSM (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's no scientific basis for race - it's a made up label 

message: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-september-17-2017-1.4291332/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-white-race-or-any-other-race-says-historian-1.4291372 RPSM (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such thing as the white race or any other race 

message: RPSM (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article (as well as articles on other "races" following outdated and outmoded racial theories? 

message: The very large amount of variation within groups dwarfs the small differences between groups, therefore race in humans does not have a biological meaning.
Read more: RPSM (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Race" has no meaning 

message: https://www.wired.com/2010/03/genome-at-10/
[https://www.wired.com/2010/03/genome-at-10/10 Years on, The Genome Revolution Is Only Just Beginning RPSM (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human genome revolution 

message: RPSM (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  '' The Nation'' Edward Burila ' ' Scientific Racism isn' t 'Back' It Never Went Away 

message: AAA Statement on Race RPSM (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAA Statement on Race 

message: RPSM (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franz Boas introduced a new way of thinking about race 

message: I have fixed some clear source falsifications by user Խալդի. Editors watching this page should double check the references and the contents added by this user. 176.41.91.255 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive edits by User:Խալդի 

message: Especially in terms of references to ethnicities, countries, and regions in the cited literature. If a statement in the article cannot be easily deduced by simply reading the cited literature than it does not belong here. Typo56 (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if a statement is attributed to Coon, it should reflect what reflect what Coon actually wrote. Even obsolete fringe deserves to be cited correctly. –Austronesier (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of false POV-pushing edits 

message: Do we really need mugshot illustrations here when then the entire concept that lies behind the topic is pseudoscientific? Including these pictures here comes close to giving the concept some sort of credibility. Austronesier (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right and just removed them. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete mugshots