Talk:Demographics of Brazil

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demographics of Brazil article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Brazil: Geography Top‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Demographics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles

What is going on with the autosomal studies section?

This section of the article is a complete mess. The section suffers from a bizarre form of formatting that overlays the results of studies with a rant that says those studies are flawed for supposedly ignoring Amerindian ancestry. It does not comply to an encyclopedic format and interlace scientific studies with original research or sentiment that tries to combat such studies. Either the studies are flawed and should perhaps be removed from the page or the writer of the objections should organise the presentation so it doesn't become a nonsensical read about some studies and the editor's retorts. --45.71.6.8 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but it all happened with this IP edit back in June this year. It probably should have been reverted at the time, or at least re-written. (There is likely something of value in it.) I don't want to revert to the previous version as that will undo other editors' changes, but perhaps Saksapoiss, Blablubbs, El C, or one of the other editors or admins who have reverted or worked on the article can suggest what to do about this. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and re-worded or removed parts of it as the majority was just synthesis or original research which read like a personal essay against the studies presented rather then introducing newer studies which may contrast with dated findings. In general though the section should be updated to more recent studies rather then primarily consisting of stuff from over a decade ago. Tweedle (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sections 1 and 4 are complete duplicates.

The demographics sections are completely and utterly the same with the same exact terms. I suggest deleting Section 4: I can't edit as article is locked. 2601:5C1:4401:8A60:B51D:66CF:6B1B:24E0 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Tweedle (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fertility rate incorrect

Fertility rate seems incorrect starting around 2001, not sure where those numbers came from. 187.20.113.97 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010 census figures

Maybe the tables of 2010 census figures could now be deleted, as they are out of date and have been superseded by the 2022 figures. Also the article is rather long. Ehrenkater (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Xuxo (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]