Talk:Aquiline nose

Aquiline

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)

1. This page needs to be edited down to a handful of sentences and then merged with Nose, if not altogether deleted, due to the fact that it is merely a slang term with denotions of eugenics and discredited pseudosciences such as phrenology. The author(s) included a long paragraph by a discredited 19th century scientist named Samual George Morton, of which only five words ("the nose large and aquiline") pertain to the article itself. As Wikipedia's own article on Morton says, and as most medical/science students are taught,

   Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is generally seen as the origin of scientific racism.

2. The paragraphs in this article are drawn out to unnecessary lengths so as to provide the appearance of substance; particularly the Buddhism one, which uses 53 words to say that statues of Buddha should have long noses. No reference is given.
3. So-called hooknose snakes have upturned "noses," not downturned "noses" as raptors do, thus meaning they don't even have hooknoses as the author of this article describes, thus making their inclusion truly puzzling. I use quotation marks because neither snakes nor birds even have noses in the sense of the ones humans/primates have. Snakes "smell" by using their tongues and the Vomeronasal organ inside their mouths; a snake's "nostril" holes are used only for breathing. Some venomous types use their additional larger "nostrils" (actually glands called pits) to sense heat, not odors.
4. The fact that such noteworthy intellectuals as Ashlee Simpson and Paris Hilton have recently had rhinoplasties does not even mean that they had, or have, so-called "hooknoses." Nor does the fact that a fictitious half-man/half-ungulate creature living under a bridge in Kentucky supposedly has one, though Wiki's article on it makes no mention of a hooknose, nor has it of course ever been photographed. It bears pointing out that factors allowing the genetic merging of ungulate and human DNA apparently intrigue the pseudoscience-oriented author(s) of this hooknose article.
5. Overall, no tangible factors make the term "hooknose" worthy of its own entry in a fact-based 21st century encyclopedia, other than as a disambiguation page redirecting to an entry such as Pseudoscience. This is a textbook example of an unneccessary article manufactured out of several disparate and unrelated sources by using a smoke and mirrors technique. Why not just merge it into Nose and let real scientists/doctors hash it out, rather than secluding it in its own peripheral entry based on pop culture/hearsay/non-science? Hooknoses are an "I know it when I see it" type of thing, with no set way of being measured. If it were quantifiable by a certain mathematical formula, then it would possibly qualify for inclusion here. (For example, if a nose is downturned by an angle of precicely x degrees or more in relation to its main slope.) But no such formula exists. It is a purely arbitrary, colloquial term, with a different definition to everyone. For example, everyone has a different definition of "fat," but there is a medical definition of obesity, calculated using a Body mass index formula. There is no such formula for noses. Additionally, the link given to www.newadvent.org/cathen/12620b.htm does not count as a reliable source, as it is a religious, non-scientific organization making dubious and unreferenced claims. For the record, I am white, agnostic, and have a small to medium nose with no "hook." I was attacked and called a vandal by user Sandstein after flagging this page for deletion, and thus I felt it necessary to respond.

Chris77xyz 06:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

--Polylerus 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Hello, I do agree with these comments and appreciate them. My intent in creating this article was to simply include information about past and popular conceptions of what a hooknose is -including the theories of past anthropologists. I was simply citing past sources (which doesn't mean that I agree with them necessarily). No, the CE is not a scientific source, but that just confirms that popular/religious conceptions of what a hooknose is -or which ethnic groups possess them- does not always correspond with the scientific standpoint.

And no, I am not "pseudoscience-oriented," nor do I agree with the pseudoscience behind the claims that certain ethnic groups possess certain ethnic traits.

BTW, the article on that fictional creature did state at one point that it had a hooknose. I assume that it has been modified since that time.

We should probably do a merge.

"Roman Nose" and prejudice

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)

"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)

Restored Old Version.

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)

List

Do we really need to list all of these people? Why not give a few examples, and leave it at that? A comprehensive list would be exhausting! 71.51.113.204 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is small. What reason is your complaint founded upon? If you are exhausted by text, then stop frequenting Wikipedia, please.

Roman hook nose

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)

I removed the picture of the girl. She is not German, probably iranian or something else.Zylan (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER : Can you put back the german girl ? If not can anyone give me the link where you found it ? It was a nice picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.239.60 (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the one who found the picture and sent it to me ! Its a great example of a hooknose, but not very much of a roman nose. Also definitely not a German ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico333 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

German Jews do not have aquiline noses. German Jews have distinctly different noses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.146.251 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

"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)

Disturbing Images

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed page move to Roman nose

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)

Extreme gender imbalance in gallery

18 pictures in the gallery, and all are of males. There isn't one available depiction of a female with an aquiline nose? A reader could go away thinking that they only feature on males, which is of course nonsense. —Paladisious 23 November 2013

The "Occurrences" section - improved.

The aquiline hook nose is present among a variety of nations. I agree with that statement. However, it must be stressed, that this type of nose is very popular among Middle Easterners and people with Semitic heritage. Moreover it is also seen among Native Americans, especially the Indigeneous peoples of North America. People like: pharaoh Ramesses II (ancient Egyptian), Titus Flavius Josephus (Jewish-born), Serge Gainsbourg (Jewish-born), Jean Reno (Spanish born in Morocco), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iranian) - all have some portion of Semitic blood. However, some prominent British or German people who are listed in the article's gallery, and who have this kind of nose, beyond all doubt are mixed with the mediterranean race, which to some extent also appears on the British Isles, and in Central Europe, nonetheless, such noses in that area are still quite rare. Hooked-noses are also rather rare among Central and Eastern European Slavs but they still appear among that ethnic group, moreover, talking about Slavs, the convex hook noses are more likely to be observed among Slavic people from the Balkans, and this is caused by the mediterranean, and primarily, the armenoid genetic admixture, which is probably because of the longtime relations of all Slavs with Armenians, Gypsies, Tatars, and Jews.

Therefore, the "Occurrences" section of the article should look moreless like this:

---

The aquiline nose is met among people from nearly every nation in the world, nevertheless it is typical for ethnic groups that predominantly originate from Southern Europe, the Western and Southern Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East. In the racial classification according to biological anthropology this type of nose most frequently appears among the oriental race and the armenoid race, however it is also often seen in the mediterranean race, therefore it is called the "Roman nose" found among Italians, the French, and the Spanish people. This aquiline hook-nose was also a distinctive feature of some Native American tribes, members of which often took their names after their own characteristic physical attributes (i.e. The Roman Nose). Such shape of the nose is occasionally seen among Black people, especially those originating from East Africa, probably due to some of the inhabitants having considerable admixtures of Semitic blood.

---

Thank you for all the contributions and improvements. 78.8.75.87 (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I agree, as I made the main edit. The source of these information is a biological anthropology book, one of the most complete and authentic anthropological publications ever written. It's Jan Czekanowski's book "Człowiek w Czasie i Przestrzeni" (English: "A human in time and space"). It's an old, pre-war book written in 1934. I actually have some re-edition, probably from the 1950s or the early 1960s. Czekanowski puts the whole existing data in the world in one piece, analyses it very deeply and compares it to his own research and the research of his mate-anthropologists. What's interesting, this book, despite being old, contains many pictures like photos of people (examples of various racial types and ethnicities), maps of races, diagrams etc. Yatzhek (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Aquiline noses are not common in the Horn. The dominant features in the region are instead straight noses. These features also don't owe their presence in the region to admixture with Semitic peoples (who in any event, at least according to the wiki-text here, appear to be mainly aquiline-featured) or other populations since there are ancient human fossil specimens in the area that already uniformly possess this trait. This may, however, be the situation with some Afro-Arab Swahili Bantus on the Swahili Coast to the south. At any rate, I haven't removed Czekanowski altogether. But just be aware that per WP:NONENG, English language sources are preferred as they are more readily verifiable for the average English-speaking reader; please also see WP:REDFLAG on exceptional statements. Middayexpress (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. Well, I'm only writing the things which are precisely based on the source. I know that it can be a problem that my source is not in English language, however, if I had some time I could make a few photos of some certain pages of the book with those specific information, and translate them. I think Czekanowski was one of the greatest anthropologists and he was really open on other views and research of other anthropologists from around the world.

Czekanowski claims that, apart from the armenoid type, a common "racial type" of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews is the oriental type. The aquiline nose is a characteristic feature of both of these racial types, plus the mediterranean type. He states, that the oriental race is not only present among Jews, Arabs and other Semitic peoples, but also among some Southern Europeans (mainly Spaniards and Sicilian Italians), South Asians (indians) and Black Africans from East Africa (Somali people, Sudanese people, Eritreans, Ethiopians). This is caused by the migrations of ethnic groups which were primarly Semitic.

That's what's in the book. But I'm thankful for your suggestions. Biological anthropology is one of my main interests, so I will try to find some English-language sources that prove the presence of aquiline noses or hook-noses among Black people of East-African origin. Yatzhek (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There were actually a number of problems. First, it is highly doubtful that Czekanowski indicated what was claimed in the wiki-text/above by the Polish ip. This is because Czekanowski, like most of his contemporaries, regarded the populations of the Horn region as Hamitic and thus related to North African groups (not Semitic, partial or otherwise). I think perhaps you are thinking of the Tutsi-Hima population of the African Great Lakes region to the south, whom Czekanowski actually suggested was formed through intermarriage between a Hamitic migrant ruling class from Abyssinia and local Bantu women [1]:

"It is a well-established fact that the Bahima-Batutsi states of the Lake Region were founded by an invading group of people associated with the North African Hamites, although the specific region of their original home is difficult to determine. Czekanowski's conclusion, according to which they came from Abyssinia about the end of the first millennium has been universally accepted, although his analysis is not based on recorded history but on genealogical and physical anthropological data. This ruling class of Hamites not only conquered and culturally influenced the peoples of the Lake Region, but this influence has been felt even farther to the south. According to definite traditions the ruling class of the Wafipa on the south-eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika belong to this Bahima dynasty. Spannaus has also shown that the Wahehe and Wabena of the Northern Nyasa area are also related to the Hamites of the Lake Victoria states ; an assumption supported by cultural as well as physical anthropological evidence."

More importantly, the human fossil record in the Horn region shows ancient human specimens with straight nasal profiles quite unlike the aquiline facial features that are so common in Arabia and environs, including those found amongst equally swarthy, Semitic-speaking tribes like the Mahra. So not only are narrow and straight (not aquiline) features common today in the Horn, they actually have an ancient local presence that long predates the spread of the Abrahamic faiths. Middayexpress (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. However, I have some doubts. I can not agree that the vast majority of people from North Africa and the Horn of Africa have perfectly straight noses. If you don't believe the sources, just look around you. If you live in the USA or the UK, you can probably meet some North and East Africans on the street. From my personal experience - as I do have many friends from Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia - 70% of them have typical aquiline noses. Only my Kenyan friends nearly all have straight noses. The North African Arabs and people from East Africa are MOSTLY hook-nosed because they are all mixed with the oriental type. Yatzhek (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting anecdotes. A quick correction, though: Kenya is not in the Horn; it is in the Great Lakes region to the south. Its Bantu/Nilotic majority also on average have broad features, not straight or aquiline features. This was not the situation there in the past, when other peoples used to largely inhabit that region. Anyway, the Afro-Asiatic groups in North Africa and the Horn are a) not heavily mixed with Arabs (though they do have older ties with them), b) indeed mainly have straight nasal profiles (though aquiline features are also present), and c) have had those features since time immemorial per the actual skeletal record (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I will tell you sth, I don't know NOT EVEN A ONE person from Somalia with a straight nose. How could that be? As far as I see, you claim that the aquiline nose is not common among North Africans. It's strange, while North Africans share the same common ancestry and similar genes to the Middle Easterners. The same goes to people from the Horn of Africa who share similar genetic types to oriental people from Yemen. Let's leave the Horn, and stick to North Africa for a minute, as it seems you have deleted it too, while, as I remember, you did not delete it earlier. Why? And in one of the links you gave here it says that the modern Egyptians (North Africans) have aquiline noses. You still claim otherwise. So, how could North Africans have mostly straight noses, if: (a) most of the North African Arabs that I know have arched or hook-noses? (b) the Mediterranean race which characteristic feature is a narrow and aquiline nose, is in fact known to be prevalent in North Africa, and EVEN in the Horn of Africa?? (c) the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II without a doubt had a classic Middle Eastern type of an aquiline nose which is proved by the original, well-preserved mummificated body? I'd say - IF the aquiline nose is popular among the Middle Easterners and South Europeans (which is a fact), THEN how come North Africans are different, when they share some similar racial types (oriental + mediterranean)? Yatzhek (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice the North Africa link until today. But anyway, ‎Coon indicates that ‎Copts and Fellahin vary between two nasal poles; one that is straight or concave, and the other aquiline. I concede above that such aquiline features are present there (as is indeed evident in Ramesses II), just not dominant. In the other links, this is made clearer; especially the first one ("the profile is usually straight, with a strong minority of concave and concavo-convex forms"). At any rate, I do understand your point; the distribution of aquiline vs. straight profiles just needed to be made clearer. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Original research & other issues in the gallery

I don't see any sources for these? Do I gather as editors we just decide 'that's obviously a Roman nose'?

Is there a reason for having 4 Egyptian mummies?

And I'm dubious about including living people. Again, do we just choose our favorites? People we don't like and want to ridicule? Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "People we don't like and want to ridicule"? As I see, you think that Wikipedia is a place where you can arrange your private war. The gallery MUST show us the whole spectrum of aquiline noses, not only the ancient people, but also living people, because we must show the people the evidence that aquiline noses exist among the nations that those people respesent. The Irish (mediterranean type), German (mediterranean type), Italian (mediterranean type), Spanish (mediterranean and oriental types), Native American (American indigenous type), French Jew / Iraqi Jew / Roman-Jew (armedoid, oriental, mediterranean), Polish (armenoid), Iranian (armenoid and oriental) etc etc - they all share the aquiline nose and I don't see nothing bad in showing a wide range of people, not only some ancient Greeks and Roman Emperors as you wish it to be.

And what do you mean by that you don't see no sources? You need sources to the images in the gallery?

And yes, there is a reason for 4 Egyptian mummies, as this proves that the aquiline nose was very common among the Ancient Egyptians (as all North Africans), in this case we have the Egyptian pharaohs. This clearly proves that the aquiline nose is definitely not only a European feature. 78.8.126.95 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I think Wikipedia is not a place for us to have our own private wars, that's why we have basic policies such as WP:VERIFY. You have no knowledge of what I want it to be - or rather you've missed my point, I want sources. Trying to prove a point about Ancient Egyptians through images is exactly what I think is against our policy. Finding sources that meet our criteria is what is rquired. I will be removing images shortly if no one can source them. See WP:BURDEN. Of course, with only 2 edits,including this one, you might not have a clue as to how we work. Yes, I need sources for the images stating that they have aquiline noses - preferably in the text first. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you suggested that the gallery is comprised of people that we want to make fun of. This is insane. How come someone want to ridicule a person just by showing him/her as an example of an aquiline nose? Btw - a few topics above this one, someone suggested that there was a great gender imbalance and that only men are shown as those who have aquiline noses. This is what is not changed and women are also included (and it's not easy to find a well-known woman with an aquiline nose, but for instance a Iraqi-Jewish filmmaker Zana Briski, or a Spanish actress Rossy de Palma are known for their nose shape, and they're proud of it). 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. So, there is a point why living people are present in the gallery - females also have hook noses, and this should be balanced in the gallery section. PS - so I guess you don't believe in what you see? You see the ancient Egyptian pharaohs: Ramesses II, Seti I, Seti II and Merneptah - all with the realest prominent aquiline noses, and you don't believe in what your eyes see, so that you need some sources? But then again, you might not believe in what your eyes have just read. 78.8.226.94 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe this article should follow our policies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY - yes, that means we should have sources, not just an editor's statement "I see it!". And again, it's clear that the 4 mummy images are in the article to make a point. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like we have some vandalism in the article. The IP number 197.200.61.1 made many destructive changes in the article including the "Occurences" section and the gallery. The user deleted the specific data, as the user tries to prove a point. The user claims that the aquiline nose was met among the Teutonic race, and gives a source established by William Z. Ripley, an economist, whose hobby was anthropology. This is pathetic, as according to most professional anthropologists Ripley confused his "Teutonic" (Nordic) race with the Dinaric race, which is a mix of Nordic and Armenoid. Armenoids have prominent aquiline noses, and therefore, the Dinaric race has the aquiline nose too. Ripley didn't know about the existance of the Armenoid race. His research as a non-anthropologist made a lot of confusion in the anthropological world, a lot of disgrace, he was criticised by tons of anthropologists, including Czekanowski, who was one of the world's first anthropologists, who recognized the Armenoid race and other subraces of Europe. The "Gallery" section was also changed by that secret IP 197.200.61.1. I see that actually ALL of the people who have aquiline noses were DELETED by this IP user, and tons of Nordic people who do not have aquiline noses at all were introduced. This user obviously tries to prove a point, that only the Nordic race has aquiline noses, which is a pathetic and filthy lie, while the Nordic race is known for its straight and smooth nose type. Every professional anthropologist will say that. Yatzhek (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Nordic race (whatever that is) is known for lots of things, but their straight noses? That's news to me. I think, and Dougweller might have something to say about this too, that the racial bit is thoroughly overplayed here: a decent article on this nose type should discuss the cultural meaning of such a nose more than anything else. We're not in the nineteenth century anymore, and I challenge readers here to read Oroonoko and figure out why Behn chose to give her main character a Roman nose. Hint: it has to do with race, but not in the way you might think. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Nordic race is known for their very narrow and straight noses. All of the people who claim that Nordics/Teutonics have hook-noses confuse them with Dinarics. Every anthropologist knows, that Teutonics are tall, slender, blonde, and have perfectly straight noses, occasionally snub. Hook noses are characteristic to Armenoids at first place, secondly to Orientals, then, to a slightly smaller extent to Mediterraneans, and finally - the Native Americans, mostly the indigenous peoples of North America. Yatzhek (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Google books and Google scholar have a lot of sources discussing aquiline or Roman noses, including names of those that had them. An interesting source for noses and racism in relation to Cleopatra is here:[6] At [7] I find " Physiognomic thinking about aquiline noses is already in place long before Elizabeth inherits the English throne, and the positive connotations are rooted in the representations of the emperors of antiquity. The variants of this shape are frequently compared to birds’ beaks: in particular, to those of the eagle, raven, and hawk, with the physiognomic meanings linked to the cultural notions about each bird. Pseudo-Aristotle’s treatise, for example, connects the raven-like nose (“nose [that is] somewhat hooked and rises straight from the forehead”) to shamelessness,"whereas a person whose nose is reminiscent of an eagle’s beak (“aquiline nose with a marked separation from the forehead”) is said to be magnanimous.,Johannes Indagine makes extensive remarks about the controversy as to the...(next page not on Google books)". We can sources all the images and should source them. I wish I had time to turn this into a proper article. User:Drmies, that's more your thing, isn't it? As for Teutonics, User:Yatzhek, Alfred Cort Haddon disagrees with you: "The fairest of all peoples are:— Nordics or “ Teutonic Race ": Yellow, very light brown, or reddish hair, and blue or grey eyes; reddish-white complexion; tall, with stature of l-73m. (5ft. 8in.); mesaticephalic (index76-79 in the living); long face; narrow aquiline nose. Their original home was North Europe."[8] but this is an argument I'm not convinced we should get into. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller - Haddon recognized the Armenoid race? did he? Ohh really? You see, all of the 19th century anthropologists didn't, that's why they confused nordics with the actual Dinarics.~Give me the example of some anthropologist since 1950s (since the time Czekanowski and a few others who continied his research recognized and proved the existance of Armenoid race as an important race of Europe), who said that Nordics have hook-noses, and only then I will agree than not all anthropologists claimed so. I'm waiting impatiently. Yatzhek (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry Drmies, just noticed that you've been editing this article. Great - it's always been a sad little thing. Yatzhek, I don't seem to have said anything about Armenoids - if you were being sarcasting maybe it would help if you just wrote exactly what you are trying to get across. Although frankly this hold 'dinaric', 'armenoid', 'teutonic' thing has been one of the problems with the article and should be relegated to a minor section of its own - slightly larger if we can get a decent writeup of the uses of nose types in racial anthropology. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Dougweller, always good to see your name on such talk pages. I've had to semi-protect the page since the IP kept on hopping. But Yatzhek here seems to be the next one. What his source is or says is not clear; I assume it's another racialist, given the 1934 date, but I'm not source. At any rate, I would appreciate it if you would look at this revert of theirs, which fundamentally misunderstands a couple of things (besides removing articles from, ahem, academic peer-reviewed articles)--I think Yatzhek thinks that the 1934 is correct, hence it can be phrased as if it were the bible, and that therefore others cannot have said other things. But William Z. Ripley also claims a Roman nose for "Teutonic" peoples, no doubt the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons he saw as being threatened by immigration to the US (what else is new...). What Yatzhek doesn't seem to understand is that this racial talk is, well, boloney: it's racial politics, sentimentality, cultural differentiation marking as anthropology, i.e., science. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Drmies I've already posted to his talk page saying he needs to bring it here and get consensus. But like you, I think it's baloney. His source is Jan Czekanowski. The only reference in that article is -- Coon! Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha, yes. Thanks for your comment. Yatzhek, what you are doing is unacceptable, for a few reasons. First of all, you're acting no different from the IP editor in that you are edit-warring, and you may end up getting blocked for it. (IP editor: it's your editing behavior that got you blocked and then the article semi-protected--not the validity of your argument.) Now, you're basing all your categorical statements on one book by one man from 1934. It's a book that argues that European races are to be classified in four "pure" races, whatever the hell that means. But that was 80 years ago, and things have changed--considerably. I am not going to let you posit as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that your guy was right in his racial talk of noses. That he "proved" that Ripley was wrong is neither here nor there: these racialist theories, to some extent, are all wrong. (And that Ripley said it is indisputable, and of encyclopedic relevance, just as phlogiston is still encyclopedically relevant.) To put it another way, "aquiline nose" isn't really a physical or racial characteristic, even though the nose is a body part: it's a cultural construct. Which is why we find different scholars and "scholars" attributing it to all different kinds of people with various meanings attached. But again, that's neither here nor there in relation to this edit war: you need to stop holding on to your one single source--a source from 80 years ago. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Drmies and Dougweller. OK, I don't want to fight anymore. It all went the wrong path. I was just very mad at this IP user who performed vandalism on Wikipedia, and deleted this source I gave. I wanted to thank you for your contribution, and want to peacefully discuss a few matters:

• 1. Gallery section - why was it entirely deleted? I think it was very nice and useful. The examples of aquiline noses are what suppose to be there. It was interesting to get to know that i.e. the Egyptian pharaoh had an aquiline nose.
• 2. Ripley's profession - 1st of all - He was an economist, and anthropology was his passion. He was only a racial theorist, who didn't perform no research by himself, he didn;t measure skulls etc. Why is "racial anthropologist" written there?
• 3. Ripley's views - He claimed that the aquiline nose appeared among the Teutonics. Now, I found a scan from the book by Czekanowski, unfortunately in Polish (but I could translate if you wish), and there is a description of Teutonic race (even supported with some pictures by Deniker and Czekanowski). A few pages earlier Czekanowski criticised Ripley for his misleading research, but wrote, that this was underatandable as he didn't recognize the Armenoid race yet, and confused Teutonic with Dinarid/Dinaric that was Teutonic+Armenoid mix. Here's the page of the description of Teutonics (here called Nordics) according to Czekanowski, where he indicates: "the nose is narrow and straight" (Polish: "wąski nos, prosty") when he describes a Nordic racial type: http://www.antykwariatnws.pl/upload/book_id7693_1.jpg

I think Ripley's views should be succeded by one very short sentence saying that it was proven, that he confused his Teutonic race with Dinaric race.

• 4. The line beginning with "The term's cultural meaning is of great importance..." is unneccesarry, while the same thing is later stated in the "In racialist discourse" section.
• 5. The section "Among African peoples" - the aquiline nose is too much assigned to Europeans, when the truth is, it's most widespread among Caucasoids but mostly from Western Asia, North Africa, India and the Middle East, so it is not a "White" feature. The source says about the "narrow" nose being "European" but I can't see nothing about the aquiline nose as a feature of a "noble and a European". Narrow =/= aquiline. I'd add some anthropological source to that section, not only a fiction-book. Do you agree with that?
• 6. If we make the information so precise - maybe there should be a section "Among Semitic peoples" including Jews? Noone wants to say it loud, but aquiline noses are said to be widespread among Jewish people, everyone knows it. Maybe there should be the antisemitic "Jewish stereotype" mentioned?
• 7. The word "nobility" is in the text like several times, mostly unsourced. Why? Why is that?

OK. could we end this sensless war and try to be peaceful towards each other? I see that the contributions of both of you are quite good, sourced and you don't delete none of the valueable data. I appreciate it. Please answer. Yatzhek (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yatzhek, I'll give a couple of quick answers: it's nap time. I have a serious problem with this gallery (as does Doug, I believe) since a. it's way too many images b. not everyone clearly has one of them noses c. what's the point--aren't they all pretty much the same? One or two high-quality images that explain the point and (most importantly) have a relation with content in the article, that's different--but none of the images were even discussed. Ripley as a "racial anthropologist", that's from our article on him, and even if he was profoundly rebutted, and an amateur to boot, he can still be called that. Note that the current version of our article does not say he is correct. I think, but I'm speaking for myself, that all such theories are, how do I say this gently, baloney. "Pure races"--bleh. If such a thing ever existed, surely we've mixed it up way too much already.

In general, the point is that a racial theory of hook noses will be very difficult to establish reliably. You may not agree with that statement, but I know a thing or two about science and race and anthropology also. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But if you have some time tomorrow, please analyse my suggestions and answer more specifinally to all of my questions and doubts, as I don't want to be accused of no "edit fights" or something like that. i thought that we could just consult our ideas here before we edit something. I need to know what can I edit in the article, therefore all these questions. Give me some answers tomorrow when you have some time. Thanks and I hope we are now OK with each other. Yatzhek (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well. I think that many of your remarks are based on the notion that somehow this particular nose is a racial feature. If it is ascribed to all kinds of races, from Teutons to pharaohs to Jews to non-blacks, then it seems clear to me that the race card is being overplayed. It's really as simple as that.Dougweller, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not found a single reliable modern source that makes a valid statement about the preponderance of a Roman schnozz among one race or another. Which makes it not a racial characteristic. Which would mean you can't say things like "Jews have 'em" or "Romans have 'em", though one can say "they are ascribe to certain groups of people for those reasons". And you can't claim "it's fiction" since, and I think this is pretty obvious, it's all fiction, those "anthropological" texts by Ripley as much as Oroonoko. But I think I'm repeating myself. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• By the way, why would you say that "nobility" etc. are unverified? Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's you who actually thinks that this particular nose type is a feature reserved to one race, while I have a feeling, that you are trying to prove that the nose actually belongs only to Europeans, or the "noble" people. All of the recent edits belong purely to you: [9]. The truth is, the hook aquiline nose is a non-European feature, but still belongs mostly to Caucasian people from Western Asia and the Middle East, came to Southern Europe with Armenoids and Dinarics and with the widespread Mediterranean race. It's not that I got something against you personally, but all of your recent contributions are trying to push the statement, that the hook nose is actually a pure European feature, which is a lie, and to make your statements reliable you mentioned that some "theories" claim different, but you still think the "facts" are on your side and you perfectly present them. Just let's take a look: "Among Black Africans" - you added a fiction book as a source. This is weird that the fiction is more widely discussed and described than the anthropological data. Moreover, why do you put Ripley as an ultimate and definitive statement, while NONE of the post 1950s anthropologists agree with him anymore? Do you agree that it should be mentioned, that he omitted the Armenoid race and therefore mistakenly named "Dinaric race" as "Teutonic"? Do you agree? Why didn't you answer PRECISELY to my questions? And why did you put the section "Among Nordic people" when Ripley is already quoted in the "Occurences" section? Can I make a section "Among Semitic peoples", "Among Indian people", or "Among Southern Europeans"? Well?

Here, I edited the questions from my previous message, made numbeers so you can answer more easily. (See above). Sorry man, but after revising your contributions I think you totally agreed with that "secret" IP that favored Ripley views over other, and edited the gallery, pushing Nordic people with straight noses as having "aquiline nose" while actually they could have only a tiny bump on their noses which is natural (because "perfectly straight" noses are as rare as those aquiline ones).

PS - you posted the source by Madison Grant who (according to you) claims that "the aquiline nose is characteristic of the peoples they variously identify Nordic, Teutonic, or Anglo-Saxon." Nonsense.

Quote from Grant:

"The Nordic Homo europaeus, the white man par excellence. It is everywhere characterized by certain unique specializations, namely, wavy brown or blond hair and blue, gray or light brown eyes, fair skin, high, narrow and straight nose, which are associated with great stature, and a long skull, as well as with abundant head and body hair."

Another quote:

"One thing is certain: in any such mixture, the surviving traits will be determined by competition between the lowest and most primitive elements and the specialized traits of Nordic man; his stature, his light colored eyes, his fair skin and light colored hair, his straight nose and his splendid fighting and moral qualities, will have little part in the resultant mixture."

I know his publications and he supports the statement of the straight nose among Nordics! How come you LIE like this?

You know what's funny in your theories? Let me tell you - both Madison Grant and William Z. Ripley were NOT racial anthropologists, one was a lawyer, the other one an economist, and you give ONLY their statements in the "Among Nordic peoples" section, exalting them, as you know you can not find no data concerning this topic that would be publicated by a professional anthropologist, then you're blocking me when I want to add some research by the true anthropologists. Why? And why you wrote that Ripley was an anthropologist, while you didn't do a hyperlink to Czekanowski, haven't even mention his full name, and didnt mention that he ACTUALLY WAS an racial anthropologist? I find it's your obstinacy in degrading Czekanowski's research.

And yes, the words "noble" and "nobility" are overused by you. It sounds like trying to prove a point. I think you're confusing a "narrow nose" and a "prominent nose" with an "aquiline nose". "Narrow" means it is opposite to "flat", prominent means it is quite considerably big, while "aquiline" is the shape of the bridge - not a slight bump which everyone has, but really convex and bent. Totally different things, as even Black people from East Africa like the Somalis and Eritreans have aquiline noses, but not necessarily narrow.!

Btw: the typical Nordic race looks like this:

• 
  The physical appearance of the Nordic race, which the Nazis described as the most pure sub-race of the Aryan race.
• A Nordic Aryan woman in contrast to the "inferior race" in the Nazi propaganda.
  A Nordic Aryan woman in contrast to the "inferior race" in the Nazi propaganda.

Also I guess you deleted the gallery section ([10]) because you know it well, that the aquiline nose is not Nordic, but you hate to admit it, and you can't find no images that show the pure hook-nose among Nordics, so you deleted the whole gallery.

As I say, I got nothing against you as a person, but this what you do here becomes unacceptible to me. Please answer to ALL my doubts. Also, User:Dougweller, User:Middayexpress, User:Enok, User:Epicgenius, User:KylieTastic, and User:Kubanczyk, who all edited this article - please check this discussion, if you mind check my doubts carefully, and tell me, how the article can be improved and "strained" from lies pushed as "truth" by intentionally wrong interpretation of sources given. Yatzhek (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yatzhek: Aquiline, straight or convex nasal profiles are indeed allusions to the bridge shape and not necessarily to the nose breadth. As noted on Anatomy of the human nose, the latter is indicated by terms such as platyrrhine (flat, wide nose), subplatyrrhine (low, wide nose), paraleptorrhine (narrow-sided nose), and leptorrhine (narrow nose). That said, it was already explained above that the Afro-Asiatic groups in North Africa and the Horn mainly have straight and narrow nasal profiles (though aquiline features are also present, especially in Egypt), and have had those features since time immemorial per the actual skeletal record. FWIW, as User:Dougweller and User:Drmies suggest, the gallery does seem rather unenylopedic; a few images in the body to illustrate the text are sufficient. Also, while I can understand your frustration, please remember to avoid shouting and keep any posts brief, impersonal and to the point per WP:TALK. Middayexpress (talk)

Unless someone unblocked him, Yatzhek will be away for 3 days, he's been blocked by another Admin. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hook nose cite

[11] In case you hit a paywall:

Full Definition of HOOKNOSE : an aquiline nose

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Aquiline nose is a stereotypical feature of Semitic peoples and other Middle-Easterners

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)

Nosejobs

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)

Outdated Pseudo-Scientific Gibberish

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)

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)

Árpád, the Grand Prince of the Hungarians

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)

NPOV tag

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)

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)

The article is biased - It tries to prove a false point

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)

This is an example as to why Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously

"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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Heydrichmarke.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

proposed

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Heydrichmarke.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Pseudo-Science persists

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)

Edited and removed Czekanowski's theories on distribution. Jmauer7 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Dear IP who restored the Coon stuff, Carleton S. Coon was a pseudo-scientist, see e.g. the many sources linked in his article. All the theories about races in a biological sense have been debunked, see e.g. the sources at Mongoloid. WP doesn't accept pseudo-science, see e.g. WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

DEAR Rsk6400, IT'S IP (CELL NETWORK), muh reasonings was COON's material in this CONTEXT is dealing specifically with AQUALINE NOSES (and not his PSEUDO RACIST THEORIES), and there were more sections (now deleted) where it DOCUMENTED the prevalence in various LIVING HUMAN POPULATIONS.

Knowing the AQUALINE NOSE is FOUND in LIVING HUMANS is not "pseudoscience", SEE the LEAD: "As with many phenotypical expressions (e.g. 'widow's peak', eye color, earwax type) it is found in many geographically diverse populations." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquiline_nose < 154.74.155.107 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the aquiline nose is pseudo-science. But Coon is and therefore cannot be used as a source for statements in Wikivoice. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Then do same for dah even worse BLATANT PSEUDOSCIENCE ("Arabid" and "Armenoid"...etc) and any mentions in LIVING HUMAN POPULATIONS, to be fair. 154.74.155.107 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Don't understand based on what criteria you've removed all those sections. Scientific racism itself is pseudoscience. If the 'pseudoscience' is the reason why those sections were removed, this is much bigger of a problem staying in the article. Remove it all (colonial era BS) or restore the removed ones. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, (1) I removed the text based on Coon because of the reasons given above. (2) Then I removed text based on Heidari Z, Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb H, Khammar T, Khammar M, obviously a study (primary source) on a limited population outside sub-Saharan Africa and a dubious one, since it seems to use the debunked terms "Negroid" / "Caucasoid" in 2009. (3) I removed the whole section on South Asia because of dubious sources: One source was from 1940, i.e. right from the age of scientific racism, and the next one about "Sexual Life in Ancient India" from 1971. The last claim about Kashmiri Pandits seemed OK to me, but lacking the context after the removal of the rest on South Asia. (4) The source by Sundberg, "Considerations on the dating of the Barabuḍur stūpa" is again about a subject that has very little to do with sub-Saharan Africa. The removal of the rest by the IP seems WP:pointy to me, and I'd like to undo it if there are no objections. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:Point is whether this section is necessary at all, considering it deals with pseudoscience, and you have removed the others claiming that. The section deals with concepts that came out during "the age of scientific racism" as you've put. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that talking about pseudo-science is important if people interested in the subject have pseudo-scientific ideas in their head. Encyclopedias have been invented in the Age of Enlightenment in order to get superstition out of people's heads and science in. Or, more according to our rules: If reliable secondary sources mention the function of the aquiline nose in racist discourse, we should mention it, too. But I agree with you that I should have deleted more before the IP did it. Maybe the section could be shortened further. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Still don't understand the rationale behind the removal of sections on distribution [12]. Also 4 out of 12 sources we have now are from the colonial period, I mean how much reliable could they be. Coming to the point, it is a fact that many people around the world have aquiline noses (or any other particular feature for that matter) and quite likely there are people interested in that subject. Just because a certain physical feature is part of scientific racism / pseudoscience / propaganda, doesn't mean we should not mention where such features actually exist. Take for example the Blond article. It includes sections on the geographical distribution as well as the 'scientific racism' associated with it. Also the distribution section is long-standing, we need to have a consensus before such removal. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As of 11:55, 5 March 2024 (the version I see as the last stable one), there was only one section on "distribution": Some writers in the field of racial typology have attributed aquiline noses as a characteristic of different peoples or races; e.g.: according to anthropologist Jan Czekanowski, it is most frequently found amongst members of the Arabid race and Armenoid race. It is also often seen in the Mediterranean race and Dinarid race, where it is known as the "Roman nose" when found amongst Italians, the Southern French, Portuguese and Spanish. Racial theorist William Z. Ripley argued that it is characteristic of peoples of Teutonic descent. Czekanowski and Ripley are long dead, and so are their theories. Our form of noses is surely never found in the Mediterranean and Dinarid races, because those races don't exist. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

HELLO Rsk6400, are you also going to rid more of the PSEUDO and nonsense TERMS like "DINARID", "ARABID" and "ARMENOID"? CZEKANOWSKI'S SECTION is much more PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC. 154.74.155.107 (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)