Talk:Irano-Afghans

Sources

Removing sources they have been modified where further links lead to private text collections, it seems therefore bias and also dont feel right even though it might have been a great resource for anthropology students Cyrus111 (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• what? Are all of the sources 'private text collections'? Is NONE of the source material published? 125.213.214.226 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Clarify

Please improve this article (meant as constructive criticism). My first language is English, and I consider myself to be a bit more literate and technically educated than the average layman, but this article left me completely baffled.

1. frequent use of pronouns, where it is unclear which particular "it" or "they" is being referred to.
2. frequent use of undefined & unwikified jargon -- are these terms from metrical-Anthropology? (They appear to refer to physical-classes of humans, but I'm left with no links). What are:

• Harder Mediterraneans
• Corded-Nordics
• etc

The paragraph starting: "Along with Hebrew, Proto-Indo-European has been traditionally regarded" is apparently irrelevant to this discussion of human physical characteristics. If it is germain, please tie it back into the primary discussion.

Also, the words "traditionally regarded" is code for "someone once said to me, and I've never bothered to research the validity of..."

And furthermore, Hebrew and Proto-Indo-European cannot BOTH be THE original (Adamic?) language. Heb & PIE are quite unrelated, (unless Nostratic claims are countenanced, but which again would deny the logic of Heb & PIE being first).

---

The following list of locations where one may encounter these physical similarities: "in Iran and Afghanistan north-west Pakistan and Turkmenistan. It is also a major factor in Turkey and Iraq and comprises parts of the population of India, China (West), Arabia, Middle east, Palestine north Africa and Europe," is called "the OLD WORLD" (minus sub-Saharan Africa, & northeast Siberia).

125.213.214.226 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is pseudo-scientific nonsense. There is not one notable scholar who would support these claims. Thus: accuracy is disputed! Tājik (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• That it isn't used today doesn't mean the article should be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Regardless of the accuracy of the theory, the theory does exist, and at some point in time at least had some support. Deleting any reference to its existence, such as an entire article, goes completely against the purpose of an encyclopedia, and specifically Wikipedia. The Scythian 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The more common word is "Iranid", while Coon was the only to use "Irano-Afghan". This article lacks sources, and the accuracy is disputed. I have no idea why certain users remove the tags without explanation! Tajik (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

question...

Whether Carleton Coon made these assertions is one question. He may very well have done so.

His book, The Races of Europe, was published about fifty years ago, and was challenged then and, from the the article on him, it seems he represents a fringe opinion. So, I suggest, it is a mistake for this article to represent his views as mainstream. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. By the way, many other authors used these terms, or variations of them, before him. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I had asked the same question a while ago. As far as I am informed, the common expression for the race is "Iranid" anyway. Ethnolinguistically, "Afghans" are part of the larger Iranic group, and that is the most common expression. I suggest to move this article to "Iranid race" and to redirect "Irano-Afghan" to that page. A short note should be made regarding the

different expressions. Tajik (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Studies from 70:s terms it "Nordic Iranian"194.14.94.1 (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted an IP anon. Tajik (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We need a clearer discussion of which divisions are common in scientific racism, and which are idiosyncratic to individual authors. Division of the Caucasian race (“Europäid” types) into Nordic, Dinaric, Mediterranean and Alpine was probably mainstream. I am less sure about the four remaining types in Meyers Blitz-Lexikon, the East Baltic race is at least still identified by a type name, but the "Turk of Karahissar", "Bedouin" and "Afghan" are not associated with any moniker like "Turkid", "Arabid" or "Iranid". These maybe marginal terms, and it may be better to confer their discussion to the main Caucasian race article. --dab (𒁳) 08:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this map, the Iranid race is a subgroup within the Alpine or the Mediterranean group (or perhaps a mix?!). Tajik (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a general consensus on this. Since the concept is obsolete anyway, discussion to which classification is "correct" is futile. We should just stick to reporting on who said what. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The map is from Madison Grant, read the article about him. His theories was higly influenced by immigration restriction and none of the maps are valid. Most europeans are not Nordics, and those confused with Nordics are mostly Danubian Mediterraneans. Nordics are found mostly in Iran and Afghanistan. The "Nordic/European confusion" is early 20th century, PR, politically motivated and post second world war syndrome. For a more accurate and modern study of Euros study these sites [1] [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Nordics are found mostly in Iran and Afghanistan". I am sure this would have been an interesting opinion, back in 1830. You were born too late. Today, it is just an illustration of ex falso quodlibet. It is unclear why we should feel compelled to "study" some homepage hosted at 110mb.com. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why dont you look at the cold hard facts instead of trying to sound smartyboy. Wherever there are some facts that you find uncompelling you tend to show up with a few clever words here and there. The studies are as recent as up to date, as well as studies from 70:s not 1830:s! why dont you reas the sources, be honest it makes you uncomfortable, tell you what get a ticket to Iran and visit yourself. Like me I `ve been all over Europe so I know... For starters Iran has the highest amount of nosejobs, just a clue. Please do not remove entire articles where editors have put there work in! [4] [5] [6] 194.14.94.1 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

the topic of plastic surgery in Iran may hold its own interest, but it is unclear what this is supposed to have to do with scientific racism. You may want to consider reading WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you`re just stupid? or maybe blind? or illiterate?(sources). If you have a nation full of hooked nose Nordic featured people with highest amount of nosejobs then this might be related to certain genetics or skeletal assosiation i.e Nordic Iranian... [7] [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranians love to do nose jobs, hence they are "Nordics". Uh huh. You may want to cite a source on that. see WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

D Nordic-Iranian Wide, sloping High, rect. Angular, chin deep High, beaky Rect. tilted

D1 Nordic Wide, sloping High, rect. Angular, chin deep High, beaky Low rect.

D2 Corded Rel. wide High, rect. Angular, chin deep Thin, beaky Low rect.

D4 Iranian Rel. wide High, rect. Tilted, chin deep High, V. beaky Rect. tilted

[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone either ban this guy or protect the pages he vandalises? It's getting annoying. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can admin please ban these editors who keep deleting pages many other editors have worked on Cyrus111 (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They're synonyms, used by different authors for the same thing. We don't keep separate articles about the exact same thing here. We don't have separate articles for the Nordic race and xanthochroi either. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So we have an agreement, we can use both, only redirect, thats why wiki has this temp:

For other uses of the term, see xxx.

(for these cases)

Cheers Funk Cyrus111 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus,

• (a) stop giving us random urls for "referencs". If you do have a quotable source, give us "The people of Lerna; analysis of a prehistoric Aegean population, by J. Lawrence Angel, Princeton, N.J., American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1971, pp. 36-38 "
• stop treating racialist literature as if they were reporting "facts". They are reporting on an obsolete field of physical anthropology, and need to be presented accordingly
• (b) stop conflating newspaper stories about nose jobs in Iran with racialist literature. You want to quote a reference that makes the link explicitly, or stop making the link yourself, per WP:SYN

--dab (𒁳) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer one of your earlier comments, Dab, the Meyers lexicon image compilation is a bit ambiguous when it comes to the non-European "Europäids". I believe the Turk is supposed to represent the "Turanid race", which is a "stabilised mix" of Caucasians and Mongoloids found throughout Central Asia. Anyway, the best place for old anthropometry literature I know is this one, there are a bunch of citable stuff: http://carnby.altervista.org/ FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Meyers image isn't perfect for this, since they do not actually label the Iranian "Iranid". The implication is nevertheless that there are eight subtypes of "Europid". We have, of course, Nordic, Mediterranean and Alpine. East Baltic and Dinaric also seem to be pretty much standard. There appears to have been less consensus on "out-of Europe Europid subtypes", viz. the populations of the Middle East and Central to Northern Asia. We have Arabid, Iranid, and perhaps Turanid. I fully expect the details of this to be different with each author. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoever made this page about "Iranid" add sources where cit temp is, otherwise it can not be considered valid and will be edited properly. There is no sources whatsoever about "Iranid" (except forums).. whereas proper terms Irano Afghan and Nordic Iranian is plentyful and the proper scientific name, add proper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Iranid was used, just not by Coon (who used the term "Irano-Afghan" for the same thing, just like he had other of his own terms for formerly established types), which seems to be the only of these authors people are familiar with today, due to him writing in English, but there is a lot of non-English literature on these subjects, mainly German. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is in American/English find American sources on Iranid (where there is none). There is plenty of American sources on Irano Afghan and Nordic Iranian. Iranid is not proper American term. in any case move "German Iranid term" to German section, where sources you claim exist in deutch, can be added. Otherwise it can not be considered valid on the English page and will soon be modified to proper American/English version. cheers>

• No, only Coon used the terms you mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Coon was a high ranking scientist from Harvard university (one of worlds prime unis) J lawrence uses Nordic Iranian in American studies in Athens. Move Iranid to German section when sources claimed are in Deutch, this needs to be in an American version so people outside Germany, i.e rest of the world, will be able to understand it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter what name we use, there is no reason to have a separate section for the same thing, just because a different name is used by some. "Iranid" is Latin, not German, by the way, and is more scientific than "Irano-Afghan". A solution could be to simply move this to Irano-Afghan race. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

American lang. of today uses above mentioned terms not latin, most words you´ll use is actually ancient Greek or Latin i.e centum Indo-lang. We need to use a page where American sources can be used. Pretty much all thats written in the "Iranid Race" art. is used in Irano Afghan page. Proper is to delete the Iranid page and move it to the much more detailed Irano Afghan/Nordic Iranian page (like you suggested) and where American sources are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• No "Nordic Iranian" and multi-named articles, please, keep it simple like all other articles. "Irano Afghan" it is. Iranid is a redirect, and is not to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this prancing around. If "Cyrus" has anything to add to the current revision, let them present real sources and seek consensus. Semiprotected due to the logged-out revert warring. --dab (𒁳) 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentially, I do not think this article has any potential for further development. It woudld be best to just merge it into a "subtypes" section at Caucasian race. --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You have my support. Tajik (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe there should only be a brief description of the supposed sub-types there, but which other subtype articles could be merged into it too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following edit by Cyrus111 (talk · contribs): This type of nosen common in Iran has led to a Rhinoplasty boom where up to 100.000 prcedures are made each year. IMO, this sentence has no encyclopedic value. Tajik (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus111 is back. We'll hear more about the racial aspects of Iranian nosejobs soon, I expect. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Cyrus111 once again on Irano-Afghan/Nordic-Iranian, because I believe that he is pushing for POV. In my opinion, his claims that Ramses III was a prototype of his "Irano-Afghan/Nordic Iranian" race and that "migration from the Iranian plateau started the Sumerian civilization" are totally ridiculous and pseudo-scientific. Tajik (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to debate your personal issues here, I let the science and sources do the job

The Irano-Afghan race, prominent since Sumerian times in Mesopotamia (entered from Iran) [10]

Please understand this! and then take it like a man! And then leave it behind you! Nordics are from the Iranian plateau period The climatics alows this formation. The long noses etc are the result of cold dry weather it purifies the air preparing it for the lungs... Pick any book (related) (even in Europe) and you can read this. The radius center of migration is the plateau and just as the type fades away and recombinates the further away from the plataeu you get when you go east to China, India, the same thing happens in Europe. The original types are still found there in Iran (the radius), while in Europe and India (more south), they are genetic and skeletal recombinations I.E mixture with indigineous Europeans and Indians The majority of Europeans are Borreby, Tydal types, not Nordic Iranians,. This is a ant. fact! there is no other reality-Fact of the matter! creation - He. will cast you in any form and shape he wants then direct your focus to heaven so you´ll understand and try to be perfect just like your Creator is Perfect (Qur àn and Bible combined).

The Plateau migrations led to culture and Civilization for many people, compare with today- Iran has highest Brain Drain in the world- meaning highest amount of educated people migrate to other countries for service

this is despite recent revolution, recent war, and world wide sanctions! In 2006, the International Monetary Fund ranked Iran highest in brain drain among 90 measured countries.[43] The estimated exodus of 150,000 people per year is thought to be due to a poor job market, and tense domestic social conditions.[44]

Iran's brain drain

You have see all aspects- past and present (see art. race and intelligens)

Ramsees is a clear Nordic type a prototype of "Irano-Afghan/Nordic Iranian type the beaky nose etc see, Angel Coon, (just like the Toch. Mummie) even name ´Ram´sees is Hebrew/Farsi related (note Ashkhenazi Jews are originally from Iran) During WW2 people with this type of noses were frown upon and people even being executed after being measured. It seems you have very little knowledge of lang. ant. bio. etc and let your personal issues ruin a factual educational article.

its funny you dont see the relation between largest number of nosejobs being performed, in one nation where this is in majority, Beaky nordic Iranian skeletal types studies made-and the racial/formation aspect?!?! Claims that I dont want to reach cons is nonsense I tried but ended up with:

this fellow is just a troll. 3RR blocks are too kind on him, since they seem to be implying that he is a Wikipedian in good standing who just reverted once too often. He should just be smacked with a block for adding nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The only pseudo-scientific is an era fairy tale which has long been exposed, maybe you should check up on James Gregor or

Émile Coué

No race has suffered so much from an inferiority complex as has the Germanic peoples. National Socialism was a kind of Coué method of converting the inferiority complex, at least temporarily, into a feeling of superiority. [11]]

I dont even need or want to debate this but it seems personal issues surpass factual encyclopedics. Cyrus111 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No comment ... *sigh* Tajik (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

the "Irano-Afghan race" has not been "prominent since Sumerian times". It has never been prominent. It is a concept in anthropological literature of the period about 1840 to 1940, and it is a rather marginal concept within that literature.

you, sir, are quite apparently a racialist crackpot. Rational discussion addressed to you has been shown to be absolutely futile. If you cannot get yourself to grok and then respect the project fundamentals, you have no business editing here, under WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Racialist crackpot?

The Irano-Afghan race, prominent since Sumerian times in Mesopotamia (entered from Iran) (C.S Coon)

Ethnic History of Sumer

The dolichocephalic (long-headed) Iranic Gutians entered Sumeria as the last in a succession of conquering races. (Luckenbill 1923, p.7)

Indeed, Iranic populations appear to have entered the ruling caste of Sumer (Izady 1993)

A startling fact came to light when the Sumeralogist S.N. Kramer's translated a Sumerian tablet revealing Sumerian Kings, were native of the Zagros mountains in west Iran (S.N. Kramer, "Ancient Sumer and Iran (Chicago, 1963)

The Sumerian ruling people were of the same racial physical type, with the same culture, traditions, religion, writing and language as the Early Aryans, who were of the Aryan, Gothic or Nordic race, and they were identical with the leading stock of the latter. The Early Sumerian kings sometimes called themselves in their monuments in Mesopotamia and in their Indus Colony Gut or Got whilst one of the leading Sumerian dynasties in Mesopotamia called themselves Guti, Goti or "Goths"." When one considers that the Iranians are often classed together with Nordics into the "Nordic-Iranian" racial grouping, it becomes clear that the Gutians were of Nordic-Iranian affinities. (Waddell 1929, p.467-468)

(Carleton S. Coon showed that the racial contrubtion of the Iranian highland never changed for 10000 years)

Modern Genetic study:

Iranian plateau Central Iran/Esfahan ES 50 24 Indo-European Indo-Iranian

North Iran NI 33 present study - Indo-European Indo-Iranian

South Iran SI 117 present study - Indo-European

Iranians in Uzbekistan UZ 53 10 - Indo-European Indo-Iranian[12]

The proto-Indo-Europeans which lived on the Iranian highland and south Central Asia expanded then to east Asia(Tocharians) and India. They expanded to North Africa, Near East and Mesopotamia

see also (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990) (W. N. Henning)

There is even more you know...Cyrus111 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)