1209:: I can disagree with the nominator but at least I respect the nominator's comments but the statement by the anonymous IP who suddenly comes alive with 3 edits on July 9 makes me a tad suspicious. Yes, the term brown people is inaccurately used to describe Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Polynesians, people from Southeast Asia and I assume South America but it doesn't make it inherently racist. Just inaccurate. If a racist white person sees a SouthEast Asian they would state that this person is "yellow" (ie. a coward) rather than brown. In the end, the word brown is used as a term in the real world and, therefore wikipedia should having something on it. After all wikipedia is not censored. That is all I have to say. Thank You, --
349:
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 Knowledge article.
1266:. Moreover, the name of this page implies that the term "brown people" is used in an official capacity (remember, we are an encyclopedia) to refer to certain groups of people / races / ethnicities / what have you, when in fact the term is decisively informal and based on the physical appearance of the people referred to. We already have good pages for the people named by the term, so I don't think this page is necessary.
82:
701:. 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.
1203:
978:
958:
1360:. Either we should revert it to the most encyclopaedic version available, such as Uncle G's, or we should turn it into a disambiguation page, or we should turn it into a redirect of some kind. The absolute last thing we want to do with this title is create a redlink that urges inexperienced users to create material in its place.—
840:, we don't ignore racism. Pretending such things don't exist would damage Knowledge'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). -
777:
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.
1226:
Before encountering this article I have never heard the expression "brown race" from anyone, even from a racist person. As you stated, a racist person would probably call a
Southeast Asian "yellow", and not "brown". This just proves the point, that the expression is not notable and not really used in
885:
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
757:
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
1237:
is a political, racial, ethnic, societal, and cultural classification" and bases the rest of the article on this assumption; nothing is true from that quotation, except that it is maybe a "racial classification" scheme used by some racist people. What do you think about changing the article's title
852:
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
1139:
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
941:
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
348:
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
1002:
Fine, I'll humor you. That racists live in the same state as me is evidence of absolutely nothing. That is the most asanine observation I've ever seen someone make, and the fact that you created a separate account to say this stupidity speaks volumes. I can and will confirm that there is not a
358:
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 Knowledge author without citations. Most of sources are of poor quality: most
663:
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
776:
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
926:
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
352:
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
867:
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
619:
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
362:
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".
988:, on a simple google search, which provides evidence for the possibility, and with you seeming to avoid a simple acknowledgement and confirmation, I'm not sure what to think. Also, with the link you sent me on my talk page, I believe using "asinine" is a pretentious personal attack.
1238:
to "brown skin", and making a section under that article which talks about the prejudicial and racial usage of the word "brown"? Or maybe a better idea is to make an article on "racist color terminology" and include "brown" section, along with "black", "white" and "yellow" there.
1355:
Although it's my view that Uncle G's version linked above is clearly appropriate and should be kept, that may not persuade the closer because of the many arguments above. I think the most effective way I can persuade the closer not to delete this article is to point this out:-
345:). There is no other article for "brown people" in any other languages in Knowledge, 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.
359:
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.
1183:, 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
570:
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.
385:. 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?
1124:
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. Knowledge is not censored.
1410:- really - nominating an extensive 6-year old page, that easily passed a previous AFD dissussion? The person who started this, has virtually no edit history before they started this campaign. The case for deletion seems to be based on broken links?
818:
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.
1140:
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.
502:
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?
1434:
page where a section could clarify the usage of the word, or into a disambiguation page on Mexican Americans, Brazilian pardos, South African Coloreds, and any ethic group which is actually referred to as 'brown'
1500:"well-used, documented, well-sourced, etc." Have you actually read the nomination? As for usage, yes it is used but means different things in different context and cultures both historically and geographically (
302:
664:
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):
927:
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.
203:
52:- a few arguments to disliking the subject depend on the assumption that Knowledge having an article on a subject means Knowledge somehow endorses the concept - this isn't the case, and the passes
636:
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. –
964:. 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. -
1439:
It did not "easily pass the previous AfD discussion". It was a very slight keep and imo this article is in a much worse condition than it was at the time of the first nomination.
545:
353:
Fitzpatrick scale provides identification of the skin types based on tanning behavior (different types of skin's response to UV light), not on perceived temporal color of skin.
523:
89:
1240:
But as I stated previously this article can't stay in its current form as it is synthesized, is to reify prejudice and racism, and the expression of the title is not notable.
488:
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 Knowledge
296:
257:
262:
426:
198:
590:. 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. –
902:
You're calling it a "racist article" without any justification or explanation, and saying Google suggests it isn't notable, again without explaining
425:
Also, the deletion discussion linked above is not relevant to this article. (Note the capital "P.") There was a deletion discussion for this article
674:
The outdated, racist and pseudoscientific nature of the anthropological writings involved are best addressed on single pages about their theories (
704:
1486:
controversy, neither are we censored. This term is also used by some Brazilians and Filipinas to describe certain people, such as my fiancee'.
1389:, I don't see the need or desire to have articles on variances in skin tones to this fine detail. My skin is more of a rich brown can I have a
758:
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. --
1188:
469:, and it would certainly raise the bar for some of the discussion below this point. I said this in the 2007 AFD discussion, too, notice.
707:
suggests: "Avoid outdated terms when describing people. For example, Asian is preferred over Oriental." Insofar as this article points to
742:- If the article needs improvement, improving the article would solve that issue, I'm not really seeing any case for deletion here. -
441:
405:
381:. Controversy surrounding an article's title or subject is never a good reason to delete an article; otherwise, we'd have to delete
98:
397:
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.
1373:
230:
225:
128:
1513:
1495:
1469:
1448:
1419:
1402:
1377:
1346:
1314:
1290:
1270:
1249:
1218:
1196:
1149:
1134:
1090:
1028:
1014:
997:
971:
951:
936:
921:
897:
879:
862:
847:
828:
808:
786:
767:
749:
732:
649:
645:
629:
603:
599:
580:
559:
537:
512:
497:
478:
456:
420:
372:
234:
65:
17:
914:, we don't remove an article on those grounds. Just because something isn't desirable does not mean that it doesn't exist. -
355:
Even if there was an article on a type of skin of the Fritzpatrick scale, it should be called "Brown skin" not "Brown race".
1164:
932:
893:
887:
858:
824:
449:
413:
317:
679:
217:
284:
114:
1019:
When someone asks whether there is a conflict of interest, politely respond that there is not, if that is the case.
1431:
723:, it should be a polite disambiguation, not an extensive description as if this were the name of these concepts.--
87:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1534:
928:
889:
854:
820:
40:
683:
1192:
278:
1509:
1444:
1245:
1145:
1086:
625:
508:
368:
1279:
The name of the page implies nothing of the sort, and "official capacity" has no bearing on articles (see
436:
400:
160:
274:
1530:
1024:
993:
947:
911:
907:
869:
837:
36:
1020:
989:
943:
1369:
1280:
576:
493:
144:
118:
465:
to read and evaluate the sources that I added, and any others that you can find. After all, that's
324:
1466:
1287:
1011:
968:
918:
876:
844:
746:
641:
595:
310:
103:
1390:
1505:
1440:
1241:
1214:
1141:
1130:
1082:
782:
763:
621:
504:
364:
150:
81:
1491:
1310:
555:
533:
474:
382:
221:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1529:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1077:
Please discuss the article in question, and do not make personal insults towards each other!
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1324:
1267:
804:
728:
667:
Unifying multiple concepts into a single article, when there is no single concept, violates
1501:
1427:
1415:
1361:
1263:
1184:
1160:
572:
489:
342:
290:
60:
686:). If, and only if, these pages need to be split, then let them have their own sections.
1463:
1398:
1337:
1284:
1121:
1078:
1008:
965:
942:
not of pure white descent. Could you confirm that there is not a conflict of interest?
915:
873:
841:
743:
637:
620:
generalized racial concepts which do not have worldwide relevance or scientific basis.
591:
910:. If by "racist article" you mean an "article about racism", then that is covered by
1210:
1126:
778:
759:
668:
1487:
1386:
1306:
792:
698:
690:
551:
529:
470:
394:
213:
178:
166:
134:
71:
251:
1458:
Since you nominated the article for deletion, I removed your bolding of the word
113:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1081:, I cannot find explanation for your actions of deleting other users' comments.
800:
724:
53:
1504:). What do you think about disambiguation/redirection to more specific terms?
1436:
1411:
1299:
For what the article used to look like, the last time that it was at AFD, see
694:
675:
57:
1327:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1394:
671:: "The same title for different things … are found in different articles."
1176:
795:
do anything in regards to this group in Brazil besides provide a link to
720:
712:
906:. "Racist article" is an appeal to emotion, one that effectively says
716:
1202:
977:
957:
1482:- well-used, documented, well-sourced, etc. While we have to avoid
853:
article about the term as a racist term even if we could source it.
985:
1358:
only a complete idiot turns a plausible search term into a redlink
1180:
796:
708:
1523:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
76:
1430:
I agree. The best would be to turn it into a redirect to the
1175:, and mixes in a number of unrelated self-identifications as
984:. You suspiciously didn't answer the question. I found this,
868:
determine if we keep an article or not? That runs afoul of
107:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1301:
1003:
conflict of interest, and your speculation is baseless
390:
386:
247:
243:
239:
309:
1334:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1229:
My real problem with this article is that it says "
546:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
204:
Articles for deletion/Brown people (2nd nomination)
886:is fairly typical of the poor quality of the refs
524:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1537:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1283:). That's no reason to delete an article. -
323:
127:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
97:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
544:Note: This debate has been included in the
522:Note: This debate has been included in the
467:what we're supposed to be doing around here
543:
521:
101:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
433:based on Uncle G's addition of sources.
121:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
705:Knowledge:Naming conventions (identity)
196:
791:Question: Is there any reason to have
393:, and probably in a few more places,
7:
1120:The scholars quoted here especially
1171:, applies this in a dubious way to
195:
689:These "race scientists" don't use
199:Articles for deletion/Brown people
24:
1462:, just to avoid any confusion. -
693:as a central concept, but rather
333:As I said earlier the expression
1201:
976:
956:
775:- I have been studying US -: -->
341:is not notable and synthesized (
80:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1187:of things thrown together. --
1:
1165:Von Luschan's chromatic scale
680:Race (historical definitions)
117:on the part of others and to
461:You're not only welcome but
1554:
1432:Color terminology for race
1514:02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
1496:19:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
1470:19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
1449:21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
1420:19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
1403:13:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
1378:11:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
1347:05:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
1315:22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1291:22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1271:21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1250:21:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1219:01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1091:22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1029:22:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
1015:22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
998:21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
838:Knowledge is not censored
479:22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
66:17:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
1526:Please do not modify it.
1197:09:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1150:10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1135:04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
972:02:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
952:01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
937:00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
922:00:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
898:00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
880:23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
863:23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
848:23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
829:23:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
809:01:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
787:22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
768:21:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
750:18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
733:14:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
684:Color metaphors for race
650:07:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
630:22:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
604:21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
581:21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
560:19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
538:19:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
513:22:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
498:19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
457:17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
421:17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
373:16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
429:, and it resulted in a
159:; accounts blocked for
129:single-purpose accounts
99:policies and guidelines
194:AfDs for this article:
929:SympatheticIsolation
890:SympatheticIsolation
855:SympatheticIsolation
821:SympatheticIsolation
56:argument prevails.
383:many, many articles
111:by counting votes.
90:not a majority vote
1167:of skin colour of
1472:
1376:
1349:
1345:
661:drastically prune
562:
549:
540:
527:
192:
191:
188:
115:assume good faith
1545:
1528:
1457:
1368:
1366:
1344:
1342:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1304:
1205:
986:knightriderskkkk
980:
960:
550:
528:
452:
447:
444:
439:
416:
411:
408:
403:
328:
327:
313:
265:
255:
237:
186:
174:
158:
142:
123:
93:, but instead a
84:
77:
63:
48:The result was
34:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1535:deletion review
1524:
1428:User:S Marshall
1362:
1338:
1336:
1322:
1300:
1227:the real world.
450:
445:
442:
437:
414:
409:
406:
401:
270:
261:
228:
212:
209:
176:
164:
148:
132:
119:sign your posts
75:
61:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1551:
1549:
1540:
1539:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1452:
1451:
1422:
1405:
1380:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1331:
1330:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1274:
1273:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1239:
1189:202.124.72.209
1154:
1153:
1152:
1122:Giuseppe Sergi
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
939:
912:WP:NOTCENSORED
908:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
870:WP:NOTCENSORED
832:
831:
813:
812:
811:
770:
752:
737:
736:
735:
702:
687:
672:
653:
652:
633:
632:
607:
606:
584:
583:
564:
563:
541:
518:
517:
516:
515:
483:
482:
481:
459:
354:
335:"brown people"
331:
330:
267:
208:
207:
206:
201:
193:
190:
189:
85:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1550:
1538:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1521:
1520:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1506:FonsScientiae
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1471:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1441:FonsScientiae
1438:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1365:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1341:
1332:
1328:
1326:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1302:this revision
1298:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1281:WP:COMMONNAME
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:FonsScientiae
1236:
1232:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:FonsScientiae
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1083:FonsScientiae
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
970:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
940:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
920:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
888:
884:
883:
881:
878:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
851:
850:
849:
846:
843:
839:
836:
835:
834:
833:
830:
826:
822:
817:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
774:
771:
769:
765:
761:
756:
753:
751:
748:
745:
741:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
666:
665:
662:
658:
655:
654:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
622:FonsScientiae
618:
614:
613:
609:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
585:
582:
578:
574:
569:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
547:
542:
539:
535:
531:
525:
520:
519:
514:
510:
506:
505:FonsScientiae
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
458:
455:
454:
453:
448:
440:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
419:
418:
417:
412:
404:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
365:FonsScientiae
360:
356:
350:
346:
344:
340:
336:
326:
322:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
276:
273:
272:Find sources:
268:
264:
259:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
232:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
205:
202:
200:
197:
184:
180:
172:
168:
162:
156:
152:
146:
140:
136:
130:
126:
122:
120:
116:
110:
106:
105:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
79:
78:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1525:
1522:
1483:
1479:
1459:
1424:
1407:
1391:mocha people
1387:black people
1382:
1363:
1357:
1339:
1323:
1259:
1234:
1231:Brown people
1230:
1228:
1223:
1206:
1172:
1168:
1156:
1117:
1004:
981:
961:
903:
815:
793:Brown people
772:
754:
739:
699:Malayan race
691:brown people
660:
656:
616:
611:
610:
587:
567:
485:
466:
462:
435:
434:
430:
399:
398:
395:User:Uncle G
378:
361:
357:
351:
347:
339:"brown race"
338:
334:
332:
320:
314:
306:
299:
293:
287:
281:
271:
214:Brown people
182:
170:
161:sockpuppetry
154:
143:; suspected
138:
124:
112:
108:
102:
94:
88:
72:Brown people
49:
47:
31:
28:
1408:Speedy Keep
1169:individuals
1021:TekItRemark
990:TekItRemark
944:TekItRemark
669:WP:NOT#DICT
297:free images
1484:unecessary
1437:user:Nfitz
1364:S Marshall
1340:Sandstein
1235:brown race
695:Australoid
676:Blumenbach
573:Dougweller
490:Seasider91
463:encouraged
95:discussion
1531:talk page
1393:article?
1079:SudoGhost
638:Roscelese
592:Roscelese
552:• Gene93k
530:• Gene93k
431:weak keep
151:canvassed
145:canvassed
104:consensus
37:talk page
1533:or in a
1502:WP:SYNTH
1460:redirect
1383:Redirect
1325:Relisted
1268:dalahäst
1264:WP:SYNTH
1211:Artene50
1207:Facepalm
1185:WP:SYNTH
1177:Coloured
1163:. Takes
1161:WP:SYNTH
1127:Artene50
982:Facepalm
962:Facepalm
779:BaShildy
760:Artene50
721:Coloured
713:Mexicans
646:contribs
600:contribs
343:WP:SYNTH
258:View log
183:username
177:{{subst:
171:username
165:{{subst:
155:username
149:{{subst:
139:username
133:{{subst:
39:or in a
1488:Bearian
1425:Comment
1307:Uncle G
1224:Comment
1118:Comment
1005:at best
717:Latinos
617:Comment
471:Uncle G
303:WP refs
291:scholar
231:protect
226:history
147:users:
1260:Delete
1173:groups
1157:Delete
816:Delete
801:Carwil
725:Carwil
719:, and
657:Delete
612:Delete
451:Silver
415:Silver
275:Google
235:delete
1467:Ghost
1412:Nfitz
1385:- To
1288:Ghost
1181:Pardo
1012:Ghost
969:Ghost
919:Ghost
877:Ghost
845:Ghost
797:Pardo
747:Ghost
709:Pardo
318:JSTOR
279:books
263:Stats
252:views
244:watch
240:links
125:Note:
16:<
1510:talk
1492:talk
1480:Keep
1464:Sudo
1445:talk
1416:talk
1399:talk
1395:Tarc
1311:talk
1285:Sudo
1246:talk
1215:talk
1193:talk
1146:talk
1131:talk
1087:talk
1025:talk
1009:Sudo
1007:. -
994:talk
966:Sudo
948:talk
933:talk
916:Sudo
894:talk
874:Sudo
872:. -
859:talk
842:Sudo
825:talk
805:talk
783:talk
773:Keep
764:talk
755:Keep
744:Sudo
740:Keep
729:talk
659:(or
642:talk
626:talk
596:talk
588:Keep
577:talk
568:Keep
556:talk
534:talk
509:talk
494:talk
486:Keep
475:talk
438:City
427:here
402:City
391:here
389:and
387:Here
379:Keep
369:talk
311:FENS
285:news
248:logs
222:talk
218:edit
58:Wily
54:WP:N
50:Keep
1262:as
1233:or
1179:or
1159:as
904:why
799:?--
697:or
337:or
325:TWL
260:•
256:– (
179:csp
175:or
167:csm
135:spa
109:not
1512:)
1494:)
1447:)
1418:)
1401:)
1313:)
1305:.
1248:)
1217:)
1195:)
1148:)
1133:)
1125:--
1089:)
1027:)
996:)
950:)
935:)
896:)
882:+
861:)
827:)
807:)
785:)
766:)
731:)
715:,
711:,
682:,
678:,
648:)
644:⋅
628:)
615:.
602:)
598:⋅
579:)
558:)
548:.
536:)
526:.
511:)
496:)
477:)
371:)
305:)
250:|
246:|
242:|
238:|
233:|
229:|
224:|
220:|
185:}}
173:}}
163::
157:}}
141:}}
131::
1508:(
1490:(
1443:(
1414:(
1397:(
1374:C
1372:/
1370:T
1309:(
1244:(
1213:(
1191:(
1144:(
1129:(
1085:(
1023:(
992:(
946:(
931:(
892:(
857:(
823:(
803:(
781:(
762:(
727:(
640:(
624:(
594:(
575:(
554:(
532:(
507:(
492:(
473:(
446:f
443:O
410:f
407:O
367:(
329:)
321:·
315:·
307:·
300:·
294:·
288:·
282:·
277:(
269:(
266:)
254:)
216:(
187:.
181:|
169:|
153:|
137:|
62:D
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
