Talk:Armenoid race

Untitled

Individuals of Jewish decent are known as having Armenoid features. These features involve distinctive characteristics and are associated with a particular region (Syria, Israel, Armenia). Not all people of Jewish decent have these features but a good proportion do, similarly not all individuals who have Armenoid features are Jewish (Allport,1954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.113.222 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this term by any chance have any relationship to the Armenians? Gringo300 2 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

I am thinking the same thing, I bet it does. I am reading a book on Armenian history and in it the Hurrians are described as being an "Armenoid" people. It would make sense too, since part of historical Armenia is in the Caucasus Mountains. The reason this makes sense is cause Armenoid is a sub-group of the white race.--Moosh88 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No. The, it's just a coincidence. The term was coined to describe Assyrians. There are so called Armenoid Armenians though, i'd say 15-20% of all Armenians could be classified as such. Most Armenians are Dinaric, Med or Alpine, with small pockets of Nordics.

I'm not very familiar with the Dinarics, though I have heard of them. Gringo300 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The population of South-Eastern Europe (Balkans) consists of Dinarics mostly. Dinaric race --Eupator 15:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

there are actually quite a few diffrences between Armenoids and Dinarics, it is not a pigmentation diffrence there is also nasal breadth and convenxity and forhead and other factors, i mean phenotypically many Ashkenazi jews are Armenoid in features (showing their near eastern hebraic ancestry) but lighter in features than even dinarics.Armenoids can even be quite light even within neareast, to see a classic armenoid aproaching coons plates one has to look at nazi stereotypes of jews in der stummer, they are in fact extreme exagerated charicatures of armenoids in general,however a Armenoid that extreme is usually more at home in the Caucasus and the levant than among ashkenazi jews who are usually very reduced in armenid phenotypes, the Ancient hebrews where probably Assyrid-Armenid. it is a common type among lebanese christians and druze, Walid Jumblatt is a good example of a Light armenoid with no european ancestry, he could pass for an ashkenazi jew, no trouble at all.--GorenSleiczik 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Armenoid simply describes a metrical type, and doesn't refer to any specific population, but a type found among several populations, mostly in the Near East (Levant, Anatolia). Many Armenians are metrically "Armenoid", thus the name. FunkMonk 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The line "Armenoids were considered Indo-European and not related to Semitic" is not supported by the source it cites. The source is a book review, and at one point paraphrases the author as saying, "Armenoid...is not necessarily the same thing as Semitic." It also later paraphrases the author as saying "the entry of 'alien' Armenoid type into Egypt is to be connected with the first coming of 'Semitic' folk into Sumerian Babylonia," and thus, if anything, contradicting the line. Wikinamenottaken (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• To explain further just like "Caucasian race" doesn't exclusively refer to people from the Caucasus, this does not refer exclusively to Armenians, and some ethnic Armenians may not even be physically "Armenoid". It's just a name for a type of skull. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Name of the article

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)

Yes, you are right. Most others use this convention. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenians are one of the 5 Aaren races there are! That means pure blooded, The other four are German, Italian, Iranian, and the North American Native Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.175.208 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jews are Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.247.39 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an article from stormfront.org

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)

Why is a description of the ethnic group / race a cause for concern? 24.131.27.231 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/user/millerg/anth_150/IMAGES/Banner_Unit1.jpg Folk taxonomy: Leeward Community College, Hawaii RPSM (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't delete dead link above. RPSM (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Another link: https://www.livinganthropologically.com/race-without-color/ RPSM (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of Angela Saini's book:Superior: the return of race science RPSM (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/27/superior-the-return-of-race-science-by-angela-saini-book-review RPSM (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

POV-Pushing Despite the Information's Ridiculousness and "CITE ERRORS"

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)

At least, Armenoid race is brachycephalic whereas the Iraqis, Mesopotamians and other Semitics are dolichocephalic. Armenoid race is associated with Pamirid race(another brachycephalic Indo-European speaking subtype) and/or Alphines, Dinaric races. Associated with Semites is not depending on any reliable sources and just an absurd pov. Lamedumal (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

[1] [2]

These IP's are belog to same person. Using multiple account and IP in order not to bann for 3RR. It is clearly a sock attack. Lamedumal (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Many Semitic speakers have Armenoid skulls, particularly Levantines, Syriacs and Jews. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

The peoples that you have mentioned above belong to Arabid race. Lamedumal (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I am talking about "races" not linguistics. Armenoid, Pamirid, Arabid(Syrid)... are all races!-Arabid(Syrid) race is sometimes known as "Semitid". That is the reason why I use it- Anthropology is clear. The problem is that, there are some Iraqi Christians(Chaldean vica versa) who want to be Armenoid despite they belong to Arabid(Syrid) race. It is simply an inferior complex and harassing povs, not more. I have invite some Armenian users to the talk page. I am not going to arguing with these kinds of subjective edit-warriors. Yours faithfully...Lamedumal (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I MEAN, people know it as Semitid but its "scholarly" name is ARABID RACE. Ok? And there are many Armenians in Lebanon. As I said before, there are exceptions because of "mixing with Armenians" but just for this we CANNOT say that "Arap people are Armenoid". On the other hand, Sicilians and Iraqi Turkoman people seems like Arabid just like Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians and so on. Why? Because they mixed with the Arabs, Chaldeans, vica versa. Just depending on that, we cannot add Italians and Turks to the Arabid(Syrid) race. I wish you can understand this time. Because I have no time to explain it over and over again. Lamedumal (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

OMG! No, I am not going to explain it again! My words are clear to understand. I have invited some Armenian users to talk page. It is my last message. Kind regards...Lamedumal (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Coon on Armenoids, the last word should be the sources, not some Armenoid nationalists with an obscure agenda. Ripley[3] and Coon.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is pretty weird reading this thread, since physical anthropologists have considered Coon and Ripley to be pseudoscientists for the past 60 years. This classification scheme has zero scientific validity and is not used by any serious scientists today.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputed article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Essay-like article

This article is a joke. According to this article, almost all of the Middle East is Armenoid and "large minority" of them, i.e.most of the Middle Easterners, are blond-blue eyed. Furthermore, this article suggests that all these people mentioned in the article seem alike[5]. There are also verification problems and reliability of the sources are questionable. Therefore, I have re-added the tags which were removed by an user claiming the article is "well-sourced" [6]--52.185.152.203 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I will also add that, as Maunus explained above, all the racial classifications from the scientific racism era, including "Armenoid", are now obsolete and considered as pseudoscience. I notice the article has not really mentioned any of this. I'm afraid, if the content is this bad, the article needs tags. 52.185.152.203 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

well, he is wrong. He is right that western anthropologists no longer use these terms, but they are just using replacement terms instead because the term "race" has become taboo in western academia.

Non-western anthropology continues to happily use these terms, this includes the former Soviet Union as well as much of East Asia. This is just a terminological thing and has nothing to do with "scientific validity". It is perfectly straightforward to publish a genetic study today that establishes that Armenians have been genetically isolated for 3,000 years,[7], it is just no longer fashionable, in the west, to name such clusters with names ending in -oid.

There also never was a "scientific racism era", this is a pure propaganda term attempting to invalidate an entire field of knowledge. There was racism, and there was science, but the entire idea of "scientific racism" is a malicious oxymoron. --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You are spouting uninformed opinion Dab. The idea that there is a major divide between "Western antropologists" and "other anthropologists" is as idiotc as claiming that only Western climate scientists believe in global warming and that this some how throws doubt on the concept. The idea of racial typologies was rejected because it was empirically unsupported, and because the development of better evidence showed that it was simplistic and in the main the result of a concerted effort to justify a racist social order. The period in which selfproclaimed scientists claimed that racial typologies and hierarchies had support and in which they largely fabricated such support is rightly called the period of (pseudo)scientific racism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The article you link to by the way says the exact opposite of what you claim, namely that the Armenian population orginiated through a process of mixture, and that there was only a period of some 2500 years in which the population had only insignificant admixture. This in no way supports any claim about a distinct "Armenoid" race except in the minds of latterday racialists who are unable to understand the conceptual difference between a statistically defined genomic population and a typological category. It is not even the same populations that are included in the genetic study (which only includes cultural and linguistic Armenians) and in the outdated racial category which was claimed to include populations all across the middle east.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the conceptual difference between a statistically defined genomic population and a typological category? John Burgundy (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you read Ann Morning's "The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference". It explains it in some detail.10:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)10:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)~~

I think if you're going to rely on this claim you should give us a quick summary of the difference. For example are subdivisions in other species statistically defined genomic populations or typological categories? Could you briefly define both of these things? I mean since the problem here is that racists just don't understand why not help them out by explaining? John Burgundy (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I need to do that no. It is the responsibility of those who wish to contribute to wikipedia to read the literature on the topic about which they want to write. There is an abundant literature on the change from typological race concepts to a population based understanding of genetic diversity. Morning summarizes it quite well. Another good overview of these changes is Sussman's recent book "The Race Myth", Koenig Lee and Richardson's "Revisitng Race in a Genomic Age" and the following articles:Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 65-76.; Fujimura, Joan H., Deborah A. Bolnick, Ramya Rajagopalan, Jay S. Kaufman, Richard C. Lewontin, Troy Duster, Pilar Ossorio, and Jonathan Marks. "Clines without classes: How to make sense of human variation." Sociological Theory 32, no. 3 (2014): 208-227.; Marks, Jonathan. "1 5 Ten Facts about Human Variation." Human evolutionary biology (2010): 265.; Marks, Jonathan. "The two 20th-century crises of racial anthropology." Histories of American physical anthropology in the twentieth century (2010): 187-206. Antón, S. C., Malhi, R. S., & Fuentes, A. (2018). Race and diversity in US Biological Anthropology: A decade of AAPA initiatives. American journal of physical anthropology, 165, 158-180.; Caspari, R. (2010). Deconstructing race: racial thinking, geographic variation, and implications for biological anthropology. A companion to biological anthropology, 104-123. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow you certainly seem to be a fan of Marks. I'm reading a paper by Ann Morning here and it contains a very disturbing fabrication. Apparently Blumenbach and the like were "called in" by racists to make a biological classification in order to justify political policies. This is baloney. In addition Blumenbach noted that races blend into each other and were not "discrete types" with "hard boundaries" or "homogeneous within". It doesn't really matter how many sources parrot the same strawman if one can simply look at the original and see that it's a fabricated representation of what "racist" scientists thought. Notably absent in these American Anthropology works are any quotes demonstrating that anyone held their strawman view. John Burgundy (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The paper you link to does not mention Blumenbach. What she actually says is that "As was true of the cutting-edge sciences of the past – like taxonomy, craniometry, anthropometry and serology – which were called in to corroborate the biological ‘realities’ of race, when it comes to race, genetics is for all its bells and whistles simply another handmaiden recruited to bolster an eighteenth-century European world view: the notion that there ‘really’ are black people and white people, yellow people and red people, independent of any cultural biases or proclivities that we might have." Your summary does not accurately represent what Morning is saying. If you hava basic problems with reading texts to extract their intended meaning, then I don't think I can be of any more help to you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So basically it doesn't say what I think it says? I disagree, and think it says what I think it says. John Burgundy (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no scientific basis for race - it's a made up label

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ RPSM (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics. RPSM (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Added content RPSM (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"There's no scientific basis for race..." is the heading of Elizabeth Kolbert's National Geographicarticle. RPSM (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the white race or any other race

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)

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ RPSM (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html RPSM (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

http://www.dismantlingracism.org/racism-defined.html RPSM (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article (as well as articles on other "races" following outdated and outmoded racial theories?

[8] RPSM (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Race" has no meaning

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)

Human genome revolution

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)

The Nation Edward Burila ' ' Scientific Racism isn' t 'Back' It Never Went Away

[9] RPSM (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

AAA Statement on Race

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

Franz Boas introduced a new way of thinking about race

[10] RPSM (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Readability

This page is a mess, filled with completely unrelated things, it needs to be taken care of by someone who is actually interested in Anthropology, there's already a page for "Scientific racism", there's no need to pollute the whole page by POV pushing, see: [point of view]

I created 'Criticism' for users to discuss about "Scientific racism", this way it's way more readable.Խալդի (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:CSECTION, etc. If you are interested in anthropology, you hopefully know that scientific racism is discredited, and if you are interested in science, you know that categories like this can become obsolete. You will need consensus from the community to make these edits, and right now you do not have it. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_definitions_of_race

See the pages in this category, no other page is polluted with "Scientific racism", what makes this page different than those?

If you really want to mention "Scientific racism", you can do it under 'Criticism' section.Խալդի (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Polluted with "Scientific racism"? I half-wonder what you mean by that. We do not validate WP:FRINGE theories, and misrepresenting this as having modern acceptance would make this a fringe theory.

Anyway, no. Again see WP:CSECTION. The burden is on you to gain consensus for changes you wish to make, and every article is evaluated on its own merits, based on consensus. Content at other articles do not justify introducing problems to this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Origin

The term "Armenoid" was originally described by an Austrian anthropologist, Felix von Luschan during his travellings in Lycia.

"Nazi and racial theorists" didn't invent the term "Armenoid", in fact they used "Near Eastern" to describe the Armenoid type, why the 'Origin' and section 'Nazi racial theories' sections are combined into one part?

Articles are collaborative efforts, and often positive edits get mixed-in with negative ones. I have added a mention of this book.

Does this WP:PRIMARY source specifically say it is introducing this term, or is this original research? Grayfell (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

It's not an original researchԽալդի (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If the von Luschan source specifically says that it is introducing this term, or is defining this concept for the first time, then please provide a page number.

Some of your edit introduced information which was not supported by any sources at all. This is not appropriate.

Your recent edits added a photograph which was removed from Wikipedia as a copyright violation, as you are likely already aware.

Regarding this source:

• Sharma, Ramnath; Sharma, Rajendra K. (1997). Anthropology. Atlantic. p. 108. ISBN 978-8171566730.

If you think details from this source are vitally important to the article, I suggest discussing it at WP:RSN. I do not accept that it is reliable for this information, for a couple of reasons. For one, it is an obscure source, and for another, it includes some conspicuously dated terminology and bizarre claims, such as that English is an "Aryan language" among many others.

Biological racialism requires many unsupported assumptions to be workable, and this is another example of how tenuous that is. Using many out-dated source to support a very granular definition of this racial group is introducing false precision. An obscure source could be found to say "precisely" how prominent the Armenoid race's chins are, but this is both arbitrary and overl-fussy, since this is still a poorly-defined construct applied after-the-fact. There is no lack of bad sources, but the article needs to summarize good sources in proportion to due weight.

Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell:
Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenoid_race&diff=959939643&oldid=959938248

Luschan literally mentions in his book that he introduced the term, in his paper.

Luschan, Felix Von (1911). The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. p. 242. When I first upheld in 1892, in my paper on the anthropological position of the Jews, the homogeneous character of these groups, I called them "Armenoids." But there can be no doubt that they are all descended from tribes belonging to the great Hittite Empire

Here, I provided reliable source, by Carleton Stevens Coon, about Physiognomy of Armenoid race, based on observation of Armenian examples.

Coon, Carleton Stevens (1939). The Races of Europe. The Macmillan Company. pp. 627–628. ISBN 978-0837163284. [...]Dark brown eyes are most numerous in the west, where they form 36 per cent of the whole, and rare in the Lake Van region, where they form 1 3 per cent. Mixed and light eyes, mostly green-brown, but including 2 per cent of pure blue, total 34 per cent in Van, and but 11 per cent in Kaisarie. [...]The Armenians are as a rule thin-lipped, with medium to great chin prominence, a palpable bilateral cleft in the chin, and flaring gonial angles. −−Խալդի (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is about Armenians, not Armenoid. These two terms are not interchangeable, nor synonymous. Your other additions are totally falsified and for some reason, you try to make seem "Armenoid" as blond-blue eyed and fringe racial theories as valid scientific researches. And what is the worse, you do it through source falsifications and edit-warring. 176.41.91.255 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Does the passage pertaining to nazi racial theories even belong here? What Nazi racialists were describing was not the Armenoid race (as per Coon, Luschan, etc.) but a variety of features that were common to Armenoids, Arabids, etc. and which were most prevalent in the Middle East.

The content of th4e Gunther reference points to scientific racism rather than physical anthropology (which is heavily dependent on metrics and origins).

Typo56 (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Խալդի

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)

Fyi Doug Weller, Austronesier, Grayfell . 176.41.91.255 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Beware of false POV-pushing edits

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)

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)

Obsolete mugshots

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)

I think you are right and just removed them. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)