389:: 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
443:
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
1044:(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, "
1168:. 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.
457:
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,
1079:
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.
467:
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
1324:
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
1078:
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
397:
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
344:
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
1271:
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
831:
skins. 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
489:
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
466:
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
Knowledge is better for having it. The article discusses a
207:
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. Knowledge allows articles about discredited or obsolete scientific theories, and this article is now well referenced, and is of historic
1187:
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
909:
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
841:
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
756:
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
456:
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
1281:
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
442:
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
431:
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
119:
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
677:
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?
969:
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
503:-- 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
407:
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,
1107:
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
1262:
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
432:
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,
1317:
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
507:. 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 (
124:
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.
1283:
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 :
1030:
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.)
1026:. 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
578:, 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.
475:) 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?
590:
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?
490:
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,
1235:
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.
892:
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
1286:
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
832:"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.
1061:
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
1214:, 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
471:, 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
1285:
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, WĂÄŤazo Ĺ a Review : -->
1359:
s 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.
1245:
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
112:
270:- 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.
48:; 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.
880:
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.
398:
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.
1192:
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.
1022:
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
1339:. 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.
1141:
The outdated, racist and pseudoscientific nature of the anthropological writings involved are best addressed on single pages about their theories (
1171:
1111:
1010:
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. /
745:
1174:
suggests: "Avoid outdated terms when describing people. For example, Asian is preferred over Oriental." So, retconning is indeed appropriate.--
616:
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
357:
What utter offensive rubbish. Since when have you, Ju6613, had the right to speak for other editors? Please strikle your arrogant remarks,
607:
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,
1096:
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:
986:
220:
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,
185:- sounds very POVish and as with all of these things has to rely on original research in the absence of any sources and references.
994:
Please note the point isn't to recognize or deny a brown race but to discuss pre-existing recognition, refutations or discussions.
943:
563:
85:
80:
89:
17:
725:
An unencyclopædic term (the clue lies in its absence from other encyclopædias or relevant anthropological reference works). --
149:
unless sourced. "Brown person" can be used without negative racial connotation, but the page as it stands isn't what we need.
939:
713:
Well-written in this last re-write. Encyclopedic, historical, and cited. Provides context for the reader that is of value.
552:
You are not reading the article. The only point in the article's history where it came even close to saying that was when
1146:
72:
922:
per rewrite, original nomination and early delete votes are based on a much earlier and weaker version of the article.
1138:, (plus, hypothetically Sitting Bull would prefer to be called "copper-colored") the word itself doesn't need a page.
447:. There are numerous academic fields based upon race and the approaches taken to studying race are encyclopedic.
1378:
36:
1377:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1150:
999:
515:, etc.). At most, though I think this is worse than just dropping the page, disambiguate to relevant articles (
504:
417:
320:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
126:
982:
378:
271:
1363:
1343:
1329:
1326:
1291:
1276:
1257:
1240:
1226:
1196:
1178:
1083:
1069:
1052:
1035:
1014:
961:
926:
914:
901:
884:
868:
846:
836:
807:
801:
768:
751:
736:
717:
705:
700:
691:
669:
657:
641:
624:
611:
595:
582:
547:
535:
494:
479:
461:
451:
436:
421:
402:
381:
361:
349:
336:
324:
307:
289:
274:
262:
250:
237:
224:
212:
199:
177:
153:
140:
129:
54:
978:
897:. Parts of this article appear to be written by very ignorant people and as such it is unencyclopedic.
1272:
as one topic when one is cited right there in the very article under discussion is wholly fallacious.
974:
762:
730:
557:
285:]; if that's what we're talking about, it doesn't need a new page with Blumenbach's alternate term.--
193:
1360:
995:
864:
860:
413:
316:
246:
and eye on this, it has sources but it will be a target for all kinds of racist vandalism, I fear.
935:
898:
958:
714:
543:
An article that claimed all Mexicans were brown is hardly high quality encycloepdic material,
302:
76:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1131:
1119:
796:
852:
758:
726:
634:
617:
553:
247:
234:
188:
50:
1153:). If, and only if, these pages need to be split, then let them have their own sections.
1321:
1312:
856:
823:
of brown. The Native American people of the US, some of which are of the same lineage (
783:
638:
608:
592:
544:
491:
458:
444:
433:
358:
221:
1135:
1011:
954:
931:
923:
911:
833:
686:
680:
650:
604:
409:
259:
174:
150:
121:
1340:
1273:
1237:
1219:
1193:
1165:
1157:
1080:
1049:
1032:
881:
843:
748:
621:
579:
528:
476:
448:
399:
346:
333:
137:
68:
60:
106:
815:
It is? There is no exact equivalent in the Spanish language for the English word
699:
This is such a commonly used term that I'm amazed it wasn't already an article.--
1288:
1254:
1223:
1218:, it is the construction of this article itself, the overall synthesis, that is
1211:
1175:
1066:
824:
532:
286:
209:
1161:
1142:
1127:
1123:
666:
512:
508:
472:
574:. As also explained to you on the talk page, the article does say something
827:, for example) as many native Mexicans, are often described in English as..
678:
Irrelevant. It's documented in multiple sources over a significant period.
637:, some sensible person blocked him and this article ahould be speedied too,
894:
516:
393:, otherwise their comments are irrelevant to the AfD discussion of the
166:
283:
For a well-sourced, description of the relevant outdated concept, see
649:
No particular encyclopedic value, prone to racist generalisations. --
524:
301:. Is now a well-sourced article on the notable historical concept. --
170:
169:, as defined in the article, would include nearly everyone who's not
633:
Not everyone, just you and Uncle G, though the real troll here is
570:. I checked the sources, found no support for that addition, and
520:
1371:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1048:, that was a legitimate term for such things back then. Huh.")
787:
162:
791:
1282:
Identity, Jack D. Forbes, Latin American Perspectives : -->
165:
that tries to define the term simply by the amount of skin
258:
per Edison. I advise others to look at UncleG's rewrite.
1269:
Please actually look at the sources and read the article.
1267:
some of what he is saying, in several places. I repeat:
1188:
term itself and past usages are described. I suppose you
571:
567:
102:
98:
94:
1325:
don't censor based on a common term being a misnomer.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1381:). No further edits should be made to this page.
527:). Note that quick google search suggests that
373:: What arrogant remarks? I thought most people
8:
531:is used as a racist term most frequently.--
970:people but not as dark as Black people.
568:added "Latino" to the five-colour system
1172:Knowledge:Naming conventions (identity)
1112:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary
955:Knowledge:Naming conventions (identity)
851:Except we do have a redpeople article:
136:Delete unless it can be sourced. ---
7:
1309:No people are really brown in colour
1134:, and British colonial soldiers in
332:now that sources are provided. ---
173:or of pure African tribal lineage.
1253:of a chapter, these are not RS's.
953:- unredeemably POV. Also violates
233:- Silly, unsourced, and offensive.
24:
1160:as a central concept, but rather
1114:, nor is it a concordance. So if
1024:On the Natural Variety of Mankind
1156:The "race scientists" don't use
819:, only words describing various
794:? Let's get rid of this anomaly.
1320:" Should we delete the article
813:Brown is used by Mexican people
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
620:way to carry out discussion.
1:
1147:Race (historical definitions)
1364:19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1344:17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1330:09:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1311:". For example, the article
1292:15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1277:10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1258:00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1241:00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1227:00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1197:23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1179:23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1084:02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1070:23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1053:22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1036:21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1015:21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
962:17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
927:11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
915:10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
902:08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
885:01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
869:01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
847:11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
837:09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
808:00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
769:00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
752:00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
737:21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
718:20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
706:20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
692:19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
670:19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
658:19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
642:19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
625:19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
612:18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
596:19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
583:18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
548:17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
536:16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
495:19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
480:19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
462:19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
452:19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
437:17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
422:01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
410:Knowledge is not a democracy
403:00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
382:22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
362:21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
350:10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
345:recreation of the article.
337:20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
325:20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
308:01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
290:19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
275:00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
263:00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
251:20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
238:00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
225:00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
213:20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
200:08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
178:08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
154:08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
141:07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
130:07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
55:20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1398:
377:saying it should be kept.
790:. Who is the real brown?
1374:Please do not modify it.
1151:Color metaphors for race
505:Color metaphors for race
120:ethnicity. Looks like a
32:Please do not modify it.
469:Paula Abdul eats goats.
944:few or no other edits
946:outside this topic.
786:. Brown is used by
782:- Brown is used by
1103:Most importantly,
240:
127:Rumpelstiltskin223
1220:Original Research
1063:Mismeasure of Man
1002:
991:
977:comment added by
947:
690:
420:
379:AstroHurricane001
323:
272:AstroHurricane001
229:
187:--Kind Regards -
1389:
1376:
1132:baseball players
1120:American Indians
998:
990:
971:
929:
804:
799:
765:
733:
703:
684:
655:
519:(South Africa),
416:
391:as it stands now
319:
305:
198:
196:
191:
161:, a POV fork of
110:
92:
34:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1379:deletion review
1372:
1307:- But rewrite "
1249:of a book, the
1108:classification.
972:
853:Redskin (slang)
802:
797:
763:
731:
701:
651:
635:User:Maleabroad
576:quite different
303:
194:
189:
186:
83:
67:
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1395:
1393:
1384:
1383:
1367:
1366:
1361:SchmuckyTheCat
1346:
1333:
1332:
1322:Blue-eyed soul
1313:Blue-eyed soul
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1182:
1181:
1169:
1154:
1139:
1109:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1073:
1072:
1056:
1055:
1039:
1038:
1017:
1005:
1004:
1003:
996:CanadianCaesar
964:
948:
917:
904:
887:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
849:
784:Mexican people
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
740:
739:
720:
708:
694:
672:
660:
644:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
588:
587:
586:
585:
538:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
414:CanadianCaesar
384:
365:
364:
352:
339:
327:
317:CanadianCaesar
315:per Charlene.
310:
295:
294:
293:
292:
278:
277:
265:
253:
241:
227:
215:
202:
180:
156:
144:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1394:
1382:
1380:
1375:
1369:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1327:4.250.168.170
1323:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1293:
1290:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:Strong Delete
1206:
1205:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1136:North America
1133:
1130:professional
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1001:
1000:Et tu, Brute?
997:
993:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
968:
965:
963:
960:
956:
952:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
928:
925:
921:
918:
916:
913:
908:
905:
903:
900:
899:Deepstratagem
896:
891:
888:
886:
883:
879:
876:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
848:
845:
840:
839:
838:
835:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
811:
810:
809:
806:
805:
800:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
777:
770:
766:
760:
755:
754:
753:
750:
747:
744:
743:
742:
741:
738:
734:
728:
724:
721:
719:
716:
712:
709:
707:
704:
698:
695:
693:
688:
683:
682:
676:
673:
671:
668:
665:per re-write/
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
648:
647:Strong Delete
645:
643:
640:
636:
632:
626:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
594:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
546:
542:
539:
537:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:Strong Delete
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
481:
478:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
460:
455:
454:
453:
450:
446:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
423:
419:
418:Et tu, Brute?
415:
411:
406:
405:
404:
401:
396:
392:
388:
385:
383:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
360:
356:
353:
351:
348:
343:
340:
338:
335:
331:
328:
326:
322:
321:Et tu, Brute?
318:
314:
311:
309:
306:
300:
297:
296:
291:
288:
284:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
273:
269:
266:
264:
261:
257:
254:
252:
249:
245:
242:
239:
236:
232:
228:
226:
223:
219:
216:
214:
211:
206:
203:
201:
197:
192:
184:
181:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
155:
152:
148:
145:
143:
142:
139:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
123:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1373:
1370:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1336:
1316:
1308:
1304:
1268:
1264:
1250:
1246:
1232:
1215:
1210:largely per
1207:
1189:
1166:Malayan race
1158:brown people
1115:
1104:
1062:
1045:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1007:
979:68.154.44.93
973:— Preceding
966:
959:WeniWidiWiki
950:
919:
906:
889:
877:
828:
820:
816:
812:
795:
779:
757:articles. --
722:
715:Jerry lavoie
710:
696:
679:
675:Obvious keep
674:
662:
652:
646:
589:
575:
560:
540:
529:Brown people
500:
488:
468:
430:
394:
390:
386:
374:
370:
354:
341:
329:
312:
298:
267:
255:
243:
230:
217:
208:importance.
204:
182:
158:
146:
135:
118:
69:Brown people
61:Brown people
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1305:Strong Keep
1020:Strong Keep
967:Strong Keep
942:) has made
825:Uto-Aztecan
603:Please see
1355:and Black
1287:latter).--
1162:Australoid
1143:Blumenbach
1128:Cincinnati
1124:communists
1122:, Russian
910:an error.
842:policies.
764:Μελ Ετητης
759:Mel Etitis
732:Μελ Ετητης
727:Mel Etitis
572:removed it
554:Falconleaf
513:Neo-Nazism
509:Blumenbach
473:Phrenology
248:futurebird
235:futurebird
51:Yuser31415
1265:tells you
1216:one topic
1118:refer to
857:Night Gyr
639:SqueakBox
609:SqueakBox
593:SqueakBox
545:SqueakBox
492:SqueakBox
459:SqueakBox
434:SqueakBox
359:SqueakBox
268:Weak keep
222:SqueakBox
1318:decades.
1012:Blaxthos
987:contribs
975:unsigned
940:contribs
932:Killroy4
924:Killroy4
912:Moreschi
895:Hispanic
834:Tubezone
653:Asterion
564:contribs
387:Response
304:Charlene
260:Zagalejo
175:Tubezone
151:Marskell
113:View log
1341:El Rojo
1274:Uncle G
1238:Uncle G
1194:Bitnine
1081:Bitnine
1050:Bitnine
1033:Bitnine
882:Lukas19
844:Uncle G
749:ju66l3r
622:ju66l3r
580:Uncle G
541:Comment
517:Colored
477:ju66l3r
449:ju66l3r
445:WP:NPOV
400:ju66l3r
395:current
371:Comment
355:Comment
347:ju66l3r
334:RockMFR
167:melanin
138:RockMFR
86:protect
81:history
1357:People
1337:Delete
1315:says "
1289:Carwil
1255:Jd2718
1231:There
1224:Jd2718
1212:Carwil
1176:Carwil
1067:Carwil
951:Delete
890:Delete
821:shades
780:Delete
723:Delete
605:WP:AGF
533:Carwil
525:Latino
287:Carwil
231:Delete
218:Delete
210:Edison
190:Heligo
183:Delete
171:albino
159:Delete
147:Delete
122:WP:NEO
90:delete
1353:Brown
1251:title
1247:title
1190:could
1046:Ooooh
817:brown
788:Desis
687:Help!
667:wangi
618:civil
521:Malay
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
1351:The
1349:Keep
1116:Reds
1105:none
1065:) --
1008:Keep
983:talk
936:talk
920:Keep
907:Keep
878:Keep
861:talk
798:Baka
746:Huh?
711:Keep
697:Keep
663:Keep
558:talk
342:Keep
330:Keep
313:Keep
299:Keep
256:Keep
244:Keep
205:Keep
195:land
163:race
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:Keep
1284:-->
1233:are
1164:or
829:red
803:man
792:UPS
702:Tea
681:Guy
375:are
111:- (
1222:.
1149:,
1145:,
1126:,
1028:if
989:)
985:•
957:-
938:•
930:—
867:)
865:Oy
855:.
767:)
735:)
566:)
523:,
511:,
412:.
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
981:(
934:(
863:/
859:(
761:(
729:(
689:)
685:(
561:·
556:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.