" 

 No, common English is not necessarily sloppiness. The problem with Wikipedia, however, is not common English, it is sloppiness. 

 Listen, I don't edit articles about German Americans or English Americans. Do you know why? Because I don't know enough about these subjects to edit articles about them. 

 To anyone looking from the outside, it looks that Americans are effectively divided into hyphenated tribes: English Americans, African Americans, Italian Americans, etc. Wikipedia certainly reinforces such impression. But this is a ""narrative""; it may or may not have any relation to American reality. Having no direct experience of American society, and having not read enough reliable books and essays on modern American anthropology, I cannot realise whether yes or not. And so I shut up, and leave hyphenated-American articles to other people. Hoping, quite probably without good reason, that they actually know more than me. 

 But I do live in Brazil, and I have read a few books on modern Brazilian anthropology. And so I do have a working knowledge of both the Brazilian ""narratives"" and realities. The ""narrative"" is different from the American ""narrative""; according to it, we are not, unlike the United States, a multicultural society; according to it, there are no such things as hyphenated identities in Brazil. Of course, reality is different; but the ""narrative"" stems from reality - and impacts it, strongly. These articles superimpose a literal translation of the American ""narrative"" into Brazil, as if it corresponded not only to Brazilian ""narrative"", but to Brazilian reality as well. They do that with no regards to Brazilian ""narratives"" and realities, and they do that through an utterly improper use of sources. Authors that say ""X"" are reported as saying ""not X""; original research conclusions are taken based in the flimsiest evidence; other authors are quoted selectively, leaving aside what is really important in their work to underline very secondary issues, etc. Sources that contradict the POV in the articles are ignored, labeled unreliable, etc. Sources that reinforce the articles' POV are acritically accepted, even when they are obviously unreliable or unverifiable. 

 You say that The fact that there are two (even a few more) definitions of ""Spanish Brazilian"" can be addressed in the article. No need to settle for just one. Our neutral point of view policy even requires that we acknowledge mulitiplicity of important viewpoints. Fine. But this is not what these articles do. They assume a definition, and squeeze figures and facts incompatible with such definition into it. They clearly state a definition into the first line of the lead, something like, ""Somewherestanese Brazilians are Brazilian citizens born in Somewheristan or of partial, full, or predominant Somewherestanese descent"", and elaborate from that. And what do they elaborate? 

 They tell us that there are 925,528,028 Somewherestanese Brazilians, based in a source that is directly or indirectly linked to Somewherestanese government or commercial interests, and that does not point to any survey or verifiable calculation. And when you check the given figure for Somewherestanese Brazilians with the figure of actual Somewheristanese immigrants to Brazil, you see that they imply a superhuman rate of fertility. 

 Then they speak of the ""Somewherestanese community"" in Brazil, as if such ""communities"" had any relation to the totality of Brazilians that have ""Somewherestanese ancestry"". For instance, the article on ""Arab Brazilians"" used to report 12 million people of Arab descent in Brazil. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't even possible, those were immediately assumed (per the definition in the lead) to be ""Arab Brazilians"", and then assumed to make part of an ""Arab Brazilian community"". To put it in a simpler way: when it comes to figures, the lead definition is the base, allowing the article to state a figure that, even when isn't grossly inflated by POV, is high. When the subject is described, a much stricter definition (unstated in the lead), that obviously corresponds to a much smaller number of people is assumed, but the figures are not changed accordingly, resulting in an untrue and undue exaggeration of the subject. 

 And finally, those articles deal with the ""influence"" of ""Somewherestanese Brazilians"". And here every Somewherestanese influence in Brazil is acritically assumed to be related to Somewherestanese immigration to Brazil. Which is evidently false. German immigration to Brazil is much bigger than French immigration. But the overall French influence in Brazil is much bigger and decisive than German influence - because a country may influence others through many other means than migration - commerce, military power, cultural prowess, universality of its cultural contributions, etc.NEWLIN