Talk:Brown people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Colour blind

Have you looked at a few people recently? Look at my user page to see the difference between the alleged black person and the black dog, to claim that people arent brown is likle claiming the sky isnt up, it is a defiance of reality, SqueakBox 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Your user page is irrelevant, as is who I have looked at. If you want this article to put forward the thesis that all people are brown, then you must provide a source for that thesis. The article currently has a source that states unequivocally that "brown people are not brown". Therefore that is what the article says. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Uncle G 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So one poor reference makes for a truth, eh? I have now referenced that some people do think skin colour is brown, SqueakBox 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've removed the content. You appear to be basing your content on song lyrics. Please use good sources. Uncle G 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please dont delete references, it amy not be ana academic ref but this isnt an academic encyclopedia either, SqueakBox 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • On the contrary: This is meant to be an accurate and reliable encyclopaedia. Basing articles upon song lyrics, as you are doing, does not lead to either. Uncle G 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Song lyrics are fine, we are not talking about an academic subject but about yoyur absurd claim that no people are brown. If you keep deleting anything that contradicts your own beliefs we end up with a really useless article, SqueakBox 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Song lyrics are not fine as a basis for an encyclopaedia article. I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And as I said above, my beliefs, which you have no way of knowing, are irrelevant. This is an article based upon sources, and is an academic subject, as clearly evidenced by the several sources cited that treat it as such. Problems with such articles only arise when editors decide to write articles on such subjects based upon song lyrics rather than upon good sources. Uncle G 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an academic subject. What, you think we'll rely on your word for that? The article starteed as troll bait and what has changed? Are there any people who study brown people (who you on the one hand claim dont exisdt anyway)? Stop throwing WP articles at me which I am at least as familiar with as you. nothing about song lyrics in WP:RS, if it can be sourced that many black people think they are brown none of them need to be academics to make this true, as I am sure you well know, SqueakBox 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You may not think that it is an academic subject. There are currently 15 cited sources that disagree with you. I have made no claim about the existence of brown people, incidentally. As I wrote below, please stop constructing straw men. As for what many black people think they are: You have cited no sources that discuss that at all. I strongly suggest that you read the cited books and journal articles first. Uncle G 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, your suggestion that song lyrics are good source for this is pretty unreasonable. You obviously have strong feelings on this subject, but you have to understand that our individual opinions on the subject matter mean very little- we use proper sources instead. Friday (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


  • If 'Blackies' aren't Brown, then I must be colourblind. My eyesight is perfect. I'm, supposed to be 'White', but I'm anything but. I agree entirely with Squeakbox. You'll be saying ginger haired people aren't ginger haired next, because it's 'politically incorrect'. White, Black, Brown, Yellow, whatever, so what? It doesn't need an 'issue' making of it. Wipe the article, it's not worth the space. 80.192.242.187 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
  • Agree, this is an entirely unnecessary and contradictory fork that does no more than make wikipedia a laughing stock and unreliable source of info amongst those who arent racially obsessed, which Americans clearly are and seeme to want to impose their racial theories on the rest of the world. Shame on wikipedia, SqueakBox 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This article does nothing of the sort. You don't have to be "racially obsessed" to study the history of physical anthropology. Nor does this article impose American "racial theories" on the world. In fact, it was a German who first characterized five races that included SE Asia as "brown people". Please edit and discuss this article from a more neutral PoV. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coloureds

Take into account that I speak of the South African group referred to in this article. The phrase "who were largely, and erroneously, believed to have been the production of black-white sexual union out of wedlock" -- what exactly does it suggest? Also, in Afrikaans, one uses the diphtong "ui" instead of "y" in the words "bruin", "bruines" and "bruinmense". BooBooSpooki 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The source, which is a study of such words, spells the words as they are written, and contains no occurrences at all (in 500 pages) of the words that you give. Please cite an equally good source for the spelling that you are claiming. Similarly, the sentence fragment quoted is based upon Adhikari's discussion of the "stigma of illegitimacy" and an "enduring myth" in popular thinking. Please read what the source says. Uncle G 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clearing that up! Well, the author of your source hardly speaks Afrikaans fluently, whereas I do. I suppose it reflects the document when such spelling is used, but if you wish to refer to the way it's spoken lately, you need to use the spelling in the article about coloured people in South Africa, where "ui" is used instead of "y". Hopefully I can get hold of the source and read it properly over the week. BooBooSpooki 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Your spelling might simply be outdated. Adhikari talks about an article "Ons Bruinmense" that was written in 1962. Patterson (ISBN 0415178266) talks about "Bruinmense" on page 140. But that book was written in 1953. In contrast, Stone, who discusses "brynmense" and related words, was writing in 2002. Uncle G 11:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Ouch. Now I don't speak Afrikaans, but being German can read it, and tend to believe someone who speaks it. Here are some results of a quick search: Google for South African pages containing "bruin" or "bryn": [1] and [2]. On the one hand you have 2000 mostly English pages talking about people with the name "Bryn", on the other hand mostly Afrikaans pages, of which several use "bruin" for denoting a person's skin color or race. Add "swart" (black) and "wit" to your query and it becomes more obvious. The Afrikaans Wikipedia even has no pages containing "bryn", but several with "bruin": [3] and [4]. I thus have serious doubts about the existence and reliablity of Uncle G's sources mentioned in this page. --84.56.240.166 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • This speech was given in anniversary of the Afrikaans Language Monument in South Africa. I'm going to guess that when they use the word "bruin" in the context of honoring a monument to the language, then they probably got it right (it's also housed on the government' website so it should be reliable). The term is also given as "bruin" elsewhere on Wikipedia, particularly the Coloured article. I'd agree that bruin- not bryn- is more appropriate given everything I've found online. However, I do not agree that this somehow invalidates any other contributions by Uncle G. That would violate the assumption of good faith. ju66l3r 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Search engine test, and the further reading that it cites, will tell you the dangers of using Google as a test of correct spelling. If you doubt the existence and reliablility of the sources cited, which are books, then you are free to click on the linked ISBNs and confirm their existence for yourself with a large number of book sources. Uncle G 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Just to clarify: this is only about how one spells the Afrikaans word for brown.
            1. Posel (2001) refers to an appellant at the Cape Town Race Classification Appeal Board, where the appellant states "my kleur is tussen donker en lig-bruin" ("my colour is betweek dark and light brown") - Posel, Deborah. 2001. “What’s In a Name? Racial Categorisations [sic] Under Apartheid and Their Afterlife.” Transformation 47 (2001): 69.
            2. Wardrop (2002) writes: "In South African colloquial speech, members of the so-called 'Coloured' population, are often referred to as the bruin Afrikaners (brown Afrikaners)" - Wardrop, Joan; Australian Journal of Anthropology, 2002, vol. 13, issue 3, p 384, ISSN 10358811.
            3. Robins (2002) writes: "The term 'coloured' (kleurling) is highly contested and unstable. Other terns [sic] used to describe people of mixed ancestry include Bruin mense (Brown people) or Black. There are some 3.6 million South Africans who identify themselves as 'coloured'" - Robins, Steven; Planning Suburban Bliss in Joe Slovo Park, Cape Town. Africa, 2002, vol. 72, issue 4, p 530, ISSN 00019720.
            4. Kriel (2002) refers to an interview with Theuns Eloff, principal of the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, where he states that: "Daar is verder 2,9 miljoen bruin mense wat Afrikaans as moedertaal praat." ("Furthertmore, there are 2,9 million brown people who speak Afrikaans as their mother tongue") - Kriel, M. Approaches to Multilingualism in Language Planning and Identity Politics–A Critique. School of Language, Media and Communication, University of Port Elizabeth.
            5. Finally, on page 381 of Adhikari, Stone refers to research conducted between 1963 and 1991 and then mentions that "members of this community have tended throughout the period of research to identify themselves informally as bryn". This is not to say, then, that he encountered this spelling in 2002. BooBooSpooki 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The Afrikaans dictionary af:HAT entry should be enlightening "bruin. I b.nw. 1. Van 'n kleur wat bestaan uit 'n vermenging van rooi, swart en geel: Bruin hare, oë. Bruin gebrand deur die son..." It also gives bruinman for coloured man and bruinmense for coloured people. There is no bryn. There is a word brein but that means brain. Laurens 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore you can refer to page 239 of the 2002 edition of the af:Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls - the official Afrikaans spelling rules and word list which will clearly show "bruin" used in several examples and absolutely none using bryn. --08:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown

To claim or imply that all Mexicans are brown is rascist claptrap, eg see Afro-Mexican, SqueakBox 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The article did not say that. It quite clearly said that some people refer to Mexican Americans as brown people. That is what the source says, too. Please consult our Wikipedia:No original research policy again. You are not working from sources. Please work from sources. Uncle G 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We are talking about the people being referred to no those crass enough to do the referring and all Mexicans are not brown ,l that's justrt an ignorant generalisation. Pleasse source your claim that all Mexicans are brown, and take a look at Demographics of Mexico, hardly OR, SqueakBox 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • For the third time: The article did not say that. And nowhere have I made any such claim. Please read what the text actually says. You are not reading what the article actually says. Uncle G 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's your opinion, and as an argument it doesnt holod much water, SqueakBox 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Talking of arguments: Please stop constructing straw men. The only person who has stated that "all Mexicans are brown" is you. The article has made no such claim. I have made no such claim. Inventing a claim and attributing it to other people, and then requesting that they defend it, is a straw man argument. Uncle G 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SqueakBox, Uncle G is one of the most respected contributors on Wikipedia. You appear to be allowing your personal views about this terminology to override normal standards of civility, and I am not at all convinced that you have properly read the rewritten article, which is carefully neutral and very well-referenced. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, we report what the secondary sources say. That is precisely what we are doing here. Please calm down and stop attacking Uncle G, it is not helping. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy. I also am concerned that SqueakBox may have violated 3RR in the process. Since myself and another editor have now characterized this article as neutral, I would like to remove the NPOV tag. Can anyone give a specific and valid reason for leaving it on the article? ju66l3r 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. Neither Mexicans nor Hispanics are brown people, either in shade of color or in ancestry. The article does not make this claim, but it surely implies it for three reasons: (1) It says that "Americans" refer to mestizos and Hispanics as brown people. (2) It doesn't acknowledge that this is wrong at more than one level. One editor claimed this was addressed in the introduction of the article, but this is not the case, as even if we are to consider "brown-looking" Hispanics or "brown-looking" Mexicans, you'll find that this is a subset of both groups (see Demographics of Mexico and Hispanics). (3) Some editors, including SqueakBox and myself have tried to rectify the matter, and are reverted with no legitimate justification. Deepstratagem 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(4) Try telling South African Nationals that they are just white or just black or just brown. It's just not accurate enough. Why must this article imply that this is the case for Mexicans and Hispanics? Obviously someone is not doing his/her research. Deepstratagem 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You seem to be misisng the point. It's not about what we tell them, it's about what the reliable secondary sources tell us. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If your secondary sources contradict reason, they are not exactly reliable. Deepstratagem 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sourcing is no substitute for decent encyclopedia writing. Following the letter and absolutely not the spirit of wikipedia policies can produce a contrived OR piece like this, SqueakBox 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll remind you again, SqueakBox to refrain from characterizing the article in a defamatory way. To do so is to break the assumption of good faith that the editors who wrote the article extend to you and does not maintain the civility of the discussion. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to your logic one cant criticise articles. Absurd! Just because you wont acknowledge what you and Uncle G are up to (using academic references to pursue OR) doesnt mean others cant tell the truth. i would remind you to stop reminding me in a petty, unintelligent way as if you are the teacher and I am the student. This might fit your aggressive pursuit of this article as uncriticisable but its not how we do things here. As long as this article remians rascist OR I will continue to criticise it. If you banned criticism of articles on their talk pages we would have no possibility of imporoving articles bvut fortunately only Jimbo Wales could do this (and trhen everyone would leave and there would be no more wikipedia) SqueakBox 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another source

Economist Robert Ferguson was interviewed in 2004 by Black Issues in Higher Education and used the term "Brown people" when discussing the need for better minority education [5]. His use is combination with Black people and White people as descriptors for general culture groups in America. ju66l3r 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also found a decent Google Scholar search here that may elicit even more useful references for the usage of the term. ju66l3r 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is incredible

I agree with with deleting it. It just represents the twisted, strange and deeply racist view of "some" Americans when they deal with race, etc. It is as if I used these radical views to speak of Americans:

Here you have what "some" people think of Americans:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/01/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

"U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

You can also check what "some" Europeans think about Americans in Anti-Americanism.

If you are too lazy to read I will help you cutting and pasting:

Racialism

"In the middle of the nineteenth century, the racialist theories of Arthur de Gobineau and others spread through Europe. The presence of blacks and "lower quality" immigrant groups made racialist thinkers discount the potential of the United States. The infinite mixing of America would lead to the ultimate degeneracy. Gobineau said that America was creating "greatest mediocrity in all fields: mediocrity of physical strength, mediocrity of beauty, mediocrity of intellectual capacities - we could almost say nothingness."

I do not need to say what a racist charlatan this Gobineau was or what stuff all these Nazi websites are made of, but following the arguments that I can see here, why should we speak of Americans as white people at all, if white people live mainly in Europe, with a population of 728 million people, "some" of whom seem to view Americans as suspicious "whites" who are really not "white"? Veritas et Severitas 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Opening statement

"Like black people and white people, the concept of brown people is a political, racial, ethnic, societal, or cultural classification" . This is unsourced and looks like OR to me as there is not the concept of brown people that there is of white and black people, in that sense brown people are like red people and yellow people, so you need a source for every claim within this sentence to put it back in its entirety, ie a source that brown people are ethnic, cultural and societal classifications, SqueakBox 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is good summary of what to expect in the article per WP:LEAD. It is not research. It's the same has having a line at the beginning of an article about apples that says Apples are fruits and fruits are a part of different food pyramids. Specific discussion of how the term "brown people" are used in classification schemes comes within the main body of the article. ju66l3r 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that it is OR, NPOV and not true so it needs sourcing or we need an opening we can agree on, SqueakBox 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The article is a mess and I cant figure out how to clean it up. The Mexican section appears after the references but in the text this isnt so, and being after the refs it converts the refs code inot unreadable text. can someone please fix it, this article is a disgrace to wikipedia in its current state and we cant blame it on newbies. Some bug I cant find, SqueakBox 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Another editor removed a significant portion of a reference (including the end tag) in the process of blanking a significant portion of the text without discussion here first. I also disagree with your blanking of parts of the lead section. Please remain cool and constructive. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One contribution

I have made tis contribution:

In fact white people are not literally "white". Most of them are some shade of brown, some may even look pinkish or reddish, but none of them white. These concepts derive from a eurocentric view of race.

One user insists on deleting it. What is wrong with it? Veritas et Severitas 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is unsourced PoV and not applicable to an article on "Brown people". Furthermore, similar comments on using the color "brown" is already available in the article just prior to where you were adding it. Except those comments are sourced and don't try to attribute the original derivation (which is covered later in the article when discussing anthropology. ju66l3r 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
We should focus less on whether such labels are literally correct, and more on how these terms are used. "White people aren't white" is a bit of a strawman in this regard. See color metaphors for race. Friday (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree. those terms are made up by white people to refer to other people ignoring the basic fact that they are also brown. Veritas et Severitas 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The term "white" can be sourced from Latin/Greek comparisons to other people in the Mediterranean (see White people) and is not just some "igorance of being brown". The source of calling white people "white" is also much better addressed in that other article and is simply not applicable in discussing the term "Brown people". ju66l3r 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The term brown doesnt really exist in the way it does with white and black people, which is why this article should be deleted or if not redirected to people, and why this article doesnt do anything other than to stir up conflict. The idea that we are giving an encyclopedic definition of brown people is simply no the case, SqueakBox 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also not true. Do a Google search for "Brown people" and you'll find hundreds of references just the same as the usage of "white people" or "black people", nevermind the fact that this all stems formally from the 5-color classification system by one of the original physical anthropologists. You are refusing to read the article's content nor the references and until you do, you will continue to argue around the actual issue. Do you not agree that the term was used by physical anthropologists? ju66l3r 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I insist. I do not agree with the article, but if we are to analyse the concept, white people, who like to invent all these terms to refer to other people, ignore the fact that they are also some shade of brown and that they are certainly not "white". So if the article stays, the statement should stay. Veritas et Severitas 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is false, PoV, and not applicable. Plenty of civilizations have ways of describing themselves from other civilizations based on physical traits like skin tone. Your comments are that you have an opinion on how white people treat others and you want that opinion known in an article on the term "Brown people". That is not neutral. You need to stop adding your point of view to this article, please. ju66l3r 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of view?. My God! Do you mean that "white" people are literally "white". Do you doubt that they are some shade of brown themselves or may look other colors but certainly not white? What do you mean?. Veritas et Severitas 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, PoV is : "...white people, who like to invent all these terms to refer to other people..." and "...(white people) ignore the fact that they are also some shade of brown...". That is PoV. ju66l3r 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with LSLM) The problem is the article exists even though the concept is a minority rascist one. How we deal with this huge problem is indeed a tricky one. I think the way Ju and Uncle G remove any statements, sourced or otherwise that they disagree with while insisting that there own unsourced statements stand is very sad. Trying to give respectability to a minority rascist concept will not serve wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the biggest problem that I have come across in race related articles. You can have a look at the White people article itself. Right now it is not perfect but some time ago it looked like a Nazi manifesto. What I have found surprising is that most of these people come from the United States and want to impose on the rest of the world their twisted and strange ideas on race. Veritas et Severitas 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The historical usage of "Brown people" in physical anthropology is not a "minority racist concept". Your refusal to recognize this makes it impossible to discuss the article's worth. You are beginning to edit out of making a point rather than from a neutral point of view for the benefit of this article. Both of you continue to point out your blatant lack of disregard for neutrality ("...minority racist concept...", "...(editors) want to impose...twisted and strange ideas on race...") on these topics rather than comprehend the content of the actual article and discuss the article meaningfully rather than from the point of straw men and out of your own concept of what the article's title "means". ju66l3r 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a firm commitment to NPOV, that's why I tagged the article. Turning even minor sociological subject matter into an article on people who are brown and then filling it with ridiculous, highly lunatic fringe ideas such as that there are no brown people, and then to contradict that with all sorts of examples of people whose brownness happens to have caught the attention of someone else is not making for an NPOV article, however allegedly well referenced (it takes more than referencing to make a good encyclopedic article and a bad article can be well referenced). If you refuse to discuss with other editors and instead insult them (straw men) then we have reached an impasse so I woulsd advise you to change tack, SqueakBox 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No people are really brown in colour."

What is this line supposed to mean exactly? (No, the wikilink Human skin colour which is offered up as explanation doesn't help - it specifically says that human skin tone ranges "from dark brown to nearly colorless".) Such a statement seems to defy everyday observation (there are many more people who can be observed as literally brown in skin colour tone - including sun-tanned or olive-skinned "whites" and self-identified "black "people) than people who can be observed as literally white or literally black for instance), so it needs much more explanation than the unclarifying wikilink and figleaf reference note currently offered (Race is one of the most written about topics in sociology, social/cultural anthropology, cultural studies, sociobiology,political science etc etc, we shouldn't just use one source for such a sweeping statement) The term may be overworked or disputed in many cases, but this is not necessarily mean it totally lacks any direct correspondence with actual skin color whatsoever. Bwithh 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is widely written about. And one of the people who has written about this particular aspect of it (note the chapter title) at length is Forbes. He has a lot to say — several pages in fact — on the subject of "everyday observation", quoting people such as Ludwig Wittgenstein on the subject of colour perception. Three particular sentences are apposite here. The first, from page 96, is is: "Anyone who takes the time to carefully look at another human being or at one's own body will immediately be struck by the fact that there is no single color at all." (Forbes' emphasis). The second and third are from page 99: "The practical problem is that we cannot know what a Spaniard of 1560 meant by 'stewed quince' color or what an Italian of 1530 meant by 'olive-ish' color. Nor can we know if there was any agreement among people about such terms or, more importantly, about the colors in the mind conjured up by such terms." A lot of arguments on this talk page, including the above (which, ironically, talks about "sun-tanned" and "olive-skinned"), are based upon not actually reading what the source materials actually have to say, and what scholars have written, on this subject. I strongly suggest that editors read the sources. What is a single sentence in the article is a lot more in the sources. Uncle G 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:SenatorBarackObama.jpg
No, not brown at all.
    • Look at that picture and tell me that that is not the colour brown. This guy would also qualify as "brown" in the sense of "mixed race". Now that source is actually plausible if viewed in the context of Wittgenstein's philosophy, who wanted to challenge the ingrained perception of language, but taken out of context it's wrong. Many people have a skin color that falls into the spectrum of brown, including blacks and some whites.--84.56.240.166 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are not people who are literally white. The term white has been ingrained in some people's minds to see "white" people that they distort facts in an incredible way. White is a white piece of paper, or a white shirt. In fact it could be said that most people are some shade of brown. Some users here who like to classify people in colors just try and ignore that basic fact. Veritas et Severitas 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a weird and deeply unclear sentence, whether or not Colfax and Sternberg say this, and whether they do so in as many words, or otherwise. Given the large semantic difference between "no person is any shade of brown", and "it is simplistic and misleading to describe any single person as 'brown', much less any population group" (or indeed, "the designation of 'brown people' does not necessarily correspond to actual brownness of their actual skin" (i.e. people with a predominant skin colour which in most other contexts would be described as "brown" are not necessarily so designated, and equally, vice versa)), is there no clearer way of putting this that reflects whatever-it-is the source saying? The undoubted fact that there is always going to be more in the source than in the summary thereof does not mean that such summaries should be mystifying easter eggs, which it's not possible to query without being told to go "read the source". Alai 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Soooo, are we going to have some discussion on this, or is the article going to be perma-protected? (Nothing doing for a fortnight, it seems.) Alai 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it clearly cant be perma protected as that isnt how wikipedia works (especially with such a new and controversial article) and needs to be unprotected shortly. If this doesnt happen a request needs to be made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, SqueakBox 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I have closed the recent AfD for this article, but due to me not being an administrator I cannot remove the notice from the top of the article since it is protected. I will make a request. Yuser31415 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well please undo your closure or get the article unprotected or I will revert your closure, SqueakBox 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect

Should be unprotected as nobody has had a chance to edit this since it passed its afd and its been 10 days or more, SqueakBox 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

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." As per WP:NOT#DICT, it should be made into a disambiguation page.

The page would look something like this:

Brown people is a term used as in racial, as a classification, a term of identity, and an epithet. For more on such systems of classifications, see Race (historical definitions) and Color metaphors for race.
Brown people may refer to:

Note again, that none of these concepts are referred to primarily as "brown people."--Carwil 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That's odd, you don't seem to be adding the same tag to Black people or White people. According to the simplistic way in which you've chosen to view this article, each of those could easily fall under the same umbrella. Instead, I ask you to review the Historical concepts section that you've minimalized. This term was part of a five-color system of physical anthropology created during the Age of Enlightenment. There is far more to this article than is covered in those other articles and you are not applying WP:DICDEF correctly. Read the table to see how this article is more like the description of an octopus than the parts of speech and etymology of the word octopus. I completely disagree with your assessment. ju66l3r 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources say that there was and is such a concept, and, as Ju66l3r says, this is clearly an encyclopaedia article not a dictionary article. It's also relatively clear that the historical concept is strongly related to the modern concept still in use by the IBGE and others, belying your argument that these are entirely separate things. Uncle G 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
My actions on other pages are immaterial to the discussion and I haven't substantively looked at Black people. If White people were used to describe not just racially privileged members of the European diaspora, but also the Bai, non-Caucasian Russians, and anti-Communist partisans in the Russian Civil War, then I think we would have a case to disambiguate it. As it stands right now, just the first definition is in the article, which is a coherent concept, though I might well prefer White (racial status) or White (Eurocentric racial category) or even Whiteness (racialized social status), since the term's ontological status (is anyone "objectively" a "white person"; why does this fact change when I move them from Brazil to the United States to Finland?) is in serious question. But by Wikipedia's naming convention the more common, but formally applicable (and not insulting) naming should go with the concept. Here, each of the separate meanings, and I don't think you can disagree that they're separate since the article says as much, have their own perfectly valid names (though I also think we need to be quite upfront about the fact that "Australoid race" and "Malayan race" are concepts, not material realities).--Carwil 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
On the octopus analogy: if the octopus is the term brown people and the parts are different, we have a dictionary definition. If on the other hand, if the octopus is the set of brown people, then we aren't describing different parts, but different wholes.--Carwil 23:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with the tag and while I recognise that the afd failed I think the tag hits it on the head by saying it is the subject matter itself that is the problem not the quality of the article, SqueakBox 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You have yet, in either the AFD discussion or on this talk page, to give a coherent explanation of any problem with the subject matter that relates to our content policies, in particular the one that the tag links to. Please explicitly state which part of that policy you think applies. Uncle G 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the concept of brown people fails the notability test that we apply to all articles. Black people and white people are notable concepts. Brown people, like red people and yellow people, is not notable enough to justify an article. The way the article is written doesnt contradicty our policies but an article can be well written and fail the notability test, and I believe that is the case here, SqueakBox 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO Google results for brown people come up with a bunch of articles which appear to insult allegedly brown people, and while this article doesnt do that in its content I fear that in its concept it feeds into a basically negative concept of human beings, SqueakBox 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


This article should be deletedMuntuwandi 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For instance if you compare the editing traffic at black and white people with those here (the only other skin-colour based people article we have) there is much higher traffic, thus it fails "attracting notice"Wikipedia:Notability, and this is not my IMO but the reality of the world in which we live, where the very concept of brown people is marginal. This is a sensitive subject and it is too obscure to be here. IMO the next afd is just a matter of when not if as I am clearly not alone in this thought, SqueakBox 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the chart on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary:

Wikipedia Wiktionary
Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the species of animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing are duplicate articles that should be merged. For examples: colour and color, squash (plant) and marrow (vegetable). Different words warrant different articles. For example: "colour" and "color" have very different etymologies, and are two individual words.

This article is a meaning and usage history of "brown people." The sections on Malayan race , Australoid race, Coloured people, Latino people, and Pardos use "brown people" as a "different word for the same thing" and should be merged. Since there are multiple meanings, the policy is to disambiguate.

I don't think that "the historical concept is strongly related to the modern concept still in use by the IBGE and others" for two reasons: the anthropological "races" were regionally defined and based on ancestry, and the Brazilian definition is based on skin phenotype and need not even be inherited. Second, one refers to Asian/Oceanian descent, while in practice the Brazilian one is due to African descent.--Carwil 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support disambigaution of this articler page, SqueakBox 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The perception of who is brown, who is white, who is black, etc...changes depending on your location. You cant make a disambigaution page when the term needs to be explained depending on the region. Lukas19 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An ex:

Brown people is a term used as in racial, as a classification, a term of identity, and an epithet. For more on such systems of classifications, see Race (historical definitions) and Color metaphors for race.
Brown people may refer to:

etc etc...

However such a disambiguation page would go on and on and then you have to present sources and explain which definition is recongnized where and then you'd make a whole article again. Your suggestion is impractical. Lukas19 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree it would be impractical. I dont believe there are that many people who we can source identify themselves as brown, and what it would be is better than the page we have, SqueakBox 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not always what someone identifies themselves as. It is sometimes what others identify you as. Thus getting back to Lukas19's point of "X people are brown people if you ask these guys but not those guys and if you ask X people, it depends on if they came from Y heritage or Z heritage...". This article is not in need of a disambig nor is it unencyclopedic. The concept is a part of a historical system of classification of physical anthropology that maintains cultural uses among some populations still today. ju66l3r 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Lukas' additions aren't encyclopedic, however ("nor is it a usage guide", says Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Nor do they really refer to "brown people" as a conceptual term, but to people considered by some to be brown. The latter simply isn't encyclopedic. If it were, then we would have to have a pink people (per the Biko discussion on this page) that either defined a range of meanings or disambiguated to white people/whites in South Africa.--Carwil 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that black and white people are mainstream concepts and brown people is at best an obscure anthropoloigical concept but by having a wikipedia article here it appears to give the concept simil;ar weight in the world to that of black and white people. Personally I would feel happier then if there were also articles for red and yellow people, these are certainly equal concepts to that of brown people, by singling out brown people I am concerned that wikipedia is actually distorting reality (even though unintentionally) and giving validity to brown people as a racial concept, SqueakBox 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

this is pointless. I often refer to my Grandparents as brown people, but only jokingly. My grandfather is of a lot of Spanish heritage, and my grandmother is of primarily American Indian descent. I may refer to them as "Brown" people, but I still admit that my grandfather is White, as are many Hispanics in the United States. Everyone is actually a shade of Brown. I call for deletion. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutt696969 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely, SqueakBox 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What you often refer to your own family as is not the point of the article. The point of the article is to give the historic and current usages of the term. It does so in a neutral and verifiable way. To not have this article would be to deny that this notable term existed, exists, and was/is used in a number of ways. There is no reason in line with the policies of wikipedia that this article should be deleted. The anthropological usages alone justify that the term was used in early attempts to classify world populations based on physical characteristics and the fact that the term continues to be used, even adopted by some cultures in a way to redefine it as something of pride in some cases gives it standing in its own right as a independent article. ju66l3r 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
HEY PUT MY ARTICLE THE WAY IT WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.2.6 (talk • contribs)

This article is just a way for American mongrels (all are mongrels but some think that they are white) to vent their frustration. The entire world is laughing at them--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldenhawk 0

User:Goldenhawk 0 please note that there is a section for historical definitions of brown people which already includes Giuseppi Sergi's (1938) Mediterranean race. You, User:Goldenhawk 0, have added Sergi to the present day definitions which has made it redundant in the article. If you wish to dispute the current historical versus present day layout of the article, then please discuss it on this talk page.----DarkTea© 06:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skin pigmantation in a 21 century scientific study

Here you have a recent and scientific study of skin pigmentation in diffenrent popualtions. It could be very interesting in the article. Facts versus perceptions. 21st scientific information versus 18and 19th century Nordicist propaganda, etc.


One interesting issue is skin pigmatation in Southern Europeans and people here (from the discussion and some cherry picked authors in the body of the article) seem keen to ignore all scientific evidence and continue with their stereotypes. See here>:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

It measures the skin pigmentation of different populations in areas of the body not exposed to the sun. Spaniards, who are Southern Europeans, in case somebody ignores it,(samples from two regions in Spain), in spite of living in a Mediterranean area, where a darker skin pigmentation is to be expected due to exposure to the sun, as the article states, show a skin pigmentation in unexposed areas similar or even lighter than that of Northern Europeans (see page 18). Spaniards have an observed reflectance of around 65. For a comparison, Namibians have around 22-25, North Africans (Tunisians) around 56 (Morrocans) around 54, in Japan 55. What about Europe?. In London it is 62, darker than in Spain, although in other areas of the UK it is slightly lighter at 66.In Ireland 64-65. In Belgium 63, again darker than in Spain. So much for so much ignorance about the subject, that seems very common in this Anglosphere full of people who think that Spaniards or other Southern Europeans are like Mexicans. Funny they do not think that Jamaicans are not like the British. PS. It should be mentioned, though, that pale skin is considered unattrative in Spain and that most people will almost kill to get some colour or a good tan, in the beaches or in even using sunbeds. In fact most people do not consider pale skin attractive. On the other hand brown skin is considred much more attractive nowadays, a fact that people here seem to ignore, although when white people get brown we call it getting a tan. The information is there, in any case. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.201.69 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Easterners

  • I removed the section about Middle Easterners, as it didn't discuss Middle Easterners as "brown people", but whether they are "white" or not, which is irrelevant to this article. Furthermore, none of the sources seemd to refer to them as such, and Middle Easterners are hardly ever referred to by colour by others, but by ethnicity (Arab, Turk, Jew) and they don't define themselves according to Western colour standards anyway. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)