Talk:Empire of Brazil/Archive 3

Possible Bias in the article
The article as it stands now seems to be biased in favor of the imperial regime over its historical successor (i.e. the Old Brazilian Republic). Several sections, e.g. on politics and the economy in imperial times, paint a distorted rosy picture that is at odds with prevailing views held by most Brazilian historians. I believe a formal request for expert review of the contents of the article is warranted to eliminate possible intentional bias. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you in this one - I'm a historian (graduated from UFPR in Curitiba) and I think the article is really well written and not biased to the Empire and very much in tune with the recent historiography about the period. And, overall, the Empire was better in economical and political terms than the Old Republic, slavery notwithstanding. Let's not forget that the Republic was a basically a coup by slave owners after the abolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.84.43 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, the article is extremely biased in favor of the monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.253.150 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On bias, I remember in particular a quite interesting appointment made ​​some time ago on this page "...the Regency period is misspelled as "anarchy" and last but not least, among other inaccuracies, the historical motivation of the various rebellions that occurred during this period were numerous (from separatism - as War of the Ragamuffins - to the anti-slavery - as the Malê Revolt), and not just simply derived from electoral frays. The riots occurred in the North and Northeast of the country, for example, were led by people who by the laws of the time could not vote or be voted upon." In Brazil, the mere mention that such revolts during this period were derived from Electioneering skirmishing, would be laughing stock. 187.105.248.239 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This translation is incorrect. It was clearly a literal translation from Portuguese to English! Nobody says "The Empire of Britain," but "British Empire." So the correct form would be "The Brazilian Empire." This note (A) is ludicrous: "A According to the Brazilian Constitution [...], the country was officially called "Império do Brasil" (Empire of Brazil), not "Império brasileiro" (Brazilian Empire)." Please, the author should correct this mistake ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.181.70 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Empire of Japan and Empire of Haiti (1804–1806)? --Lecen (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, esses gringos não sabem nada da nossa história e ficam falando besteira. 187.7.102.171 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Question re: sources on dispute with Britain
In the three sources cited across the various Imperial articles on Wikipedia for the reasons behind the 1863 suspension of diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom; i.e. Calmon, Carvalho, and Lyra, do they actually go into detail about the two events which sparked the dispute? &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Simon. If you want a more detailed view on the subject, Calmon and Lyra (this one prefered) are the best among the sources used here. I think Roderick J. Barman's Citizen Emperor (also used here) mentions the almost-war between both nations. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, it does as you can see here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil ethnic map correction
1. The corretion concerning uninhabited areas, although very good indeed, is missing the northwest part of São Paulo province, which in a map from 1886 (made by the government) was drawn as "terrenos despovoados" - uninhabited lands". In fact, there were some villages in these lands by the time, but most of the territory would be colonized only in the 20th century.

For the map history, just try "1886 São Paulo map" in Google Images that you'll found many versions of this one. It's a propaganda map showing the locations of the already estabilished immigrant's colonies in such time.

2. The far north of São Paulo is in the "caboclo" area, when it should be in the "white" area since it's important cities/villages had majority white population, like Batatais(64%), Ribeirão Preto (63%), São José do Rio Preto (62%), São Simão (61%), Pirassununga (60%), Barretos (57%) and Franca(56%), for example. The references are from the first brazilian census, in 1872, in the "Província de São Paulo" article (the census can be downloaded on the IBGE site).

Same thing goes to some other areas of the Empire, like the "Municipio Neutro" (Rio de Janeiro city), which had around 55% whites and in Niterói (57%). Whites were also majority in the "região serrana" (mountains in the countryside) of Rio de Janeiro province, like Petrópolis (69%), Nova Friburgo (60%) and Teresópolis (53%). In south Minas Gerais, there were white majority cities neighboring São Paulo province, like Pouso Alegre (64%), Uberaba (53%) and Guaxupé (51%) etc. Also, in Espirito Santo, germans (especially pommeranians), swiss and italians immigrants already began settling the countryside, like Santa Isabel colony, in Domingos Martins municipality, where they represented almost 1/4 of the population (443 germans in a pop. of 1898 citizens). In others parishes/villages in the south region of this province, whites also formed the majority of the pop. like in São Pedro d'Alcântara do Rio Pardo (72%). In the parish that formed Itapemirim, there were a substantial presence of portuguese, german, belgian and swiss immigrants, and whites were almost half of the population. The references are all from the 1872 brazilian's census either.

3. Talking about the white population as a whole, it's written that they were from portuguese background until the 1870's, which is partly true, but in the colonial times and first half of the empire there were substancial presence of others europeans, such as the spaniards in São Paulo and the dutch, german and french huguenots in Northeast Brazil (Dutch Brazil), both these in the late 16th/early 17th century; the german/swiss colonization in the mountain areas of Rio de Janeiro in 1819 (Nova Friburgo), Rio Grande do Sul (1824 onwards), São Paulo (beginning in 1829), Santa Catarina (from the 1850's), Espirito Santo (the first colony is from 1847, in Santa Isabel) etc. All of these well documented and available in others sections of the Wikipedia.

I expect the user that made this good updated map can fix the points above, since they're well referenced.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G1990 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't bring actual sources, I can't do much. The thing here is the map is not supposed to be 100% accurate. It is an approximate map. That is clearly told. Even the lines dividing the areas are approximate. --Lecen (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This map is a mess! It shows Southern Minas Gerais as Mulatto and the North as Caboclo. In fact, Norther Minas Gerais (which borders Bahia) is the blackest part of the state, while Southern Minas Gerais (which bordes São Paulo) is the whitest one. Moreover, all those areas of Bahia being described as "Caboclo" is pathetic, when Bahia is mostly black/mulatto everywhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuxo (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a present-day map of the state of Minas Gerais, but an approximate one of Brazil in the 19th century. Bahia isn't black/mulatto everywhere not even nowadays. The people with strong African ancenstry are located in the region known as "recôncavo baiano", where the sugarcane engines were located. Lastly, because there are purple areas in the map, it doesn't mean that there wee only caboclos in the area, but merely that caboclos were the larget single group there. The same goes to whites and mulattoes. --Lecen (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Predecessor state
Hmmm, this is quite tricky. The Kingdom of Brazil could be seen as the immediate predecessor to the Empire, if you go along only the Brazillan line. However, the Brazillian line goes through the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Not sure how this is to be handled. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: The Kingdom of Portugal isn't shown as predecessor & successor to the UK. In that article's infobox, it ignores the UK. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge and understanding, there never existed a "Kingdom of Brazil". It went colonial State of Brazil > United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves > Empire. The UK was a unitary state, and not a federated one of multiple kingdoms. Brazil and Portugal were the same place, not seperate legal entities within the UK. Thus, the Kingdom of Brazil (nor the the K. of Portugal or the K. of Algarve) during the UK. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At least the UK intro reads: ".... formed by the elevation of the Portuguese colony named State of Brazil to the status of a Kingdom ("Kingdom of Brazil")..."LatinoLatino (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a case for an Afd at that article. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@GoodDay - OK, I see there may be a problem. Territorial the predecessor was the Kingdom of Brazil. But the KofB was part of the UK. When the KofB became independent from the UK, was it immediatley the Empire of Brazil? LatinoLatino (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is, was the Kingdom of Brazil ever independent & did it exist before the creation of the UK. If the answer is 'no', then the UK should be restored as the 'predecessor' state. It's curious though, why the UK isn't mentioned in the King of Portugal's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to have existed before the UK? It does not matter. What matters is whether it existed - sovereign or not - before the creation of the Empire of Brazil, since the question here is, whether it can be seen as predecessor of that empire. LatinoLatino (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It can't precede what it's always been a part of. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. But that is what is to be found out. So what has always been part of what in your opinion? LatinoLatino (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * K of B, has always been apart of the UK. I must agree with CT, we should use the UK as the predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a different legal entity, but not a different political entity. As to whether it existed "before" the UK, no - well, yes, by about two lines. The same proclamation that created the Kingdom of Brazil made it part of the UK two lines later.  Here's the proclamation of 16 December 1815.  I translate:


 * 1. That on the publication of this letter the State of Brazil shall be raised to the dignity prominence and denominated "Kingdom of Brazil"
 * 2. that my kingdoms of Portugal, the Algarves and Brazil from now on form one and only one kingdom under the title "United Kingdom of Portugal, of Brazil, of the Algarves".
 * 3. That the titles inherent in the crown of Portugal, and which until now I have used, shall be substituted in all diplomas, letter of laws, edicts, provision and public acts the new title of "Prince Regent of United Kingdom of Portugal, of Brazil, of the Algarves here and beyond the sea, of Guinea, of the conquest, navigation and commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia and of India".

The use of "Kingdom of Brazil" does have a legal existence however, and permeates Brazil-related official documents, e.g. decrees appointing the "Prince Regent of the Kingdom of Brazil" in 1821. Make of this what you will. Walrasiad (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remember that before making any substantial changes to a Featured Article, even more when it's a stable article, is to talk first. Having said that, I want to remember all of you that the Kingdom of Brazil did not exist as a separate entity. It was the United Kingdom and that's it. And I don't care if Latino Latino is creating a bunch of one-sentence-long articles all around Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's seems most of us are in agreement to use the UK as the predecessor state. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * LatinoLatino has been blocked as a sock, btw. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is so absurd as to say that there was a "Principality of Brasil" because there was many "Princes of Brasil". Moagim (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Map
The map is dated 1828, but it's wrong. Contains the territories annexed by the Treaty of Ayacucho (1867) and annexed at the end of Paraguayan War (annexed in 1871). So this map is not 1828.

RNecross (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Brazil didn't annex territory in 1867 nor in 1870. The word "anexation" would mean that Brazil acquired a piece of territory it didn't have before, which is incorrect. Brazil and Bolívia along with Paraguay had territorial disputes. What happened was that Bolívia and Paraguay recognized the disputed territory as belonging to Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So the most correct would be put at the bottom of the map description information: The map contains territories claimed by Brazil which eventually come to concretize through treaties. RNecross (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the Brazilian territory in 1828 had no fixed borders. I can't add all disputes into the infobox. It's supposed to be simple and straightfoward. And there is a section called Empire of Brazil that deals with it. --Lecen (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of absurd map
The map is just wrong and the subject - I see now - has been discussed previously. For starters, it talks about Brazil in terms of three "ethnic groups" - white, "caboclo" and "mulattoes". Caboclos and mulattoes are NOT ethnic groups - they are people of MIXED ethnicity - descendents of Portuguese with African slaves and Indians. Then a further problem - it depicts each group as living in its specific area. That is just so absurd! And where are the Indians? They, yes, are an ethnic group. Where were they living? Mars? the Moon? And the Africans? Where are they? Also in Mars and the Moon? Then, more than half of Brazil is shown as uninhabited. Just ridiculous. That is to say nothing of using terms such as "caboclo" and "mulatto" with different definitions to the text in the article.

I appeal to editors with good sense and a level-headed head to do the right thing. Thank you. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read the text which the map supports. The map reflects the distribution of the ethnic groups recognized under the Empire. It is useless to superimpose your current view of ethnicity as this (regardless of whether it even reflects modern definitions) within text that describes a situtation over a century ago. Nor does the map claim that the populations noted were the only groups living in the indicated regions, merely that they were the predominate groups in those areas during the period (as stated in the caption and accompanying text). Again, and as you are no doubt aware, most of the areas which have no color were unexplored during the 19th century and data would not have been available to the imperial government. The section is well-sourced. If you have dissenting or additional information to the sourced information, you are welcome to present it if accompanied by reliable sources. &bull; Astynax talk 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Again the ethnicity map
Dear All Before my reply, just a quick note to other editors: Please not that most of the debate on this page is about the inaccuracy of Lecen's maps. I think that speaks for itself. So many people can't be wrong. Also, if you look in the archives, you will see that Lecen has known baout the problems with his maps for years! So he obviously prefers to not do anything about them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Empire_of_Brazil/Archive_2#racial_map

Now to the ethnicity map: Lecen said above: "Had he read the article he would have understood what the map meant. It doesn't mean that Caboclos lived in only one area, the whites in another one and so on and on. It means which group was the largest single one in those areas. Of course there were whites in the northeast and north and blacks in the south. It occurs that they were simply smaller in comparison to the others."

Lecen, I find it extremely disingenuous of you to come and participate here without as much as owning up to the fact that you are the creator of the map. Just above, you cite "blacks in south" - so where are they in YOUR map? Second, you say "Had he read the article he would have understood what the map meant". NO! The map should say what it is supposed to say (and thank god someone changed your caption) because the text gets edited numerous times and wording changes all the time. Captions should be solid so they can withstand the rigours of the constant editing.

Also, in the text, you changed from “mesticos” to “pardos” in the section about the so-called four historic “erhnic groups”. If they are that historic that you appear so adamant about it, the terms should be well established in the literature. The fact that you changed it means that different sources say different things.

It is a sad indictment of your hard work – 60% of the edits, probably a much even higher percentage of the work – that you would stoop to contest the incontestable. You put the wrong information on the map – we are all human, accept, and admit it with dignity.

The map said in your own words is a map of “the Empire of Brazil (1822-1889) with aproximate boundaries of each ethnic groups and the area where each is majority.”, according to your 2010 map – without any blank areas, or a “Map of the Empire of Brazil (1822-1889) with aproximate human presence and boundaries of each ethnic groups and the area where each is majority.”, according to a later version, as recently as a year ago – this time with blank areas. Forgive me for thinking I know not what when I see the words boundaries of each ethnic groups. Those are the maps on the Commons. But the wording about boundaries HAS featured in this article, as you can see here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empire_of_Brazil&diff=369782289&oldid=369778103

Also, red links are NOT good and there is a policy to put an end to them. Now, a red link in a section that says “See also”, is plainly moronic and you have to agree – how can anyone “see more” if there is no article to see? I see that you have until now reversed 5 times people who remove that reference – finally I discovered why! The damn thing has been there since June 2011. And it is your pet little future link! As you say “he link to an article which I hope I will work on some day”. Well write the damn thing or otherwise put it on your do-do list on your sandbox page! This is not your private playpen!!! Grow up!

Oh, about your reverts of my edits in the Portuguese WP: you say “You (that’s me) don’t get to impose my will”. I get the feeling you were talking about yourself! Wow, talk of the kettle calling the pot black! And that is so rich coming from someone who has been blocked 5 times in the English WP and twice in Portuguese WP. A little bit of humility would have gone a looooong way!

And you don’t own the article, let go, you don’t need to revert everybody else as you do; you LITERALLY revert everybody else – even fighting over an American m-dash and over whether Brazil was an international power in the previous century – it was not! Oh, I forgot, your friend who reverted me for deleting YOUR map is allowed to edit – but just him! N o-one else!

Talk of imposing one’s will! Just like deleting another editor’s VERY VALID contribution (about 25 words) claiming that it was unnecessary, as the article was already too long!!! …. Go travel, do something that wont make you blood boil….

I admit I was curious how someone "semi-retired" who has edited less that 15 times in the past month, has not edited in 5 days, knew about problems with his map within an hour! Now I see that your friends go who took part in reverting my deletions of our map and you go a long way back.

Chill, man. Enjoy retirement. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Y'all need to calm down. He who has citations and backing is in the right, simple a that. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments:
 * On the "see also", while I'm not aware of any wider campaign on red-links, the MOS certainly advises that "the 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)". Lecen - I'm about to remove it until there's an article of that name, on those grounds.
 * You asked if I "posted an edit warring warning on the other editor's page too?" No, I didn't place any other warnings on other editors' pages. I warned you because you'd removed the same, referenced material four times within three hours, clearly going over the "clear bright line" of 3RR, and it would be daft for someone to get blocked when it can be resolved on a talk page.
 * I'd also echo Tomás's comment on calming down a little. Let's take it back to the discussion of reliable sources, and refocus away from any personality issues. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009, I was holding myself to Red link. But you're right. I hardly believe someone else will create and work in an article about the civil war except for me. And since I don't have any available time now... --Lecen (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Part I
Briefly, as already said elsewhere, not wanting to make any rash decisions, I clicked on the map to see that the legend on the page was what the creator had intended it to be. As we all well know, legends get edited all the time. On the map page, the description said "aproximate human presence and boundaries of each ethnic groups" (Issue 1). The legend said something similar.

In hindsight, if I had paid more attention to Astynax’s edit summary on his first revert, perhaps I would have reread the present and original legends and re-evaluated the whole thing on the basis of my remaining concerns, seeing that "the boundaries" was my chief concern – and this had been edited on the article page. So I muddled things up and owe Astynax and Hchc2009 an apology over the misunderstanding.

As for my other three concerns, I still question the fact that the map does not show blacks/ Africans. There are numerous references to slaves/ blacks outnumbering the rest of the population at the time, so it is inconceivable that they were not the majority in at least some areas – especially the areas with large plantations and diamond lavras. Even here in the WP, we have quite a few pages that attest to that. Here are two, there are more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quimbanda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-race_Brazilian
 * ”In Brazil, by the mid 19th century the slave population outnumbered the free population”
 * ”In 1835, Blacks would have made up the majority of Brazil's population, according to a more recent estimate quoted by Thomas Skidmore”

My third concern still stands – the area depicted as uninhabited (Issue 3) should indicate Indians as the predominant group - the entire country was inhabited - very sparsely in places, yes, but nonetheless, inhabited. My last concern (Issue 4), the use of the term "racial groups". In today’s terms, it is not correct as a descriptor of mixed races such as caboclos/ mesticos/ pardos etc. Historically - and I could be wrong - it sounds implausible that this would be terminology of that time. I will dedicate some time to look into this and will then present some feedback.


 * Thanks for that. I guess my first suggestion would be to check back with the wording of the original cited source; I don't know if Astynax or others have any access to it? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Part II
For the record, Hchc2009, you placed the edit warring warning at 18:57, by which time I had reverted three times, not four. As for Astynax, fair enough, strictly speaking there was no need to warn him, as he reverted only twice. I withdraw that remark.

As the edit war progressed, however, Lecen reverted three times and you technically reverted three times by removing the red link that Lecen had re-introduced by reverting my fourth revert.

For the record, I was not aware that reverting something entirely unrelated to the edit war also counted. I have just read the rules properly after you saying above that I reverted four times. I will leave this on my page forever as record hereto so that should I ever do it again I cannot then – again – plead innocence on the basis of ignorance of the rules. Yes, I know, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So, yes, I am guilty of violating the 3RR. Lesson learnt.

And from lesson to Lecen. Listen, Lecen (couldn’t resist), from the policy you are working from, "Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article with at least minimal information content"; you yourself say that you "hardly believe someone else will create and work in an article about the civil war except for [me]." I agree with you – it is highly unlikely that it would happen and after obviously looking into the profile of those involved here, I take my hat off to you for the work you have put into the Wikipedia – both English and Lusófona. Congratulations.

Part III
For the record, it requires some knowledge of a subject to suspect that something said about it is not right. Brazil is not foreign to me – my family comes from there, after leaving Portugal with the royal family, they settled in Minas and Pernambuco, they founded some or other settlement in Pontal do Paranapanema, left for Angola as part of the Luso-Brazilians who started the Colónia de Mossamedes (red-linking article that needs to be written) https://www.google.pt/#psj=1&q=%22colonia+de+mossamedes%22 and later settled the south of Angola. My uncle’s humble blog and equally humble (hobbyish) books have some valuable information on this, http://angola-brasil.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html I have always followed what goes on in Brazil and as fate would have it, today I am married to a Brazilian. I am an accredited translator and trainer on BRICS and I have Brazilian television in my house. So I do believe I speak from an informed position.

Part IV
To round off, I would to say that this is very time-consuming for all of us – time that we could each be using constructively – here or elsewhere. I hope we do, and even working together where possible or where our paths cross.

I have a vast knowledge – obviously as fallible as anyone else’s – of things (Southern) African – especially Angolan – and Portuguese that I can share and you all obviously have profound knowledge of things Brazilian, especially history. Lecen, you display an enviable mastery of the subject and a keen dedication to detail. So, I extend the hand of friendship and peace and hope for future cooperation.

As an aside, with reference to Cristiano Tomás’s advice above, and cited by Hchc2009, for me to cool down, let me say that we have also had an encounter over a legend not too long ago - also on the history of Portugal/ Brazil. Tempers flared, but we calmed down, apologised and came out of it as what I would consider friends, notwithstanding that it consists of a mere meeting of minds across cyberspace. I trust the same will flow from this encounter.

I will start off by apologising for not having contained myself when I could have and for not making better – and timeous – use of the talk page.

I bid you all a great weekend and bom trabalho! Um forte abraço. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity map...
Rui, I'm a little bit unclear what concerns you about the map. I'm not one of the primary editors here, but in response to your points (in italics):


 * "Map is an aberration! Mulattoes and caboclos are NOT ethnic groups. Where are the Tupis and Guaranis and all other Indians? Since when did different ethnic groups live in separate areas?"
 * The categories being used are referenced to apparently reliable sources in the main text (see the paragraph "Four ethnic groups were recognized in Imperial Brazil..."). If you think this is wrong, it would be worth identifying some suitable reliable sources and starting a discussion here.


 * "are you suggesting that was apartheid for whites, cabolcos and mulatos? mutatoes are mixed ethnicity NOT an ethnicity"
 * The map caption seems to say that this is where "ethnic groups predominated within Brazil". "Predominate" usually means "to form the majority of the population"; that isn't the same as "apartheid", which means that ethnic/racial groups are forcibly divided and don't mix at all.


 * ''"Why is the map right? Can you tell us?"'
 * It appears to be referenced to Baer, Werner (2002). A Economia Brasileira (in Portuguese) (2nd ed.). São Paulo: Nobel. ISBN 978-85-213-1197-3. Again, if you disagree with the source etc., worth discussing here with alternative sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Had he read the article he would have understood what the map meant. It doesn't mean that Caboclos lived in only one area, the whites in another one and so on and on. It means which group was the largest single one in those areas. Of course there were whites in the northeast and north and blacks in the south. It occurs that they were simply smaller in comparison to the others. --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

I can't understand how you can be unclear about what concerns me about the map. So let's go step-by-step.


 * You are right, the text says - quoting your quota "Four ethnic groups were recognized in Imperial Brazil..." - they are "white, black, Indian and pardo". The map shows only ONE of these and two groups that would fall under "pardos" - therefore, two of the four are covered in the map. Where are the other two?
 * I still have a problem with referring to these as “ethnic groups” – “racial categories”. But I will look into this. The Portuguese version is of no use, as it was copied word for word, map for map from the English in the course of this month. The section in question was copied a mere 4 days ago. Embarrassing, come to think of it that the nationals of a country would copy foreign material rather than create their own article about their own country. It reduces the purpose of the WP about diversity of voices and opinions. They should in actual fact be monitoring what is said in the WP in other languages to be able to help correct any problems. [And, yes, I do agree with translating from other languages, where it is neutral, about the workings of an atom, rabies or the mating habits of the praying mantis – not about one’s own backyard].


 * My comment about apartheid - yes, my mistake. I always when I find something odd about a map go look at the original work so I know whether something has been changed in the meantime – as it was the case this time. In doing so, I read "Map of the Empire of Brazil (1822-1889) with aproximate (sic) human presence and boundaries of each ethnic groups (sic) and the area where each is majority.", which has in the meantime been changed. Unfortunately, my being meticulous in checking the original worked against me in that "boundaries of each ethnic groups" stuck with me and I added it to the list of problems with the map. Which begs the question of what the author – Lecen – actually wanted to portray. What he created according to his own words was an apartheid-style map of "boundaries of each ethnic groups (sic)".


 * As for your argument about the white area - you are so wrong! Number one, the borders of the country were the results of exploration inland – by the Bandeirantes, claiming the territory as they went along. Number two, the same editor who created the map - Lecen - also created one without white areas - see the map here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empire_of_Brazil_ethnic_groups.png


 * The reference is - as you pointed out – is "Baer, Werner (2002). A Economia Brasileira", literally, "the Brazilian economy", written in 2002. Unfortunately, it is not a source that can be consulted by you or me, except by tracking down the book. Now, being extremely well read and having studied international politics/ international relations, I can guarantee you that if this is a book about the Brazilian economy the author most likely made a tangential reference to the populations statistics of those days to make a point about something to do with the economy – after all, he is an economist, not an historian, not an ethnologist or a sociologist. Very possible also that it was misread as it was transposed to the Wikipedia. If you bother as I do to read sources to see that they actually say what WP editors are saying that they say, you will be aghast at how often editors take shortcuts. Also, information here gets edited tens of times, and often the references stays there even after what it was referencing is no longer there or is now unrecognisable.

Finally, you say you are not one the primary editors, but that did not stop you from reverting even before being aware of what it was all about, right?. I trust you posted an edit warring warning on the other editor's page too?

At any rate, thank you for posting your questions here, I trust that I have adequately answered each. Best regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course this ethnic map was made up by Lecen without any realible source to be based on.


 * First of all: the official Brazilian census NEVER made up a map showing the distribution of each racial group in Brazil during the Empire. If this map would be realible, it should be based on Brazilian census, which it seems not to be. Where did the author of this map got the informations about which racial group predominated in each area? It was not from Brazilian census, then it is a fraud.
 * Second: the map is obviously wrong. It shows most of the state of São Paulo and virtually all the state of Rio de Janeiro as mostly "Mulatto", when in fact many if not most of the areas of these two states were predominantly White. It's even hilarious to see that the map shows most of Minas Gerais's population as "Caboclo" when, in fact, Minas Gerais is probably one of the less Amerindian-influenced areas of Brazil. It's shocking to see the south of Minas Gerais as mostly Mulatto, since it was and still is the "whitest" part of the state.
 * Third: the map is clearly Eurocentric. Many areas of Brazil had a predominantly Black population back then, and the author of this map deliberately "ignored" them as if they did not exist. Since Blacks were 19.7% of the population in 1872, they obviously were the main racial group somewhere. Also, many areas of Brazil were predominantly inhabited by Amerindian people, particularly the ones that, oddly, appeared as "uninhabited".
 * Fourth: Lecen, in the past, already got involved in racial discussions in Wikipedia and, among other comments, he insisted that most non-white Brazilians are "Caboclos" without African ancestry. So, this map created by him probably only wants to sell his personal views.
 * Fifth: Unless the author of the map proves that this map is accurate (for example, that it was based on the official Brazilian census) it MUST be removed from this article (by the way, this article is full of problems and it sells a very posite idea of the Monarchy). Opinoso (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Respect for civil rights when there were still LEGAL slaves?
The original sentenca stated

Brazil had political stability, freedom of speech, respect for civil rights and vibrant economic growth

(remark in bold is mine). Wikipedist User:Astynax changed the phrase to a more correct form

freedom of speech, vibrant economic growth and respect for civil rights for its non-slave population

(remark in bold is mine, again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.238.70 (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Treaty with Paraguay in 1872
Paraguay was occupied by Brazilian forces in the aftermath of the Paraguayan War (1864-1870). The statement that an international treaty was achieved with occupied Paraguay in 1872, should mention this detail: if not, it is a half-truth. 186.18.238.70 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am aware that the nation of Paraguay still exists because it was a decision by the government of the Empire to mantain the existence of the defeated nation -- the project of the Argentine president (Domingo Sarmiento) was to delete Paraguay completely and distribute all the Paraguayan lands amongst Brazil and Argentina. This praiseworthy decision by the Empire on the very existence of Paraguay is, IMHO, also worth of mention, and it is not mentioned in the article.186.18.238.70 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a general article about a huge subject that attempts to squeeze a lot of material into article length constraints. The details you propose would be better added to Paraguayan War, supported by citations from reliable sources. &bull; Astynax talk 03:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that Paraguay was occupied by Brazilian forces for about a decade in the aftermath of the Paraguayan War. When the article mentioned the 1872 Brazil-Paraguay treaty that allowed free navigation of Brazilian ships on the Paraguay River, it was evident that just mentioning the treaty was an incomplete truth, if it was not mentioned as well that it was a treaty between Brazil and a country occupied by Brazil.


 * But my correction was undone on the basis that I was supposedly adding material that cannot be cited to reliable sources, and then I had to search for a reliable source in order to demonstrate a fact that all of us knew without the need of any source: that Paraguay was still under occupation by Brazilian forces in 1872.186.18.238.70 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of Argentine and Brazilian international trade in 1850
The original sentence: The absolute value of exports from the Empire in 1850 was the highest in Latin America and triple that of Argentina which was in fourth place This phrase should be repaired. Why? Because Argentina suffered the consequences of the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, which lasted from 1845 to 1850. If we compare the international trade of a country in peacetime with another country which is blockaded by two of the most powerful maritime powers of the time, then the comparison is, at least, flawed. Three possible solutons come to my mind at this moment:

1) write an explanation on the particular historical situation of Argentina (as I did, but it was undone by User:Lecen)

2) use some year other than 1850 for comparison

3) remove the comparison with Argentina

186.18.238.70 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As in the above cases, the logical place for your more detailed explanation would be Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata. Wikipedia is not a place for posting a thesis or original research, but rather a place to summarize what has already been published in reliable sources dealing with the subject at hand. If you have such secondary or tertiary sources with information comparing economies of various American states during the nineteenth century, it might be useful to create an article or list on that subject and wikilink to it from Empire of Brazil, rather than inserting material that goes into that level of specificity. &bull; Astynax talk 03:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is NOT original research: it is simply common sense. You cannot use the figures of Argentine international trade of 1850 as a mesure or comparison with another country, when Argentina was suffering a blockade during the first 8 months of that year.


 * I insist: it is not original research, it is simply common sense.


 * 186.18.238.70 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The year 1850 is used because historians and economists prefer round numbers. The source says: "As exportações brasileiras triplicavam as da Argentina em 1850, segundo cálculos de Bulmer Thomas... Em termos internacionais mais amplos, o valor absoluto das exportações brasileiras era o mais elevado da América Latina, enquanto o da Argentina ocupava o quarto lugar." In English: The Brazilian exports were the triple of Argentina's in 1850, according to calculations by Bulmer Thomas... In more ample international terms, the absolute value of Brazilian exports were the highest in Latin America, while Argentine held the fourth place." The book was written by the Brazilian historian Boris Fausto and the Argentine historian Fernando J. Devoto. It's a comparative history of Brazil and Argentina from 1850 until 2002. I used the edition in Portuguese. There is an edition in Spanish ("Argentina y Brasil, 1850-2000: un Ensayo de Historia Comparada") published by Sudamericana Buenos Aires. Of course, if anyone has data regarding other years I would be glad to see them. They would be useful in Economy of the Empire of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact it was the last Christian state to abolish slavery is important enough to be written in the introduction
The fact it was the last Christian state to abolish slavery is important enough to be written in the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.238.70 (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany had slaves until 1945. Soviet Union until the 1970s. --Lecen (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The comparison of Brazilian slavery with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is misleading, because 1) the 3rd Reich and the USSR were non-Christian stated, 2) they were not in the Western Hemisphere, and 3) the slavery in those dictatorships was of a very different nature than the traditional slavery which had its origins in the colonial trade across the Atlantic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.238.70 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you mean by a "Christian state" or how one would quantify that. Regardless, a reliable source needs to be cited which says that it was "the last Christian state to abolish slavery". I could only find references to Brazil being the last nation in the Western Hemisphere (after Cuba a few years earlier, and the US before that) to abolish slavery. The word slavery also carries the connotation of an institution where the enslaved had no rights. The situation in Brazil was a better than that which existed in the US prior to abolition or in many other nations where slavery was tolerated. The situation of Brazilian slaves differed little from the condition of lower classes throughout many parts of the Americas and elsewhere where nominally "free" people continued to live in de facto serfdom. While Brazil being the last is notable enough to be included in the section on slavery, or in the section where the Lei Áurea/Golden Law is discussed, I also have reservations that this should be in the lead itself. This article general in nature and not every factoid need be summarized in the lead. Indeed, were everything to be put into leads, there would be no point in having lead sections. There is an article that specifically deals with Slavery in Brazil, and this information might warrant being included in the lead section there. Be that as it may, please back the use of the "last Christian state to abolish" wording before reinserting. &bull; Astynax talk 08:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lecen that the rights enjoyed by full citizens were indeed unusually broad and constitutionally secured, a situation not found in few nations during that era. As slavery is mentioned already in the lead, it likely goes without saying that these rights were not universally applied. However, I also agree that the language in the lead requires a caveat, which I have supplied in a footnote in an attempt at compromise while retaining accuracy and balance. This discussion also caused me to note that there is only a very small mention of the similar push for women's rights under the Empire (in the Decline section), and the article would benefit by a bit more expansion on this point in the article's body. &bull; Astynax talk 10:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, you are relativizing/minimizing/smoothing an unquestionable fact: The Empire of Brazil was the last Western Hemisphere/Christian state to abolish slavery. If the introduction only mentions the aspects in which the Empire was better than its Hispanic-American counterparts (political stability and relatively democratic institutions), but at the same time it omits an unquestionable and very important fact in which the Empire was worse, then the introduction is non-neutral.186.18.238.70 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The introduction is also non-neutral if the better aspects are mentioned in the main text, but the worse ones are partially hidden in a citation/note/observation/comment.186.18.238.70 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this article is all non-neutral, I still do not know how it was nominated as a good article, of course, only people who are not aware of Brazilian History would say this article is good. This article mostly only points the good side of the Monarchy, and it hide the worse sides of it. This article pretends to be neutral, since all the informations have sources, but the point is that the person who wrote this article only focused on the good sides, but she bad sides were hiden or minimize the bad ones. For example, this article claims that, during the Empire, Brazil gradually reduced slavery, which sounds a good thing, but it hides the information the Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery in the Americas. It also hides that most Brazilians were living in extreme poverty at that time, or that over 90% of Brazilians were illiterate and that only the tiny White elite had access to education, and many other things. Somebody needs to re-write this article or to add information about the bad sides of the society, because this article sells the idea that the Monarchy was a paradise (yes, it was a paradise for the tiny White elite, but no for the poor Blacks and mixed-race people who composed the vast majority of the population back then).


 * You forgot to mention that there was a part of this tiny elite which was of mixed race, I can name for example, Machado de Assis, Luiz Gama, José do Patrocínio, André Rebouças, Dom Obá D'áfrica, Tobias Barreto, and even the biggest slave trader of the Atlantic, Francisco Félix de Sousa. The Brazilian society was very maleable at that point, things only changed with the increasing of the policies of social whitening at the republic   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I aggree: this article is non-neutral because the good points are emphasized, while the bad aspects are minimized or omitted thoroughly.186.18.238.70 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And NO, Brazilian slavery was not better than the American one. Look at American slaves: they were able to reproduce themselves. Slavery in Brazil was so harsh that masters needed to import several thousand more slaves than the US because of extreme high mortality rates. This kind of information needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.150.32.121 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting the removal of disputed wording. If you have WP:Reliable sources that back the specific wording, we can discuss it here. Otherwise, inserting unsourced material in a FA-level article which has been thoroughly reviewed is wasting everyone's time. The lead section is not the place to insert detail at the level of granularity that is reflected thus far. As "Empire of Brazil" is a huge subject that already strains the article size limits, it is questionable whether some of the proposed additions should not instead be added to the sub-articles instead of this main article. If you have reliable references to offer that show that something deserves to be included here, again, please bring this material here for discussion and be prepared to show that it is supported by mainstream scholarship and that adding it is not imposing WP:UNDUE weight here, when it might work better in the more detailed sub-articles. &bull; Astynax talk 03:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Brazil was the last country in the Americas to end slavery. If we are to include this information in the article, the best option is to say just that: in the Americas. This whole "Christian" and "Western Hemisphere" things will not work. Mauritania is in the Western Hemisphere and was the last country criminalizing slavery, over a century after Brazil. And about the Christian thing, I don't get why the Brazilian Empire may count as Christian while Nazi Germany don't, as 186.18.238.70 argued. Both countries had overwhelming Christian majority.179.179.194.174 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

White Slaves
In the part about slavery, white slaves are mentioned. It is said they were "the product of generations of inter-ethnic sexual relations between male slave owners and their female mulatto slaves", it is then said: "although this was very rare and was not approved of socially", It is unclear if this sentence refers to white slaves, which were very rare and probably not approved, or about "the inter-ethnic sexual relations between male slave owners and their female mulatto slaves" which was really common, and informally accepted (many were indeed rapings, but there were countless cases of slave owners who fell in love with their slaves and freed them, (sometimes marrying) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * White slaves were not tolerared. Sexual relations between masters and slaves were common. --Lecen (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lecen is correct. White Christian Europeans were not slaves (though European immigrants could be subject to indentured service, as they could be in the North American colonies). It is probably best to reword the confusing term "white slaves", although I'm unsure of another term. Perhaps something like "slaves who appeared to be European" might be better. I'll insert that for now, but if anyone has a better term, feel free to change it to something more accurate. &bull; Astynax talk 04:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

no artigo do ce em portugues diz que quase 2 em 3 escravos eram alogenos mas não especifica o resto de que origem seriam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:40BC:37A5:D830:7AD (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Initial sentence was misleading
I'm not denying the accuracy of the primary facts in the article – only that they support the initial sentence.

The article itself leaves no doubt that the Brazilian Empire lasted from 12 October 1822 to 15 October 1889. The Provincia Cisplatina lasted from 1821 to 1828 only (and even that was not uniformly Brazilian), but let's be generous and call it 7 years.

It follows that the sentence The Empire of Brazil was a 19th-century state that broadly comprised the territories which form modern Brazil and Uruguay does not give a correct impression.

To see why, try the following, pedantically accurate version: "The Empire of Brazil was a 19th-century state that broadly comprised the territory of the modern United States of Brazil and – for 7 out of 67 years or only 10.4% of the time – the Oriental Republic of Uruguay". So we ought to rewrite the initial sentence accordingly, but without the pedantry, of course. This gives:

The Empire of Brazil was a 19th-century state that broadly comprised the territory that forms modern Brazil and, for a short tome, Uruguay. Ttocserp 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkprescott (talk • contribs)

os mapas estão cheios de erros vou falar só de alguns geopoliticos outros nem se falam oeste de sc ainda era missions orientais contestado pré 1905 a regionalização do ibge do xx-ii total non sense era inimaginavel no xix mesmo para os paulistas de 1887 que viam só 3 regiões no grosso só se viam 2 o norte ou seja tudo a norte do rj e o sul ou seja tudo a sul do rj antes da divisão que aparece houveram 300 tentativas de regionalização sob todos os aspectos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:40BC:37A5:D830:7AD (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agassiz e as fotos evidenciam um recife interessante as fotos selecionadas tendem a mostrar um recife menor a foto de Salvador é fantástica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:40BC:37A5:D830:7AD (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Images
The copyrights for the images used in the article have been verified as usable in Wikipedia. The images and their associated texts have undergone vetting during the Featured Article process. If you have additional or better images, please make certain that they have meet the licensing and other criteria for FA articles and Wikipedia's Image use policy. If in doubt, please discuss before attempting to add other images. &bull; Astynax talk 18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * &bull; Astynax, I've left another notice on the user's talkpage, urging them to engage here. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
There are two Brazilian editors who have been pushing their edits in the past months, coming back here and there trying to succeed. I got an odd message in Portugueseby one of them accusing me of having something against the Brazilian state of Pernambuco. The other editor is an 18-year old boy who is a self declared monarchist. As can be seen in the article there is a photo of Pernambuco in "Consolidation" and another in the next section, "Growth." There are several Brazilian provinces which, unfortunately, are not depicted in pictures. The article has a basic and clear structure: smaller sections (that it, with less paragraphs) have one photo, to prevent overcrowding. The article is well written, certainly one of the best in the entire Wikipedia, and it works because it's solidly based on the best historiography in the topic. Which is why it's so stable and has suffered no major or minor changes (just minimal) since it became a Featured Article. The two aforementioned editors are unwilling to debate, instead opting to edit war. They should have come here, not me, but I can't expect a reasonable behavior from all. I urge them to start working on other articles, that are in desperate need for improvements. There are countless important articles about wars, statesmen and general topics on Brazil's imperial period that need work. Go there. --Lecen (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , You act like an owner of the article. My contributions are of the best quality. The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) is the highest organ of Brazil when it comes to population statistics, and can not be ignored in favor of an irrelevant historian.--Juniorpetjua (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Portuguese or Spanish so for me going through your changes is difficult. However, from your linked source at the IBGE I believe I can glean what the numbers and names mean. For example, the total slave population in 1864 appears to me to be 1,715,000, in the Nordeste (North-East?) Bahia in 1864 had a slave population of 300,000 (17.49%), in Sudeste (South-East?) Rio de Janeiro in 1864 also had a slave population of 300,000 (17.49%). Yet in your edit here you claim that Rio de Janeiro had a slave population of 23% and Bahia had 18% - they appear to me to both have had 17.49% so rounding error as well. That does assume that I am reading these numbers correctly. So I decide to go to 1874 as well, total slave population; 1,540,829, Bahia's slave population has dropped off drastically to 165,403 (10.7%) while Rio de Janeiro's slave population has actually increased to 301,352 (19.2%) but still no where near the claimed 23%. From what I can see you've given an accurate representation of Bahia but not so for Rio de Janerio - only in 1887 where Rio de Janeiro's slave population is 162,421 out of 723,419 (22.45%) does the mathematics line up. For the others; Pernambuco 15% cited in article and 15% is what I worked out, Minas Gerais 14% cited in article and 14.5% is what I worked out, Sao Paulo 5% cited in article and 4.66% is what I worked out. Finally, in 1864 Corte would have had 5.8% of Brazil's slave population, more than both Sao Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul for 1864, but it isn't mentioned anywhere. Even without challenging your source I am not getting anywhere near one of the figures you're claiming in your edit - the one for Rio de Janeiro. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comment; there is nothing stopping you from contributing to any article you would like to, but, when editor's question your changes you must go to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. You cannot force your edits into an article. WP:BRD - bold edit (which you've done), revert (which other editor's have done), discuss (go to the talk page, put your sources up and debate with other editors till you reach a solution that all parties find acceptable). This article is an FA, this does not preclude contributions, but, it does suggest that more will be expected than it might otherwise be. I don't have a problem with your source, but, I do have a problem with your outcome. I'd like to be able to access Lidia Besouchet's work as well, unfortunately that doesn't seem possible as google books has no preview of the book for me to browse. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , the numbers are correct. The Court of the Empire of Brazil (Corte in Portuguese), which was in Rio de Janeiro, had 100,000 slaves. That is, Rio de Janeiro had a total of 400,000 slaves (23%) in 1864.--Juniorpetjua (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhmm, alright that makes sense. My only other comments for the time being is that 17.49% is rounded down to 17% not up to 18% (see Bahia), similarly 14.5% is rounded up to 15% not down to 14% (see Minas Gerais). The other values match up with what you put into the article. The question now lies solely down to one thing, which source is better/more accurate; the IBGE or Lidia Besouchet? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the page. The IBGE is using as source a secondary source. The information provided was not created by the IBGE. The first national census was done in 1872. Anything before that is speculative. --Lecen (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The IBGE is using as source a secondary source. Yes I am aware of this, that doesn't change the question; "[W]hich is better/more accurate? I'm more concerned that this article present accurate information than anything else. Anything before that is speculative, that also applies to Besouchet and any other source that discusses the question. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Besouchet and Vainfas (read the article, there are two secondaries sources mentioned) rely on the 1872 census, which is why it says "around 1870." As I said, anything before that is speculative. About being accurate or not, only the 1872 census is. --Lecen (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Around 1870" and "1872 census" are very different things. João José Reis (J. J. REIS), the source used by the IBGE, is the highest Brazilian authority and a world reference in the history of slavery in the nineteenth century. PhD in History from the University of Minnesota, J. J. Reis was Visiting Professor at the Harvard University, Princeton University, University of London, University of Michigan and Brandeis University.--Juniorpetjua (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the 1864 statistics by the IBGE are speculative - which explains the unusually round figures for that period - the next valid figures would be the 1874 statistics? These would be; Rio de Janeiro 22.6%, Bahia 10.7%, Minas Gerais 20.2%, Sao Paulo 11.3% and Rio Grande do Sul 6.39% making up ~71% of the total slave population. Add Pernambuco at 6.9% and Maranhao at 4.8% and that's ~83% of the slave population across those regions. If nobody minds I'll try to find a source in English that discusses this and go through it for myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the IBGE that carries out the population census in Brazil, and the 1872 census was marked by poor accuracy and poor information quality. I would also like to talk about another very serious flaw in the article, which is the absence of an important episode that occurred during the Empire of Brazil: The Confederation of the Equator. It was a separatist movement in the province of Pernambuco, which was at that time the richest province in Brazil. Pernambuco ended up losing more than half of its territory as punishment for the rebellion. Why isn't there anything on the subject on the page?--Juniorpetjua (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ^^^ --Juniorpetjua (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Patience, I am not available everyday and have other Wiki projects of my own. Thanks for the message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can, hopefully tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Confederation of the Equator rebellion is already mentioned on the page, with a link to the full article, as is the appropriate emphasis in an already long and broadly themed article such as this. &bull; Astynax talk 18:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Uninhabited
Nearly no part of Brazil other than the distant Atlantic islands has been perpetually inhabited in the last few centuries, and certainly not the vast extents of the Amazon, the Cerrado and the Paraná river plateau as indicated in the map of the ethnic composition of the country. I get that Indigenous tribes were often in complete ignorance of the existence of the Brazilian court and its claims to their traditional lands, but "uninhabited" indicates absence of human settlements and that was not the case. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Lecen ? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Map of Brazil in 1822
A better map of Brazil in 1822 exists already in wiki commons in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_(1822).svg, there are still problems on the Santa Catarina region wich was unhabited and claimed by Argentina despite being under Brazilian rule but the map is much better in quality and better accurate.

Renato Rocha (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You’re wrong. That map has wrong international borders. --Lecen (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but still the map in use also has wrong international borders. The border as recognized in Brazil is showed in several maps as in: http://objdigital.bn.br/objdigital2/acervo_digital/div_cartografia/cart171159/cart171159.jpg, http://objdigital.bn.br/objdigital2/acervo_digital/div_cartografia/cart171159/cart171159.jpg, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Imperio_do_Brazil_1822.jpg and in the case of Santa Catarina, https://acaosp.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/centro-sul.jpg?w=284&h=403, http://www.sanderlei.com.br/img/Ensino-fundamental/Parana-Historia-Geografia-10-01.jpg.

There is also this 1868 atlas in the Brazilian Senate website. Please note some of the territorial disagreaments in provinces territory as in Santa Catarina vs Parana. The best in my opinion would be an new map. http://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/item/id/179473

Renato Rocha (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)