User talk:2804:6F80:C069:4E00:9587:F399:5777:C888

I already made a thread in the Talk tab section so if you want to argue there that's more than fine but it's inappropriate to do it in edits, particularly when it's both false information. I already gave sources in the notes such as here, here, and even this one where it showcases here that the theory of a lot of those pardos being mestizo (only indigenous/european with little or no African ancestry) is false, showcasing Amazonas region having almost 1/5 average African ancestry in Figure 5.

It is extremely inconsistent, unfair, and nonsensical to include mixed-race populations for the UK and US but not Brazil, especially the US where as little as 1/8 nationwide or specifically in some states like Louisiana where as little as 1/32 or not eve 4% African ancestry made you black. In addition to various other laws such as Virginia's Racial Integrity Act characterising indigenous americans under the black umbrella for census purposes.

It's also very crass to misrepresent my sources and just say it's work from "an undergraduate at some university" ignoring the multiple other sources I gave which are full on studies showcasing average ancestries per race in virtually every region in Brasil, and in addition to that what you're referencing still is an official source and nor are your claims backed up about it just being from some "undergraduate" when it's sponsored by the university itself. Do better next time

Again, do the talking in the thread, not in the edits section. I'll edit again if need be. Cheers Kyogul (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)