Talk:Afro-Brazilian

What is and what is not a personal opinion.

User User:B-Machine has removed a few lines from the article, arguing that they are "personal opinions".

Let's look at those "personal opinions", one by one:

• The adjective unusual, used to qualify "Afro-Brazilian" as a term to refer to racially categorise Brazilians, together with this sentence: Brazilians, including Black Brazilians, rarely use the American-style phrase "African Brazilian" to categorise themselves, and never in informal discourse.

However, the text of the article quite well shows that unusual is a perfectly apt adjective to describe "Afro-Brazilian": The IBGE's July 1998 PME shows that, of Black Brazilians, only about 10% considers themselves of "African origin"; most of them identifying as having a "Brazilian origin"; a sentence that (on contrary of much of the material here) has a source, and, again contrary to what is usual in hyphenated-Brazilian articles, a source that actually supports the article's text. In fact, the article shows, in another section, that unusual may well be an understatement: In the July 1998 PME, the categories "Afro-Brasileiro" (Afro-Brazilian) and "Africano Brasileiro" (African Brazilian) weren't used even once; the category "Africano" (African) was used by 0.004% of the respondants. In the 1976 PNAD, none of these were used even once. Both these statements, again, are, also unusually for the standards of hyphenated-Brazilian articles, sourced, with sources that actually support them.

Unbeliavably, the source that would support the opening statement of the article as it reads now, after B-Machine's edit, Afro-Brazilian is a term to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the official IBGE census (http://www.seade.gov.br/produtos/idr/download/populacao.pdf MAIOR POPULAÇÃO NEGRA DO PAÍS) simply does not use the term "Afro-Brazilian", or any other one that can be assumed to mean the same, even once; it systematically calls those people "negros", starting in its title. So, what seems a rather "personal" opinion, or at least an opinion that is not supported by the sources, is the statement that now purports to introduce the subject.

• The parenthesis in Finally, the Black movement system groups "pardos" and "pretos" in a single category, "negro" (and not Afro-Brazilian).

Unhappily, this is the truth: the Brazilian black movement groups "pardos" and "pretos" in a single category, "negro", and not into a "Afro-Brazilian" category. And that is what the given source, "Race in Another America: the significance of skin color in Brazil", by Edward Telles, says. For instance, in page 22: Although the Black movement classification recommends that the term "negro" includes blacks and browns, I prefer to use "nonwhite"... And in the same page: I could also have used the term Afro-Brazilian or Afro-descendant (...) Although those are not commonly used in the discourse of ordinary Brazilians, they are increasingly used by college-eduacated persons and activists in the Black movement. In the whole book, the term, besides the mentioned explanations, is used a few times, all of them, with three exceptions (a reference to "Afro-Brazilian leaders", a reference to "Afro-Brazilian communities" and a reference to Abdias do Nascimento as a legislator who defended the "Afro-Brazilian population") in a different context ("Afro-Brazilian culture", "Afro-Brazilian religion", "Afro-Brazilian music", etc.) So, again, if this is a "personal opinion", then it is a "personal opinion" solidly supported by sources.

• This sentence: However, this binary division of Brazilians between "brancos" and "negros" is nevertheless seen as influenced by American one-drop rule, and attracts much criticism.

This however refers to Demétrio Magnoli's "Uma Gota de Sangue", which is immediately discussed. In fact, the idea that the binary division between "brancos" and "negros" is influenced by American one-drop rule is one of the core reasons of Magnoli's criticism. Of course, Magnoli used to be quoted here as a supporter of such division, and the arguments he used to dismiss (in fact, to ridicule) it were reported as the actual reasons why the Black movement supports it; and the erased sentence intended exactly to underline this fact: that Magnoli is a critic, not a supporter, of this idea. Ninguém (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no arguments against, I am restoring the suppressed information. Ninguém (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to latest reliable version.

An editor made a series of recent changes, removing fact tags, dubious tags, and verification failed tags, and reintroducing false content into this article. I am therefore reverting the article to the latest reliable version.

There is one of the changes that I am reverting that I feel particularly inclined to comment here. Here it is, with this remarkable edit summary:

(No. The original story was not about a White slave woman, which never existed in Brazil. It became later, when they decided to represent a slave with a White actress.)

Various texts that I have read indeed support the idea that there were White slaves in Brazil, but this is not the point. A Escrava Isaura is a fictional work, so the existence or non-existence of White slaves in Brazil has no bearing on the issue of whether the central character of this book was or was not White.

Here is the description of Isaura in the book:

Her complexion is like the ivory of the keyboard (of the piano, which she is playing), white of the kind that doesn't lose its bright, turbed by a delicate nuance, that you won't know if it is a slight paleness or a fainting pink. (...) The free and strongly wavy hair falls through her shoulders in thick and glossy locks...

A Escrava Isaura cannot be found online, but an excerpt can be found in A literatura brasileira através dos textos, by Massaud Moisés, that includes the lines above. The original Portuguese reads, A tez é como o marfim do teclado, alva que não deslumbra, embaçada por uma nuança delicada, que não sabereis dizer se é leve palidez ou cor-de-rosa desmaiada. O colo donoso e do mais puro lavor sustenta com graça inefável o busto maravilhoso. Os cabelos soltos e fortemente ondulados se despenham caracolando pelos ombros em espessos e luzidios rolos..., in case anyone wants to verify.

I won't make detailed comments on the other changes; they follow the usual pattern of unreliability and distortion, including some sources that absolutely do not say what is reported (for instance, an article about Spanish TV that doesn't say anything about Brazilian television), and the remission to huge books with no mention of page or chapter, which becomes frankly unverifiable. Ninguém (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the two versions and, while I claim neither to be able to read Portuguese nor to have examined every detail of both versions, I can see that your description of the two versions is at worst broadly accurate. This comment of yours (15:21) was, as we can see, followed by no attempt here to point out where you were mistaken, but instead (at 20:38) a flat reversion with the one-word edit summary "Vandalism". At this point, what might have looked like an edit war with perhaps honorable intentions on both sides clearly passes into a mere battle between two editors, one of whom (Ninguém) behaves like an adult, the other (Opinoso) behaves like a 11-year-old throwing a tantrum. Now, the adult may not be right all the time, but where he is not, the other in the dispute has to argue this in an adult fashion. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, administrator Hoary helping his friend Ninguém. What a neutral and serious administrator.

This article was a mess, full of fake "citation needed" and other tags. All I did was to add the citations. In fact, I had to add the same citations several times, because the person who added the "fact tags" (Ninguém) almost included these tags in every single sentence, including when there was a source about the sentence. It seems Ninguém wants to keep this article as terrible as it was.

Why did Ninguém reverte all my edits, based on a small comment on the soap opera "Escrava Isaura" or asking the pages of books. He asked for sourced, I added them. I also included other pictures of "Afro-Brazilians" and improve the section about the Male Revolt.

What he is calling "reliable version" is an article comparable to a garbage full of fact tags, including fact tags when there is a source!

By the way, Hoary, do you think the article with all those fact tags is better than one with citations or are you here because you deslike me, like you said before, and likes Ninguém and protects him? Is it allowed to an administrator be non-neutral?

I do not need to "argue" before or after including sources where there are fact tags. Even less because this person is named "Ninguém" (nobody in Portuguese), an user who weeks ago claimed that was leaving Wikipedia, as he did several times, but he is back, as usual. User "nobody" is famous for opening useless and endless discussions in talk pages of article, which only people who do not have a real life in a real world can follow. I don't have time to discuss about "Escrava Isaura" and other soap operas.

All I did was to add the sources he wanted. Of course he will ask pages of books and abuse because the sources are usually in Portuguese and nobody understand them.

Again, I won't argue when I only added sources. Unlike user "nobody", I am "someone" and I have a real life outside of the Internet. I come to Wikipedia to know and have fun, not to become stressed with "nobody". if you want to get stressed, Hoary, be alone with your friend "nobody", do not force me to "argue" when I don't have to. Opinoso (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Hoary, where can I report you as being non-neutral and being a friend with Ninguém and helping this user to ruine article of Wikipedia? Opinoso (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to argue when your "sources" are accused of not supporting the statements they should support. In which case you have to demonstrate that they do say what you report them as saying. It shouldn't be difficult, all you have to do is to point out where does any source say that Guimarães' Isaura was not a White woman, and how such supposed source trumps over the book itself, that very clearly describes her as White. Or to point out in which page(s) do Ribeiro or Freyre actually say what you describe as their opinion. Or show us where a source that deals with Spanish TV even mentions Brazil.

Your comments about my screen name are unwarranted, and constitute, as usual of you, a personal attack.

Have a nice night. Ninguém (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are the rules of Wikipedia saying that I have to argue each source I add to Wikipedia in talk pages? I'm not forced to cite pages of book, am I? Each edition has a different content in a book. And, by the way, you added "fact tags" where there are sources. Why did you do that?

Why are you insisting in "Escrava Isaura"? That is just a ridiculous old book presenting a "White" woman as slave in Brazil. It only shows that Brazil was not ready to present a Black woman as a heroe, and had to create a pathetic White slave. By the way, Isaura's mother was Black, so she was in fact Mulatto. But Isaura never existed, its fiction. You claimed that White people were enslaved in Brazil, which only shows your lack of knowloge about Brazil. Not a surprise from an user who claims "not to watch television" and that spends a whole day connected on the Internet. You probably don't even know real-life ~people and Brazilians, that's why you create such an imaginary and ridiculous Brazil that does not exist. Opinoso (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So now we agree: A Escrava Isaura presents a White woman as a slave in Brazil. Good. So let's keep the discussion about Lucélia Santos playing Isaura's role out of here, as it does not illustrate racism in Brazilian TV (perhaps in Brazilian literature in the 19th century, but this is another thing). There is no doubt that there is racism in Brazilian TV, and the other examples (Sônia Braga as Gabriela, Sérgio Cardoso as Uncle Tom) illustrate it quite well. Why use falseties to make a point?

Your view of A Escrava Isaura as a "ridiculous old book" is interesting; it certainly goes against most literary critics and literary historians that I know. Do you deem Uncle's Tom Cabin a "ridiculous old book" too?

Your personal attacks continue. How about stopping them and discussing the issues? Ninguém (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

About you being "forced" to cite pages of a book, no, in principle you don't have to. When directly questioned about it, however, you should do so. Do you have a problem with doing it? Is there any actual reason that the source is better if the page, or chapter, or verse, is ommitted? Ninguém (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares about Isaura. You cannot reverte all my edits based on that small and pathetic part. By the way, I don't have to cite pages of book, I don't want to waste time look for passages in books of hundreds of page only to please you. I have a real life outside. By the way, I'm leaving now. Opinoso (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You care enough about her to undo my edits on the subject, calling them vandalism. On the other hand, you don't care enough about her to know whether she was White or not.

I frankly do not care much about her, but if she is going to be cited in the article, then the citation should be correct. Can we take her entirely out of the article, or is there any reason that her role being played by a White actress should be reported as a racist scandal, when it is clearly not?

I also didn't revere all of your edits "based on that small and pathetic part". I have reverted them based on this, and on the systematic denial of precise citations, as well as on the insistence on sources that clearly do not say what they are reported as saying.

You don't have time to look for pages in books of hundreds of pages? Fine, this is perfectly understandable. If you don't have the time to do that, however, please don't insist that your views on the content of those books must be taken for granted; if anyone questions about whether a source says something or not, you should be prepared to demonstrate it does, or accept the fact that it will be removed.

On the other hand, the article about Spanish TV doesn't have hundreds of pages. It should be easy to find the line where it mentions Brazil and give us a direct quote, so that no doubt remains that your reading of it is accurate.

Have a nice leave. Please enjoy real life as much as you please; it is indeed vastly superior to Wikipedia. Ninguém (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Opinoso, please stop the attacks; perhaps you don't realise how it looks. Nothing will come of accusing Hoary of being a "friend" of someone whose opinion you don't like; in my experience, you could not find a more neutral admin. Nor do your other accusations add to the effort to resolve this matter—they make it harder. Please read WP's policies on sourcing; I see a prima facie case here of poor sourcing practice, and it looks as though that is the nub of it. Tony (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

uncited, feel free to cite and replace

If these people are notable black Brazilians we need citations that refer to them as such or that support that claim. Some of them do look blackish but that is not reliable and WP:OR - Also Black Brazilian seems a bit vague imo it redirects to Afro-Brazilian which does perhaps not necessarily infer black. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

English would be better, please translate the relevant text. thanks. It needs to support the claim that they are Black Brazilians. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No sources in English, sorry. Are you challenging any of those sources? I suggest you ask any neutral person who reads Portuguese to check their accuracy, before doing so. I have clearly indicated the pages, except for those sources that have no pages and where the subject is discussed in the very first lines. Ninguém (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a neutral person. I also read Portuguese. These sources for ethnic claims are very weak indeed so yes, imo these sources are not very strong to claim some one is a black Brazilian. Where does it say this person is a black Brazilian? I don't see it, what are all these links? Such poorly claimed ethnic coloured claims are much better not in any article , thanks for your work though . Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the pages; since you can read Portuguese, you are able to translate them, and consequently show the evidence that they don't support the idea that any of those people are Black Brazilians, if you think it is the case. Can you please do so, so that we can have a discussion on the sources and improve them? Ninguém (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you, imo these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Give us one example of a link that is spam, among those I have used as a source here.

I have cited academic papers and books by Ricardo Bernardes, Domingos Tavares, Hélio Teive, Uelinton Farias Alves, Hermínio Bello de Carvalho, Maria Ângela Pavan, Gilberto Ferreira da Silva, João Carlos Rodrigues, Augusto César de Lima, Luciana Xavier de Oliveira, Ely de Oliveira, Mário Rodrigues Filho, Décio Pignatari, and Nei Lopes. Together, they make 52 of the 59 citations I have just added. So which of those authors are spammers, exactly? Ninguém (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Section is no longer uncited; so I have moved it back to the article. Ninguém (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Well, Rob, there have been various issues here. First, true, in the version of the article on which you first commented in this section, there was indeed not a single citation for these particular claims. You wrote If these people are notable black Brazilians we need citations that refer to them as such or that support that claim.

However, this article starts by saying that Afro-Brazilian is a term to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the IBGE census. Of course we editors at Wikipedia do not have access to individual census returns (which I should guess would have been pulped shortly after use), so very strictly speaking we can say nothing. Moving down the scale from a fanatical commitment to consistency towards intellectual sloth, we can start by looking for people's statements that yes, they answered the census by writing that they were black. My uneducated guess is that this would be a complete waste of time. As the next stage, we could look for people's statements that they [themselves] were black. And the stage after that would be to look for unchallenged comments by others that those people were black.

It's good that you demand evidence, and good evidence too, for assertions. But please do look at what the article says.

For some time, my own opinion on a large set of articles of which this is just one has been that there needs to be a single, intelligently written article on the issue, or non-issue, of [perceived] "race" in Brazil. The article would firmly avoid conflating the sociological and the genetic. Analogies with the US are dangerous, but let me indulge in one for just a moment: such an article about the US would explain (for example) how it was that Obama was "black" (and not mestizo). We do have an article, Race in Brazil. However, this is marred by a dispute tag at the top. In the talk page, we see no real argument, but rather reasoned argument from one party and mere harrumphing by another. (It is a long-term pattern of this kind of obstructivism that has led me to lose all patience with one editor.)

Back to this article. Let's make the (dangerous) working assumption that either (a) people who are widely perceived as having been "black" did think of themselves as being "black", or (b) the start of this article should be rewritten so that it's about people widely perceived as being "black" (whether or not this is how they thought of themselves). And therefore that it's legitimate to present a "gallery" of people who were, on good account, "black". At 22:49, 18 September 2010 -- when you wrote imo these links are more like spam than worthwhile supporting WP:RS for a cited claim of colour and ethnic ancestry, this was the current version of the article. Or perhaps you were referring to this longer and slightly older version. Either way, yes, I see unsatisfactory sourcing in the article. And I see at least one spam link (which I am about to remove). What I don't see are links that are like spam that are relevant to this discussion. Please provide examples.

And the language question. Yes, all things being equal, it is indeed better to cite sources that are in English, or to translate the non-English into English. However, there is no obligation to do this; and indeed I frequently cite sources in Japanese, virtually never provide a translation, and as far as I remember have never been asked for a translation. As (i) each of these assertions here is minor and (ii) you say you can read Portuguese, I have to say that your request please translate the relevant text seems perverse. (If translations were so very and urgently important, then you could easily demonstrate good faith by providing half of the translations into English yourself.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here on his talk page, I invited Offtoriorob to respond here on this talk page. Forty-six minutes later, he responded by deleting my invitation. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What I actually did was leave a reply on Hoarys talkpage, which can be read here. I am at a loss as to why he chose not to mention this but whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. I don't know why I didn't notice it or a "You have new messages" flag. Anyway, sorry about that. ¶ Now, do you see any "spammy" sources? -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As per my comments on your talkpage and the fact that my issues with the sourcing were ignored and the disputed content was re added without my support and my desire not to involve myself in the long running issues with this article regarding disputed racial and coloured descriptions of living people here I had removed this article from my watchlist and I will be repeating that action now. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So how can we see that a Brazilian is considered to be Black?

Offtoriorob has involved himself in this article, and I've had quite a job teasing out the ingredients that he dislikes in it. (Don't infer from this that I like the article. I don't. But that's mostly a different matter.) In a message on my talk page, he challenged the sourcing for the assertion that Djavan is Black. (This is of course a different matter from the assertion elsewhere in the article that a large percentage of Djavan's ancestry is African.) That surprised me, because it was sourced to a specific page, available online of an encyclopedia. I clicked on the link, and -- the "snippets" viewable there didn't mention Djavan.

I have fixed this; but only for Djavan, because I have little time now.

Note that I've linked from the page number, not the book title. This may well look odd, but it does suggest to readers of this article that they'll only be getting a very short extract, it suggests the discreteness of these extracts, and it's not what the other links do, so if we convert to this format for Google Books it will be easy to see which links have been checked.

Incidentally, compare the URLs. It was a change from

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=88KI6pZyjDwC&pg=PA31&dq=ademir+da+guia+mulato&hl=pt-BR&ei=NCeVTIu5GYGBlAeTiPWjCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=ronaldo&f=false

to

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=88KI6pZyjDwC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false

Simple rule with Google Books: when you find something within it that you want to link to, you don't simply copy and paste the URL but instead you work on seeing which simplification of the URL works, and then copy and paste that. (Yes, it is indeed yet more work.)

Offtoriorob raises some other points that I think I now understand. Or anyway, whether or not they're his points, here are a couple of questions:

1. Should we be depending on the existence of a little entry in Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana for inclusion here?
2. Are articles such as this helped by lists (even if satisfactorily sourced) of famous XYZ-Brazilians?

I don't have any strong opinion on either. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Because this section is unsatisfactorily sourced (as described immediately above), I've moved it again from the article to the talk page, below. Let's improve the sourcing, at the very least, before moving it back. -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am away from home, and my internet access may be shaky until October. So I might have some difficulty contributing here.

I am sorry that I have missourced Djavan. I made about 60 reference entries in a very short time span, and while I have tried to check and re-check everything I was doing, it is obvious that I was not careful enough. Even then, the book I used as a source for Djavan is an encyclopaedia, and its entries are well organised in alphabetic order, so it shouldn't be difficult - as in fact it wasn't - to fix this particular - and good faith - blunder.

As for your questions,

2. I don't think these articles are helped by this kind of list; rather I think they degrade the articles.

There is a problem with Wikipedia in what comes to deciding between incrementally improving or rewriting from scratch; the latter is often preferable from the point of view of content, while the former is (besides, or course, easier), preferable from the point of view of relating to other editors (who might get offended by the removal or radical rewriting of 'their' material).

This particular list of notable Black Brazilians originates from a very old (in Wikipedia terms) version in which a smaller list was given, but the "notableness" of the cited people was reduced to their respective DNA composition. This could be easily (mis)taken as offensive or racist, as the actual accomplishments of these people (all of them belonging to an oppressed minority whose accomplishments, and even ability to achieve accomplishments at all, have historically been downplayed) were not mentioned at all. So I rewrote the section, specifically to include such achievements and explain why those people are notable. (It is interesting, and perhaps telling, that none of the statements on such achievement have been challenged. That Pelé is Black seems to need sources; that he was arguably the most complete soccer player ever apparently doesn't. Frankly, to me, the latter seems by far less obvious than the former.)

This prompted a second problem: while all or at least most of the people in the older version were in fact notable, they often were not the most notable people in their specific field of activity. To make it more clear through a shocking example: the older version included soccer player Obina, who is Black, who is Brazilian, and who is famous, important, or notable, or whatever other synonim may fit. However, there are other (many other) people who are no less Black and no less Brazilian than Obina, and who are or were, with the due respect Obina certainly deserves, by far more famous, more important, and more notable than him. Pelé comes immediately to mind. And so I expanded the list, including people who seemed more or similarly notable than those in the original list, especially in the fields of sports and popular music - which were virtually the only fields covered by the original list.

Which prompted a further problem: who says that Black Brazilians have only excelled in those fields (which, by the way, are related to old and nasty stereotypes about Black people)? And so I further expanded the list, to include examples from erudite music, fine arts, literature, politics, and media. Which resulted in a list that is both enourmous and still very incomplete.

To sum this up: I am not really committed to the idea that such list should exist, and I am in fact closer to believing it shouldn't. But there certainly would be a problem with removing it while keeping similar lists of "Italian Brazilians" or "Spanish Brazilians".

1. The purpose of the "'Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana'" (Brazilian Encyclopaedia of the African diaspora) is to document, well, the "African diaspora". It does not, as far as I can see, have entries on people that are not of "African ancestry" (I have checked a few people of no African descent who are of undeniable importance to the "African diaspora", such as Princess Isabel, Afonso Arinos, Artur Ramos, and Roger Bastide), so I think yes, if a person has an entry in it, it is meant as a statement that such person is of African descent (what it doesn't necessarily mean is that such person is Brazilian; but this is usually stated in the first line of the entry, as in the case of Djavan - "'compositor e cantor brasileiro nascido em Maceió'"). I don't see how this encyclopaedia is a "weak source" or how is it in any way unreliable; nor do I think I am, in any of these cases, reading what is in my mind instead of what is written in it.

On the other hand, while I have tried to provide strong sources for all those people, since I was politely demanded to, I certainly disagree with the idea that a strong source is needed to support the idea that a person is a Black Brazilian. For instance, I couldn't find any source, good or bad, that tells me that Jadel Gregório is Black. I think however there should be no doubt that he is, and see absolutely no problem with keeping him in a similar list without any source. Of course, if we were saying that he is of Bantu descent, or that his ancestors were from Mali, it would be a very different thing, and a good (not celebrity-gossip magazines, or an interview with the subject, for instance) source would be evidently necessary. Or, on the contrary, a statement that Vanessa da Mata is Black would need a very good source

, because she is obviously a White woman. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. Consequently, banal claims need banal sources, if any; outrageous claims need outrageously good sources. Ninguém (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

lol...Vanessa da Matta a "White woman"? If this is White now I know why user Ninguém is always claiming that most Brazilians are Whites or of "colonial Portuguese ancestry". Probably because he considers Mulattoes like da Matta as "White". Poor Ninguém, needs to take a trip to Europe to know what a White person looks like. Or needs to leave the computer and walk on the streets to know how human-beings look like. Like Darcy Ribeiro was always claiming, "average" Brazilians cannot make a distinction between light Mulattoes and White people (Ninguém is the example). Maybe that's why Ninguém seems to hate Ribeiro so much: "the reality hearts" like we say in Brazil. I wonder if Ninguém has ever seen a real-life Portuguese in his life.Opinoso (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So exactly what is your point? That Vanessa da Mata doesn't need a source, because she is obviously Black, but Jadel Gregório needs a good one, because he is not?

Your personal attacks continue. Can you stop them? Ninguém (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed, or tried to fix, the references. For some people whose entries in the "'Enciclopédia brasileira da diáspora africana'" fall on pages that cannot be accessed via Google Books, I have provided other, more accessible - if inferior - sources. And I think this is more than what I can be actually demanded to do. Wikipedia accepts offline sources, so it should also accept offline excerpts of sources that are only partially online. Now I won't move this to the article; let people see for themselves if the job is well done or not, and complain and remark about its possible inaccuracies. But please be objective; tell me something like "the source for 'Zé da Silva' doesn't work, or is no longer online, or cannot be considered reliable, or does not say what is reported in the article". Ninguém (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see there is little discussion about the sources. There were undefined and unexplained complaints that the sources are "spam" and that they are too weak. Nobody was able to substantiate those complaints, and since it was explicitly asked for such substantiation, there were no responses. So I conclude there are no longer objections to the section as it is below, and I will proceed to readding it into the article in the next weekend. Please, if anyone has any objections to that, explain them here and now. Ninguém (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is Black

Fellows, like in most countries (even in the US, since the one drop has been deemed unsconstitutional by the supreme court decades ago), the official criteria in Brazil is self-reportation, so, Black is who self-reports to be Black instead of self-reporting that they are Pardo. Thus there are 13,252,000 Black people in Brazil, 6,9% of the population. There is a Pardo only article and thats where the information about the Pardos should be.--CEBR (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This article count Black and Pardo as one group, which is wrong. Caboclos, for example, are the descendants of Whites and Indians and are parto of the Pardo category. In sum, this article should focus soley on the negro (black) category. --Lecen (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear effort to squeeze Brazilian reality into North-American categories, starting by the title. Brazilians do not use "Afro-brasileiro" in the way implied here. "Pretos" are people of certain phenotype, not of a certain heritage; they are certainly descended from Africans (though most are also descended from Europeans). Many people of African descent are not "pretos". "Pardos" are people of a different phenotype; many of them are descended from Africans and Europeans, but many are also descended from Brazilian aboriginal inhabitants and have no African descent. "Negros" is either a synonim for "preto" or a term that encompasses both "pardos" and "pretos", but in this case the intent is to sum up the populations that have historically been victim of racial prejudice, not to establish genealogies. "Afrodescendente" is the term that refers to people of African descent, regardless of phenotype or social categorisations, but it is unusual. "Afro-brasileiro" is not the equivalent to "African American", but to "Afro-American", and is rarely used regarding people. This has been repeatedly argued and reargued, but it seems that it is impossible to realise that Brazil is not a Portuguese translation of the United States.

There was once an article about Black Brazilians, but it was deemed a "POV branch" of this one and deleted. So we have an article entitled "Afro-Brazilian" which then proceeds to talk about "pretos", "negros", and "pardos"... Ninguém (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Americans are very sensitive about race. If you say the word "black" they get freaked out expecting a racist remark or something. Is quite weird but wanting or not, we are on their ground. Afro Brazilian or Black Brazilian does matter less than putting "pardo" and "black" as one category. Quite interesting, Machado de Assis is cited as an example of Portuguese Brazilian and of Afro Brazilian. People must decide: is he black or white? Or is he a mulatto (this one is the correct answer)? --Lecen (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, stupid, I'm black, I'm from the USA, and I'm proud to be black. What are you talking about? B-Machine (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My God. Don't you have manners? Since when you can come in here and call me "stupid"? --Lecen (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)