Talk:White Brazilians/Archive 4

Request for comment regarding the two versions.

There are two versions, version one is the established version that the article is locked at, one editor mass edited the article to this position some involved users are requesting the new rewritten position to be replaced. another editor (me) has reverted to the established version and is resisting the rewrite, there is also another involved editor that supports the established version. The discussion is locked, opinions and comments are requested from the community. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In sum: Although at least four other editors agree with the changes only Off2riorob opposes them. There was a time when this was called "article ownership". Today they call it "content dispute".

P.S.: Off2riorob, what are the mistakes and why they are mistakes in Ninguém's edits and which authors has opposing arguments to his changes? Or, "are there any reasons to you to revert every single edit that is done in this article besides the fact that you don't want anyone to make any in it?" --Lecen (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary asked me to take over from him either the editing or the admin actions on this article. I do not really have the time to do either, but I can give an opinion on the article, or at least the lede, which seems the current immediate problem. . I have read the two versions, and some of the discussion. I consider at least the lede of the present version much superior--Let's call it the short lede version--which does not mean it is perfect, or could not be expanded. Ledes should be short, and give the basic information, enough to answer the question of someone who is simply trying to find what the subject is about. They should summarize the contents of the article concisely. they should not go off into extended arguments about the definition of the terms or the question of whether there is a scientific basis for the concept. The long lede is a discussion of the meaning of "race" as the concept is understood in Brazil. this is pertinent information, and relevant to the article, but it is not the main subject. Not being an expert on Brazil, I do not know whether the long lede presents the concept as understood there correctly, but I will assume for the time that it does. It is saying, that though the term "white" literally refers only to color, it is used as a shorthand for a number of different genetic features that tend to be found in a group, and also for their historical ethnic origins--the net result may well not be internally consistent. I do not think it is correct that this is different from the meaning elsewhere--a subject about which I do know something. When one says someone is "Black" in the US, one is referring to more than skin color--and that has been true for the entire history of the English language despite radical changes in the understanding and significance of subpopulation differences. "white" in the US has been used not merely as not-Black, but sometimes as not-Latin American, or even not-Anglo-Saxon---essentially not-dominant group. The discussion of its present and historical meaning belongs elsewhere. It should be done by giving standard definitions, and by examples--indicating where there are important disagreements between authorities. The lede says that people who are called "white" in Brazil might not be so elsewhere, that the present lines are drawn differently than elsewhere. I think this is probably true, because I know it is true to at least some extent between other countries. A discussion of just where it is drawn belongs in the article, but not the lede. If the matter can be summarized into one clear sentence, then it should be added to the short lede.

I do not know accurately who of the participants supports which position, but I do not care. I am not judging them. I am not sure what version Hoary prefers--i think it may be the opposite of mine, but I am not judging his view of it either. As a practical matter for further progress, I think the discussion should take the short lede version, and discuss how to expand it to a moderate degree. I am not sure whether there is a disagreement about how particular individuals or sub-groups should be classified--but if there is, it should be handled in the usual way, buy giving the various responsible non-fringe views, with good references. It is not expected that Wikipedia will settle racial disputes, just present the disputes accurately as they stand. I do not intend to get into an extended discussion here, or to follow the present one, but if anyone thinks it would be helpful for me to summarize once again as the discussion progresses, ask me later.

It terms of how it should be handled administratively, I think it would be helpful to continue to protect the article until there is some degree of further resolution. This is not always needed when the disagreement is of wording, but when it involves the article structure as it does here, it is much less confusing to have it stable while the discussion continues. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG, for an admirably fastidious and fair comment.

I hope that others comment in the same spirit. If anyone would like to disagree with anything that DGG has said, I hope that they'll follow his lead in avoiding questions of authorship and concentrating on what the article should say and where and how it should say it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The short version is unsourced, and will stay so, because no source supports the absurd definition it contains. Ninguém (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be away by the weekend, don't know if I am going to have internet access. Ninguém (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the introduction to an article may only contain sourceable information. If it contains an assertion that can't be sourced, that assertion should go. I'm sure DGG would agree with this, and I imagine that this is what you mean, Ninguém. But one small note to avoid misunderstandings later: A good article introduction itself typically has few if any footnotes, as it briefly summarizes what is said, and is backed up with sources, later. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Firmly on the side of brevity in an introduction, DGG prefers the short version of the introduction that's in the locked version. You'll note that he doesn't OK it; rather, he thinks that it is better than the longer version as a basis for improvements. One important point he makes is that A discussion of just where [the boundary between "White" and other] is drawn belongs in the article, but not the lede. If the matter can be summarized into one clear sentence, then it should be added to the short lede. I'd like to know what people think of this.

And if that is acceptable.....
2px
I very tentatively suggest: Agreeing that a description of the boundary/boundaries between "White" and other is needed but that only a short summary of this description should appear in the introduction Agreeing to shorten the introduction Working on the description of the boundary/boundaries between "White" and other Examining Ninguém's changes to material coming after the introduction and reaching general agreement on these. (He would not have to explain everything all over again. But others would be free to ask questions.) Discussing proposals for major changes after the introduction (and putting aside proposals for smaller changes); reaching an agreement on these Working on the introduction Unlocking. The process will be neither short nor painless but it need not be too arduous or painful if everyone sticks to sources that should be reliable, and, where these sources disagree (as they will) remembers to read material in context ("Writer X says Y about branco, but, unusually, he uses branco to mean Z").

Just one reason for my tentativeness is that the RfC has only just been started. It needs a few days. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings - I got to this page through Hoary's request in the Administrator's Noticeboard. I live in brazil and I speak portuguese, and I have some experience in wikipedia including experience translating from portuguese to english.

I was shocked by the wording of the first sentence -while 49% of brazilians report themselves as white, "are" white is another issue entirely.

I think the normal thing in articles is to define the subject in the first sentence - thus when the article "apple" begins you do not see "arguably half the production of agricultural fruits is of apples, there are 30000 apples produced annually" but rather "The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree, species Malus domestica in the rose family Rosaceae". Thus I argue that not only should the definition of white not be "a short" part of the lede - but that it should be the most prominent thing in the lead. The definition of "white" is not easy.

I also wish to state that I am not entirely comfortable with the existence of this article.

There are necessary changes that need to be done to this page - the question of how is important. I don't know about the speed of the changes - and I have not seen everything related to this controversy - but I would suggest - since Off has continually spoken of "problems" with Ninguem's version without backing it up or suggesting minor alterations to Ninguem's text - I would suggest reverting the article to Ninguem's last version, and allowing the discussion to preocede from there.

--Kiyarrlls-talk 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let it be known that I wish success in the new project. Hoary, Lecen, Ninguém, have my respect, and I only wish the article will be less emotional and biased, even though as the other poster said the article itself does not make me comfortable: I regret the government, the IBGE, etc, at the XXI century, still use these categories. I would rather prefer the French model where "ethnicity" is not reported. The "white" construct is a construct all over the world, not only in Brazil. In other Latin American countries, as well as in the Anglosphere, being "white" is a social construct. Therefore the Brazilian social construct on "race", even though I do not agree with it (I think it should have been abolished long ago; without giving up protection for those who need it), is no worse than any other, and no better either. Different researches have given different results, and they should not be used as the "final say", even the genetic studies, especially given the heterogeneity of the Brazilian population in particular. "White", "black", "pardo", are words invented by the Western Eurasian invaders of the Americas, Africa and Oceania to suit their agendas. The perpetuation of these categories means the perpetuation of the colonial mentality. Having said that, the current definition is that a person who says he is "white" is "white" for the government, as the main criterion is self identification. Of course not all people who say they are "white" are pred. European or fully European. The opposite happens, many of those who say they are "pardo" or even "black" are in fact pred. European (in many cases overwhelmingly European, like Tiazinha, a "brown skinned", not so Euro looking, celebrity who turned out to be 99,9% European according to her autosomal DNA test results). In social use the appearance can be an important factor for identification, though not always. And ancestry and appearance do not always correlate. There is a wide subjective area here as well.

good luck

Grenzer22 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will side my self with Dwarf Kirlston and Grenzer: the article should be unlocked and reverted to Ninguém's last edit. From there, with a health discussion, we could improve it. --Lecen (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary also asked me to look at the article. I did not have time to do a thorough review, but I have a couple of observations (based in part on my examination -- which was aided by machine translations -- of Brazilian census reports and documents cited in the article):

• The shorter lead section is far better than the long version. Not only is short generally desirable in a lead, but the long version (as last edited by Ninguem) is full of what appears to be unsupported point of view.
• The article should clearly indicate that the "white" designation in the Brazil census is the way people characterize themselves, based mainly on skin color. The current version of the article suggests that there is an official definition based on ancestry.

--Orlady (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The short version is unsourced and unsourceable. "White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants" is something that cannot be found anywhere (except, of course, Wikipedia and sites based on Wikipedia). No author, no research, no paper, no academic journal, no survey, not even an unsigned newspaper article supports this absurd. The long version is sourced, and can be further sourced, because it reflects the state of art of the research about "race" in Brazil.Ninguém (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Change of admins

Per agreement with Hoary, and discussion at ANI, I've restored the full protection notice in my own name. I can't help but notice that the very existence of this article may be problematic, but its continuation is completely in the hands of the content editors. I understand that Hoary is interested in this topic and will be continuing to work on the content.

As soon as you think that consensus has been reached on the various disputes, let me know, or if I'm not available, ask at WP:RFPP for unprotection. Meanwhile, use {{editprotected}} to ask for individual changes that seem to have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate the agreement and the spirit of your message and all that, and I'm sorry if I sound (or am) churlish when I make one clarification: I am uninterested in the "colour" of Brazilians (or in that of people of my nationality, of my neighbours, of my inlaws, etc). "Colour"-based discrimination and prejudice appall me, and I'm vaguely depressed by most of the interest in these matters. However, as I don't think this article will go away, I hope it becomes good, and I'd be happy if I can be of some help in improving it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support for possible deletion

As quite a few people have said that they have issues about the articles actual existence and what its value and boundaries actually are seems to be unclear, does anyone support AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I might wish for deletion but I don't support the idea of sending it to AfD, because I know that any AfD would quickly fail and the nomination would be criticized as "pointy", etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps a merger then, with white people stubbed down to a paragraph? Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the lede there at the white people article could be in this article. Is the lede there a summary of what people would like to see expanded on in this article? Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a section there about Brazil . Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If this article is merged anywhere, I think that Ethnic groups in Brazil could be a good merger destination. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob after seeing three Editors(myself, Kiyarrlls and Grenzer22) requesting the return of the article to the last Ninguém's edit: "Oh no, I am going to "lose"! Well, I I can't keep the article in the way I wanted, then no one else shall have it! i will request it to be erased now!"

Ironic remarks aside, what makes me surprised is that I am seeing the support from Administrators to this absurd request. None of you have noticed that this is the last attempt of an editor who has ownership issues?

There is right now, as you read what I am saying, a section created by Off2riorob asking to discuss about the 2 versions. A section, may I remind you all, that it's still under discussion. How can the Administrators desire a consensus if the dicussion about reaching a consensus is simply being passed over?

Right now myself, Kiyarrlls and Grenzer requested to return to Ninguém's last edit. Hoary was clearly in favor of that before and Ninguém (who is away for the weekend) will surely continue to uphold his argument. So, we can count five editors. One the other side, we have Off2riorob (who still haven't tell us according to which authors Ninguém's edits are wrong except for a complaint about the lead's size), Orlady and DGG (both administrators). That's 5 x 3. However, I am not interested on "wining" but instead on a civil discussion followed by an agreement. But, that's impossible as Off2riorob has not tell us what is wrong to Ninguém's edits according to which authors. And as amazing as that might sound, no administrator has requested from him that. And it's something simple: "Off2riorob, you are clearly against Ninguém's edits. So, you probably must have reliable sources that says that he is wrong. Which are they?" --Lecen (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother bringing the citations unless it is demanded of me but multiple editors have commented about they wouldn't mind or that they would like to see the article deleted. your bad faith comments destroy the environment for possible friendly discussion and progress. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, some of the new comments from uninvolved editors like Orlady and DDG do not support your position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I believe I did not understand what you wrote. You have reverted all Ninguém's edits which led to this article be blocked and now you're saying that you "won't bother bringing the citations"? So, and now you want the article to be erased? Am I the only one in here who has no clue of what kind of behavior is that? --Lecen (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The diffs of editors commenting that they would not mind if the article was deleted. Please stop continuing to accuse me of this and that,.it helps nothing, especially accusations of ownership..I have made two edits to this article, basically one as they were contiguous reverts, apart from that I have only been involved in discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An obvious premise of DGG's comments is that the article would continue to exist and would not be deleted or merged. That of course doesn't mean that he's against its deletion or merger, merely that these weren't questions he dealt with.

To me a merger sounds not only attractive but practicable in the medium term. "White Brazilian", Pardo and perhaps one or two other articles could and perhaps should be merged to Ethnic groups in Brazil (EGP).

However, EGP itself is already problematic. It even starts off-cock, with a prominent quotation that (at least as it stands) makes little sense. (We're told that It should be assumed that this way the Brazilian population will be homogenised, so that in future all people will share a common multiracial genetic heritage. In what way? "Homogenised" in which sense? In which sense beyond that in which it is already shared will the heritage be shared?) So a merge to EGP won't be easy at all.

DGG's main objection to this article as revised by Ninguém was to its introduction. And I've read very little lucid criticism of any part of it beyond its introduction. For this reason I have been thinking about the introduction; some time in the next few days I hope to present a version that satisfies me and might satisfy you as well. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both deletion or merger depend of the articles into which it will be merged.

Let's see White people:

White is applied as a term to people of European descent (including European Jews), and Middle Easterners of all faiths.

which is again the false, unsourced and unsourceable tale that Brazilians classify people according to their ancestry.

Then it comes with this:

Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.

which may well be true, but, as Hoary points elsewhere, makes as much sence as saying that "as many as X% African Americans have enough European ancestry to be classified as White in Brazil".

So if "White Brazilian" is to be merged here, then this section of the White people article needs to be rewritten.

Let's now look at Ethnic groups in Brazil:

The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) classifies the Brazilian population in five categories: white, black, pardo (brown), yellow, and Indigenous, based on skin color as given by the individual being interviewed in the census.

which is close to what I (and Lecen, and Grenzer) have been arguing, and reflected in the "long version" as a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" and is socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry. Unhappily it conflates the concept of "cor" into "skin colour", while in fact those things are not the same.

But then it departs from this good start in favour of an ecletic formula:

White (49.4% of the population):[3] usually a Brazilian of full or predominant European ancestry or other ancestry (such as German Brazilian) who considers himself or herself to be White.

Which is a precious collection of small absurds. First, the idea of ancestry is reintroduced here from nowhere, and quantified in an absurd way (full or predominant). All scientific research points clearly to the fact that "cor" is a very poor predictor of ancestry. And then it implies that Germany is not part of Europe. And this is completed with the "who considers him or herself to be White", which in itself is correct, but added to the previous unsourced absurd turns the paragraph into a salad of contradictory views.

And then, after having classified the "ethnic groups" in Brazil as "White, Brown, Black, Yellow and Indigenous", it inevitably turns into... immigration, presenting a table where the "ethnic groups" are no longer "White, Brown, Black, Yellow and Indigenous", but rather "Africans, Portuguese, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, Syrians and Lebanese, and Other".

As the article has a point to make - that there are no White people of ancient Portuguese ancestry in Brazil - it simply skips the whole issue of Brazil's colonisation by the Portuguese, and jumps again into the subject of... immigration. While the grand total of one line is given to discuss the aboriginal population, another single line to describe colonisation, and two lines to discuss slavery in Brazil and its impacts on Brazilian demography, 22 lines discuss immigration - of which, however, only two refer to immigration from Japan and the Middle East.

It then deals with what it calls "Government's racism", which includes a continuation (and repetition) of the "whitening" argument developed in the previous section, plus a criticism of the introductory text of the 1920 Census, which, while generally correct, seems misplaced in an article about "ethnic groups". Follows a discussion of Gilberto Freyre's work, which also seems misplaced, and a brief summary of recent genetic research about race in Brazil that directly contradicts the "ancestry" theory stated before, then a section that includes Amerindians among the "colonial settlers" of Brazil.

And then it again turns into... immigration. One would come to wrongly believe, reading to this article, that Italians, Germans, or Portuguese, etc., constitute "ethnic groups" in Brazil. And so on.

If "White Brazilians" would be merged into this article, then it would have to be rewritten, to eliminate the absurds, contradictions, exaggerations, off-topic tangents, and unsourced statements that plague it. Ninguém (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's imagine that Ethnic groups in Brazil (EGP) were rewritten to a satisfactory state (representing the facts as recently presented by experts, without undue stress, etc). Would it still not be permissible to have White Brazilian and Pardo redirect to it? -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me make something clear. I don't believe in the existence of "races", and I don't think the belief in their existence brings any good to the world. However, in the imagination of people, "races" do exist and they have, historically, determined life and death, wealth and misery of people. So unhappily this subject has to be addressed - in fact, the only way to abolish such nefarious concept from people's mind is to discuss it and show its inconsistency. So articles on "race" do have to exist.

One of the strongest demonstrations of the inconsistency pointed above is the fact that the various "races" are different in different cultures, which shows that they are nothing more than social constructs. And, as such, articles that describe how "races" are constructed in different countries are also necessary.

The concept of "race" in Brazil is remarkably different from what it is in most countries of English languages; so an adequate description of how "race" functions in Brazil is a good way to make the reader aware of the inconsistency of the whole idea, and of the fact that the concept of "race" in the United States (or United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc.) is, like everywhere else, a social construct, not the concept of "race", not "correct", not based in science, or material or biological reality, or God's commandments. And so articles about "race" in Brazil are also necessary.

However, the existing articles about "race" in Brazil are not designed to foster knowledge, but to elicit "awesomeness". A quick example: the fact that the Brazilian Census counts people's "race" on the base of self-declaration. This is always stressed, to create an impression that those crazy Brazilians allow people to tell whatever they want to the Census - in contrast, one is lead to think, to serious countries like the US, Argentina, or Canada, where people are somehow classified according to what they are, not according to what they think they are. But, in fact, the Census in Argentina counts people's "race" based on... self-declaration. And the Census in Canada counts people's "race" based on... self-declaration. Shockingly, even the Census in the United States counts people's "race" based on... self-declaration.

(In fact, I don't know of any country whose Census asks about "race" that doesn't count people according to self-declaration. And, also in fact, counting people according to self-declaration is an international recommendation; that is the way people should be counted.)

And so the articles about "race" in Brazil must be rebuilt, to avoid the folkloric flavour that pervades them (which is deliberately kept via unsourced claims, misuse of sources, confuse terminology, use of diverse and undiscussed definitions in different sections, half-truths, etc.) and allow them to reflect accurate knowledge about the subject.

That said, I am very tempted to agree with the deletion of each and all article on the subject of "race" and/or "ethnicity" in Brazil. They are playgrounds for users who want them to remain a permanent source of "awesomeness" and reinforcement of the American concept of "race" as the "correct" and "natural" concept of "race" - and those users have managed to acquire a de facto vetto power over these articles, even an extraordinary license to remove information they dislike, however sourced, and to keep "information" they like, even when blatantly unsourced. But the deletion of this article, or any one other particular article, while all the others are allowed to remain as they are, does not solve the problem. And so I am against the proposed deletion of this article - as I hope I have demonstrated in my previous post, this would merely move the problems from here to other articles. Ninguém (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, Ninguém. Just perfect. Your last message was perfect. --Lecen (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Lecen. Ninguém (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here, the relevant source to the fantastic and incredible info that the US Census counts people's race according to self-declaration: [1].

In the very first line:

Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify.

And that's it. Ninguém (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any comment for now on the last paragraph of what you write, Ninguém, but I agree with the rest. Yes, Wikipedia should cover the social construct of "race" in Brazil. (As it probably should for this construct in every other nation in the world.) But as I (ignorant of Portuguese, and outside Brazil) understand it, each "race" is perceived primarily (or even exclusively) in contradistinction to the other "races". I'm open-minded on the need for good articles (which we don't have) on "White Brazilian", etc, on top of a good article (which we don't have) on "Ethnic groups in Brazil". I'm willing to be persuaded that there's a need for the former, but I wonder. What do you think? -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Small changes to the lede.

I am starting to work a little looking at improving the lede as it is now to a bit better, imo. comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

from this...

White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3]

to this...

White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification, as is standard practice. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55] ....Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] . Japanese are Yellow, not White. . Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States. . As many so called Brown and Blacks have more European DNA than African. Should we can them White? And what methods are those used in USA that says that they would be considered Blacks if in that country the census is also based on self-reports? --Lecen (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow? Yellow Brazilians . I have met many and they didn't look yellow to me, I wonder how many of them self declared as yellow in the census? Or if yellow was even a option on the census. Have a look on the Japanese Brazilian article and see how many of the pictures appear , as you say..yellow? Your comments about the survey in the states is relevent and requires checking..I am pretty sure that those figures are also self declared. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is the "yellow" option in the Brazilian census [2]. Once again you show your lack of knowledge on Brazilian issues, and yet you insist on editing. Right or wrong, the "yellow" category exists (even if East Asians don't look "yellow" to you and me). Many Europeans don't look "white" either, they look brown or tanned. And the use of the word "yellow" to refer to East Asians came from Europe, it was not born here. Grenzer22 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ec..I will look at the results there, I would like to see if there are 1.4 million Japanese Brazilians then how many of them self identified as yellow? Please stop with your personal comments, we as wikipedian editor are not supposed to be experts, neither are we supposed to write articles for experts to read. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To help me, are the figures for yellow self identifiers in the pdf link that you gave, if they are could you please notify me which page they are on. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow? Yellow Brazilians . I have met many and they didn't look yellow to me, I wonder how many of them self declared as yellow in the census? Or if yellow was even a option on the census. Have a look on the Japanese Brazilian article and see how many of the pictures appear , as you say..yellow? Your comments about the survey in the states is relevent and requires checking..I am pretty sure that those figures are also self declared. .

My God... you know nothing about the subject... as I always imagined. All this trouble... now everything makes sense. This is why you never brought sources to make your opposion to Ninguém's edits... because there weren't any. You don't even know anything about Brazilian ethnic groups and created all this confusion? I'm losing my time in here. It's the exact same thing as in the discussion with Opinoso: I bring sources, I know about the subject and t he other guy knows nothing and I lose my time in useless debates. I will send scanned pages from books about them atter to Ninguém but I will not get involved on this. Good luck to the ones who are interested on helping instead of just bringing troubles and creating useless topics of discussion when there are other still ongoing. --Lecen (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Grenzer22, I notice you have removed one of your posts, please take care not to post comments you want to remove two minutes later, it removes the position as regards comments I may have made in reply and confuses the conversation, please don't remove them in future, please if you retract them then strike them through but leave them in situation, if you don't know how to do this then feel free to ask me how. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

From the pdf..There are five classifications in the consensus, white, black, yellow, brown (pardo) and indigenous Indians.. a half a percent self declared as yellow, the so called yellows are in the Asian Brazilian article on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob proposes this:

White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country.

Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55]

I think this is far from an improvement. This would be better:

White Brazilians are Brazilians who report to be White in Brazilian Censuses. Brazil Censuses, adhering to international practice, are conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] According to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households), White Brazilians are 48.4% of Brazil's population[4], or around 92 million people[1]. They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, They are spread in Brazil as a whole, although the main concentrations highest numbers are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country.

Using the 2006 census results According to the 2008 PNAD results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. However, we should have in mind that India's Census does not count people according to "race" or "colour"[7] , so the actual size of the White population of India is unknown. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55]

The foolery about the exceptionality of the Brazilian method of counting people's race must be removed; it is standard international pratice, and cannot be misrepresented as a folcloric Brazilian quirk. The name of Brazilian surveys should be respected; there is no such thing as "2006 Census"; the 2006 research is a PNAD an not a Census. There is no reason to use the 2006 PNAD, as the 2008 PNAD results are already available. The ridiculous attempt to eliminate Brazilian colonial history and reduce the White population to the result of XIX-XX Centuries immigration must go. Japanese aren't considered White in Brazil. The United States way of considering people White or Black isn't an international or scientific standard and has no place here. Ninguém (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So removing the struck and alts.. you prefer this..?

White Brazilians are Brazilians who report to be White in Brazilian Censuses. Brazil Censuses, adhering to international practice, are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households), White Brazilians are 48.4% of Brazil's population[4], or around 92 million people[1] They are spread in Brazil as a whole, although the highest numbers are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. According to the 2008 PNAD results Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. However, we should have in mind that India's Census does not count people according to "race" or "colour"[7] , so the actual size of the White population of India is unknown.

Are you proposing this edit to the lede? Here is my offer, anyway, here is my small write to compare. Off2riorob (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians Recent censuses in Brazil have been conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) self declared as identifying themselves as 'white', these Brazilians made up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] They are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. Using the 2006 census results according to this self declaration method Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Brazilian ancestry includes immigrants from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, Lebanon and the largest population of Japanese people outside of Japan.[3] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[55] ....Off2riorob (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have already made clear the (many) reasons why your proposal is unacceptable. Ninguém (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets wait and see for other opinions,I think that we should try to progress and any edit that is a step in the right direction is preferable, the article will stagnate and any interested parties will drift off. I though that it was a fair bit better that what is in the lede now. which is... Off2riorob (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3] Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While your proposal removes some of the problems of the protected version, especially the unsourced and wrong sentence about White Brazilians being those of European ancestry, it keeps other (the Brazilian Census is exceptional in its self-reporting method, White Brazilians are only those of recent immigrant origin, and "ancestries" discussion) problems, and even introduces some of its own ("Japanese Brazilians" are "White", the US "method" to classify people has some objective value). So, sorry, but no, it is not actually better than the protected version. Ninguém (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some evidence that Brazil is exceptional in asking people to self declare ? It is also normal in England to be asked to tick the box that you feel you are most represented by, for example..white British. Black, other...my rewrite is not suggesting that Japanese Brazilians are white, just simply stating that this group is part of the general immigration. Also the USA comparison is very useful in an explanatory way of revealing the differences that could be found using different reference methods. I created this lede using the comments left by DDG, to expand, a little and attempt to explain what in this case white Brazilian is referring to.Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians make up 49.7% of Brazil's population, or around 93 million people, according to the IBGE's 2006 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Dwellings).[1] Whites are present in the entire territory of Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country. White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants. [What's your source for "full or mainly"?] Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.[3] [What's the source for this?] -- Hoary (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure who are you asking this of Hoary ? The content you have added here is the content that is in the lede now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob wrote: Is there some evidence that Brazil is exceptional in asking people to self declare ? No, there isn't, and it is not. In which case, why is this highlighted, as if it were something extraordinary?

my rewrite is not suggesting that Japanese Brazilians are white, just simply stating that this group is part of the general immigration

But what is immigration doing here? This is an article about White Brazilians, not about Immigration to Brazil, and not all or even most White Brazilians are of immigrant descent.

Also the USA comparison is very useful in an explanatory way of revealing the differences that could be found using different reference methods.

But only if it is not assumed as the "correct" or "standard" way to classify people. Look, the lead version I had written actually explained those differences. It was too long, right? So let's keep the lead without talking about the difference without explaining it. Ninguém (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that these so called white people are in reference to the survey are people that self expressed this position is very relevant, you may understand it but as wiki editors we need to clarify what the article is all about, you say that not not even most of these so called white people are of immigrant decent, where are they from then? the original inhabitants of the area are the Indians. Again you say that the American comparison is only relevant if you say the method of self identification is not assumed as the correct or standard way to classify...it is our work here to clarify these type of points to the casual reader. I am unsure of your comment at the end about keeping the lede, which version of the lede are you referring to there? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The comparison to the US system is not relevant, there are other systems throughout the world, why should one choose the American system and place it there? At the "white American" topic there is no comparison to any other system. Simply the American definition. By placing a reference to the American system there is an implicit meaning that the American definition is better, which is not true at all. Even though, as I said, I do not agree with the Brazilian government (I think there should be no classification), I recognize that our classification is not worse (and not better either) than any other. "Race" is largely a social construct, and in the Americas they are particularly tied to the relatively recent invasion of the continent by the Europeans. I agree with Ninguém that there should be no mention to the American way as presented above.Grenzer22 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to, is it the White American article? I don't see why anyone would think that the American method is better it is just different, and would give a different result, that is very relevant to the casual reader and it helps to define what this article is talking about. I see you calling the recent immigration of America an invasion that is a bit your point of view, it is just immigration. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No it was not simply immigration. The Europeans invaded the Americas and took the land off the indigenous people. There were people living here. The classifications throughout the Americas are a legacy of the European invaders, and the caste system they implanted has unfortunately not been put away yet. Even Europeans would not "pass" the system they implanted. Did you watch that 100% English programme? Andrew Graham Dixon, the presenter, scored 85% European, 11% Asian, and 5% SSA (sub saharan African), according to his DNA test results. The politically incorrect Gary Bushell, 8% SSA (sub saharan African). A traditional English old lady from a manor house, 80% European, 11% Native American and 9% Asian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_English (it can be found at youtube). Britain too is a melting pot, just for the record. The whole world is.Grenzer22 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob wrote:

The fact that these so called white people are in reference to the survey are people that self expressed this position is very relevant, you may understand it but as wiki editors we need to clarify what the article is all about,

No problems with stating that this is "self expressed", as long as we clarify that this is international standard practice.

you say that not not even most of these so called white people are of immigrant decent, where are they from then? the original inhabitants of the area are the Indians.

From Portugal, arriving here from 1530 to 1808. Colonial settlers, not immigrants. Immigrants are the people arriving from then on - in practice, from 1876 on, during the period known as "Great Immigration".

Again you say that the American comparison is only relevant if you say the method of self identification is not assumed as the correct or standard way to classify...it is our work here to clarify these type of points to the casual reader.

Look, either we compare the two different reasonings about race in the lead - but then we actually compare them, explaining the difference, which will make the lead long - or we keep this out of the lead and discuss the issue in a different section of the article.

I am unsure of your comment at the end about keeping the lede, which version of the lede are you referring to there?

What exactly are you failing to understand? I mean, if you want the lead short, then let's keep it short, without giving a half-explanation that confuses instead of actually explaining.

I see you calling the recent immigration of America an invasion that is a bit your point of view, it is just immigration.

Point of view? Are you kidding? It was made manu militari, with people who opposed it being killed. Or why do we call these people Conquistadors? Ninguém (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See this is where I am lucky, conquistadors, invaders, immigrants..to me they are all people coming to add to the gene pool that has created this so called white Brazilian , how they got there is not very important imo. As I am not an expert I was referring to immigration to anybody that has come to Brazil, ok, settlers and immigrants you separate, at the end of the day it is the same thing, people coming form other countries. Then as I am presently working to the comment from DDG to expand and explain (a little) I suggest a singe sentence to explain why the results in the American census would give such a different result, what is the reason for that? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should they be equal? Different countries have different systems, this should be expected. In France one does not have to tell the government what "race" they are. "White", "black", "mestizo", are not universal categories. Grenzer22 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So the difference that could be expected in the results between USA and Brazil is the difference between the categorization of the colors, is there a link somewhere to the American census to compare the differing options for self declaration? Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the differing options for self declarations (if you are really interested, you can see those here [3] for Brazil and here [4] for the United States). The problem is that, given a set of options, an average American will chose among them according to a different reasoning than an average Brazilian. And this unhappily cannot be explained in one line; it will take one or two (not too small) paragraphs. Some things just are complicated. Ninguém (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

EC, Here it is , looking at it the major difference is that it is less color specific, basically white, black and original inhabitant (Indian, native Alaskan) and then it is split up into not color but actual races, there is no yellow option but there is a box for Japanese and Chinese. In the lede this can be comment on as the reason that different results could occur. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the reason why different results occur.

You give options such as "Black", "White" and "Mixed" to an American, s/he reasons like this:

I was born and raised in a Black neighbourhood, I went to a mainly Black school, my friends are Black, I attended a Black college, I married a Black (wo)man, I live in a Black neighbourhood, ergo I am Black.

You give the same options to a Brazilian, s/he reasons in a completely different way:

My skin is dark, my hair is wooly, my nose is wide, my lips are thick, ergo I am Black. Ninguém (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well...so your suggesting the differing results would be as a result of racial programming, this would be imo uncitable...I still remember the first time I heard the expression..Oi, Vem ca neguinho... I was shocked as this would get you arrested in England...But imo social attitudes to race is only a small part of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are trying to explain the difference in the lead, then the lead will be long. If we want the lead short, then we should not try to explain the difference in the lead. Ninguém (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As Off2riorob suggested, I took a look on the White Argentine article. It looks like an article on Immigration to Argentina; perhaps this is the correct thing to do concerning Argentina and its Whites. My knowledge of Argentina, Argentinian history, and Argentinian demography is sketchy at best; I do not feel able to edit that article, and won't do so. But, as we are discussing the lead, I shall only address the White Argentine lead.

Here is the White Argentine lead:

White Argentines make up 86.4%[1] to 97%[2] of Argentina's population. Whites are found in all areas of the country. White Argentines are mostly descendants of immigrants who came mainly from Italy and Spain in the late 19th century.

It is extremely short, and it does not say what a White Argentinian is. It talks about their numbers, their geographic distribution, and their ancestry. If we were to base the White Brazilian lead on this, it should be something like:

White Brazilians make up 48.4%[1] of Brazil's population. Whites are found in all areas of the country. White Brazilians are mostly descendants of Portuguese colonists who settled the country during its colonial period, and of immigrants who came mainly from Portugal and Italy in the late 19th and early XX century.

A striking feature of the White Argentine lead is that nowhere it refers to the Argentinian Census; its sources are a website named "WORLD STATESMEN.org" ([5]) and the CIA (neither of which cite their sources). This seems to me extremely bad form; the main source for the demography of a country should be its Census. But there is a problem with Argentina in this case; though Wikipedia says that "Argentine censuses are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the last census, 95% of Argentines identify as white" ([6]), this is simply not true (and I start to see a pattern). Argentinian 2001 Census - which is the latest one - did not ask people about their race, colour, etc ([7]). So the reliability of these estimates is very low, and the key information - that no one actually counts people for race in Argentina - is missing.

Evidently, White Argentine is not a model for what we should do in White Brazilian. Ninguém (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Self identification is imo actually worthless as a factoid, 47 percent of Brazilians self identify as white. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My proposal stands: a lead without "ancestries" and without comparisons to the United States. There is no simple and straightforward relation between ancestry and race in Brazil, and a comparison to the US is too complex to fit into a short lead. If the lead is going to state that it is the world's third greatest White population, the caveat about India (which the CIA says has 821 million "Indo-Aryans") must stay. If it is going to mention "self identification", it has to say that this is standard international practice.

Can we move forward? Ninguém (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The caveat about India seems well-intentioned but a red (or White) herring, as I indicate in a section below. I think now that it should go. If it goes then the "third greatest" stuff should go. Doing away with that means that one could skip comparisons with the US (or Russia). ¶ How's this? I'm less unhappy with the content than I am with the content of the current version, although I think it needs rearrangement and additional sourcing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I like your version. Ninguém (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a discussion on the lead

The Portuguese who settled in Brazil in colonial times were also immigrants. According to the dictionary: Immigrant is "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence".

Brazil became indepedent from Portugal in 7 September, 1822. Then, a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 6 September, 1822 was not an immigrant, but a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 8 September, 1822 was an immigrant? This is ridiculous.

And no, Black in Brazil is not a person who "looks Black". Brazil is full of people who have clear Black African physical type, but only 6% of the population report to be Black in the census. What a ridiculous figure for the country that more imported slaves from Africa in the Americas. Few Brazilians want to embrace a Black classification. And this is not because few people look to be of African descent, because many people, if not the majority of the population, are visibly of African descent. It's because in the popular imagination Blackness is confused with negative points, while Whiteness is confused with positive points. That's why the national censuses do not reflect the reality, and everybody knows that, even though there are people pretending that Brazilians are not affected by those racial stigmas when classifying themselves on censuses and that Brazilians only see the physical apparence.

Impossible. Brazil imported 4 million slaves from Africa and 6% report to be Black. On the other hand, Brazil received 5 million immigrants from Europe (the vast majority of whom arrived "recently" in the 19th and 20th centuries) and nearly 50% are reported as White. What a huge difference, when the numbers of Africans and Europeans who settled in Brazil was quite similar. Of course that slaves had a much higher mortality rate, but on the other hand many of the European immigrants returned to Europe after settling in Brazil for a short time. Even with those differences, 6% of Blacks and 50% of Whites do not seem compatible with the migratory movements to Brazil. Even though genetic studies do show that European ancestry predominates in Brazilians as whole, it is not really predominant in the physical type of the population (Brazilians in general are not known for "looking European") what is contraditory with the census data.

Like I read before while in the United States a drop of African blood makes a person Black, in Brazil a drop of European blood makes a person White. Both are racist societies. While in the United States a person with some African blood was considered to be Black to stay away and segregated from the larger White society, in Brazil a person with some European blood was considered to be White to be incorporated into the smaller White society, creating an imaginary society where Blacks would disappear in a couple of decades. Of course they did not disappear and the majority of the Brazilian society has African ancestry, even though for some people it was, and still is, a tragic fact. But, thanks God, this kind of people are gradually disappearing from our society and our African heritage begins to be valued, but still not even close to the appreciation of the European or even Amerindian heritage. It's not uncommon for Brazilians to claim imaginary remote European ancestry from Portugal or from "exotic" countries like France or the Netherlands (usually people who know nothing about their ancestry and invent an imaginary European ancestry. But to see people claiming African ancestry is still rare, and to be Black is still offensive. But things gradually are changing. But this is the minority, because Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians. Opinoso (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The White Argentine article is worthy of a comparrison viewing, it's a nice consise article, the only major difference there is the lack of African slave genetic input. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed pleasingly concise. But the pleasingly concise content is poor. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil became indepedent from Portugal in 7 September, 1822. Then, a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 6 September, 1822 was not an immigrant, but a Portuguese who settled in Brazil in 8 September, 1822 was an immigrant? This is ridiculous. It's very common to distinguish A from B according to a historical change. Historical changes are often formalized on a single day. Formalizing the distinction between A and B then may involve a single day. Concentration on this single day indeed looks absurd. Does this invalidate the distinction? I don't think so. ¶ Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians I'd be happy to think that this were true; but as entire scholarly books have been written about such matters as the politics of "colour" in Brazil, I regretfully find it hard to believe. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes..but..is that what this article is about..the politics of color in Brazil? Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the politics of color in Brazil. However, if scholarly works have been written about the political and societal impact of skin color in Brazil, I question an assertion that Brazilians in general don't care about this kind of stuff. (NB I'm not saying that the assertion is wrong: imaginably, the mature majority isn't interested, while a noisy minority is interested.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks White and is accepted as such?

Somebody brought the unsourced information that a White Brazilian is a person who "looks White" or who is "accepeted as White".

First of all: who is a person who looks White? Many people in Europe itself do not have a "White" skin, but a light brown or olive skin. This is particuarly evident in Southern Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. The myth that all Europeans have a White skin is only present in the imagination of a person who has never been to Europe.

Who looks White? Is an olive-skinned Spaniard or Greek considered to be White in Norway or Finland? Is a person considered to be White in a Black community in Bahia also considered to be White in a German-speaking community in Sourthern Brazil? In the early 20th century Southern Italians were not considered to be White in the United States because of their darker skin complexion when compared to the average Anglo-American, but in Brazil or Argentina they were Whites.

Then, there's no such a thing as a "person who looks White", because this is very relative and Whiteness is in the eye of the behaviour.

Do people "accepted as White" exist? No, they don't. An interesting resource published on Folha de S. Paulo newspapers interviewed 2,982 Brazilians and asked them to racially classify some Brazilian celebrities.[8]

Let's start with soccer player Ronaldo, who was already described here: 64% of Brazilians think Ronaldo is Black or Pardo, while 23% say he is White.

Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso: 70% say he is White, 17% he is Pardo and 1% he is Black. (he describes himself as a "little Mulatto")

Actress Camila Pitanga: 36% say she is Parda and only 27% say she is Black. (she describes herself as Black)

Actress Taís Araújo: only 54% say she is Black. (she describes herself as Black)

Soccer player Romário: 51% say he is Pardo and 31% he is Black.

Singer Zeca Pagodinho: 52% say he is Pardo and 22% he is Black.

As one can see, in Brazil the "race" of each individual is "in the eye of the behavior". There's no such a thing as a "person accepted as White". What is White for me is Pardo or Black for another person, and vice-versa.

Former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who describes himself as a "Mulatto" is described by 70% as "White" and by 17% as "Pardo" and by 1% as "Black". Is Cardoso "accepeted as White"? Which percentage of people describing him as "White" is necessary for him to be "accepeted as White"? 70%, 80%, 90% or 100%? Even if only 0.001% said he is non-White, then he would not be completly "accepted as White". There would always be somebody not considering him to be White.

A White Brazilian is a person who said to be White in the census. That's all. It's not a person who "looks White", neither is a person "accepeted as White". Since Brazil was a country build under the strong Racial whitening ideology, among those 93 million self-reported "Whites", there are plenty of people who have clear Black African and\or Native Indian physical type. Opinoso (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am European, from Spain. Here we have many recent "pure blood" black immigrants from Africa (subsaharan) and I can assure you that none of those shown (Romario, Cardoso etc.) looks like a black African, NONE of them. Blacks are much darker. Just go to Angola to discover the reality of how a real black looks like.--83.53.110.189 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I hardly know where to start.

Many people in Europe itself do not have a "White" skin, but a light brown or olive skin.

Nobody has a white skin. Even albinos don't have white skin. As for being "White", my European experience tells me that this isn't merely a matter of skin color, but anyway plenty of Europeans have dark brown skin, and yes plenty more have light brown skin. Whether people call them "White" (or the local version thereof) depends on all sorts of things, notably where they are and who's doing the calling.

Former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who describes himself as a "Mulatto" is described by 70% as "White" and by 17% as "Pardo" and by 1% as "Black". Is Cardoso "accepeted as White"?

If he is indeed described by 70% as "White" then he's generally accepted as white, yes.

Even if only 0.001% said he is non-White, then he would not be completly "accepted as White".

Whence the need to discuss whether any assertion is accepted by over 99.998% of the population? (You're talking about one in a million Brazilians, if this matters.)

A White Brazilian is a person who said to be White in the census. That's all.

Oh? As I look at, say, the introduction to Hanchard et al's Racial Politics in Contemporary Brazil (Duke U.P.) I see the clear implication that, fortunately or otherwise, "white" is regarded in Brazil as more than a mere label. Do I misread this? Yours is a marvelously clear assertion; do you have a reliable source for it? -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is not getting us anywhere, it is clear to see there are opposing views, we can include a comment about both, if they are citable, lets choose an article, either White American or White Argentinian and work this article along those lines, simple. There is imo excessive circular discussion regarding this and I don't want to be here forever. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is not getting us anywhere - I doubt that the intention is to go anywhere, except the eternal protection of this article's absurd version, according to which ancestry is irrelevant to race classifications in Brazil, and White Brazilians are Brazilians of European ancestry.

Can we discuss the lead, or was that also part of this strategy? Ninguém (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just to choose an article and work all of this one along the same lines? What do you think Ninguem.? I have to go offline now for a few hours, regards till later. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

third largest in the world, etc

A question that no longer interests the questioner
2px
Before veering off into irrelevancy (or worse), the current version of the article tells us that Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether an elaboration would be an improvement, this could be elaborated as: According to census data, Brazil has the largest "White" population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest anywhere after the United States and Russia. However, the census of India (for example) does not count people according to "race" or "colour", so the size of its "White" population is unknown. The census of India does indeed not count people according to race or colour. (It does take some note of caste, however.) And it's imaginable that the Hindi or Malayalam or Telugu or other language has an adjective equivalent to "white" that's used for very large numbers of Indians. Problem is, I don't read any of those languages, and in English (the only Indian language I happen to be able to read), "White Indian" seems to be a colonial throwback, referring to people in the (now happily departed) British colonial overlord class, whose number of course never approached the number of "White Brazilians". Thinking of India and populous nations quickly took me to Indonesia. Again, I don't read Bahasa Indonesia or any Indonesian language. As for English (for what this is worth), googling suggests that "White Indonesian" is the Dutch colonial equivalent of "white Indian" and therefore also numerically insignificant beside the tens of millions of "White Brazilians". Of course there's no reason to assume that something that could be translated/calqued from a locally used language into English as "white" (for "colour"/"race") or "White Indian", "White Indonesian", "White Chinese", "White Congolese", "White Tuareg" or whatever would normally be so translated/calqued into English for my monolingual googling convenience. So again, I'm very willing to believe that there's some "White" people(s) whose existence puts "White Brazilians" into fourth (or lower) place. Incidentally Japan has a large population and does have the word hakujin (literally "white person/people"), but this is only used about non-Japanese and thus is an irrelevance. However, Japanese does also have the terms irojiro and iroguro (literally "colour-white" and "colour-black" respectively), which can be used informally to describe paler and darker skinned [Japanese] people. I don't live in Kyūshū but if I did I wonder if I'd occasionally hear talk about tens of millions of irojiro up in the UV-deprived north. I still think Japan is an irrelevance here, but I do start to wonder about (for example) how speakers of Cantonese might refer to those taller, paler people native to areas north of Nanjing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) You have some Knowledge of this Hoary, do you have knowledge of these Japanese Brazilians? Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Um . . . I don't mind your asking me about Japanese Brazilians, but I hope that my message above doesn't give the impression that I was talking about Japanese Brazilians. If it does, then my ability to write lucid messages must be lower than I realize. But as for your question: No, I know very little about Japanese Brazilians, I'm sorry to say. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me who asked the collapsed question above. It's related to the assertion that the population of "White Brazilians" is third greatest in a list of populations of "White" citizens/residents of individual nations. But the assertion leads off into wild goose chases and should I think be dropped, so I withdraw the question. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

footnote dump

Dump any footnotes from above here:

a draft introduction

How's the following? -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian
Brasileiro Branco

Regions with significant populations
Brazil:    Entire nation; highest numbers found in southern and southeastern Brazil
Languages
Predominantly Portuguese
Religion
Roman Catholic 74.7% · Protestant 15.2% · Non-religious 6.09% · Kardecist 1.87% · Other Christian (includes Jehovah's Witnesses, Brazilian Catholics, other Christians, Mormons, and Orthodox) 1.19%
Related ethnic groups
Other Brazilians, Portuguese, Italians, Germans, Spaniards, Ukrainians, Poles, Lebanese, White Americans, Armenians, Lithuanians, Jews

White Brazilians make up 48.4% of Brazil's population, or around 92 million people, according to the IBGE's 2008 PNAD (National Research by Sample of Households). "Whites" are present across Brazil, although the main concentrations are found in the South and Southeastern parts of the country.

As "race" is a social construct, the Brazilian meaning of "White" differs from the concept elsewhere, and even varies by region.

The degree of miscegenation in Brazil has been very high, as it was colonized by male Portuguese adventurers who tended to procreate with Amerindian and African women. This made possible a myth of "racial democracy" that tends to obscure a widespread discrimination connected to certain aspects of physical appearance: aspects related to the concept of cor (literally "colour"), used in a way that is roughly equivalent to the English term "race" but based on a combination of skin colour, hair type, and shape of nose and lips. It is possible for siblings to belong to different "colour" categories. So a "White" Brazilian is a person perceived and socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry or sometimes even immediate family.

While miscegenation has been one factor leading to a Brazilian population with features ranging from the stereotypically African to the stereotypically European, a second has been "assortative mating". The genome of the first generation offspring of European fathers and African mothers was 50% European and 50% African, but the distribution of the genes that affect relevant features (skin colour, hair type, lip shape, nose shape) was random. Those of the second generation with features considered closer to a "White" stereotype would have tended to procreate with others like themselves, while those considered closer to "Black" would also have tended to procreate among themselves; in the long term producing "White" and "Black" groups with surprisingly similar proportions of European and African ancestry.

References

Discussion of the draft above

It seems a bit lumpy to me and I think it could be improved. I look forward to reading your suggestions.

(Yes I realize that it needs manicuring -- e.g. different footnotes have ". Accessed", "; accessed" and " (accessed" -- but let's not nitpick until more important matters are fixed.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Ninguém (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to be part of this discussion anymore, but since you (Hoary) had so much trouble and patience on trying to settle this matter (and others) I feel I'm in debt with you. So, here goes my thoughts:

First paragraph: ok.

Second paragraph: The sentence "Brazilian meaning of 'White' differs from the concept elsewhere, and even varies by region" should be, in my opinion, reworded. The way it reads, it seems that someone who is Blue or Green (or Grey?!) in Brazil would be considered white while in other countries it wouldn't. In Brazil, the basis, the matrix, the main source to be considered "white" it's still look like an European. If that means a German (with the stereotype "blond hair and blues eyes" and white texture) or a Portuguese (with the stereotype "dark hair and dark eyes" and white texture) look, it doesn't matter, it must look European. So, someone who has white traits (let's say, nose, face, hair, lips) in Brazil but has a brownish (or sun tanned) colour he/she will mostly be considered... Brown (Pardo).

Let's see the third paragraphy that Hoary wrote, there I will be able to explain better my present comment.

Third paragraph: The sentence "as it was colonized by male Portuguese adventurers who tended to procreate with Amerindian and African women" is wrong, wrong and wrong. That explains the origins of the Mestizo (Brown, Pardo, Half-breed, Mixed-race, etc...) population but not of the white population in Brazil and it's the white population our primary focus right now. Here:

"The excess of population and the pressure on the land in certain fertile regions (Minho) on the north of Portugal, and in the Atlantic islands Madeira and Açores, had supplied a chain of constant emigration. [...] Of a thousand colonists who settled in Bahia, in 1849, four hundred were exile; but, from this date and on, the number of voluntary emigrants widely exceeded the ones who were exiled for the well being of their country. Moreover, despite the number of emigrant men who were, of course, much higher than women, the ratio of women who followed their men to Brazil was sufficiently superior to the number of the ones who embarked to India."

Source: Boxer, Charles R.. O império marítimo português 1415-1825. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002. (in Portuguese), p.104 (Boxer is considered the greatest foreign historian in Brazilian colonial era)

P.S.: Boxer is talking about the initial settlement, that goes from 1530 up to around 1680. After that, it came a huge mass of Portuguese settlers due to the gold mine discoveries. Yes, men, women and children. And also, the name used for them by Historians is always "colonists". "Immigrants" are used to the ones that came after 1822. More:

"A estimate for the year of 1584, that got sufficiently ample acceptance, gives a total population of 57,000 individuals, of which 25,000 were whites, 19,000 civilized Indians and 14,000 black slaves." (p.117)

An example of the Portuguese government to send Portuguese families to Brazil during this period:

"One of these plans was implemented in 1748-53, when groups of peasant families were sent from the Açores to Santa Catarina and the Rio Grande do Sul." (p.182)

"The accelerated emigration from Portugal, the Atlantic islands and Western Africa to Brazil during the first half of 18th century probably raised the population to around 1,500,000 , not considering the savage amerindian tribes in the countryside." (p.185)

Out of curiosity, the Brazilian population in 1823, just a year after the Independence, was 4 million inhabitants. On 1872, a little before the mass emigration of Europeans to Brazil, the population was 9.930.478 and 38% of it were whites (39% Brown, 11% blacks and 5% Indians). 84,8% were free people and 15,2% slaves. (Source: Vainfas, Ronaldo. Dicionário do Brasil Imperial. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2002, pp.132-133)

So, some of you who saw Opinoso scream saying that more than 4 million Africans were brought to Brazil between 150 and 1822 (just to prove the almost all Brazilian population was black) will wonder what happened to them. After how, how could be possible that the population in the 1720s were 1.500.000 and in 1823 were 4.000.000 with almost 40% of whites (when around 700,000 Portuguese came to Brazil in that same period). It's simple: almost all Africans died from the horrible treatment they received in Brazil. And the Portuguese and their descendants, of course, grew.

About the sentence "in a way that is roughly equivalent to the English term "race" but based on a combination of skin colour, hair type, and shape of nose and lips. It is possible for siblings to belong to different 'colour' categories" it's correct but as I said before: someone who has Europeans traits but has a brownish skin colour will mostly be treated as a Brown (Pardo) or to be more precisely: "Moreno". So, a White in Brazil must have not only European traits (nose, lips, hair, etc...) but also skin colour.

About the sentence "regardless of ancestry or sometimes even immediate family" could be considered to a few individuals like that famous case of twin brothers were one said he was Pardo and the other Black because the latter wanted to get into university by the racial quotes . So, it might not count ancestry or immediate family in that kind of case, but that's rare. To be a white in Brazil, not only you need to look European (skin colour, eyes, lips, nose, etc...) but you have to be a descendant of European (and in some rare cases, Arabs. Yes, Arabs and their descendants are whites too, but they are a very small population in Brazil). The common is to people say "My greatgrandparents were Italian immigrants" or "My grandfather is German and my grandmother is descendant of Portuguese" or something similar instead of saying "I'm white but I don't know why!"

Fourth paragraph: That's interesting, but it should be in an article like "Ethnic groups in Brazil", not in here.

Those are my thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• To Hoary, this line..As "race" is a social construct,[5] the Brazilian meaning of "White" differs from the concept elsewhere.... I don't see that point, the article isn't about race at all? Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• :: :: Quote: "The genome of the first generation offspring of European fathers and African mothers was 50% European and 50% African, but the distribution of the genes that affect relevant features (skin colour, hair type, lip shape, nose shape) was random. Those of the second generation with features considered closer to a "White" stereotype would have tended to procreate with others like themselves, while those considered closer to "Black" would also have tended to procreate among themselves; in the long term producing "White" and "Black" groups with surprisingly similar proportions of European and African ancestry. Hoary

- Even though the researcher said that, that is not really true, as many Brazilians ("white", "pardo" or "black") can trace their female lineage to an Amerindian or an African woman and be overwhelmingly European. The off-spring would marry European newcomers thus diluting the non European ancestry. Sérgio Pena, the genetic researcher, has a sketch about this process at his site: http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/?area=genealogiaAncestralidadeDiferenca. This is related by Pedro Taques de Almeida Paes Leme, and it has been shown by genetics. Sérgio Pena himself, even though he can trace a Native American ancestry on his female line(his mtDNA is haplogroup A, which is Native American), has an overwhelming European autosomal ancestry (99,9% European), which would make his % ancestry different than of those who kept in the Native American group. The same goes for the African ancestry. The best example of this is José Sarney, former president of Brazil, from the interior of Maranhão (one of the most "African" provinces of Brazil). His mtDNA is African (from Central Africa), and yet his autosomal contribution is overwhelmingly European (at 99,9%). This is my own case too, my mtDNA is native American, and yet my autosomal ancestry is 98% European and 1,5% Native American (according to a DNA test performed by 23andme, which scans over 500000 markers). My ancestry is entirely of colonial times, and I have traced my ancestry back to European women too (Margarida Correa and Genebra Leitão de Vasconcelos, just to name a few, who arrived both in Brazil in the XVI century, at the very beginning of the colonization process). - Grenzer22 (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add that there are many Brazilians of colonial stock whose ancestry is entirely European, like the famous writer Paulo Coelho f.e (mentioned above), and the people I share with at 23andme. It follows that Portuguese women immigrated to Brazil at a non insignificant rate. There are historical records of immigration of couples (families) - during the colonial times - to São Luís do Maranhão, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul, among many other examples. Grenzer22 (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should focus in getting rid of the biased protected version as soon as possible. Hoary's proposal is good and will get us free of "White Brazilians are all peoplee who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrant". The whole issue is way too complicated to be really discussed in the lead. The many absurds and the general tendentiousness of the article as a whole will have to be discussed after we can establish a new lead (I had made a series of edits that had greately improved the article, ridding it of its unsourced claims, absurd contradiction, and smart conflations; I haven't forgot about those edits, and intend to discuss them and include them all back into the article). Ninguém (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, despite all its faults, I think that this new version is better than the existing version. But now that I'm an editor rather than an administrator here, I'm not going to do any unprotection or protection. That's for EdJohnston. I shouldn't have any more influence over him than anyone else here has, but anyway my advice to him is not to rush to unprotect it. Instead, wait till a replacement draft is more or less agreed upon, and then unprotect the article. (NB I'm not suggesting to him to wait until there's a genuine consensus as this word is defined in dictionaries, because it doesn't seem likely that there will ever be a consensus.) ¶ Let's go easy on the boldface (with ALL CAPS); it makes the writer seem to hector his readers. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. They're rather a lot to digest, and because I am tired (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia), I don't propose to go through them right now. Please don't take that to mean lack of interest or appreciation.

I think that your comments have all addressed this tentatively suggested draft rather than other comments on it. That's healthy, but perhaps you can also look at each other's comments, preferably neither simply to support them nor simply to oppose them, but rather to pick among them to see what's valuable in them, and then to suggest how the draft above might be improved.

I'd prefer that you didn't fiddle above with the draft above -- not because it's "mine" (it isn't), but because by doing so you might lose sight of what some of the comments already made are referring to. However, it might be a good idea to copy this draft and paste it below (giving it a different background colour, to reduce the risk of confusion), and then to work on this copy. Primer for background colours: In "background-color:#xyz" (in which "color" must be spelt the American way), x, y and z are the values for red, green and blue respectively. The value of each can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, or F; where 0 is zero and F is maximum.) Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find my offer much more informative and clear and on topic of white Brazilian, this offer seems to me to be saying somethings that actually belong in others article like genetics of South America, these white percentages that are in the first place in the article are only in existence because they looked in the mirror and thought yes I will tick the white box, all of the rest is superfluous and one scholars opinion, none of which belongs in the lede at all. There seems to be the desire to link this self identification with selected comment about genetics to take the article in the direction that there are actually as a matter of fact this percentage of white people in Brazil, whereas by skin colour throughout the population this is clearly not the case. This is from one of the citations "Our data suggest that in Brazil, at an individual level, color, as determined by physical evaluation, is a poor predictor of genomic African ancestry, estimated by molecular markers." Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And then we are again back to the essentialist theory that there is something like "real Whites". Yes, Off2riorob, "there are actually as a matter of fact this percentage of white people in Brazil". It is not like Brazilian Whites are false Whites; it is like these people are White according to the Brazilian definition of what a White person is.

Can we move forward, or do we absolutely have to be forever stalled by these unscientific and reactionary notions of "pure race"? Ninguém (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats right these figures are simply percentage of people that self declared as in there opin1on they think white best represents them, in my version this is clearly clarified in the proposed edit. This comment from Ninguem, "it is like these people are White according to the Brazilian definition of what a White person is." is the point that clearly requires stating in the lede, and there are no "reactionary notions of pure race, this artice is actually about colour, isn't it? or shall we change the name to The White Brazilian race Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to follow your arguments. Please do take the trouble to preview your posts before hitting the "Save page" button. -- Hoary (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You say various things in a way that I have to say confuses me considerably. Still, I'll try to pick a few out and comment on them.

• all of the rest is superfluous and one scholars opinion If you mean that much of this is merely the opinion of this or that single scholar, would you like it to be backed up by the writing of a separate scholar? Or are you saying that no matter how many scholars say it, it's anyway superfluous?
• There seems to be the desire to link this self identification with selected comment about genetics to take the article in the direction that there are actually as a matter of fact this percentage of white people in Brazil, whereas by skin colour throughout the population this is clearly not the case. I understand you up to "Brazil"; I'm quite lost in the second part of the sentence. As for the first part, I had no desire to link self-classification with selected comments about genetics, let alone to suggest that the percentage of people who were "white" by any objective standard (involving reflectivity of skin, perhaps?) was the same as the percentage in the census. I have no idea what might have suggested such a desire to you.
• This is from one of the citations "Our data suggest that in Brazil, at an individual level, color, as determined by physical evaluation, is a poor predictor of genomic African ancestry, estimated by molecular markers." What do you wish to suggest by your quoting of this (unidentified) sentence?

-- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To reply, three points, one: There are some points in your edit that I would contest and I feel sure that other scholars have also contested them so to include them we would have to be able to add other opinions and this is not the situation for the lede, the lede is for simple straightforward points that tell us exactly what a White Brazilian is in relation to this article..for example that Brazil was populated by male Portuguese adventurers..really? Two: When I read your edit this was what I felt the position that was reflected as a summary. Three: This comment is from your citation in the Abstract section and was added to shed a little light on what the figures actually represent.Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps we're getting somewhere. (1) Have scholars recently challenged these assertions? (I'm willing to believe that they have, but it's not enough to say that they must have done. That would be an argument from truthiness.) (2) Could you say what it was that made you infer this? Perhaps something should and can be fixed. (3) Thank you for sourcing the quotation. As I see it, the draft above (despite its various faults) explains well that "color, as determined by physical evaluation, is a poor predictor of genomic African ancestry"; and I believe that even the lead should say this (briefly, of course) in order to debunk from the outset any notion that "white" people have a greater percentage of European ancestry than others do. -- Hoary (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• .I have corrected all of Ninguem's name, sorry it was not in the least bit deliberate, I just got his name into my head spelling it wrong and I will endeavor not to do it again. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have a lot of sympathy with the notion that a discussion of "colour" in Brazil shouldn't be in this article but instead should be in the article on "colour", "race" and ethnic groups in Brazil. However, that article is awful, and we are here. -- Hoary (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That genetic study (rather old) has been contradicted by many others. According to this one here, the average Brazilian (regardless of colour, complexion or census classification) would be 80% European in ancestry, except for the South of the country where they would be, on average, 90% European http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u633465.shtml. This is just to show how heterogenous Brazil is, thus far there is no "final say" when it comes to the "genomic composition" of the Brazilian population. Different researches have given different results for the whole population as a whole, and they should not be used as the "final say", even the genetic studies, especially given the heterogeneity of the Brazilian population in particular, at least until every single of the almost 200 million Brazilians are tested. "White", "black", "pardo", are words invented by the Western Eurasian invaders of the Americas, Africa and Oceania to suit their agendas. The perpetuation of these categories means the perpetuation of the colonial mentality. Having said that, the current definition is that a person who says he is "white" is "white" for the government, as the main criterion is self identification. Of course not all people who say they are "white" are pred. European or fully European. The opposite happens, many of those who say they are "pardo" or even "black" are in fact pred. European (in many cases overwhelmingly European, like Tiazinha, a "brown skinned", not so Euro looking, celebrity who turned out to be 99,9% European according to her autosomal DNA test results). In social use the appearance can be an important factor for identification, though not always. And ancestry and appearance do not always correlate. There is a wide subjective area here as well. I regret the government, the IBGE, etc, at the XXI century, still use these categories. I would rather prefer the French model where "ethnicity" is not reported. And I guess that's how many Brazilians feel too. Without giving up protection for those who need it, of course.

good luck

Grenzer22 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I go to bed as the Americas are waking up, hours later I wake up, and what do I see here? No flaming row among editors, nothing: just a single and most interesting message from Grenzer22. (There may be more new stuff hidden above, of course.) Perhaps it's busy-ness closing down (paid) work for the year or preparing for festivities, or perhaps it's exhaustion; but whatever the explanation I'm happy to see that nobody's shouting or complaining.

Unfortunately I can't read Portuguese but nevertheless I like to think that I can understand the title "DNA de brasileiro é 80% europeu, indica estudo". Trouble is, I can't understand much more than the title. So really, I'm not the best [text] researcher for these matters. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I will translate a part of it then...

"Um novo retrato das contribuições de cada etnia para o DNA dos brasileiros, obtido com amostras das cinco regiões do país, indica que, em média, ancestrais europeus respondem por quase 80% da herança genética da população. A variação entre regiões é pequena, com a possível exceção do Sul, onde a contribuição europeia chega perto dos 90%. Os resultados, publicados na revista científica "American Journal of Human Biology" por uma equipe da Universidade Católica de Brasília, dão mais peso a resultados anteriores, os quais também mostravam que, no Brasil, indicadores de aparência física como cor da pele, dos dos olhos e dos cabelos têm relativamente pouca relação com a ascendência de cada pessoa".

"A new portrayal of each ethnicity contribution to the DNA of Brazilians, obtained with samples from the five regions of the country, has indicated that, on average, European ancestors are responsible for nearly 80% of the genetic heritage of the population. The variation between the regions is small, with the possible exception of the South, where the European contribution reaches nearly 90%. The results, published by the scientific magazine 'American Journal of Human Biology' by a team of the Catholic University of Brasília, show that, in Brazil, physical indicators such as skin colour, colour of the eyes and colour of the hair have little to do with the genetic ancestry of each person, which has been shown in previous studies".

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u633465.shtml

It is not like I am supporting this study in particular. I just gave an example to show that no single genetic study has been proven conclusive so far. There is no way - at least until now - to say what is the average Brazilian. That's my view, that's what I infer from the contradiction between the studies, at least until now. If all Brazilians were tested we would be able to know precisely what is the degree of European, African and Native American ancestries in each Brazilian. It is safe to say though that the Brazilian people as a whole is the result of the meeting of the Native Americans, Europeans and Africans. Millions of Africans and Europeans came to Brazil, and there were millions of Native Americans here.

CheersGrenzer22 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. We really ought to look and see what recent book-length summaries say. If they're good, these should evaluate recent studies and start to adjudicate among their competing claims. Unfortunately "my" library is not helpful, and the best I can do is usually to depend on the translations made by generous Portuguese-reading editors such as yourself and to read bits and pieces at Google Books. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify that I was not criticising you or your text because of that. I just took the opportunity to let be known what I have thought about it. Every time a new genetic study is released on the Brazilian population, they make it sound as if this is the "final say", which is not really true, given in particular our own complexity. The sociological studies are fine by me, as long as they depict the full range of Brazilian diversity; if not various studies should be collected to approach the Brazilian population in its entirety. From what I see, there is a tendency to focus on some groups in detriment of others. From 600000 to 800000 Spaniards immigrated to Brazil by the end of the XIX century and beginning of the XX century (one of the largest waves of Spanish immigration ever), and yet there is almost not one single study on them, and their dynamic in the Brazilian society. In the XVIII century, about 600000 Portuguese immigrated to Brazil as a result of the gold rush (gold rush immigration), arguably the largest European immigration during colonial times in all of the Americas, and yet there is almost no sociological work focused on it. There are many studies about the "German Brazilians" and the "Afro Brazilians" of Bahia, but other groups (or immigration waves) as important have been largely ignored by sociologists. Grenzer22 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cor/"colo(u)r" in Brazil

After sleeping on the matter, I'm more certain that "White Brazilian" is little more than a variety of "'Colour' in Brazil", and a lot what needs to be said about "White Brazilians" also needs to be said about "Black Brazilians" (and others) and should be said in a single place. (Michael Hanchard's introduction to the book Racial Politics in Contemporary Brazil tells me that "colour" -- which of course means more than simple pigmentation -- is more important than "race". Grenzer22 may perhaps cite current sociological thinking that disagrees.) But there's no such article. (There is Human skin color as well as such articles as Afro-textured hair.)

However, there does exist an article on Ethnic groups in Brazil; and although parts of it seem sound enough, other parts look terrible to me. Should there be a centralized treatment there of cor/"colo(u)r"? If there were, I don't delude myself that the discussions toward it would be simple; but if it could eventually be got right, it could well avoid wasteful repetition elsewhere and a seemingly endless series of skirmishes in "Talk:XYZ Brazilian". -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can easily support this comment. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All articles about Brazilian demography are in need of a complete rewriting; all of them were made to make a specific and unsourced point. Because of this, all of them ignore the country's colonisation, and jump immediately from the first days of the discovery (when it is possible to discuss the Amerindians and speculate about Jews) to the XIX century, when immigration was the issue. Because of this, all of them make a very misguided use of the word immigration; it is defined as any people coming from abroad to Brazil (as Off2riorob puts it, conquistadors, invaders, immigrants..to me they are all people coming to add to the gene pool that has created this so called white Brazilian , how they got there is not very important imo. As I am not an expert I was referring to immigration to anybody that has come to Brazil); but when it comes to discussing numbers, then subtly a different notion is used, and "immigration" becomes only what happened in the XIX-XX centuries. This needs to be changed.

But there is probably a larger problem. One of the possible solutions is to keep all discussions about "race in Brazil" in an Ethnic groups in Brazil article. This article, of course, and as already mentioned above, is very badly written; it is not even able to explain what it is discussing - on some sections, the "ethnic groups" are the five "race/colour" categories of the IBGE; in others, the "ethnic groups" are the different ancestries of Brazilian people (of Brazilian Whites specificly; the article isn't able to even mention the existence of different Amerindian or African "ethnicities"; the Tupi are cited once, the Gê never; the article doesn't mention the Yoruba, the Ewe, the Ashanti, or the Bantu).

Which reminds me of asking a possibly disagreeable question: do we even know what an "ethnic group" is? I have made a cursory research on the "ethnic groups" articles. Things like:

• Ethnic groups in Portugal
• Ethnic groups in India
• Ethnic groups in Germany
• Ethnic groups in China
• Ethnic groups in Pakistan
• Ethnic groups in Europe
• Ethnic groups in Nigeria
• Ethnic groups in Paraguay

Frankly, it doesn't even seem that each of these articles are about the same subject. Some seem to be about race, others about linguistic groups, others about tribal organisations, still others about ancestries of immigrants.

And I come to fear that, as we discuss Brazilian "ethnic groups", we start to question whether the discussion needs to be moved up again, to the general definition of "ethnic group", and any changes proposed in any article about Brazilian demography postponed until we solve the problems with all "ethnic groups" articles... Ninguém (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that on a longer term position, it is not only a consensus here between editors that will create a stable article, if the general pubic mostly disagrees with the articles position it will suffer constant instability and will require guarding. I am in favor of my proposal (I would be though wouldn't I) and a simple approach to this article. I see no progress here at all apart from a distinctly better attitude towards each other, I have the feeling to withdraw from discussion here to allow some kind of progress, I have already made my points as regards content and I would hope that there is room to include both sides of the story in the article and ... as a special request..keep it simple. So..make what you will of it. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

One "side" is an unsourced fantasy about White Brazilians being people of full or main European ancestry, whose proponents attempt to make stick by arguing that White Brazilians are people who call themselves White when asked by the Census. Why would this "side" be included in the article? Ninguém (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article on Ethnic groups gives this definition:

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.

According to this definition, are White Brazilians, Black Brazilians, "pardos", Yellow Brazilians or "indígenas" ethnic groups? I would say, absolutely not, though "indígenas" is an assorted set of varied ethnic groups (Kaingang, Kayapó, Pataxó, Tupiniquim, etc.)

Also according to this definition, are German Brazilians, Italian Brazilians, Arab Brazilians, Portuguese Brazilians, Polish Brazilian, etc., ethnic groups? I would say, perhaps there are a German Brazilian ethnic group and an Italian (or rather Venetian) Brazilian ethnic group, but then each of them is composed of about 500,000 - 1,000,000 people, far from the enormous figures of 5 million or 25 million that are spouted everywhere.

In short, I would say that Brazilians are an ethnic group, rather than a collection of those. Ninguém (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, it seems to me that each of White Brazilian, Pardo and Black Brazilian (and more?) requires an explanation of cor, or of "race" in Brazil. Such an explanation can be provided in each of the three (or more?) articles, but this will lead to waste at the best and a trebling of the skirmishes at the worst. How about "Race in Brazil" (now a redirect)? ¶ Starting such an article isn't something to be undertaken lightly. I'm sure there'll be pressure (some of it even thoughtful) to have such an article turned back into a redirect to Ethnic groups in Brazil. There'd have to be an agreement at WP Brazil to create it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal seems correct. Certainly, if "ethnic groups" are groups of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed, then races are not ethnic groups - at least not in Brazil, where certainly there is no such common heritage uniting Whites, "pardos" or Blacks, as opposed to each others.

How (and where) do we discuss the necessity of separating Race in Brazil from Ethnic groups in Brazil? And what consequences does this have upon the White Brazilian, or the Ethnic groups in Brazil articles? Ninguém (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest aiming for a general agreement here, and only then aiming for a general agreement at WP Brazil, to

1. Keep hands off any "XYZ Brazilian" article as well as Pardo and Ethnic groups in Brazil, other than to revert vandalism and what everyone agrees is damage. (Consider even having the whole lot protected.)
2. Change Race in Brazil from a redirect into its own article; work to make this good.
3. Abridge and improve Ethnic groups in Brazil.
4. Return to discuss this article (as it's the one that's protected), have it unprotected, improve it.
5. Improve Black Brazilian, Pardo, and any other article on a cor.
6. Improve all the other "XYZ Brazilian" articles.

Yes, I too am afraid that this will keep editors busy till 2011 or beyond. But I don't see how any alternative is likely to work; the plan above has, I hope, a certain reasonableness to it that may attract additional thoughtful editors (editors who are neither racists or ideologues); and right now all of the people adding comments to this page are on speaking terms, which is unusual and an opportunity that should be seized while it's available. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Also, it would be necessary to take a close look at Immigration to Brazil, Demographics of Brazil, Brazilian people, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, etc. Ninguém (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's add them too, and for "2011" above write "2012". But let's try not to make the task sound too large or daunting, or it's likelier that we'll scare away levelheaded people who might like to help but don't want to commit themselves to a great amount of wrangling. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mkay. A few questions: should those articles all be admined by the same person? Should they receive "content is disputed" tags? Should their present rating (which is, in most cases that I have seen, "B Class") stay or be reassessed? Ninguém (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for their protection; I merely say that I wouldn't mind if they were all protected, and guess that protecting the lot would be a good idea. However, no admin will be interested in protecting an article because it might become the scene of an edit war. Better to keep watch on the lot and if one gets unwelcome attention and the usual measures don't work then appeal to EdJohnston for protection. If one of the articles is protected and there's a serious argument over what it says, then it should get the "content is disputed" tag. Today's confession: I pay little attention to ratings of articles and don't much care whether an article is called "stub", "start", "C", or "B". (I do, however, think that in order to be a "Good Article" an article should be good; when it isn't, I say so.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just now proposed this at WikiProject Brazil. Although I had to simplify the story a little, I tried not to misrepresent people's opinions and hope that I succeeded. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me that in order to avoid any accusation that I hadn't played by the rules I should put a "split" notice at the top of Ethnic groups in Brazil. So I've done this. The template points to a discussion on the article's own talk page, and I therefore moved my proposal from the Project page to this place. Please comment there, even if it's only to agree. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dwarf

Let's see: White American does not exist. That explains why I am uncomfortable with this article. I believe merging this article into ethnic groups or demography of brazil is a good option.

I quite like the things Ninguém is saying in this talk page, I hope to continue to visit this page and contribute to the discussion.--Kiyarrlls-talk 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to Angola

If you want to know how a real black looks like you just have to go to Angola, where the population is really black, not mixed (well there is a 1% mulatto and white minority): in Angola any Brazilian can know if he is black or not.--83.53.110.189 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that the primary meaning of "black" (or equivalent in the relevant language) is something that doesn't vary according to the society. In sociology and the social sciences, there's a consensus against this position of yours. That aside, I wonder what your point is in saying this in the talk page for the article "White Brazilian". -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Phenotype and culture

The "whitening" of Brazil was a complete success and today the overwhelming majority of Brazilians have European names and last names, speak a European language, are Christian and have a Caucasian phenotype as European is the main ancestry of Brazilians, followed by African and then by Native. Also Arabs in different countries have more or less black mixture (blacks being taken usually as slaves by the Arabs) but they have a Caucasian phenotype. On the other side, in countries like the Philippines or Vietnam the phenotype is Asian even if they are usually darker than the Koreans or the Japanese. The Caucasian phenotype can even have a dark color as many Indians have. Asians too can have a dark color, above all in Indo-China, Indonesia and the Philippines but keeping the Asian phenotype...--83.53.110.189 (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point that you are trying to make here about the article "White Brazilian"? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Race in Brazil" (reminder)

As the conversation above was, I thought, moving in the direction of converting Race in Brazil from (a) a redirect to Ethnic groups in Brazil into (b) its own article, I proposed this at the talk page of "Ethnic groups in Brazil".

Thus far, a grand total of one (1) of the participants above has agreed there, and no (0) one else has said anything at all. You may wish to voice your support (or opposition). Without a clear show of support, any conversion from the redirect into an article is likely to be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to work

Since the protection was removed, I am reintroducing the edits that were blindly reversed. However, I am keeping the lead short, in order to avoid pretexts for massive un-editing of the page. So far, rebuilt the lead, taking off absurd sentence about White Brazilians being defined by ancestry - which the article itself states is irrelevant in other ("Conception of White") section, removed comparison with other countries (as the concept of White is different in different countries, the data are actually not comparable), reintroduced more recent data from 2008, removed sentence about "main ancestries" of White Brazilians, which was completely unsupported by the given source.

Later, on to History.