Talk:Brown (racial classification)

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Colour blind

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Coloureds 

message: To claim or imply that all Mexicans are brown is rascist claptrap, eg see Afro-Mexican, SqueakBox 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your secondary sources contradict reason, they are not exactly reliable. Deepstratagem 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Brown

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is incredible 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opening statement

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  One contribution  

message: 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)
thread_title: "No people are really brown in colour."

message: 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)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotect

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: Goldenhawk 0

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skin pigmantation in a 21 century scientific study 

message: *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)
replies: text: In any case, we'd need sources to include anything like that in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Easterners 

message: I read here some old comments among Spaniards, Mediterraneans, etc, lumping together Southern Europeans with other Mediterraneans, etc. It is all the same kind of stereotypes based on the deep ignorance of many people, if not wishful thinking by some who seem to find some kind of strange solace in the fact that Spaniards, Italians or Greeks may actually be brown and not white, thus being a non white race. This is especially the case in the US, where people call anyone who speaks Spanish, Spanish. Well, Spaniards and Southern Europeans in general, and there are always exceptions like in all places, have virtually of the same skin pigmentation as other Northern Europeans. Of course if one visits Spain in the winter and sees with an objective eye they will see this fact at once. In the summer people like to tan. It is the official sport. Still the former can be seen as well. On the other hand the sun shines strongly and tanning is common for anyone who is outdoors, and southern Europeans love being outdoor, again, when it comes to natural skin pigmentation without the effects of tanning, they are as light skinned as anyother Europeans. See the only objective and scientific study carried out in the 21st century about skin pigmentation. Here you can find information about the Spanish, as Southern Europeans, and many other nations. 
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf
But if people are too lazy to read it here is a summary. The link is to a page that is controversial but the summary is good. In fact you can check it in the original paper if you are diligent. I include it here for those too lazy.
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html
So, this is reality when confronted to science, nothing more, nothing less. (You can also find in the thread the typical comments by idiots who seem shocked before facts) People should start getting an education on this issues. As you can see as well, skin pigmentation in areas of the Middle East and North Africa is very close to the one found in Europe, althoug Europe, Spain included, present the lightest. Nudge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.212.11 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaniards and Southern Europeans 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: Consider the following sentence from this article, which has numerous grammatical flaws:
"Generally, among different times (mostly in both Empire of and First Republic of Brazil), people with evident non-European ancestry (i.e. non-Caucasian features perceptible in a multiracial phenotype) were regarded as brancos ("whites") when social status of such person improves, and people from "fully non-white" categories were regarded as pardos ("browns"), trying to minimize their visible non-European ancestry to make them sound more "civilizated" and noble human beings and citizens"
Should the article be re-written by someone who has a stronger command of English? My vote is "yes".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.21.60 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherence 

message: Stop it with the black, white, and now brown and yellow people here. Rarely is this classifictaion used in this article, but correct terms used in the US are not part of the worldwide name classification here.174.19.131.156 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a process for deletion at WP:AFD but you would have to show it is not a notable topic, see WP:NOTE. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly nobody believes in the out-dated and poorly structured racial concept of "black", "brown", "white", "yellow", and "red". I believe this article represents the old racial structure prior to modern anthropology. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable 

message: Compared to the 'White people' and 'Black people' articles the notions 'white race' and 'black race' are never used in the lead. Racial categorization  is controversial and outdated. If nobody is against it I will remove the term 'brown race' from the lead. FonsScientiae (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown race 

message: She is light skinned, She only can be brown for the narrow mind of americans that think that latinos can't be white.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.33.140 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Judith Ortiz Cofer

message: There has been spate of rollbacks by User:RichardWeiss to the articles , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .
These have been undone, since:
* the editor failed to provide any rationale
* the editor deleted sourced content
If you wish to engage in constructive behavior (e.g. questioning the validity of sources), a good place to start would be on the talk pages of the respective articles. Resorting to random drive-by reverts is generally considered unhelpful. Thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.4.106 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The same highly controversial paragraph has been spammed into 16 different articles. I don't consider the encyclopedia.com source reliable, the article dabs are very poor and the whole paragraph bordering on racist. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained removal of sourced content

message: Alright, enough of this bull. I feel like it's just racists changing this page saying everyone they don't like is brown. It's time for a real brown man to straighten some things out for you all. The brown race has always been considered South Asian and Southeast Asian. The fact that Southeast Asia wasn't even included on this page before I arrived but Latin America was reaffirms my suspicions that it's probably some racists in America who are more concerned with putting people they don't like in this box, instead of the ACTUAL PEOPLE who are brown.
Now, let me get some points across. We're willing to consider the Middle East as brown, because there are a lot of geographical and cultural connections; they are adjacent to South Asia and Islam has a significant influence to South/Southeast Asian culture. Latin America, on the other hand, does not.
Just because many Latin Americans have brown skin does not mean they are brown. That is so silly...and pathetic. You guys needs to read up on geography and anthropology to be less ignorant on this. Racism is derived from ignorance. Saying brown skin makes you brown is like saying white skin makes you white or black skin makes you black. What?! If anyone with brown skin is brown, then according to logical reasoning, Chinese, Koreans, Mongolians, and Japanese are white because they have white skin. Also, brown skin is common in South Europe (Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Cyprus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, etc.). Are you going to start calling these people brown? There are Anglo Saxons living in the America-South (e.g Alabama) for centuries that have developed brown skin due to the heat of the sun rays there. Are they brown, too? No.
It says on this page brown is a racial classification, yet you are butchering our race by making a mockery of it and calling everyone brown.
Here's a logic game for you: 
If White = Europe, and Black = Sub-Sahara Africa, Brown = ?...anyone with brown skin? Wrong. It is the MESA Region (MESA = Middle East & South Asia)
https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2016/07/about-the-middle-east-and-south-asia-region.html 
Note: Southeast Asia is included in South Asia here.
Nothing against Latin America, but they have nothing to do with MESA culture, they are tens of thousands of miles away from us, so we literally have no connection to them. If you are going to call Latin America, and everyone else you don't like in America, brown, then that nullifies the racial value it has, and brown no longer becomes a race but an ambiguous group of people with a generally darker complexion (brown). Southeast Asians are well aware of Western countries. They dump their waste in our oceans and now won't even let us have our own racial group where we can be culturally connected.
So now you are probably wondering, if Latin America is not brown, what would you refer them as. I have done a lot of research myself, and very few Latin Americans actually call themselves brown, it's really just racist Americans trying to lump them in this category. According to 2010 U.S Census, 53% of Hispanics living in the U.S self-identify as white. 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-a-white-hispanic_b_14086306
Also, whites and mestizos (mixed white and indigenous people) make up the vast majority of Latin America, meaning that the average Latin American has at least 50% or more European DNA. In some areas more, in some less, but this is the overall average.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/12/how-argentina-became-white/#.XTpQxehKjIU
Also, due to European colonization, there is significant European influence and ancestry in Latin America; hence, you can refer to Latin America as white, just like you have done with Canada and the U.S. 
If you don't want to call them white, that's your prerogative (you can just refer to them as Latino, not brown), but if they have a significant amount of European ancestry and share similar culture, they have every right to self identify as white. I would never tell someone with 50% or even 25% Southeast Asian DNA that's part of the culture that they're not a brown brother. 
This issue is very frustrating because it shows how Americans look down at us and still dictate the idea of 'race' and who's brown while the actual brown people have no say. How would you like it if Indonesians declared Kazakhs to be white and changed the 'white race' page on Wikipedia to include Kazakhs? Not so nice now is it?
Here's some more citations I'd like to include that back up my claim here:
https://niemanreports.org/articles/dont-brown-the-hispanics/
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/documents/A374-DontBrowntheLatinos.pdf
The brown race exists and it is included in the region I stated (MESA region). Primarily in South/Southeast Asia, and although many will disagree that Middle East is brown, if they want to be brown there's many of us are willing to accept them since there's similar culture, but that's it. There's is absolutely no connection we have with Latin America, and if we allow racist Americans to dictate whose brown, then others will too want to be considered brown for their brown skin and it wont stop, and saying "I am brown" will mean nothing knowing that there's no real regional connection or ancestry, only similar skin complexion.
:This diatribe makes no sense. The sentence you keep mangling is about 19th-century ideas. How we see matters today has nothing to do with it. Additionally, your insertion about "the official "brown race"" is uncited and nonsensical; there is obviously no such thing as an "official" brown race. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having brown skin doesn't make you brown 

message: QUOTE: No matter how angry they get, racist whites do not dictate, and will never dictate who is actually brown. It is the actual brown race (e.g Indonesians, Indians, etc.) gets to have the say in the matter.--RJBowman (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Contributions/BrownSkin5, who wrote the wall of text above. I think they are fundamentally missing the point that the article is about (rightly outdated) 19th-century (and early 20th) concepts of race based on skin colour; the modern world's got little do with it. (Hence the diversion about Brazilians is a bit odd...) Pinkbeast (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is responsible for this editorializing? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brown Americans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brown Americans" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The Brown vs. Board of Education article doesn't seem to be relevant, and the Cole book is not about America. Could you please provide a page number and a quote ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying. I didn't want to overburden you with work looking for sources, but I still have my doubts regarding the sources. The "Brown v. Board of Educuation" doesn't show that Sicilians were called "brown" (I hope you noticed that it is not named for "Brown America" but for a man called Oliver Brown), nor does the NYT article. To assume that Sicilians were called "brown" because they were discriminated against, would be WP:SYNTH. The other two articles don't qualify as reliable sources. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sicilian Americans 

message: Could we specifcy somewhere that people don't have these colors, and they have skin tones and that the term is erronous
On the black people page it is specfificed that the term si derogatory, oudated and reductive as well. TudorTulok (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: True though, I mean that assertion is verifiable. The disambiguator as "Brown (racial classification)" blends part of the documented structural terminology of historically racist states and social systems with the reactionary appropriation to ethnic identity according to media reports within those nations, primarily founded as anglo-saxon colonies. It is all pretty bogus, a legacy, not a definition; the assemblage from other articles and primary sources does not constitute an identifiable "race". ~ cygnis insignis 09:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:    "black", "red", "brown", "yellow", and other "colored" people or "persons of color" DON'T EXIST 

message: I reverted your page move because the usage of "brown" is totally different from that of "Black / White people". The latter terms are in common use in modern English, but it is very uncommon to call anybody "brown". See also MOS:RACECAPS. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brown" is different from "Black" / "White"