Talk:White Brazilians/Archive 5

Protection again

Due to my inadvertence, the original protection expired on 13 January. I see no problem with the new material added in the last two days, but I restored the protection to allow time for a consensus to form about the future of the article. There is a lot of discussion here in the past month, most of it useful, but it would be good to see some proposals and see what people are willing to line up in support of. The most-well-defined proposal that I happened to notice is that of Hoary at Talk:White Brazilian#a draft introduction. What do people think about using that version for the lead? Unless we take the time to collect some opinions, I'm afraid the article may fall back into chaos, with many blanket reverts, the way it was in early December. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, here are my thoughts:

1. The article should be and has to be much smaller than it present is. If if we have to go as fair as to erase much of what it's written. It should have around 3 sections at most, with 4-5 paragraphies and that's it.
2. Too much attention as been paid for genetic issues or skin texture or similar. That shouldn't be the focus of the article. It should focus on what people (Portuguese, German, Italian, etc...) contributed with the Brazilian white population of nowadays, with a small (SMALL!) text about where they come from, where they settled, their language, their history in Brazil. And when I say small, all of that taken in account, for example, I mean one paragraph about the Portuguese with 5-6 lines at most.
3. It should have a section about what contributions each people had in terms of music, clothes, food, language, etc...

That's it. Something simple and direct. Small. Not a huge battlefield about what means white in Brazil or something similar. If that's ok to everyone else, I propose that the article should be unprotected. And more: mass edits has never been an issue in Wikipedia as long as they improve the article. I've noticed that off2riorob has continued to insist on not allowing any change into the article and went immediately to complain about it with an administrator. Not only that, but has abandoned this article for weeks while it was protected. It no change can be done in the article, why not simply give the article to him, then? Because if that's not ownership, what is it, then? --Lecen (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but the only coherent argument he made about the whole discussion was that the lead was too long. It is now shorter than it was previously, but still he wants the article protected. 189.27.33.58 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede as it is now is far too short, presently there is as you outline here, still no clear outline as to what the format and the remit of this article actually is, there was not consensus as to this and overprotecting the article as was shown today will simply result in a repetition of what happened previously, some kind of simple agreement as to the general structure of the article needs to be agreed on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What you want is to keep the absurd notions that White Brazilians are people of full or mainly European descent, and that the "main ancestries" of White Brazilian are "Portuguese, Italian, German and Lebanese". All of this is false and unsourced. Ninguém (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that you are mistaken, I care less about that one way or the other, I have found that what is in wiki articles changes nothing in the real world, I simply want the article to be a good representation of all the available citations and opinions and not simply one view. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Now it's too short? Is that a joke? No one else has any issue with the edits, only you and you insist on not telling what is exactly wrong. --Lecen (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two options available to you...you can reject my position and and vote to over rule any objections I may have as a joke or incoherent or whatever, or you can attempt to find some place where we can agree. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that tell us that "White Brazilian are all people of full or main European ancestry"? No? Do you have any sources that tell us that the "main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, German, and Lebanese? No? Then why on earth need I to find some place where I can agree with those false statements? 189.27.33.58 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And you suggested that we should take the White Argentine article as a model - and the lead of that article is even shorter than the present lead of this one. So it really doesn't seem you are being earnest about this. 189.27.33.58 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A compromise

I'll tell you want we can do, I will agree to the unlocking of the article if you agree to take your time with any alterations you may want to implement, this could be done by first outlining what you want to do with a section on the talkpage and allowing any editor a degree of time to comment, and perhaps working section by section and allowing a day or two per section for editors to join in if they want to, there is no deadline, one of my main objections is the rewriting of the article without the chance for other editors to discuss, this is all I would ask. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against it. No editor should have to explain every edition he does to anyone when it's on good faith. One or another that can arouse doubt, ok. But every single one? Why? Since when this article belongs to Off2riorob and anyone who makes any edit should first explain to him the reason for the edit and wait for his consent? --Lecen (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No one person owns this article, but Off2riorob's proposal makes sense to me. It would allow time for opinions to be expressed on the Talk page. The problem in December was that there was no talk page consensus for anything, and people were reverting willy-nilly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, EdJohnston. This article - and others with similar subjects - was very clearly owned by one editor, who alone decided, based in his own personal theories, who could and who could not edit it. And who essentially insulted, threatened, and otherwise made editing a hellish experience, anyone who dared confront his ownership. His ownership stalled at the beggining of December, essentially because he tried to expand it to articles on Chile, and the Chileans were more successful in making him shut up than we Brazilians ever were. This caused this article to be heavily edited, to remove the unsourced theories (or theories that were "sourced" by sources that didn't actually support those theories). All - or nearly all - these changes were previously discussed, but the article's owner refused to join the discussion, in the hope that stonewalling would work in his favour.

I can agree in slowing down the pace of my editions - which anyway will be essentially reinstating my previous brutalised work - but not in giving Off2riorob any privilege over other editors. Whatever is unsourced goes away; whatever is "sourced" in the typical dishonest way we have seen so many times - source says "X", article says "XYZ, but X is not really important, so actually YZ" - is rewritten and resourced. If there any things removed that actually have a source, then this is complained about and discussed in the Talk Page, and if the source has any reliability - as opposed for instance to Dieter Böhnke or newpaper articles that misinterpret the subject they are reporting - then they are reinstated. I know of no one of such situations; in fact, I have only read incoherent complains and one reasonable argument (about the size of the lead), which we now know wasn't the problem at all. Ninguém (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston wrote: that there was no talk page consensus for anything, and people were reverting willy-nilly.

Perhaps you should check the article's history log. Only one person, not people, reverted all Ninguém's edits. That's right: Off2riorob. Reasons? None, except for "lead too large" or "I don't like your edits, so I'll revert them" or "get consensus before editing". As far as I can remember and taking a look in here, that's called "ownership". Edjohnston, could you do as a favor and ask him what is wrong and according to which authors? Because he has not bring any source so far to explain the reasons (that he didn't give) to oppose any edit in this article. --Lecen (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically Off2riorob wants to reinstate these sentences:

• White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.
• The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.

The problem here is that neither sentence is sourced, and both are false (which is a good reason it is going to be difficult to source them). The first was just included without any source; the second pointed to a source that absolutely didn't say anything like The main ancestries of White Brazilians are Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, German and Lebanese.

I don't think they can be reinstated, unless a real source (not a newspaper article, not an article by an unkown person with no academic credentials) is found that supports them.

There is no way to tell whether a Brazilian is of full or main European (or Middle Eastern) ancestry just by looking at him/her and seeing s/he is, or is not, White. Ancestry and "race" in Brazil do not have a direct correlation. Miscigenation and assorted mating explain this phenomenon.

And about "main ancestries", what on earth is a "main ancestry"? How do you calculate that? There are about 15 million Brazilians (not all of them "White", for some are mulattoes) that have "Italian ancestry"; a few of them have more Italian than non-Italian ancestors. On the other hand, there are about 170 million Brazilians that have no "Italian ancestry" at all. And then we probably have 80 million "White Brazilians" who do have African ancestry - of which practically none would have more African than non-African ancestors. How can we measure "Italian ancestry" against "African ancestry"? Does it even make sence to try it?

Anyway, if someone can bring sources supporting these absurds, then they should be reinstated into the article; but if it is impossible, then they should be kept clear away from here. Ninguém (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep protected, and work on "Race in Brazil"

Ed, if you would like to replace whatever is the current version (and I didn't bother to look at it) with the version that I worked on (and I don't clearly remember what that was and again can't be bothered to look at it), that would be fine with me.

But then I'd ask you to protect the result.

"My version, right or wrong. And freeze it that way!" This of course will sound massively, risibly proprietorial. So, better, keep the article frozen no matter how different it may be from my superior (?) version and no matter how grotesquely horrible it might be. (After all, it's usually the wrong version that's protected, right?)

Why? Because any attempt in the short or perhaps medium term to make incremental changes (as suggested above) with consensus to this article are doomed to failure.

Let's look at a little of what's said close above, in the context of the recent unprotection. (I shall reformat but not rephrase, and shall very deliberately refrain from naming any of the three writers.)

1. Too much attention as been paid for genetic issues or skin texture or similar. That shouldn't be the focus of the article. It should focus on what people (Portuguese, German, Italian, etc...) contributed with the Brazilian white population of nowadays
2. What you want is to keep the absurd notions that White Brazilians are people of full or mainly European descent, and that the "main ancestries" of White Brazilian are "Portuguese, Italian, German and Lebanese".
3. I simply want the article to be a good representation of all the available citations and opinions and not simply one view.

There is no agreement here on the meaning of "White Brazilian". Indeed, there is stark disagreement.

There are also strong disagreements over what would constitute reliable sources on the matter, notably that between:

• anything seemingly written conscientiously by somebody accepted (for better or worse) as an authority and published via an apparently authoritative channel in the last few decades, and
• anything seemingly written conscientiously by somebody who is clearly informed by insights made by geneticists in the last decade or so and published via an apparently authoritative channel in the last few years.

There will be no real progress in this article about "White Brazilian" until there is agreement on how to treat the issue (or, arguably, non-issue) of "colour" in Brazil. This is now dealt with within Ethnic groups in Brazil. Its treatment there is highly problematic, as one or two editors other than myself have pointed out. It's the reason why I proposed within the talk page of the "ethnic groups" article that Race in Brazil (now a redirect to Ethnic groups in Brazil) should be an independent article.

If "Race in Brazil" were started as an independent article, its preparation would no doubt be wracked with disagreements. I'd be surprised if there weren't name-calling, recriminations, announcements of resignation, and general high drama. I don't relish that prospect at all (though personally I'm thick-skinned and tend to find amusement in any insults hurled at me). However, without an understanding of what the meaning is -- or more likely what the meanings are, or what the meanings have been (etc) -- of "colour" or "whiteness", we're not going to get anywhere here. Yet with such an understanding, not only this article but also Black Brazilian, Pardo and others can refer to it and can themselves be hugely easier to compile and maintain.

I proposed on 22 December that a draft of "Race in Brazil" should be worked on, and, when judged satisfactory, should replace the redirect to "Ethnic groups in Brazil" (which should then have its "racial" stuff removed or radically shortened). I publicized the proposal here and at the talk page of WikiProject Brazil. A grand total of one (1) editor agreed. A grander total of zero (0) editors disagreed, said it was a silly idea, or proposed any brighter idea. I'm entirely ready to be told that it's a bad or silly idea (as I've said, I'm thick-skinned) and would be delighted to read a better alternative. But if people have no better idea than a centralized treatment of "Race in Brazil", they may wish to agree to that. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere, I agree with your proposal (in a pragmatical way; I think it will quickly bring into question Race (classification of human beings). Up we go...), but it now seems really improbable that it will be accepted or rejected. People have learnt the hard way to keep away from these articles, lest they be called racists, liars, ripoffs, ignorants, unable to write in English, sell outs, un-Brazilian and whatever (all this by one particular editor, who seems to be able to get away with such despicable behaviour without anything more than slaps on the wrist). Until this is reverted (and the rewriting of Brazil is a good sign in that it has attracted more good faith editors, who contribute and seem able to disagree in a civil manner), it is going to be like this.

Not only I do agree with your proposal, but I have even been tempted to implement it manu militari: simply reverting the (absurd) redirect from "Race in Brazil" to an article that deals (awfully) or should deal with a completely different subject, and starting an article actually about racial perceptions and relations in Brazil. But I am not really eager to waste my time by carefully writing a passable article and then having it reversed by someone who doesn't even have a hint about the subject - and perhaps even being blocked for being "disruptive", ie, disrupting the carefully built iron grip some guys have on these articles. As it has happened in the past. Ninguém (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is locked because one editor wants to keep information that is partially unsourced, and partially falsely sourced in it. Ninguém (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me address this:

There are also strong disagreements over what would constitute reliable sources on the matter, notably that between:

*anything seemingly written conscientiously by somebody accepted (for better or worse) as an authority and published via an apparently authoritative channel in the last few decades, and

*anything seemingly written conscientiously by somebody who is clearly informed by insights made by geneticists in the last decade or so and published via an apparently authoritative channel in the last few years.

This is, at least from my part, not true. I don't want sources that are "written conscientiously by somebody who is clearly informed by insights made by geneticists". There are subjects that need that - for instance discussions about the genetic base of such classifications - and subjects that do not demand that - for instance, the IBGE may or may not be "clearly informed by insights made by geneticists", and it is clearly irrelevant whether it is or is not; it is a reliable source for the purposes it is used here. Darcy Ribeiro died before he could be informed of the most recents insights by geneticists, and he is still a reliable source - provided that he is correctly cited, and not post-mortem tortured to say what he didn't think. On the other hand, I don't know if the CIA or the Italian or Lebanese Embassies to Brazil are informed of the most recents insights by geneticists, and I don't care: they are unreliable sources for the purposes they are being used here: they are political agencies that do not respond to scientific search for truth, but to the political needs of political entities - the governments of the USA, Italy, and Lebanon, respectively. I also don't care whether Dieter Böhnke is or is not informed of the most recents insights by geneticists; he is unreliable, because his work is never cited by any other social scientist - he is the kind of amateur historian trying to rewrite History from a very particular point-of-view that isn't accepted by anyone else in the field.

On the other hand, there are no sources - either bad or good, reliable or unreliable, informed of the most recents insights by geneticists or uninformed of them - that support the claims about White Brazilians being people of fully or mainly European descent, or the claim that the main ancestries of White Brazilians are "Portuguese, Italian, German, and Lebanese". Ninguém (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?

Per User talk:Off2riorob#Talk:White Brazilian and User talk:EdJohnston#White Brazilian, it seems that Off2riorob is willing to absent himself from the article. Since he is often cited (above) as a reason for the earlier problems, does anyone object if I go ahead and lift the article protection? If you don't agree with unprotection, let us know what you would propose instead. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's about time! Please, unprotect it! Thank you! --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection. Please continue to use the Talk page, so we don't encounter the same problems again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to work

Basically restored the article to its state before Off2riorob's blind reversal.

In general, tried to avoid the many confusions this article used to spout:

• settlers or colonists with immigrants, then sliding into the denial of the existence of a Portuguese settling of the territory;
• White Brazilians with immigrants to Brazil (photograph of Italian nationals as main illustration of an article on Brazilians!);
• ethnic groups with race, implying the existence of many ethnic groups in Brazil;
• things happened during the colonial period with things happened in the XIX century (there was even a source, explicitely referring to the XIX and XX centuries in its title, being used to explain things during colonial time!)
• X chromosomes with paternal ancestry and MtDNA with maternal ancestry, etc.

Also removed the misconception that the Brazilian Censuses are somehow exceptional in their use of self-declaration of race - this is what every census that asks for race does.

Removed the Original Research concepts of "colonial White" and "post-colonial White". Nowhere these ideas can be found in the literature; they were invented especially for this article.

There is still much to do. For instance, the article still has a section on "demography by cities and towns" that is basically a list of very small towns; this is trivia, and would be OK if Wikipedia intended to be an almanak, but shouldn't substitute for an actual section about demography (what are the demographic characteristics of Brazilian Whites - their reproductive rates, mortality, migration patterns, literacy, income, distribution between rural and urban areas, etc?)

The section on "regions of settlement" was conceived for an article that took for granted that all White Brazilians were the product of the Great Immigration - it avoided discussion of the "settlement" of Portuguese colonists during three centuries, the ocupation of the Northeast, the settlement of São Vicente/São Paulo during the colonial period, the drive to the Minas Gerais, the race against the Spanish for the Plata, resulting in the settling of Rio Grande do Sul, etc. I have started to rewrite it, from the basic idea that the "White" ocupation of this country started in the XVI century, not in the XIX, but it is still necessary to decide what to do with the material about immigration that goes there, discriminated by nationality. My gut feeling is that it doesn't belong here, but in Immigration to Brazil.

The whole demiurgy of Brazil, with its tale of miscigenation, is still very badly explained. The article, with its horror to Portuguese colonisation, had (and to a great extent still has) us thinking that Brazil was populated by Indians and Mamelucos, dressed and armed as Portuguese but speaking Tupi and perhaps identifying as such. It incorrectly describes miscigenation, leading us to believe that, in each generation, Portuguese men arriving in Brazil would mate Amerindian women. This is false, except for the very first colonists. To the extent that there were no Portuguese women in Brazil (and there certainly were some), Portuguese men arriving in Brazil in 1530 mated Indian women. Portuguese men arriving in 1550 mated mamelucas, daughters of the 1530 matings. Portuguese men arriving in 1570 mated women who were 3/4 Portuguese. And so on, and on, and on, always prefering those women who looked more European. Amerindian (and mameluco) males were effectively excluded from this process. Similar dynamics characterized the miscigenation between Portuguese men and African women. This has to be rewritten, to avoid deluding the reader. Ninguém (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Ninguém. It is incorrect to say that the colonial population was derived out only of Portuguese male and non European women. It happened particularly in the beginning. It soon changed however, and there were European women present. I have traced my ancestry back to European women who immigrated to Brazil in the XVI century. In "São Paulo in the XVI century", Afonso de Escragnolle Taunay has a whole chapter dedicated to it, in which he shows that European women immigrated too (chapter XXIII), which had already been shown by both Frei Gaspar da Madre de Deus and Pedro Taques de Almeida Paes Leme. I myself have traced my ancestry to some of these women, among them Genebra Leitão de Vasconcelos, who had married Antonio de Oliveira. The mtDNA is useful only to tell something more about the pattern of sex matings (European males with both European and non European females), but not to quantify the degree of native American blood which was absorbed. The absorption of Native American ancestry took place via the native American women. The first Portuguese settlers would have offspring with Native American women, and the Native American ancestry would get diluted by the newly arriving Portuguese settlers, thus making the Native American contribution close to zero. There is an article about this process here:

http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/?area=genealogiaAncestralidadeDiferenca

This process took place all over Brazil. In "o Feudo", Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira tells a similar tale: this time the tale of the descendants of the native American Paraguassu and the Portuguese settler known as Caramuru (in Bahia). All of their offspring married newly arrived European men, which happened in the next generations as well.

Grenzer22 (talk)

Exactly. Even the MtDNA figures show us the Portuguese presence in colonial Brazil. If 33% of Brazilian "Whites" have Amerindian MtDNA, and 28% of them have African MtDNA, then 61% of "White" Brazilians had ancestors living in Brazil before 1850 - when the slave traffic ceased - because the Amerindian population, except for those who fled into regions the Whites hadn't yet reached, was effectively exterminated much before that (as the Y chromosome figures show). And if they had ancestors in Brazil before 1850, and are "White", evidently they inherited their "White" characteristics from Portuguese colonists. It is impressive how distorted these articles have come to be, without people being able to appreciate critically what was going on. Ninguém (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jews and Arabs

Why are Jews and Arabs located under White Brazillians and listed among Europeans? They are semites from the middle east. Wis —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

Cause they are White's, not Europeans, but they belong to the white race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.104.52 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I subscribe to that... genetic evidence seems to link European (Ashkenazim) Jews, to the Middle East —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.52.110 (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

=====================> Interesting ... then quick question so I can understand you: do you consider Ralph Nader or Seinfeld as non-white ? the first is Lebanese-American and the second is Jewish (personally I don't think you should be leveling Arab and Jewish as 'race' but for the sake of the argument ... ) secondly, in Brazil you are white if you are 'visible' white ... if you look white, you are white. that's the

                      general rule, unwritten. I suspect when you say Arab you are referencing Lebanese ( largest "Arab" "pop" ) - 

most Lebanese do look European. As per Jewish ... clarify if you understand "Jewish" as a religion or a race ? either way I could name at least 10 notable Jewish-American (or other groups, Mediterranean,etc)that are Jewish but is visible as white. you see it everyday in TV ... wasn't Albert Einstein white ?

secondly, Lebaneses are not Arabs ... but that is a discussion to a different country-wiki-page !

regards, a 216.232.226.11 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC) thanks, a 04:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

jews and arabs are europoid asians but not white aryans-western — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Lula is not a white, but a light caboclo

I have no idea who added the photo of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva representing him as white but that's incorrect. Lula is a light caboclo as can be seen in this biograph [1]. Thus, I have removed his picture. --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The book does not call Lula A caboclo, it says his father looked like one. In order to add a person to any racial-ethnic category we need a source that specifically state that they identify as a member of that category. Statements about peoples ancestry are not enough.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Se o Lula é branco então eu sou Suéco ... no racism intended lol 85.233.83.186 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)}

References

lula is a hispanic male but much of portuguese people see he "white" não apenas no brasil alguns veem ele socialmente "branco" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Race: A Social Construct, right

Maunus, I'm not trying to have a little edit fight with you, but that first sentence in Conception of White, is totally biased. To state race is merely a social construct is to ignore many scientific facts. Regardless of my opinion or yours, neither should be in the article. And by the way, the source is obviously just as biased, being just a politically correct social sciences book, and not biological or anthropological. Response to IANVS: Yes, I do have an objection to the statement. It is just a politically correct fallacy, that couldn't be farther from the truth. To not recognize biological differences between race is naive and childish. Race goes beyond color of skin, as numerous studies have shown. For example, if a corpse is found, and the race is unknown, investigators will use the skull to determine race. But anyways, I see it is as a liberal opinion, and shouldn't be on a neutral website such as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkm2891 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, there is no way in which race when used to classdify humans can be said not to be socially constructed. The question is whether the social construction has a biological basis, in this case the wide consensus of biologists and anthropologists is that it doesn't. The Brazilean case is the case most often used to illustrate this fact because in Brazil races being classified as either branca or preta or something in between is just as much a question of social status as it is of skin color. Forensic anthropologists do not determine race when they look at a skull they determine the geographical ancestry of the skull and then makes a guess at what socially constructed race the owner of the skull would have been classified into when he was alive. In this case the "liberal opinion" happens to correlate with scientific fact and therefor it should be in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What would be the credible, unbiased, mainstream, academic sources that say that human "races" are objective biological entities? If you have them, they may be cited as proof of academic dissent. But in no way they would trump over other credible, unbiased, mainstream, academic sources that support what is evidently the wide consensus - that human "races" are social constructs, flimsily based on external appearances (skin colour, hair kind, nose shape, etc.) that make up a negligible part of the genome, and more importantly based on historic facts - the long time isolation between different human populations in different continents, followed by the rupture of such isolation under the hegemony of Europe over the other continents. So there is absolutely no reason to erase the disputed sentence. Ninguém (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

White Brazilians @Off2riorob's line of thought.

you know, "Off2riobob"'s line of thought is actually very close to real figures. right off, take Parana, SC&RS states ... as your source of stats - just look up PR's gov census 'detailed ancestry' [this is a fine line, as I personally believe this is just an excuse to grab stats and pass it on to; they will claim ancestry studies ... doesn't matter ... ] I did live in Brasil for 15 years, in Sao Paulo and Parana [nee' in Parana actually] ... I can't think of another mixed group higher than Italian, Lebanese, Portuguese, Spanish and German, [ by itself or mixing among ] - there are others, of course. but obviously this pattern is the highest 'white mix' within the 'Brazilian people' ...

at least that is my perception, it would be great of hearing different sources ( do you have one ? ) with different stats ...

note, I am only commenting on the 'white Brazilian' topic ... if other 'races' are added to the sum, we would naturally see other most common patterns ... (i.e.: add a significant number of Polish (Ponta Grossa/Curitiba); Dutch in SP's state [and around Recife]; it is impossible to list all possible patterns of miscigenation ... )

this is a thin-iced topic; peace, as

ps: apply the formula here: how many Brazilians (percentage %) (inland or expats) reading this text have at least one of the following ancestry: a) Italian b) Portuguese c) Lebanese e) German f) Spanish g) other (choose all that applies) hence, within the white pop. (self-declared or visible), among those who read the above question, is a Brazilian citizen [born or Naturalised, both are equal], selected 'g' (other) as an unique answer, and the final sum is greater than 67% is true then I will legally change my name to Donald Duck. no cheating.

you can count my vote ( a & c ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.226.11 (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

POSSIBLE INCORRECT TRANSLATION

I have removed refrence data with regard to statements that are not supported by the stated source

The source - http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf

The First statment I removed - quote- According to him, "the autosomal genetic analysis that we have performed in non-related individuals [...] shows that it does not make any sense to put "pretos" and "pardos" in the same category.

It seems the translation was correct with regard to the quote above. I am sorry for casting doubt on the translation which seems to be correct. However, i question the sense of such a quote being used in the way it is.

The quote is criticizing a book written by edward E telles and not the actual study carried out by the American Sociological Review.

The quote by sergio pena is conflateing two seperate issues, the issue of some blacks whitening their classification racial classification by reporting to be mulattos, and the issue of Pardos (not all of African ancestry) and blacks being thought of as one group. A study carried out by the American Sociological Review found large numbers of blacks have swtiched racial classfications due to black upward mobility. The quote by sergio pena does not dispute this fact. Again i stress the fact the quote by sergio pena is is criticizing a book written by Edward E Telles and not the actual study by the the American Sociological Review, and yet the quote is being presented as if sergio pena is criticizing the study by the American Sociological Review, when he does not even mention it once in the source provided. Further studies of blacks whitening their classification from black to pardo, make it clear that this a move from black to mullato, and not simply move from black to pardo which could include people with no black ancestry.

For example, Peter Wade specialist in race concepts of Latin America states- "There is no doubt that, on an individual level,'indians' can become 'mestizos'; it is also true, however, that 'blacks' can become 'mullatoes'".

Another study by the academic Carmen Elisa Flórez found - The information used to develop the studies was gathered through monthly surveys between 1987 and 1989, that constituted the Pesquisa de Emprego e Desemprego (PED). In this case, differences found in the share of blacks between these two surveys suggest that blacks tend to self-classify as mulattos, while the differences found in the shares of blacks and mulattos pooled suggest that very few blacks or mulattos self-classify as whites. To that extent, when using surveys classifying individuals according to their self-classification, sub samples analyzing the socioeconomic situation of whites versus nonwhites should not present a significant bias due to classification of individuals between races. On the other hand, those studies attempting to split the sample in three groups, namely blacks, mulattos and whites, might get seriously biased results due to an incorrect classification of blacks as mulattos.

The source provided contains a quote from sergio pena criticizing merging blacks and pardos into one Afro Brazilian group, such criticism makes sense due to the fact some pardos have no black ancestry, however the source provided does not mention mulattoes many of whom according to multiple studies are blacks who have "whitend" their racial classfication.

--E22megan (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The actual quote - A análise que fizemos da ancestralidade genômica de indivíduos não-aparentados do Rio de Janeiro mostra que não faz sentido englobar pretos e pardos como uma única categoria de cor.

English translation - Our analysis of the genome ancestry of unrelated individuals from Rio de Janeiro shows that it makes sense to encompass black and brown as a single color category. This would seem to contradict the quote added to the page white Brazilian.

I cant not find any mention of the statement - mostly researchers from the U.S support the merging of brown and black into one group. Which is implied is stated in the source.

If somone could find the above quote in the source - http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf

In the source provided- http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf Sergio pena does make criticisms of blacks and browns being lumped together for example - Esse termo [...] também pode incluir outras categorias como os caboclos, isto é, indígenas aculturados ou pessoas com ascendência predominantemente indígena

English translation - This term (brown) can also include other categories such as the natives, that is acculturated indigenous people with indigenous ancestry predominantly.

If i have miss read anything i do apologize in advance.--E22megan (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is what he said (on page 2): http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf

"A análise que fizemos da ancestralidade genômica de indivíduos não-aparentados do Rio de Janeiro mostra que não faz sentido englobar pretos e pardos como uma única categoria de cor".

"The genomic analysis that we have made of non related individuals in Rio de Janeiro shows that it does not make sense to put "blacks" and "pardos" as a single category of colour".Grenzer22 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

References

The American impact on the study of race relations in Brazil

The new section titlted - The American impact on the study of race relations in Brazil, is full of factual errors, and seems to be a biased attack on the U.S, and attempts to paint Brazil as a racial paradise, despite the fact multiple studies have found lighter-skinned people are found mostly on the top of Brazilian society and the darker-skinned are mostly found on the bottom, because darker skin in brazil is stigmatized. Journalist Kevin G. Hall wrote in 2002 that Afro-Brazilians trail White Brazilians in almost all social indicators, including income and education, and those living in cities are far more likely to be abused or killed by police, or incarcerated.

According to France Winddance Twine, the separation of both class and race even extend into what she terms "spatial apartheid", where upper-class residents and guests, presumed to be white, enter apartments buildings and hotels through the main entrance, while domestics and service providers, presumed to be black, enter at the side or rear. Vasalians often described what can be called a form of spatial apartheid that they encountered in the city of Rio. This racial and class segregation is reflected in the design of apartment buildings in elite neighborhoods. The spatial geography of urban Rio bears some striking similarities to the Jim Crow southern United States. There is a social entrance, reserved for building residents and guests who are presumed to be white, and a service entrance, located at the side or the back of these buildings, for the exclusive use of domestic mads and service providers, who are presumed to be nonwhite or black." Twine, France Winddance. Racism in a Racial Democracy: The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil, Rutgers University Press, 1998, pp. 80-81.

Civil rights activist Carlos Verrisimo writes that Brazil is a racist Sovereign state, and that the inequities of race and class are often inter-related. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42/035.html Michael Löwy states that the "social apartheid" is manifested in the gated communities, a "social discrimination which also has an implicit racial dimension where the great majority of the poor are Afro-Brazilian black or half-caste. There also exists a real social apartheid throughout the country which is seen in big cities through the physical separation of mansions and the wealthy quarters, surrounded by walls and electric barbwire and guarded by private armed guards who carefully patrol all entrances and exits. It is social discrimination which also has an implicit racial dimension where the great majority of the poor are black or half-caste. http://www.logosjournal.com/lowy.htm Brazil: A Country Marked by Social Apartheid, Logos: A Journal of Modern Society and Culture, Volume 2 Issue 2, Spring 2003. Despite Brazil's retreat from military rule and return to democracy in 1988, social apartheid has only gotten worse.

The new section is also full of claims that are factually incorrect.

1) The idea that anyone with one drop of black blood or one black ancestor is classfied as black in the U.S or that a hypodescent rule is at work, is not supported by scientific evidence. Admxiture studies show that most americans with black ancestors are white, and they are not made to I.D as black, and yet it is being fasley claimed anyone with black ancestry is made to classify themselves as black, which is not true. A study by Robert Stuckert found the vast majority of the descedents of African slaves in the U.S are white and not black https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/4532/V58N03_155.pdf;jsessionid=2CDA1FFD70E9D373D8EBD4A9D7E7B1FD?sequence=1 --Kay43 (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a valid text (by Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, by the way), since it exposes the impact - not always positive - American thought has had on the study of "race" relations in Brazil. Since the wiki articles in English tend to be dominated by the Anglosphere academia (the articles for the most part quote just English speaking scholars, just like you did), it is healthy to show that even the Anglosphere thought on sociology and "race" relations is relative and prone to bias. And it is a fact that the Ford, Rockefeller and other American foundations have been interfering in the "race" dynamics in Latin America.Grenzer22 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole article already provides strong criticism on "race" relations in Brazil. And prejudice and problems are exposed. The new section is meant only to expose the impact - not always positive - of American scholars on the study of "race" relations in Brazil.

No one would claim Brazil to be any paradise, much less an ethnic paradise. But to compare Rio to Jim Crow USA is a stretch IMO.Grenzer22 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur. And that was the motivation for me to add some new informations on Social apartheid in Brazil. I am European Brazilian (4 generations of Russo-Polish, 6 generations of Swiss and Italian and 7 generations of French and Belgian/German in my family lineage, and most of my dominant ancestry - Portuguese - being from XIX century immigration, I can't not list all my recent Portuguese ancestors since only my "negro", or afro-mestizo, grandparent does not have ancestors which are Portuguese immigrants), and all people listed above had NOT social benefits. It's denying the very hard situation which the immigrant factor faced in Brazil, entirely comparable to that of persons of color. I am lower middle class and my parents were born in the worker class if not below poverty line. My European Brazilian grandmother, as my Afro-mestizo grandfather, immigrated from rural regions as the ancestors of most modern people living in the favelas (everybody knows that the common sense is wrong and contemporary black people's favelas in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo are the result of massive rural exodus and not the slaves freed here in the XIX century) and exactly as the people in the favelas they faced really hard situations despite of the skin color.

It is not original research, it is the fact that internal migrants of ALL colors and races had not social help from Brazilian state as opposed to that was given to assist immigrants (remember, Brazil needed their work and their whiteness so the authorities would not mistreat them, despite their everything but warm reception in the farms) denying all possibilities that it can reflects some kind of "apartheid". They were just bein negligent to rural exodus doers. If you don't know, Brazil is full of writers who put their own "romantic" Marxist views on their works. No, I am not anti-communist, I certainly describe myself as opposed to capitalism and a serious leftist (or liberal as you call), but the change of historical facts to explain society in exaggerated tendentious views is a common phenomena in Brazil. But we are definitely not denying all basic human rights to someone just because he/she is black or multiracial and we never done so, even in the era of the slavery (remember, in Empire of Brazil, children of freed slaves could VOTE).

If Brazil were a real White majority country, with +75% white population, these denials of most basic human rights would exist at the same level. If you concur with me that race is a social construct and black people does not seem less intelligent for biological reasons as some people here in Wikipedia think and say that it is a undeniable impartial scientific fact with the correct westernized perspectives AND that we poor white people have not any "historical debt" with the 80% European-descent negroes that claim be in the lower classes because of slavery (someone please tell the educated and militant Afro-Brazilians that we are not the United States and we White Brazilians are not all criollos but just a tiny minority!) and not merely normal socioeconomic reasons found throughout the third world. ;) Lguipontes (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, if Brazil were +75% white we certainly would see ourselves in completely different ways and our society certainly being different from the actual, I just used it metaphorically because I KNOW the challenges Brazilian people faces would exist the same way even if in different levels and contexts (as it is in other Latin American White-majority countries).

vc ja viu as medias salariais?arabes e judeus no topo, ocidentais meds no meio alemães la embaixo perto de hispanicos e hispanicos da zona alogena só por terem sobrenome alogeno ganham mais que o sangue velho com sobrenome de sangue velho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

White Brazilians are... blond?

Out of 14 people despicted in the infobox, eight are blonds. Most are of clearly germanic ancestry. Can someone explain me when did Brazil become Valhalla? --Lecen (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

pior metem uns mongros claros da zona alogena risível — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian white population numbers

At the top of the page it is claimed that the nation of Russia only has 125 million white people, meaning that the other 18 million are not white. I cannot find these numbers supported anywhere. Are you only counting ethnic slavs in russia as white, or something equally asinine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.246.140 (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Are the quotation marks around "white", etc. really necessary?

They strike me as rather passive aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.114.164 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Chart shows Brazil and proportion of whites and hispanics

The chart showing Brazil and proportions of white and hispanics (in orange and green) is wrong since it is poorly translated. The chart shows in Portuguese "whites" (brancos) and mixed color/race (pardos). Unfortunately it seems that "pardos" was translated as "hispanics". There are no hispanics in Brazil and this definition does not apply to brazilians even if they are blacks, or of mixed race/color or even whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.91.184.108 (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

BABOSEIRA OS HISPANICOS DO MEXICO TEM SÓ SANGUE NATIVO E OCIDENTAL?PORTO RICO É MAIS SUJO QUE O NE E É HISPANICO PORTUGAL E ESPANHA FORMAVAM A HISPANIA SE O TERMO VEM DAI DO IDIOMA PRA RAÇA NO SENTIDO EXTRA IBERICO OU SEJA AMERICANO HA UM MEDINHO DA AUTO-AFIRMAÇÃO HISPANICA POR ISSO QUE OS TRUMPS SÓ ATACAM MEXICANOS ISOLADOS RACHAR PRA CONQUISTAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:1966:7948:6C0:E65E (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

pictures of celebrities

Somebody has been posting several pictures of celebrities and famous people and claiming them as "white". No resource has been brought to confirm this claim. This is original resource. Xuxo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone has restored the cleared gallery which I have deleted again. If anyone wishes to discuss the use of a gallery (bearing in mind that it is not even a parameter for ethnic group infoboxes), I would suggest that they do so here on the talk page following WP:BRD. Unless there are reliable sources to back up the ethnicity claims of any notable people - most particularly biographies of living people - this is strictly in violation of WP:BLP policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

splitting hairs. all of these are individuals are perceived to be white and no one would perceive them as multiracial/black/anything else. which is in line with the Brazilian approach of racial classification on race based on phenotype. NBAkid (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not splitting hairs. In order stave off from edit warring, I have already suggested that you follow WP:BRD which you are not. Allow other editors than myself to comment on their policy based take on the image gallery.

As your contributions here have been exclusively surrounding the gallery and making decisions sporting edit summaries such as "too many blonds", I suggest that you should think through what the point of the gallery is and set about seeking consensus with other editors as to who should be represented and why. Other articles on ethnic groups who feature a gallery have talk page consensus as to a certain number of people representing the sciences, a number representing the arts, politics, and a small number representing the sports and entertainment. Your making executive decisions is known as WP:OWN, most particularly as your 'theory' about the Brazilian approach to race is WP:OR unless you have WP:RS to support it.

Note, also, that unless each of the individuals have identified as being white, you are still looking at WP:BLP violation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

then you'll have to delete every picture in this page, including the old ones, since none of them have a third party academic confirmation that indeed their phenotype is white. NBAkid (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

while your at it, delete every gallery form White Africans to Asian americans to Black British, since none of those pages have galleries that have third party confirmations on their race and/or ethnicities. NBAkid (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with you on this matter entirely. All of the articles you've pointed out are problematic. There are many others that suffer WP:OR. For the purposes of this article, the only supported galleries are the identified European groups migrating or gathering for rituals or celebrations related to their cultural group. The majority are not pertinent to the article and, ultimately, can only be understood to be decorative or WP:POV pushing. What their purpose is in terms of informing the reader is unclear. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a long term project and that many editors have voiced their opinion as to the value of galleries in the infobox other than that of setting off edit warring over who the most important person to display is, etc. Again, allow me to reiterate that a gallery of 'representatives' for any ethnic group is not, and never has been, part of the ethnic group template (see Template:Infobox ethnic group).

On that note, please tell me why you think it is valuable (WP:ITSIMPORTANT) to have such a gallery in the infobox. Is it important, or is it a WP:ILIKEIT issue? Perhaps you think that there should be one because other articles (such as the ones you've pointed out) feature a photo gallery in their infoboxes. To your mind, how does it enhance those articles? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To most visitors it's the first thing they look at, therefore the gallery can set the tone of the entire page. The pictures make the article page more relateable, especially if they have some familiar faces(celebrities). Also it's a lot less dry and keeps me engaged. I'm more inclined to click on an individual I might find interesting, but would never come across otherwise. Also it's informative, for ex, I did know Morena Bacarin was Brazilian until I stumbled upon this page. BEARtruth89 (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@BEARtruth89: You are missing the entire point of biographies of living people. I understand that you are a new user, however, unless we have reliable sources to demonstrate how an individual self-identifies, it is an assumption (original research) (and presumptuous because of the colour of their skin) to represent them as an example. For example, Dilma Rousseff was number one in the gallery. The only thing clear about her background was that her father was a Bulgarian émigré, while her mother was a Brazilian school teacher with the surname of da Silva. Da Silva happens to be a common name in ex-Dutch colonies amongst the Burghers. We have no indication of whether her mother was of mixed ancestry, or whether Dilma Rousseff identifies as being "white".

As for Morena Baccarin, you're using the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument because you found it interesting that she's of a Brazilian. I'm countering your argument with policy-based reasons as to why she should not be represented here. Where is the evidence that she is "white" and not of mixed race? Has she said anything, personally, to support the idea that she identifies as being "white" Brazilian? Please read WP:HARM as relates to biographies of living people (and how Wikipedia represents them). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

http://ethnicelebs.com/morena-baccarin. Galleries are also good stereotype busters. A lot of people stereotype Brazilians(and most Latin Americans) as a homogeneous group of Pardos/Mestizos(ironic), or have a preconceived romanticized images of what Brazilians look like, usually as a result of a media that stereotypes Latin Americans. Galleries of real people, especially of people known internationally, is a good counter balance. And you can stick in a few individuals who deserve recognition(accomplished poets,architects, philosophers,etc) but don't have the media visibility. BEARtruth89 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take ethnicelebs.com to the reliable sources noticeboard as a reliable source for a WP:BLP and, more aptly, as an RS for use of her image on this article. What, precicely, does "It is likely that her mother, Vera Setta, is of Italian ancestry also. “Setta” is an Italian surname." an indicator of? Other people's opinions at a at an unreliable source? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1072555/. she is obviously white. BEARtruth89 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever comes out of this discussion, editors, please avoid making changes in the article to avoid unnecessary EWs. Coltsfan (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: I have no interest in edit warring. The fact is that, per the WP:TITLE, this article is about white Brazilians. Having checked through a number of those chosen to 'represent' white Brazilians, there is no confirmation that they identify as being white. The colour of their skin is not actually an indicator. Unless there are RS to support their self-identifying as "white", it's a BLP violation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No sides have made any clear or concise arguments in this weird discussion. Per WP:RV (and per simple common sense) let people at least clearly expose their views and arguments before go out reverting. Coltsfan (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Per BLP policy, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." This is an encyclopaedic resource, not a blog or forum. If you restore the gallery, I will open an ANI into your behaviour and BEARTRUTH89's behaviour. Your editing has become tendentious. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If all of the sudden we became paladins in "search for the truth" and then lets be reasonable. Why is the pics on "White American", for instance, are still there? Or we are cherry picking where BLP is suppose to be applied? "In this page the rules matter, in that page not so much". You are no 'savior' of the Wikipidia, Iryna Harpy, you are everything that wrong with it. The bias that we are seen here through out this "free encyclopedia" its phenomenal. Coltsfan (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan, please remind yourself of WP:TALKNO. Another such attack and I think you're due for an ANI into your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Firstly, "White American" is not on my exhaustive watchlist. I have, however, checked on their gallery and everyone depicted there definitely has the credentials to qualify as being "white". Personally, I object to the use of these galleries, full stop. Evidently, others find them elucidating therefore I am not going to edit war over a point of principle. If such a gallery is to be used here, it must also be supported by reliable sources. Which of those in the "White American" gallery do you consider to be dubious? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

STOP THE WAR. I'm already more involved than i'd like but fine. i'll add sources to EACH AND EVERY ONE!. but if this starts on White American, Black British or any other article, you're on your own. BEARtruth89 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@BEARtruth89: Good. This is what should have been done in the first place, and please do not refer to my policy-based removal of unreliably sourced BLP info as edit warring. Also, I would suggest that you read WP:UNCIVIL and recognise that I have been assuming good faith and clearly explaining my policy-based rationale for removal of content. You, on the other hand, are resorting to shouting and personal attacks. Again, as you are a new user, I am making allowances for your still not knowing Wikipedia protocol, so please familiarise yourself with WP:TALKNO.

Note, also, that if I choose to review the articles you've suggested and find that they are in violation of policy, I can assure you that I will not need your assistance in doing so. As a new user you should check other's user pages in order to establish who they are and whether they are veteran editors in good standing... which I happen to be.

What I will note is that your use of IMDB is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of the context here (see WP:USERGENERATED), therefore you would need to find a better source for Morena Baccarin. mynuvotv.com would also need to be backed up by a further reliable source for Rodrigo Santoro as, having read the content there, he says that "My father is a true Italian, born in Italy, and then he came to Brazil and met my mother." It does not state what his mother's ancestry was and isn't substantial enough to establish that he considers himself Italian. Rather, all it establishes is that he considers himself to be "Brazilian-Italian" and would want his children to be aware of their Italian and Brazilian heritage.

As regards Dilma Rousseff, I've already addressed the article you've pulled from her biography page above. It doesn't establish her as considering herself "white". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure she considers herself amarelo. :P BEARtruth89 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but that isn't the point. I'm not being picky for the sake of being mean-spirited. It doesn't matter whether you or I feel sure, we have to adhere to policy and ensure that it's verifiable.

Incidentally, as you're putting some hard work into finding sources, I think that (once a verifiable gallery is up) it should be understood to be the consensus gallery which doesn't get changed unless another editor has a good reason for wanting to change one of the representatives in the gallery, as sources to back up the claim. Cheers for your good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)