Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; it's a tough one here, but due to the fact the article was referenced and improved since the nomination, there seems to be a rough consensus to keep that article. Yuser31415 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown people

Brown people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Well I think that this should be quite obvious. There is no academic source or scholar who attests to the existence of this mythical "Brown people", a term with racist connotations. Many Middle-Easterners, Pakistanis and Indians are varied in skin-tone, and can range from Caucasoid to Mongoloid in ethnicity. Looks like a WP:NEO violation, at best, Neo-Nazi/far-right propaganda at worst. It would not be so bad if the article were sourced reliably and had some kind of academic context instead of just a couple of sentences. However, I do not think that such a thing is possible. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be sourced. --- RockMFR 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. "Brown person" can be used without negative racial connotation, but the page as it stands isn't what we need. Marskell 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a POV fork of race that tries to define the term simply by the amount of skin melanin, as defined in the article, would include nearly everyone who's not albino or of pure African tribal lineage. Tubezone 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - sounds very POVish and as with all of these things has to rely on original research in the absence of any sources and references. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per complete rewrite today by Uncle G. The term "Brown race" may not be valid today, but it was historically used by scientists along with yellow, white, red, etc. Wikipedia allows articles about discredited or obsolete scientific theories, and this article is now well referenced, and is of historic importance. Edison 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We are all brown, blacks are really dark brown etc yet there are clear concepts of whitye and black people but not of brown people, SqueakBox 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Silly, unsourced, and offensive.futurebird 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and eye on this, it has sources but it will be a target for all kinds of racist vandalism, I fear. futurebird 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. I advise others to look at UncleG's rewrite. Zagalejo 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - it looks as if it had been fixed. It has many refernces, and seems to be writtem mostly from NPOV. It also mentions that no people are actually brown with a refernce. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• For a well-sourced, description of the relevant outdated concept, see [[1]]; if that's what we're talking about, it doesn't need a new page with Blumenbach's alternate term.--Carwil 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Is now a well-sourced article on the notable historical concept. --Charlene 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Charlene. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now that sources are provided. --- RockMFR 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it has totally been rewritten during AfD to satisfy WP guidelines. It should be noted that all comments prior to Edison's are now limited in relevance since they could not have had the current text in mind when deciding. It would also behoove the AfD submitter to reconsider in light of the total recreation of the article. ju66l3r 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What utter offensive rubbish. Since when have you, Ju6613, had the right to speak for other editors? Please strikle your arrogant remarks, SqueakBox 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: What arrogant remarks? I thought most people are saying it should be kept. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Response: I'm not speaking for anyone else. I'm pointing out that the article has been completely rewritten since the timepoint of AfD submission through just prior to Edison's remarks. That needed to be explicitly stated for the reviewing administrator because the arguments given for deletion prior to Edison's addition to the discussion are based on different content entirely (and should therefore be re-timestamped to show that they acknowledge and maintain their opinion of the article as it stands now, otherwise their comments are irrelevant to the AfD discussion of the current version of the article). The submission is also based on different content entirely and therefore the submitting editor should reconsider their submission. Whether they reconsider and feel it still does not meet the inclusion criteria is up to them, but it is something they should have to deal with as opposed to ignore entirely. There is nothing in what I said before or how I clarify it now that is said out of arrogance or speaking for anyone else. ju66l3r 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no obviously offensive remark there, no "Interpret all deletes as keeps". It merely reflects fact- admins should (and probably would) not change those opinions but discount most of them altogether, or at least treat them as being of minimal weight. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a democracy. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Its offensive to ask an admin to ignore the comments of those one doesnt agree with. The admin should ignore Ju's comments on other users intentions and focus on the votes. Both Carwil and I still think it is a rascist article that needs deleting and for anyone to claim that other voters who voted delete dont think that is clearly trying to affect the vote in a negative and entirely spurious way. Its not for Ju to decide that delete means keep, nor anyone else. To ignore the delete votes would be little more than trolling and I trust that no admin will do so, SqueakBox 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion about the text of the article (regardless of whether the discussion signifies keep or delete) prior to Uncle G's rewrite of the article in its entirety are not applicable to Uncle G's contribution to the article. Is that not clear to you? The only part of the article that remained the same between the edit just prior to Uncle G's involvement and the current text is the title. The nomination even states that "academic context" would mitigate the need for deletion. You are continuing to falsely characterize my statements because in no way have I said "delete means keep", nor have I said "ignore the delete votes". Finally, I'd like to say that it is possible to discuss race without inherently being rascist or violating WP:NPOV. There are numerous academic fields based upon race and the approaches taken to studying race are encyclopedic. ju66l3r 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope you will respect the delete of all users who wrote delete. Of course we can discuss race without being rascist. IMO Uncle G's contributions are to be lamented, he turned a troll bait article into something wikipedia might be stuck with (7-5 in favour of delete right now) even though the article is so full of holes (eg it says brown people dont exist, so why if that is the case is this article being used to justify anything other than its own deletion). In terms of watching comments (your edit summary) that is exactly what I am asking you to do and not to dismiss the delete of any users as you have asked for, so taking some of your own advice would perhaps be a good idea, SqueakBox 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If they based their discussion on sound guidelines and the current text, then I give their comments due credit. If they are based on a different text entirely, then the responses need to be updated. If an article meets the guidelines then Wikipedia is better for having it. The article discusses a term of historical significance. At one point the term was used to classify people in an anthropological system based on skin color. Furthermore, there are still references in more modern situations (as also written in the article). Articles are frequently started for many wrong reasons but concern notable topics (e.g., if a "Paula Abdul" article is created saying Paula Abdul eats goats., then it should be rewritten to discuss a notable entertainer and abide by WP:BIO and WP:BLP). There are articles about concepts that have little or no place in today's society (like Phrenology) but are notable and historical concepts which makes them encyclopedic. Unless the article violates a guideline, then I'm not sure why it would require deletion. Can you point to the guideline(s) that the current text violates? ju66l3r 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well people are still voting delete. The text itself says it is at best a shoddy concept and at worst there is no such thing. The fact that one new person has called for delete and I continue to do so is the clearest possible indication that the other editors won have changed their minds either. IMO this article was writen as troll bait and I am sure the person who wrote it is having a laugh at our expense. I also think in rewriting it Uncle G has damaged the reputation of wikipedia and has done more harm than good, SqueakBox 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- There's no central underlying concept here that has an encyclopedic meaning. As the article now says, "Historically, the appellation "brown people" has been applied by various people to a wide range of disparate, and disconnected, groups of people." Throw all the referenced material to Color metaphors for race. I think we should be really hesitant to reify prejudicial and racist concepts, starting with Blumenbach's categories, but extending from there. If racists call people brown, ignore it. If notable racist systems call them brown, put them in the relevant articles (Blumenbach, Neo-Nazism, etc.). At most, though I think this is worse than just dropping the page, disambiguate to relevant articles (Colored (South Africa), Malay, Latino). Note that quick google search suggests that Brown people is used as a racist term most frequently.--Carwil 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment An article that claimed all Mexicans were brown is hardly high quality encycloepdic material, SqueakBox 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are not reading the article. The only point in the article's history where it came even close to saying that was when Falconleaf (talk • contribs) added "Latino" to the five-colour system. I checked the sources, found no support for that addition, and removed it. As also explained to you on the talk page, the article does say something quite different, which is that some people refer to Mexican Americans as brown people. It then proceeds to characterize the debate over that appellation (as documented in the cited source). I strongly suggest that you read the article properly. Uncle G 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in whom are doing the referring but in whom is being referred to. When I point out not all Mexicans are brown you delete it. Is iot cos you want to perpetuate the rascist stereotype that Mexicans are brown? SqueakBox 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Please see WP:AGF and assume I have read it, trying to defend yuor poor editing by attacking me as not having read the article isnt so far from trolling, SqueakBox 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Continuing to insinuate that everyone who does not agree with you is motivated by "trolling" is not an assumption of good faith and is not a civil way to carry out discussion. ju66l3r 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not everyone, just you and Uncle G, though the real troll here is User:Maleabroad, some sensible person blocked him and this article ahould be speedied too, SqueakBox 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete No particular encyclopedic value, prone to racist generalisations. --Asterion^talk 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per re-write/wangi 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep following Uncle G's rewrite. Folks, Uncle G rarely bothers to put in this amount of work unless the subject is worth it. Several people seem to be reading a different article from the one I read, which is well written and well referenced (as usual for this editor). You disagree with the term? Irrelevant. It's documented in multiple sources over a significant period. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is such a commonly used term that I'm amazed it wasn't already an article.--^DarkTea 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well-written in this last re-write. Encyclopedic, historical, and cited. Provides context for the reader that is of value. Jerry lavoie 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An unencyclopædic term (the clue lies in its absence from other encyclopædias or relevant anthropological reference works). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? ju66l3r 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  You're confusing the use of a phrase as a term of art, to name an accepted concept, with the combination of two words in passing. You coukd do a search on a phrase like "the theist may choose" or "difficult journey", and find hundreds of thousands of books that use them — but they're not worthy of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Brown is used by Mexican people. Brown is used by Desis. Who is the real brown? UPS? Let's get rid of this anomaly.Bakaman 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Brown is used by Mexican people It is? There is no exact equivalent in the Spanish language for the English word brown, only words describing various shades of brown. The Native American people of the US, some of which are of the same lineage (Uto-Aztecan, for example) as many native Mexicans, are often described in English as.. redskins. Should we have an article on "red people"? Of course not, that's covered by articles about Native Americans, a "red people" article would be equally silly and redundant as this article is. Minus things that ought to be moved to other articles, what's left are dicdefs of several definitions of "brown people". This will be kept by "no consensus" and by "administrative courtesy", no matter what arguments go on here, since Unca G is an admin, but that's my pinche cinco centavos worth of opinion. Tubezone 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My status should not be used to determine the disposition of this article. Please consider the article in light of its content, the sources that discuss brown people (which I recommend that editors read, so that they make informed choices), and our verifiability, no original research, and deletion policies. Uncle G 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Except we do have a redpeople article: Redskin (slang). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is cited. And lots of new material can be added into this article. Counter arguments can be made within the article instead of deleting the whole thing. Lukas19 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article tries to be neutral and objective, but comes up short. With such a subjective and culturally sensitive topic it should be more accurate. For example, being "brown" has nothing to do with being Hispanic. Parts of this article appear to be written by very ignorant people and as such it is unencyclopedic. Deepstratagem 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite. Somewhat of a troll magnet, but as of now this article is worthy of inclusion. People are conflating what "brown people" actually are - almost impossible to describe - with what the article actually details, which is how the term "brown people" has been used throughout history. This is an error. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite, original nomination and early delete votes are based on a much earlier and weaker version of the article. Killroy4 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)— Killroy4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - unredeemably POV. Also violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) - WeniWidiWiki 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well, why cant there be a brown race? There is a Yellow race, but East Asians dont look yellow, why dont they go under white? Some are very pale yet they are called yellow. Now I dont say that in a racist way, in fact I am Hispanic/Latino and I beleive there is a Brown Race, im darker than White people but not as dark as Black people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.44.93 (talk • contribs).
  • Please note the point isn't to recognize or deny a brown race but to discuss pre-existing recognition, refutations or discussions. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute?
• Keep Though the subject matter is distasteful, and it is going to remain a POV and vandalism target, the article is sourced and meets with policy. /Blaxthos 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep At the very least, there is a strong historical (and encyclopedic) note to be kept on the term as used by Enlightment thinkers and early refrences like On the Natural Variety of Mankind. The rewrite seems close to this context, or at the very least more well-founded and better written. You may take the term to be antequated or ultimately flawed, but the term certainly existed and was used as a point in time. Even if I personally wouldn't recommend the usage of a term currently, that doesn't retcon the historical usage. (In fact, if verifiable, a section on the decline in usage of the term or possible modern offensiveness would be entirely appropriate.) Bitnine 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• (As a slightly off-topic expansion of that, to be honest there have been a couple of times that I've been researching for a paper and come across usage of a term that I found questionable. To be perfectly frank, it may have raised for me a question close to: "Huh, was this author a racist douchebag?" But in such cases, I try to research any historical usage of such terms such that I may well later say, "Ooooh, that was a legitimate term for such things back then. Huh.") Bitnine 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Problem is, Blumenbach et al. were in fact racist douchebags, building a "scientific" system in large part to reinforce their underlying prejudices. (See the chapter on Blumenbach in S.J. Gould's Mismeasure of Man) --Carwil 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If that's the case (I must admit to not being familiar with Blumenbach in particular), I would tend to think that citations and referencing in the proper context with a NPOV is a screen enough. In any event, I'd much rather judge Blumenbach to be a douchebag because of a knowledge of his beliefs and reasoning, not a lack thereof or impromper connotation of terms. Various articles discuss distasteful things in a (hopefully) neutral fashion, so long as they meet the standards for notability. I'd would certainly trust that editors such as yourself would be watchful about such articles spreading a POV even through their subtext; that is definitely something to be mindful of and remove. Bitnine 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• To everyone who's said the delete's aren't based on reading the new article; let me be clear I've read it (and the new, new one). But:

• Most importantly, none of the users described in the article use "Brown people" as a primary description of their concept. If the encyclopedia is about concepts and not words, "brown people" doesn't rise to the occasion. Contra the article, it is neither a political nor an ethnic nor a cultural classification.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a concordance. So if Reds refer to American Indians, Russian communists, Cincinnati professional baseball players, and British colonial soldiers in North America, (plus, hypothetically Sitting Bull would prefer to be called "copper-colored") the word itself doesn't need a page.
• The outdated, racist and pseudoscientific nature of the anthropological writings involved are best addressed on single pages about their theories (Blumenbach, Race (historical definitions), Color metaphors for race). If, and only if, these pages need to be split, then let them have their own sections.
• The "race scientists" don't use brown people as a central concept, but rather Australoid or Malayan race. Brown is an add-on descriptor, not the central concept. Using it to link to anyone who's called their collective group of people brown (and contra the article, lots of people have brown skin) to these terms stretches the page into two unrelated concepts, and (this may be what's most important to those of us writing about the racism involved) gives legitimacy to very problematic concepts.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) suggests: "Avoid outdated terms when describing people. For example, Asian is preferred over Oriental." So, retconning is indeed appropriate.--Carwil 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, are you sure about that application of the naming conventions? That would certainly apply to the term as used in an article about people from that particular region, however, not to an article about the term itself. In the latter case, the term is not being used to describe people, rather the term itself and past usages are described. I suppose you could try and fold the term into the pages of all of the Enlightenment era authors that used it, but that seems a little off as a reason behind an AfD to me. Bitnine 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete largely per Carwil, above. Many sources are cited, but the individual facts are of no interest. It is the assembly of the disparate pieces into a single article, where there is no RS saying that this is one topic, it is the construction of this article itself, the overall synthesis, that is Original Research. Jd2718 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are reliable sources saying that this is one topic. One such is the second source actually cited by the article as it currently stands. Its chapter title alone reveals this. Please actually look at the sources. Uncle G 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is an anthropologist's book on the language of race. I can't comment on the research in the book, not having read it. But without quotes we have no idea what he is saying. The title of a book, the title of a chapter, these are not RS's. Jd2718 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No-one said that it was. Please actually read the article, the citations, the sources, and what I wrote above. The fact that you have no idea what the source says is a direct result of your not having read the source or (it appears) the article. The article outright tells you some of what he is saying, in several places. I repeat: Please actually look at the sources and read the article. You haven't looked at the sources. Even the title of the title of the chapter alone reveals that this is one topic. To see it you don't even need to open the book, as it is given right there in the citation in front of you. As such, your argument that there are no reliable sources that treat this as one topic when one is cited right there in the very article under discussion is wholly fallacious. Uncle G 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • A read of three academic articles by Jack Forbes on the issue, and using the word brown reveals that he uses brown only as a color descriptor, and makes no attempt to conceptualize or reify "brown people." The articles were: The Hispanic Spin: Party Politics and Governmental Manipulation of Ethnic Identity, Jack D. Forbes, Latin American Perspectives > Vol. 19, No. 4, The Politics of Ethnic Construction: Hispanic, Chicano, Latino...? (Autumn, 1992), pp. 59-78. Mustees, Half-Breeds and Zambos in Anglo North America: Aspects of Black-Indian Relations, Jack D. Forbes, American Indian Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 1 (1983), pp. 57-83. Undercounting Native Americans: The 1980 Census and the Manipulation of Racial Identity in the United States, Jack D. Forbes, Wicazo Sa Review > Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 2-26. In any case, the book does nothing to bridge the totally different concepts of Australoid/Malayan with Black-Indian mixed descendants (Forbes only writes about the latter).--Carwil 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - But rewrite "No people are really brown in colour". For example, the article Blue-eyed soul says "Blue-eyed soul is a term used to describe R&B or soul music performed by white people. The term is a misnomer, in that the artists don't all have blue eyes. The term doesn't refer to a distinct style of music, and the meaning of blue-eyed soul has evolved over decades." Should we delete the article Blue-eyed soul just because it is a misnomer? No. And have you ever looked closely at eyes called "blue"? Lots of eyes called blue are simply a lighter shade of eyes not called blue. Someone who wants to find out about either "brown people" or "blue-eyed soul" should be able to find such an article in wikipedia. We don't censor based on a common term being a misnomer. 4.250.168.170 09:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article doesnt look as if it has anything to do with brown people, whoever exactly brown people are. I agree that this is original research. El Rojo 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Brown and Black Peoples Presidential Forum sponsors primary debates during each American election cycle. People use the term and the article may need content cleanup, but it shouldn't be thrown away. SchmuckyTheCat 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.