Talk:Arabid race

Historical Classification
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)
 * I have made it clear that the term is antiquated and not in use anymore, but Maciamo keeps reverting my edits for some reason. His gallery of Arabids is also original research, since they have not been classified by scholars, but by himself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 10 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)


 * This more exact name because not only Arabs belong to this race, but also Jews.  STUTTGART (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding the typology. Just because a type (Arabid) is named after an ethnicity (Arab) does not mean that all members of the ethnicity belong to the type, or that other ethnicities can't belong to it. The name is irrelevant to the included ethnicities, but the type can be prevalent in some ethnicities (like Arabid is prevalent among South Arabs). No ethnicity are of a single type.


 * When these ideas where in fashion, Arabid and Iranid were thought to both be subtypes of the Orientalid. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html 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)
 * The "author" you're citing is a blogger who didn't source his material. His opinion is about as useful as my cat's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (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)
 * Deniker has been dead for more than a century. His views on race are beyond irrelevant. Try citing Deniker in an academic paper and see what grade you receive. Citing Deniker is like citing a 19th century physician who claims the best treatment for consumption (TB) is to move to a dry environment. Yup, maybe that was the best treatment a century and a half ago. A lot of advancements have been made since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oriental type → Mediterranean branch → Caucasian race!!!  STUTTGART (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect, read your own sources: South Mediterranean subrace (Saharid) is a separate subrace, just like Oriental.--SimulacrumDP (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2010 (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)

Moved to Arabid
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)
 * Dbachmann moved it back for some reason. I have already explained here why it should be at Arabid. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mizrahi
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)
 * So what? He was right. Mizrahi Jews are mostly of Oriental type, with some Mediterranean and Armenoid admixtures. They all have hook-noses. 78.8.172.63 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This article should be deleted
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) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article will probably not be deleted since the topic is notable, however we would welcome it if you were to rewrite this article from scratch using scholarly sources. Feel free to write to me if you need assistance. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's the entire article- "Arabid race is a historical term once used by eugenicists during the infancy of anthropology, as anthropology was emerging as a field of genuine scientific study. The term has not been used in the academic study of anthropology since the 1960's, and the ideas the term represents were overwhelmingly abandoned by anthropologists at the same time."
 * That's extent of this article's relevance. And the terms "caucasoid" and "negroid" and all the other "oid" terms, if you use those terms in a paper submitted for peer-review, it would pretty much be the end of your career as an anthropologist, because no matter what you did afterward, every anthropologist on the planet would have a copy of the paper in which you used that ridiculously antiquated, eugenicist terminology, in which you've made a laughing stock of yourself, and no one's going to take you seriously ever again. If you were to use that terminology in an academic paper submitted for a class, the instructor would sit you down and say, "listen, we need to have a talk", as he tried to hold back his laughter.
 * The ideas of "race" represented in this article have no relevance in anthropology. I have a Bachelor of Science in anthropology with minors in Archaeology and GIS. I've been around the world the world on archaeology digs and have contributed to numerous articles which have been submitted for peer-review. Prior to reading about it on Wikipedia a few days ago, I had never even heard term "sub-race" before. This is not a legitimate term in anthropology. This is not a legitimate idea in anthropology. This is not a legitimate anything in anthropology. It doesn't exist in actual academic, scientific anthropology.
 * The idea of trying to categorize humans based upon perceived phenotypic characteristics has been abandoned by the anthropology community for more than half a century, especially with the advent of modern genetic analysis. The reason for this is simple Mendelian genetics. I can't explain to you how Mendelian genetics work in the talk section of this article. It's literally an entire semester's worth of material. But overwhelmingly, phenotypic typology has been abandoned by anthropology because as demonstrated clearly with simple Mendelian genetics, every combination of every pairing of alleles is going to manifest with 100% likelihood, 50% likelihood twice, and 25% likelihood. This is why siblings have different hair colors. This is why siblings have different eye colors. This is why one sibling may have a larger nose while the other has a smaller nose. This is what makes attempted phenotypic classification based upon perceived physical traits completely irrelevant in anthropology.  There's no science behind it. And now, with the advent of modern genetic analysis, attempted phenotypic categorization based upon visually perceived manifestations of alleles, is a joke. It's beyond a joke. It's idiocy, and the only people doing this, on all these websites, are idiotic armchair "anthropologists" who have no degree in anthropology, no background in anthropology beyond what they've read on Wikipedia, and who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
 * The point is, the only relevance of this article to actual modern anthropology, is that the term "Arabid race" was once used in the infancy of scientific anthropology, but hasn't been used in 70 or 80 years, and has no relevance to modern scientific anthropology. It's like this, if you were going to write an article about the antiquated medical term "consumption", what would you write about it? Tuberculosis was once called "consumption", back before the advent of modern medicine, when people believed that the cure for tuberculosis/consumption was moving to a drier climate. Other than that, the term "consumption" has no relevance in modern medicine. This is what the term "Arabid race". Except that "Arabid race" is way less relevant than "consumption" because far less people were familiar with the term. It's nothing. It's a footnote to a footnote to a footnote in the history of the infancy of modern scientific anthropology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLYT!!!! Have you actually looked at the two remaining papers cited in this article? One of the papers dates to 1974, and the other one, which claims to be dated to 2017, was actually written in 1913. The entire second paragraph of what's left of this article references a paper WRITTEN IN 1913!!!!! This is what Wikipedia is? The first sentence of this article relies on a paper written almost half a century ago, and the entire remainder of this article relies on a paper written ONE-HUNDRED AND SEVEN YEARS AGO. There's nothing in this article that's of any relevance to anthropology AT ALL.
 * This article is a prime example of why instructors steer students so adamantly away from Wikipedia. "But teacher, Wikipedia says this is modern information dated to 2017." "No Billy, the reference on Wikipedia is dated incorrectly. You've just wasted your time learning about what people believed in the early 1900's. Unfortunately, that information has no relevance in this era. Please Billy, never use Wikipedia again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to allow the two remaining sections of this article to remain intact, then you need to include disclaimers so that students referencing this material don't face disciplinary action at their schools. If you remove those two sections, then what? The article is empty. As I said before, this article should simply be deleted instead of presenting ideas which have been outmoded for half a century and more than a century and which, if used by students, are going to get those students into trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F1C3:B77B:3FAB:CE2F (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the type of preface that you are trying to leave is inappropriate for our articles. The article already states that it is a historical term.
 * OK, and explain to me how the term "biological anthropology" is included in this article? The first reference cites a biologist with NO background in anthropology, and the second reference cites an ethnologist. Neither man ever made any claim to being an anthropologist. WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE CLAIM TO BE ABOUT AN HISTORIC ANTHROPOLOGICAL TERM, BUT NEITHER OF THE TWO RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED REMAINING SOURCES CITED HAVE EVER CLAIMED TO BE ANTHROPOLOGISTS? I'll ask it again, HOW DOES THIS ARTICLE QUALIFY AS A "WIKIPROJECT ANTHROPOLOGY" ARTICLE WHEN NONE OF THE IDEAS PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANTHROPOLOGY, AND THE TWO SOURCES CITED REFERENCE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ANTHROPOLOGISTS????????? What in the living GOODNESS does this article have to do with anthropology???? The only two sources cited date from 50 years ago and a century ago, and one of the sources was a BIOLOGIST and the other was an EARLY 20TH CENTURY ETHNOLOGIST??????? HOW DOES THIS ARTICLE QUALIFY AS A WIKIPROJECT ANTHROPOLOGY ARTICLE???????? Seriously, does anyone contributing to Wikipedia article even have a high school diploma? THIS ARTICLE ONLY HAS 2 SOURCES, BOTH RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED, AND NEITHER OF THEM WAS AN ANTHROPOLOGIST. Are you all smoking crack cocaine? I've seen some shxtshow articles on Wikipedia before, but AS SOMEONE WITH AN ACTUAL DEGREE IN ANTHROPOLOGY, this has to be the WORST article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. THE ARTICLE HAS ONLY 2 SOURCES, BOTH RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED, AND NEITHER SOURCE WAS AN ANTHROPOLOGIST. HOW DOES THIS ARTICLE QUALIFY AS A WIKIPROJECT ANTHROPOLOGY ARTICLE???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:A00C:D94C:C311:DE13 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Coon is a primary source
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)
 * Yeah, my man, I'm not a professional Wikipedia editor. 18 months before I even created a Wikipedia account, I got 90% of this article deleted, and then rewrote the remaining article according to what Wikipedia demanded be left-in. Don't complain to me. Prior to me editing this article, it was 1,000 words of Nazi propaganda. I'm the one who got all of that deleted and then rewrote the article based upon what the Wikipedia admins required stay in the article. My repeated request to the Wikipedia admins was that this article simply be deleted. So, don't complain to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 03:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Lost Information
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)
 * Because it wasn't "knowledge". It was overt racism derived from white supremacist websites. Calling someone a "hook-nose Jew" is is not "knowledge". What an idiotic question.

Arab studies
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)
 * According to the article Arab studies, it also covers "colonial history", "definitions of identity, based on anthropology". Doesn't the concept of "Arabid race" enter into these fields of study? --Error (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Arab studies and also at Charles Gabriel Seligman, the only scholar mentioned in this article. Seligman had no special interest in Arabs, and I didn't find any hint that European attitudes towards Arabs in colonial times were influenced by the concept of an "Arabid race". Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 5 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)
 * If it is notable enough to have an article, it should be in the appropriate categories. If it is a race, it should go into "ethnic groups". If it is a perception by some authors, it is a stereotype. Which category under Category:Arab do you think this article should go under? Semitic people is categorized under Semitic-speaking peoples, Historical definitions of race, Islam and Judaism , Shem. The equivalent for Arabid race would be Arab or perhaps Semitic-speaking peoples. This article is not clear whether Jews were considered as part of the Arabid race. --Error (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that it should be in the appropriate categories and I thank you for the effort you are making in improving our category system. But: It is no race, but a historical race concept. These concepts were developed by scientists since the late 18th century (see Blumenbach) and have been completely debunked by scientists in the second half of the 20th century. Some proponents of these concepts simply wanted to improve their understanding of the human biology by systematically dividing humankind into biologically distinguishable groups. Other proponents (and they are the only ones that continue to exist today) were searching for pretexts to enslave, colonize or exploit the perceived "other" and / or inferior "races". These historical concepts have nothing to do with the modern American usage of "race", which is based on how you self-identify or are identified by others. Since the concept was developed by scientists (based on measurements of the skull and bones, see e.g. Cephalic index), it is no sterotype. When I spoke of "limited notability", I meant that the notability is limited to the history of anthropology. I don't know of any notable connection with (real) Arabs or even the Western conception of Arabs. In short: Category:Historical definitions of race is sufficient. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, but the American concept of race seems to me a direct evolution of 19th century concepts of race. Anyway, race in America is little related to this article.
 * Isn't it a stereotype that Arabs have such and such anthropometric features? According to Category:Stereotypes of Arab people (unusually it has references), "over-generalized beliefs about a particular category of people.[1] They are an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.[2]" I understand that proponents of that racial classification had expectations that Arabs have the appearance described as "Arabid race". That they were made by scientists make them no less stereotypes. It may make them more precise, but a precise stereotype is still a stereotype.
 * I don't understand how you can't see a connection worthy of mention of "Arabid race" with the view that those scientists had on real Arabs. How else did they classify Arabs when the set out to classify mankind? I still think that this article has to be categorized somewhere under Category:Arab. --Error (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we can put this article into categories that are not supported by its content. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove images from all language editions of this page?
My recent edit was undone by @Rsk6400 since this article is about the existence of a pseudo-scientific concept. I'm not against the idea that "evidence" used in pseudo-scientific racial characterizations should not be perpetuated, but I was only copying the image from one of the other language versions, a common quick edit to make. If this is the consensus, should we simply remove such images from all language versions? Niashervin (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That's what I'd like to suggest, but I think it's pretty hopeless if you don't know the language. There are still some people around who believe in the existence of races in a biological sense. From the Hungarian article about the Arabid race: "Women are mostly beautiful when young, some of them get fat early, but this is rarer for Bedouin women than for city dwellers." People who write such nonsense are normally not convinced easily by scientific research. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)