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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
What is going on with the autosomal studies section?
editThis 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Sections 1 and 4 are complete duplicates.
editThe 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)
Fertility rate incorrect
editFertility rate seems incorrect starting around 2001, not sure where those numbers came from. 187.20.113.97 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
2010 census figures
editMaybe 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)
- Agreed! Xuxo (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)