Talk:Demographics of Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

African Brazilian[edit]

It seems as if someone keeps reverting the category listings in the menu box from African Brazilian to simply Blacks. Im kinda confused as to why this is happening since there clearly is a sub-article specifically titled Afro-Brazilians. I understand that that sub-article might refer to ALL Brazilians who have African ancestry more specifically those who identify as being Pardo. However, within the short topic that exist on this page ,before I changed it all, it already mentions those who are officially classified as African Brazilian by the government which does include Pardos. Nonetheless those who undeniably classify themselves as 'Black' are equivalent to Americans who classify themselves as 'Black' who are officially classified as African Americans i.e. the use of the word African Brazilians. And besides it sounds cool too.


"...Brazil's most problematic disease is AIDS."

I live in Brazil, and this is certainly not true. According to the Brazilian Health Ministry, circulatory diseases are the main cause of death in Rio de Janeiro, followed by cancer and accidents and violence.

It should be confirmed, but I'm quite positive that this reflects the situation in the whole country.

Also, tuberculosis and hansen´s disease (leprosy) have a much higher incidence in Brazil than AIDS.
Maybe they mean in terms of healthcare spending. IIRC Brazil spends over $160 million reais just on aids medications, which it gives out for free. NewPath (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Cleanup Archive[edit]

Taken from the old Cleanup entry:


Shouldn't this article cover stuff from Race#Race_in_Brazil? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

On the famous Brazilians pictures, someone has a racial agenda on portraying their country's racial composition. Where's Pele? He's a great Brazilian. Football/Soccer player. Oh, because he's black? Come on, add his picture. I mean most white Brazilians and black Brazilians have the same ancestry, but have different skin colors. To paste his photo (available in his article) won't hurt the country's image or the pictures project. 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
He has been added. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Just curious[edit]

What makes guys like cafu and ronaldinho considered black in brazil but guys like ronaldo considered multiracial?

Race definition is much more difficult than this article seems to imply. It is not true that "White Brazilians are all people who descend from White immigrants." (which would be the opposite of the "one drop" policy from the United States). Most of the people considered black have some european ascendancy, and, by definition, everyone of the pardos also do (pardos are the mixed type). I've said this on the Brazil article, and repeat it here. Those girls are not representative of the Brazilian population. To give an idea, Ronaldo himself does not consider him to be multiracial, but white, and that is what his birth certificate states. The section "Race in Brazil or the "Race" article seems to be a lot more accurate on these issues.

Truth or myth? Confederados - The "Lost Americans" of Brazil[edit]

It just been told in Brazil history and human geography was a tale (was it a myth)? Definitely aren't lies, it was even quoted by US senator Storm Thurmond himself in a 1964 Civil Rights referendum.(on the dangers of "big government" made Americans long ago left the US like we're a dictatorship!)

The prospect of open lands and political asylum for displaced post-civil war US citizens indeed fled the Southern US to Brazil. You should read the articles on Americana, Sao Paulo and Campinas to learn more on these cities' early settlement in the 1860's. I object to the deleted entry under "rvv lies" and let me repeat what that entry stated. 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After the U.S. Civil war, over 15,000 Americans fleeing the war-torn Confederate States of America came to Brazil to continue their plantation economy (and slavery was abolished in 1888). Their master-planned communities of the state of São Paulo, and to a smaller extent, the rubber producing cities of Manaus and Belem, are testaments to a small migration of Anglo-Americans to assist in development of Brazil. [citation needed]

Was there a Brazilian city settled by Americans from the southeast, known to flew a historic Confederate flag on a hilltop until the early 1990s? I heard of the tale about it a few times, must been Americana, Sao Paulo or neighboring Campinas. If anyone is able to provide enough resources and info. to verify what I stated, post here below my comment. Thanks. + Mike D 26 13:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the issue was resolved long ago. I posted the link to the Confederados article as it described the descendants of American settlers in southern Brazil. + Mike D 26 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on the Cherokee in Brazil[edit]

The Cherokee are native Americans from North America, but their long exposure and contact with western culture (Anglo-American) changed the tribe to an agricultural society modeled on the white European neighbors (the US). In the late 19th century, due to pressure by American policy with Native Americans, there was a small migration of Cherokees and Choctaws into Brazil, most of them settled in the São Paulo area. I never knew what became of their descendants, might had blended in and lost their heritage over time in South America or were treated simply as "NorteAmericanos". I've heard at least 40,000 Brazilians may qualify to join the Cherokee Nation in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, but the tribal board may look at it carefully to examine the "lost tribe" of other Cherokees said to lived in Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela. 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Multiracial" Brazilians[edit]

This sections seem like original research.

First of most sights I have seen and books I have read, refer to the "Multiracial" (in this context) Brazilians as Mulatto. These two terms are not synonymous, and should not be used in that sense.

Also, the section states that Brazil has adopted a U.S. version of the One Drop Rule. Now if I am mistaken, I thought it was the reverse of the U.S. one drop rule (meaning a little "white" doesn't make you black) and that social status was also an important factor in race labeling. Someone please comment so this section can be fixed. Shakam 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has said anything, I preceded to make changes per WP:NOR. Shakam 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mulatto does not exist in Brazilian census. I do not know why you keep talking about it. I AM FROM BRAZIL and nobody here uses the term mulatto to classify someone's race.

Mulatto in Brazil is used to describe black female samba dancers.

The term used in Brazil is Pardo, which does not mean mulatto (mixed White and Black), Pardo means brown.

Pardo does not means brown. I keep reading this wrong translation everywhere - if you look at any good portuguese dictionary you will see that Pardo means GREY (cinza), not pardo. That's why is used for mixed people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Brazil racial classification is based only in SKIN COLOR, not in Race. Mulatto is a Race, not a skin color.


Stop deleting directory of ethnic groups in Brazil[edit]

Someone like an ANON or an admin insists on constant deletion and reediting of the list of Brazil's ethnic groups/communities. Please stop it or you'll get blocked. I like the original edits restored, because there are dozens of millions of Brazilian descendants from European countries. The problem is someone (possibly not a Brazilian) don't like to face the facts on Brazil is a white (Caucasian),-black (African),-Asian (like Japanese or Chinese or Indians),-Amerindian (indigenous) country. Brazil is an example of harmonious racial for the last 400 years, but the country does have a large socioeconomic class divide and improvement needs to get done. 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who will be blocked is YOU. Your post is pathetic, including ethnic groups that does not even exist in Brazil.

Look...I'm using an ANON IP, so it's unlikely I made or restored the edits. Whoever included every race is beyond me, but 20 other ethnic groups he/she added are too small or recently came to Brazil without an official record. Did you check out the Brazilian census reports or other reliable sources? If there are more races and nations in Brazil, let's find any population figures from major cities. I bet it's more diverse than anyone can think of. + 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Brazil does have small populations of descent groups: Britons (English, Welsh and Scots), the Irish from Ireland, Scandinavians like Danes and Swedes, and Australian (the well-reported colonization effort of a small socialist-influenced "Nueva Australia" sect came to western Brazil in the 1890's). They are negligible to be recorded above 0.5 percent in the Brazilian national census, but Brazil is an amazingly culturally diverse country. Mike D 26 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

White space[edit]

There's quite a bit of white space to the right of the "Contents" box. If anyone has a creative way to fill it, go for it! --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

White Brazilians[edit]

In my humble opinion, this section should be renamed to something else, or diluted into other sections. It doesn't sound like a title from the 21st. century. FilipeS 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I switched all of the White Brazilian references to Caucasian Brazilians... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Sorry to be a spoil sport, but I don't like that either. In fact, between the two, I'd prefer "white", which is what Brazilians would say. But I think it would be better to just have sections on "the Portuguese-Brazilians", "the Italian-Brazilians", "the German-Brazilians" and so on, and leave it at that. Let the reader decide who is white and who isn't, if he must. FilipeS 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the "Caucasian" edit, and, while your proposal is certainly worth discussing, I think that we should receive more input before we take any serious steps in that direction. Furthermore, if we do make such a change, we're going to have to also gut the Asian Brazilian section (for, due to historical circumstance--both recent and old--Chinese and Korean citizens do not like to be lumped into the same category as the Japanese), and perhaps even the Afro-Brazilian section as well (after all, people who know that they are decedents of the Yoruba may also take offense at over generalization). In the end, I think that the easiest (i.e, the most politically correct) categorization method could be a strict shift toward purely geographic qualifiers (Aboriginal Brazilians, Afro-Brazilians, East Asian Brazilians, European Brazilians, Middle Eastern Brazilians). I do not believe that the use of the term "European Brazilians" will cause great offense to any particular ethnic group if geographic categorization is clearly in use throughout the article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree with all you wrote, including that we should probably wait for other opinions before making any changes. In my opinion, classifications should be done in one of two ways:

  • According to nationality or, in the lack of information about nationality, by geographical region or continent.
  • According to official definitions used by the Brazilian government (such as the ones used in the Census).

For everything else, the reader should be allowed to make up his own mind. FilipeS 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And just for a little clarification the term Caucasian to racial identify white people is unique to the U.S.A, as in reality that term would be used to describe people from the Caucus region. -Wufei

Japanese constituting the largest Asian minority?[edit]

The article claims that the Japanese make up the largest Asian minority in Brazil with 1.5 million of Japanese descent, but aren't there about 9 million Lebanese? 11:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question: I can answer the continent where Lebanon, Syria and the Middle East is located entirely in Asia (or Southwest Asia). The population of other Asians in Brazil includes ethnic Chinese, Koreans, east Indians from both India and Pakistan, and Armenians from Iran or Turkey whom are mistakenly called "Turks", alike the Arabs in the country.

Another thing to point out is the Ottoman Empire encompassed southeastern Europe by the 1910's, includes non-Islamic elements of the population, then lived under Turkish rule: ethnic Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians and Yugoslavians, but were predominantly Christian. They are also numerous in Brazil and manage to preserve their ethnic identity.+ Mike D 26 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm working on a WikiProject to reduce the number of links to the Congo disambiguation page and instead have these lead to the specific article. Which Congo is being referenced here, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the Republic of the Congo? "Another important ethnic group, Africans, first arrived as slaves. Many came from Guinea, or from West African countries - by the end of the eighteenth century many had been taken from Congo, Angola and Mozambique (or, in Bahia, from Nigeria). Tserton 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, but I guess both, because they probably were part of the same region during the slavery, three centuries ago. Opinoso 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brazilian day.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Brazilian day.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

CIA Factbook information about the population is totally wrong[edit]

I've noticed the terrible error in the CIA Factbook data as for the Brazilian population growth and now it's been copied here. I think there should be a correction or at least more search about it. AIDS isn't a very prevailent health disease in Brazil. Most of the deaths in Brazil are due to: 1) circulatory diseases; 2) cancer; 3) external causes (accidents, murders, suicides, etc.); and 4) contagious diseases. AIDS isn't even one of the most disseminated contagious diseases in Brazil, with much higher levels of contamination by malaria, tuberculosis, dengue, etc.

Besides, it's worldly recognized that the Brazilian health programs to prevent AIDS have been among the most successful in the world. According to the Brazilian Government site about the AIDS (, it was estimated that in 2004 0,61% of the Brazilians had AIDS (not died of AIDS), which is not a sufficient number to explain the decrease of the whole population growth.

The estimated population for 2000 was larger than the real one certainly for a simple reason: the fertility rate in Brazil is now quite low, in the level of some European countries (1,88). The demographic transition in Brazil is reaching a further point. That's a much more credible and correct explanation. Then you count the emmigration of some thousands of people every year and then you understand why the population has grown in a less fast pace than was estimated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Population of Brazil[edit]

Population is already covered in this article. Another article about the population of Brazil is superfluous.

Neelix (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


How can Brazilian Portuguese be simultaneously more dynamic, influenced by a multitude of cultures and languages, AND "closer to 15th century portuguese of Camões" as stated in the article? Even if it was "isolated from the French influence on Iberian Portuguese in the eighteen century" as claimed[1] this seems totally contrary to logic considering the millions of immigrants in it's 400+ year history and the mass amalgamation of words due to the Brazilian propensity for adopting new words and idiomatic expressions(which the European Portuguese do not have). This is said so in the SAME source as the one claiming this proximity to 15th century portuguese. The mind boggles. Can anyone enlighten me? NewPath (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation was little influenced by all those immigrants and slaves and natives. They contributed mostly with new words, but very little in pronunciation. That's why some scholars report Brazilian Portuguese is closer to 15th century Portuguese. But this is only a hypotesis. Opinoso (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of Germans[edit]

Now that the edit war on whether there are 5 or 18 million people of German descent in Brazil seems to have settled on the least exagerated figure, let me point out that the article still states that people of German descent "may represent as much as 35% of the population" in the Southern states.

The population of these states is as following:

  • Paraná.................. 9,564,643
  • Santa Catarina.......... 5,357,864
  • Rio Grande do Sul....... 10,187,842

35% of these figures would mean:

  • Paraná.................. 3,347,625
  • Santa Catarina.......... 1,875,252
  • Rio Grande do Sul....... 3,565,744

Which gives a total of 8,788,621 people of German descent. So, again, at least some of these figures are wrong. In fact, not more than one of the three southern states could have 35% of its population composed of people of German descent without contradicting the 5,000,000 figure for the whole country.

Hope this can be discussed in this talk page. Ninguém (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Demographics isn't the same as "race and ethnicity"[edit]

Frankly, this doesn't look as an article about the demographics of Brazil. It looks like (more) an article about race and ethnicity in Brazil.

It doesn't discuss the spacial distribution of the Brazilian population. It doesn't tell us about the populational density of Brazil, or how it compares with other countries. It doesn't tell us about the degree of urbanisation of Brazil and how it evolved historically. It doesn't discuss natality or mortality, and how they relate. It doesn't discuss Brazilian populational growth. Demographic transition isn't even mentioned. Ninguém (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


The figure of 15,000 for the population of Brazil in 1550 A. D. seems to exclude American Indians. The number of American Indians in Brazil in 1500 is said to have been 5,000,000 in the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

10 million Arabs?[edit]

The source was an article in the Washington Post that claimed that 350,000 Palestinians lived in Chile and 250,000 Lebanese in Colombia.
I changed the figures to a lower percentage from an official census. Ravi84m (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are 10m Arabs in Brazil. But they are probably Christian. See The Guardian. Seethakathi (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No, there aren't. See, for instance, Karam, John Tofik. 2007. Another Arabesque: Syrian-Lebanese Ethnicity in Neoliberal Brazil. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, for an adequate dispelling of this pervasive myth. An actual count found them to be less than 1% of the population. Ninguém (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Your source is non-English and unverifiable. Also, you removed a English source (Guardian). Also, see articles like Arab Brazilian. So I have reverted your edit. Seethakathi (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"My" source is serious demography, by an acredited sociologist, Simon Schwartzman. The Guardian is a general news outlet, with no special credibility when it comes to demographic issues. Please let stay scientific papers, and do not replace them with non-expert journalism. Ninguém (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but try to find English source as this is English Wiki.Seethakathi (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look here: [2].

To quote:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

See, English sources are only preferable wnen they are of equal relevance and quality. Which means, if there are no English sources of equal quality and relevance - as is the case here - we should stick with the non-English source. Ninguém (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Seekathi, it's true that the Guardian is nowhere near as crappy as most newspapers (it's certainly far superior to the Moonie-owned Washington Times), but you can't base a huge claim on a throwaway comment made within the concluding paragraph of one opinion piece published by the Guardian. -- Hoary (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Particularly when it goes against everything we know about Brazilian demography... Ninguém (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely, left-wing Guardian will not go to the extent of hyping Arab numbers for selling an extra copy. Seethakathi (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not. They are merely (and acritically) repeating something they read somewhere. Perhaps even in Wikipedia. And so they are also unverifiable. Ninguém (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Tell me one way I can verify the Portuguese document you provided. Is it translatable online? As I am not familiar with Portuguese, it would be better to have a seasoned admin willing to corroborate your source. Until, then it should not be here. Seethakathi (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a table, it shouldn't be very difficult to understand it, even without knowing Portuguese. Most entries in the table are intuitive, including "Árabe", which means Arab. The heading reads, "Origens (respostas múltiplas a pergunta fechada)" which translates as "Origins" (or, "Ancestries") "(multiple answers to closed question)". The columns are headed "Origem" ("Origin"), "Total de respostas" ("Total answers"), "% das respostas" ("% of answers"), and "% das pessoas" ("% of people"). The survey was conducted in 1998, by the IBGE (the government's agency for demographic issues), in the six named metropolitan regions (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Salvador, Recife, and Porto Alegre, which concentrate some 20-25% of the country's population). São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have the highest concentrations of "Arab Brazilians" in the country. Of the regions not surveyed, only the Metropolitan regions of Goiânia and Belém, and the border areas of Southern Rio Grande do Sul and Foz do Iguaçu have significant numbers of "Arab Brazilians", but their population is small compared to both the surveyed regions and the not surveyed regions with little "Arab Brazilian" populations. The paper is signed by Simon Schwartzman, former president of the IBGE. The survey is the only (except for a survey covering only "Japanese Brazilians") abrangent one that I know - which quite certainly means the only one, period - that deals with the ancestries of Brazilians. Smaller researches are compatible with this survey (for instance, the USP Census, which finds similar proportions among USP college students in São Paulo - probably the place where we should expect the highest concentrations of "Arab Brazilians"). The fantastic figures of 6, 8, 10, 12, and more recently even 17 million Arab Brazilians are clearly incompatible with the figures for Arab immigration to Brazil - much lower than those of Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish immigration to this country, and similar to the figures of Arab immigration to Argentina or the United States, countries that have nowhere near 6 million people of Arab descent. Sorry, there is no way that this misinformation can be anything else than just that. And I am writing this for the n-th time in Wikipedia. Gets tiresome to repeat and repeat this again and again, I assure you. Ninguém (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
All this rigmarole is unnecessary. Just one English source would suffice.Seethakathi (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you just made up some new rule that requires a source in English, or is there a guideline or policy that others here have not noticed? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines. Sometimes I fail to remember old ones, or fail to notice new ones. I apologize if this has happened; but anyway please tell me which policy or guideline states that until a "seasoned admin" corroborates the claim that a source in a language that's used by over a hundred million people says what it's claimed to say, the claim "should not be here". More generally, I'd be interested to read any policy or guideline that says that admins (even those who are seasoned or plain old) have any more say in content disputes than do other people. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seethakathi, this edit by you and its summary are bizarre. Had you not noticed that there was a discussion (immediately above), and that your side garnered no support? -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, what is bizarre is, you failed to provide a valid English source and actually removed cited material to suit your POV. Clearly you seem to have an agenda not supported by references. Read Wikipedia:Verify Seethakathi (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I clearly do? Well well, perhaps I'll be blocked for pushing it then. In the meantime, I have posted an alert here in WP:AN/I; so somebody armed with a truncheon should arrive here soon. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Washington Post and Guardian articles clearly exist, and cite the 10 million figure very plainly in English. The 10 million figure therefore meets WP:V and WP:RS. However we all know that what is verifiable is not necessarily true and the two are not the same. I think it highly unlikely that an official government publication on the demography of Brazil has got it so badly wrong. The newspaper assertions strike me as being a repeated mistake, or a claim which is itself poorly sourced and has merely been repeated. The 10 million figure should be reported, but making it very clear that this is a divergent figure from the official statistics and has been reported in newspaper opinion pieces, not official statistics. The table in the article should reflect the official figures from the government publication, not the upper limit of 10 million which has no rationale to explain it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Atlast, sanity has prevailed! Though I do not believe English media are deliberately muckraking about Brazilian census, I have no issues in rephrasing the paragraph and even quoting and suitably qualifying both English and non-English sources. Please feel free in re-writing that piece.Seethakathi (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read Kim Dent-Brown's comments properly - "The table in the article should reflect the official figures from the government publication, not the upper limit of 10 million which has no rationale to explain it", and do not change the table again to reflect the newspaper figure. The newspapers most likely got their 10 million figure from the same source, which may well be incorrect - and they do not state their source. So you can say that those news sources made the claim, but you cannot state it as the actual correct figure. You must go with the consensus, and the consensus here is that you cannot ignore the government figures and write it as if the newspaper story is correct. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and just in case you still do not understand - there is no *requirement* for an English language source, just a preference for one if a sufficiently reliable one exists in English. That means that an Engllish-language newspaper report making an unsourced one-sentence claim cannot be used to override official government figures just because the former is in English and the latter is in Portuguese. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, to bring in a few more sources (all English, found with a few minutes of Googling)...

So, are we seeing a difference between "Arabs" and "people with Arab ancestry"? Brazil is well known as a racial mixing pot, so I could certainly see the possibility of around 1-2m people of 100% Arab ethnicity, with around 10m mixed race people with some Arab ancestry. Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • And looking at the official statistics used as a source,, (I know a few words of Portuguese and can use Google translate), Table 2 looks to be the results of a survey of 45.6m people. If I understand it correctly, it shows 0.4% of respondents self-identifying as Arab, extrapolated to 0.5% of the population (don't know how the extrapolation is done). Given a population of approx 184m, that suggests 0.9m people self-identifying as Arab. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Demographics_of_Brazil, for input from expert User:Lecen, who says "There aren't 10 million Arabs in Brazil. The person who wrote that probably meant "10 million Arab-descendants" in Brazil. So, someone could have three Portuguese-descendant grandparents and one Arab-descendant grandparent...". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And sadly, it seems our friend is a sock - WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas. Looks like we're done here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could discuss what exactly does the expression "Arab Brazilian" means. It could be, "people who have any Arab descent", or "people who are of majoritarilty Arab descent", or "people who are exclusively of Arab descent". Or it could be, as the article states, or stated for some time, "people of Arab descent who are aware of such descent and remains connected, in some degree, to Arabic culture". The research here used as a source limited itself to asking "what origin do you believe to have?". So, evidently it counted only people who are aware of such ancestry (and I fail to see how would a questionaire be able to do otherwise). It didn't ask people to quantify ancestries, so it gives us no hint on how many of these "Arab Brazilians" have one, two, three, or four Arab grandparents. What it tells us is, simply, "of Brazilians interviewed, about 0.5% considered themselves of Arab descent". It most certainly includes people of mixed Arab/non-Arab descent, so these 0.5% are certainly not the figure for people of exclusively Arab ancestry. Ninguém (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and rereading the above post by User:Boing! said Zebedee, I guess I must explain those misterious two collumns, the first of which shows 0.4% while the second says 0.5%. The difference is, the first column refers to the total answers, and the second to the total respondents. Since people could give two answers (as in, "- what origin do you believe to have? - Oh, well, let me see, I am of Arab origin, and also Italian origin"), the number of answers was bigger than the number of respondents. For instance, if the number of respondents was 800, but 200 of them gave double answers, then the number of answers would be 1,000. In this case, 4 people answering "of Arab descent" would represent 0.5% (4/800) of the respondents, but only 0.4% of the answers (4/1000). Ninguém (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that explanation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. If you have any other doubts concerning that research, please do ask; whatever is within my limited abilities, I will try to make clearer. Ninguém (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Demographics of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"White" brazilians and South region[edit]

Why so long these texts about "whites" and South region, while those who speak of the people and regions more brazilians in the social sense so quickly? Why not let all the same size? Anyone who wants to learn more about particular ethnic group (it is worth remembering that the group in question is no majority in the country) search this information in specific articles, it is not necessary to make this article about DEMOGRAPHICS so polluted and extended unnecessarily. Eurocentrism speaking loud here.

Sousaf265 01:08, 16 july 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Demographics of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Demographics of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)