Talk:Race and ethnicity in Brazil

message: The main problem with the deceased "Ethnic groups in Brazil" is that it didn't have any material about "ethnic groups". Instead, it confused them with "race" and with ethnic ancestry. But this was far from being the only problem. It was badly written, poorly sourced, and contained absolutely no definition of the terms it employed. It took for granted that everyone knows what an "ethnic group" is, and piled "data" on race and on immigration, without any critical appraisal. It also dealt extensively with the genetics of skin colour, as if this had anything to do with "ethnic groups".
Now a huge amount of this garbled article has been merged into "Race in Brazil", which, in consequence is now called "Race and ethnicity in Brazil". But since "Ethnic groups in Brazil" never dealt with "ethnic groups" (other than wrongly implying that "pardos" or "Italian Brazilians" would be "ethnic groups"), it is now still an article about race in Brazil - and perhaps even more so than before, because of its "genetic" emphasys.
Summing it up, it seems to me that this merge considerably degraded the article on "Race in Brazil", which is now quite more confuse than it was before the merge. The only real improvement in my opinion is the fact that the article on "Ethnic groups in Brazil" no longer exists; but unhappily much of its sloppiness has spilled into the former article.
I would like someone to do two things: first, explain what would be an "ethnic group" in the context of Brazil; second, to put up a list of "ethnic groups" in Brazil - just so that we understand what we are talking about. It is my impression that neither such definition nor such list is possible; reading Livio Sansone's Blackness Without Ethnicity: Constructing Race in Brazil would perhaps help explain why. Ninguém (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems generally reasonable although there of course is a sense in which ethnicity and race are related - the article should however do a much better job of explaining that.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I am aware of the respective academic definitions of race and ethnicity thanks. I have also read rather widely about the relations between race and ethnicity in Brazil and the rest of Latin America. If for example Quilombo ethnicity would not require an explanation that also takes the racial history of brazil into account then I don't know how you would even begin to describe it. Race and ethnicity should be discussed together because they are intertwined but separate and often confused and as an encyclopedia it is our job to disentangle those concepts in order to let the reader achieve an understanding of what each of them is and isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, people of many different ethnicities make São Paulo their home. The main groups, considering all the metropolitan area, are: 6 million people of Italian descent, 3 million people of Portuguese descent, 1.7 million people of African descent, 1 million people of Arab descent, 665,000 people of Japanese descent, 400,000 people of German descent, 120,000 people of Chinese descent, 40,000 Jews, 60,000 Bolivian immigrants, 150,000 people of Greek descent, 250,000 people of French descent and 50,000 people of Korean descent.
That's just an example, but I think many can be found, if we peruse such pages. Ninguém (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I have a problem with the large section on genetics. The question of whether there is any meaningful relation between Race and genetics is very much open. The article seems to suggest that issues of genetics are directly relevant for issues of race which is highly problematic. In most other articles the genetic structure of populations is treated apart from issues of race and ethnicity. I think the same ought to apply here. If it is included there should definitely be a much better explanation of the propblems with assuming that there is a meaningful relation between genetic heritage and race - especially in the brazilean context which is famous for its lack of correlation between phenotype and racial categorization.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that those "genetic studies" are too focused on European ancestry, but in fact most of those genetic studies come from patternity studies, and most people who can afford for them are wealthy White or mostly White Brazilians, so the European ancestry is often overestimated. There are other genetic studies about Brazilians which show higher degree of African ancestry, but those specific ones are being ignored by the users who wrote this article (maybe an agenda?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.150.38.226 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I think Branqueamiento is the term for that.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the case that some of the later studies use different methods. However you simply removed the statement saying that it was unsourced, but it was clearly sourceable. But the concern here is that the genetics material doesn't belong here at all - race is not about genetics. Genetic studies work at the level of population not race - I suggest that the material be removed to an article on population genetics of Brazil. It is not relevant here.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text: None of the books that i have read about race in Brazil include surveys of population genetics.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I think they are useful and related to the topic, as supplementary data at least. The genetic studies are helpful in showing not only what happened but the demographic dynamics. They aren't perfect but they provide a somewhat basic picture of the population. In particular in populations made up of groups who were geographically distant from each other, as in Brazil.Grenzer22 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics: Splitting to [[Population genetics in Brazil]]

message: :: I've just added a highly information concerning the 2010 autosomal study:
The samples came from free of charge paternity test takers, thus as the researchers made it explicit: "the paternity tests were free of charge, the population samples involved people of variable
socioeconomic strata, although likely to be leaning slightly
towards the ‘‘pardo’’ group".
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.20976/pdf
This is the study published at the American Journal of Human Biology:
"Am J Hum Biol. 2010 Mar-Apr;22(2):187-92.
Genetic composition of Brazilian population samples based on a set of twenty-eight ancestry informative SNPs.
Lins TC, Vieira RG, Abreu BS, Grattapaglia D, Pereira RW.
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Genômicas e Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Abstract
Ancestry informative SNPs can be useful to estimate individual and population biogeographical ancestry. Brazilian population is characterized by a genetic background of three parental populations (European, African, and Brazilian Native Amerindians) with a wide degree and diverse patterns of admixture. In this work we analyzed the information content of 28 ancestry-informative SNPs into multiplexed panels using three parental population sources (African, Amerindian, and European) to infer the genetic admixture in an urban sample of the five Brazilian geopolitical regions. The SNPs assigned apart the parental populations from each other and thus can be applied for ancestry estimation in a three hybrid admixed population. Data was used to infer genetic ancestry in Brazilians with an admixture model. Pairwise estimates of F(st) among the five Brazilian geopolitical regions suggested little genetic differentiation only between the South and the remaining regions. Estimates of ancestry results are consistent with the heterogeneous genetic profile of Brazilian population, with a major contribution of European ancestry (0.771) followed by African (0.143) and Amerindian contributions (0.085). The described multiplexed SNP panels can be useful tool for bioanthropological studies but it can be mainly valuable to control for spurious results in genetic association studies in admixed populations."
The 2011 autosomal study samples came from blood donors. The lowest classes are the blood donors in Brazil: http://www.amigodoador.com.br/estatisticas.html
Profile of the Brazilian blood donor:
* Only 1.5% of Brazilians donate annually
* Among them, 75% are of low income
* 60% of them have income lower than 3 Minimum Wages
* 70% of them are between 26 and 45 years old
* 58% of them haven't completed High School
* Only 8% of them have completed University
* Men make up 78% of donations 
And the 2011 autosomal study samples also came from public health institutions personnel and health students, thus representing well the Brazilian population.
Grenzer22 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To claim that Brazilians have only 14% of African and a mere 8% of Amerindian admixture in quite ridiculous. Brazilian census shows that over half of the population claim to be Brown or Black and less than half as White. If non-European ancestry account for only 23% of Brazilian genetic make up, at least 80% of Brazilians would have to be White in the census. In fact, genetic studies show that Argentieans have 77% of European ancestry, and according to Argentinean census Whites are 88% of the population. If Brazilians had the same level of European ancestry than Argentines, Brazil would have to be as White as Argentina is, which of course Brazil is not. Brazil was never inundated by European immigrants like Argentina was. Argentinean population was literally "replaced" by European immigrants in the 19th century. Nothing similar happened to Brazil. And now somebody is trying to claim that Brazilian has the same level of European ancestry as Argentina? Don't make me laugh. People should be carefull before posting genetic studies in a tendentious way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.150.37.220 (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a correlation. Brazil has many Blacks and Pardos to have only 23% of non-European ancestry. This is not enough to produce a mostly non-White country. You like it or not, unlike Argentineans, most Brazilians do not look European, even though those studies claim that Brazilians and Argentineans have the same level of European ancestry. Unlike Argentina, Brazil was the country the more imported Africans in the New World and, despite the influx of European immigrants, it was not so great to make the African and Amerindian contributions so small. Brazil would have needed to import millions more Europeans to make the African contribution so small as that study claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.150.37.220 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Funny enough, portuguese themselves have a considerable portion of african ancestry, from moor invasions. Something between 7-20% of african genetics... Not mentioning new christian (jews). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.159.252.22 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly relevant information 

message: I have edited this into the article, hoping you won't remove it as "original research". First, "burro" means 'ass', not 'donkey' (jumento, jerico or jegue, in Portuguese). Burro is the male hybrid of a donkey and a mare. The female is a mula (mule). Actually the phrase does not refer to an undetermined colour, but to a colour that CANNOT be determined (since the ass has gone away). It is a humorous definition of infalsifiability. Moreover, equine colours in Portuguese are a mess, with a myriad terms that vary in definition from region to region and from animal to animal (a "baio" horse is not the same color as an ass of the same color). This adds difficulty to know the actual colour of a burro unless the animal is present. jggouvea (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cor de burro quando foge 

message: There is a source for that sentence. But unhappily, it does not say that studies of race and ethnicity in Brazil are often brought up as examples showing that the concept of "race" is a social construct; it says that "race is a social construct". Ninguém (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies of race and ethnicity in Brazil are often brought up as examples showing that the concept of "race" is a social construct 

message: "Notably, the first half of the 20th century saw a large inflow of Japanese (mainly from Honshū, Hokkaidō and Okinawa)"
I don't see the point of listing the areas, as these are 3 of the 4 islands of Japan, consisting of 95% of country's landmass. In other words "Most of the immigrants came from 95% of the country". Sounds pointless.
It would be relevant if immigration from one of the four islands was a notable source, or even a specific region, e.g. "Mainly from the Kansai region".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendants of immigrants (Japanese Immigration) 

message: What does "earned on average 1.8 minimum wages, while Whites averaged 3.4 minimum wages mean?  Should this be "earned on average 1.8 TIME THE minimum wage", etc?101.98.175.68 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Minimum wage is a common 'unit of measurement' to refere to income. Its like saying 2 dozens. 179.223.145.88 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomes 

message: The far right side bar at the start of the page - Why does that even exist? the history and whatnot of race? Also, why put the US or Uk history with race and no other countries? I just find that odd and feel like ti doesn't fit this page at all. Also, why mainly focus on just the United States. Again, that whole sidebar thing feels out of place in this article. It has nothing to do with Brazil. Bulbdude0005 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever wrote this article is also using language like 'miscegenation' which is an old race theory concept. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  far right sidebar on race 

message: Why is it that Wikipedia is using the term miscegenation for white man/coloured woman pairings? Would it be the other way round, i.e. miscegenation used for white woman/coloured man, that user would probably be banned for racism. Is Wikipedia parttaking in some kind of anti-white-male-agenda?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.116.121.61 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscegenation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Race and ethnicity in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423084715/http://www.scribd.com:80/doc/7388705/Eduardo-Bueno-Naufragos-Traficantes-e-Degredados to http://www.scribd.com/doc/7388705/Eduardo-Bueno-Naufragos-Traficantes-e-Degredados
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The term 'miscegenation' is used several times in the article including as a section heading. This term has a negative connotation, and suggests that genetic mixing is undesirable and negatively affects the purity of a race or culture.  It is pretty clear that the article authors don't intend for this negative connotation.  The article Miscegenation describes the negative meaning of the term, and  other editors have previously expressed the same concern on this Talk page  here and  Ghmyrtle's comment here.  At least some more recent English language articles about this topic don't use the term miscegenation - for example here and here. 
To my eye, this is a pretty glaring issue, and at minimum makes the article appear antiquated.  I'm not concerned with or capable of getting the language perfect.  I will go through and take a shot a more neutral language - but I encourage others to improve on my attempt.  LaTeeDa (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. In Portuguese, the term "miscigenação" does not have a negative connotaction. Xuxo (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove term miscegenation 

message: Meng1x1, stop adding that unsourced table of ethnicities in Brazil. it is  obvious original research. Half of this table is not sourced, and most of the cited sources are not realible or do not even mentions the figures. Xuxo (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced table 

message: Why was a source table removed , I was using that for my article , It was an original complile of all modern day racial ethnicities of brazil, So i didnt have to individually go on ancestry page the table has the whole compilation of etnicities, sad how someone can just remove sourced work like that. very dissapointed and will not be using wiki for my research no more.. its been days of 2 peopel removing and adding the same table and im trying to work here... Bikkustra1 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021 

message: "modern racial composition" table
table wasnt even a research it was a compile of all major racial groups of the modern time into one complied data, this is how we should see data and should not be classed as a research, as its showed a fact of all modern racial in one places and table to compare data and numbers. Very dissapointed.
Add the table back: Then 80% of wiki pages can be classed of having parts with "research" , very unlogical logic. Bikkustra1 (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Edit requests are not for continuing edit wars. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021 (2) 

message: In the paragraph that says: "The African contribution was found to be thus distributed according to the 2011 autosomal study: 10.50% in the North region of Brazil, 69.30% in the Northeast of Brazil, 37.30% in the Southeast of Brazil and 10.30% in the South of Brazil"
The numbers for the African genetic contribution are wrong for the Southeast and Northeast regions, it should read 29.30% for the Northeast region and 17.30% for the Southeast region, as is indicated by the study cited. This is an obvious error and should be corrected.
The corrected paragraph would be as follow: "The African contribution was found to be thus distributed according to the 2011 autosomal study: 10.50% in the North region of Brazil, 29.30% in the Northeast of Brazil, 17.30% in the Southeast of Brazil and 10.30% in the South of Brazil" 189.34.189.124 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: SpinningCeres (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022 

message: The information in the pie chart contradicts the table titled "Brazilian Population, by Race, from 1872 to 2010 (Census Data)." Furthermore, it introduces a new racial category (Morenos or "Evens") with no explanation for what that category means. Philwik87 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "IBGE's racial categories" Section