Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown people (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:39, 9 July 2012

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Brown people

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I said earlier the expression "brown people" or "brown race" is not notable and synthesized (WP:SYNTH). There is no other article for "brown people" in any other languages in Wikipedia, except for Swedish, which proves that the subject of the article is globally unheard-of and nonexistent. Other than that, the article is racist, controversial, and has no scientific foundation.

There is not an exact definition for "brown people" or "brown race"; it has been used inconsistently through history to describe anything from Italians to Malaysians, South Africans, Latin Americans, Arabs, Indians or any mixed ethnicity. At several points, the article says the usage of the "brown people" was even controversial in the 19th and 20th century when racial theories, which very seldom contained the expression, were most popular. I could not verify any mention of the expression "brown people" in sources from Reference 1-21 and 23-25. The authors referenced in the article do not actually use "brown people" or "brown race" as their description of their main concept. I believe that most of the people don't hear or use the expression and that many would consider it even controversial, racial, and not notable of a Wikipedia article.

Foundation of the article on the Fitzpatrick scale which claims that "brown race" is equal to skin type V is also problematic as skin type IV is also often called 'brown' and people of different skin type, depending on their tanning extent or geographical location, has been called 'brown'. The Fitzpatrick scale provides identification of the skin types based on tanning behavior, not on perceived temporal color of skin.

Other than that, the article has multiple issues: Reference 8 is a dead link, Reference 26 points to a page where there is no article, link to Reference 29 is not working, and the article contains several entries by the Wikipedia author without citations. Most of sources are of poor quality: most from explorers and linguists, and some from 19th-20th century anthropologist who use outdated, racist and pseudoscientific concepts, and Nordicist propaganda. There are no reliable sources from scientists or encyclopedias which would give credibility to the topic.

Contrary to the article, the topic ("brown people" or "brown race") bears no political, ethnic or cultural classification and is prone to reify prejudicial and racial concepts. It is not much different from unfounded concepts of Nazi ideology, like the "Aryan people" or the "Semitic race". FonsScientiae (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Controversy surrounding an article's title or subject is never a good reason to delete an article; otherwise, we'd have to delete many, many articles. Lack of use of "brown people" is also not problematic, since it is obviously a controversial, and therefore rarely-used, term. Are brown people discussed in any way at the sources? Are the sources good, and do they back up claims that reference them? Here and here, and probably in a few more places, User:Uncle G added tons of sources. I don't see a reason Uncle G would include anything but good sources, so I believe the article should stay. City Of Silver 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the deletion discussion linked above is not relevant to this article. (Note the capital "P.") There was a deletion discussion for this article here, and it resulted in a weak keep based on Uncle G's addition of sources. City Of Silver 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a recognised term for people of human skin type V and totally differant to someone termed "Black" even controversial topics like this have a right to be on Wikipedia Seasider91 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the basis of the existence of the article, then we should make articles about olive people/race, light intermediate people, and very light race. Why don't we have articles on blonde people and brunette race? FonsScientiae (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it can be sourced, BUT I hope other editors will try to fix some of the problems, particularly the use of sources that don't mention the subject of the article. I've done some myself, particularly in the Hispanic section which still needs more work. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely a topic, as demonstrated in reliable sources. We'd do well to expand our material on self-identification as brown, eg. by South Asians. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. My suggestion is to make articles on the skin color of humans (e.g. brown skin, white skin, black skin, olive skin) and include geographic distribution, populations and historical theories within those articles (in accordance with eye and hair color articles). Please don't make articles on generalized racial concepts which do not have worldwide relevance or scientific basis. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the appearance of duplicate votes, please remember that the nominating statement is treated as a vote and that it is not necessary to leave a separate delete comment below. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or drastically prune to a disambiguation page) With all due respect to Roscelese, this isn't one topic but several: a (possibly pseudo-)scientific skin color range, a position in a discredited (and definitely pseudoscientific) racial taxonomy for Malay peoples, and three positions in multiracial hierarchies: Latinos and/or South Asians in the United States, mixed White-Black people in South Africa, and an appearance based category in Brazil. To articulate my concerns (mostly raised in the previous deletion discussion):

Unifying multiple concepts into a single article, when there is no single concept, violates WP:NOT#DICT: "The same title for different things … are found in different articles."
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.
These "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." Insofar as this article points to Pardo, Mexicans, Latinos, and Coloured, it should be a polite disambiguation, not an extensive description as if this were the name of these concepts.--Carwil (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the article needs improvement, improving the article would solve that issue, I'm not really seeing any case for deletion here. - Sudo Ghost 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unfortunately. The term is notable in the past literature and although it is used inconsistently, it is generally used to refer to South Asians and SouthEast Asians and perhaps native Polynesians. Perhaps the article can be improved but it shouldn't be deleted and its not inherently wrong--just vague in our modern world. Today some people call SouthEast Asians 'yellow' for the colour of their skin. But its no reason to delete this article. --Artene50 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been studying US -> Brazil relations and with the terminology that Brazil uses for race Vs. US, this article is needed as it is a term that is still in-use in parts of the world. Regardless of it being a slur here in the United States, it's important that demographics collections by modern countries should not be deleted because the term is en-vogue in one part of the world. This is the same deletion request we had in Project Arctic regarding Inuit vs. Eskimo where both pages were well cited and researched. Canada and the US differed on terminology but both pages stayed intact as they both had past and present uses. BaShildy (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there any reason to have Brown people do anything in regards to this group in Brazil besides provide a link to Pardo?--Carwil (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or make into dab page, not a real or notable topic and thus having it smacks of racism which damages the reputation of wikipedia. Google doesnt recognise the term except in this article. I recommend drastic pruning if this afd fails. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, we don't ignore racism. Pretending such things don't exist would damage Wikipedia's reputation, documenting it does not. I don't know what "Google doesn't recognize the term" means, but a quick glance seems to suggest the opposite (and that's ignoring the fact that Google search results don't dictate article existence). - Sudo Ghost 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about brown people as a racist term, Google just indicates what an unnotable term it is, nothing more (I agree we should not allow google to define what is a notable article though). I think the term is unnotable and having the article is racist but I am not suggesting we have an article about the term as a racist term even if we could source it. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and the term being unnotable isn't reflected by the sources in the article. "Having the article is racist" how? Even if the existence of this article was somehow racist (which sounds more like an appeal to emotion than anything), why would that determine if we keep an article or not? That runs afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. - Sudo Ghost 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)+[reply]

Well if you think its okay to have racist articles on wikipedia, I beg to differ. And while you are entitled to your opinion about google's results for this term again I disagree, it seems to clearly indicate what an unnotable term it is. And I ahvent seen a single ref that supports the concept. This is fairly typical of the poor quality of the refs [1] SympatheticIsolation (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling it a "racist article" without any justification or explanation, and saying Google suggests it isn't notable, again without explaining why. "Racist article" is an appeal to emotion, one that effectively says WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If by "racist article" you mean an "article about racism", then that is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't remove an article on those grounds. Just because something isn't desirable does not mean that it doesn't exist. - Sudo Ghost 00:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You thinking you can define what I am saying is unhelpful so please be so kind as to desist; nobody needs you to interpret other people's comments. What is certain is that not one ref actually is about brown people, the articles are all about other concepts etc and just mention brown people in passing; this is hardly evidence that the cioncept exists at all as if it did there would be lots of refs talking about the subject as certainly happens with the concepts of white and black people. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With no citation that "brown people" is a "political, racial, ethnic, societal, and cultural classification", as proposed by the article, then it seems racist. It also seems creepy. SudoGhost, I see that you have ties to a state that was once part of a group that sought to enslave people that were not of pure white descent. Could you confirm that there is not a conflict of interest? TekItRemark (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The scholars quoted here especially Giuseppe Sergi who died in 1936 and incidentally opposed the Nordic view of race were serious scholars. Yes, their views on race are somewhat outdated today but this article should not be deleted just because the article is a tad outdated. Wikipedia is not censored. --Artene50 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Sergi did not oppose the existence of the "Nordic race", but the supremacy of the "Nordic race". His theories about the "Mediterranean race" were created in opposition to the Nordic view of race. His degradation of the "Nordic race" and his development of the Mediterranean racial identity made him not much incorrect than Hitler. He even traced the raise of the British Empire as a consequence of Mediterranean blood in the British population. Maybe he had popularity, but in no aspect I would call him a serious scholar. FonsScientiae (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SYNTH. Takes Von Luschan's chromatic scale of skin colour of individuals, applies this in a dubious way to groups, and mixes in a number of unrelated self-identifications as Coloured or Pardo, falsely implying that these are somehow equivalent. Anthropology recognises no such thing as a "brown race," and the term smacks of 1930s-era racism. As the nom notes, the sources don't actually use the term "brown people." There is no actual topic here, just a WP:SYNTH of things thrown together. -- 202.124.72.209 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 :::::::You thinking you can define what I am saying is unhelpful so please be so kind as to desist; nobody needs you to interpret other people's comments. What is certain is that not one ref actually is about brown people, the articles are all about other concepts etc and just mention brown people in passing; this is hardly evidence that the cioncept exists at all as if it did there would be lots of refs talking about the subject as certainly happens with the concepts of white and black people. [[User:SympatheticIsolation|SympatheticIsolation]] ([[User talk:SympatheticIsolation|talk]]) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 :::::::With no citation that "brown people" is a "political, racial, ethnic, societal, and cultural classification", as proposed by the article, then it seems racist. It also seems creepy. SudoGhost, I see that you have ties to a state that was once part of a group that sought to enslave people that were not of pure white descent. Could you confirm that there is not a conflict of interest? [[User:TekItRemark|TekItRemark]] ([[User talk:TekItRemark|talk]]) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::{{facepalm}}.  Please tell me you're kidding, suspiciously "new" editor.  If you're going to ask asinine questions like that, do it on your actual account, don't create a new account for it.  - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 02:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' The scholars quoted here especially [[Giuseppe Sergi]] who died in 1936 and incidentally opposed the Nordic view of race were serious scholars. Yes, their views on race are somewhat outdated today but this article should not be deleted just because the article is a tad outdated. Wikipedia is not censored. --[[User:Artene50|Artene50]] ([[User talk:Artene50|talk]]) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 ::: Giuseppe Sergi did not oppose the existence of the "Nordic race", but the supremacy of the "Nordic race". His theories about the "Mediterranean race" were created in opposition to the Nordic view of race. His degradation of the "Nordic race" and his development of the Mediterranean racial identity made him not much incorrect than Hitler. He even traced the raise of the British Empire as a consequence of Mediterranean blood in the British population. Maybe he had popularity, but in no aspect I would call him a serious scholar. [[User:FonsScientiae|FonsScientiae]] ([[User talk:FonsScientiae|talk]]) 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)