Talk:History of Pernambuco

Summary style: Is there sufficient history content to merit a subpage on the topic?
This page ,though it has some information already posted on another page for Pernambuco, is specific to the history of the state of Pernambuco and provides more details to the reader, to learn more. It also provides connections to other pages for more detailed accounts of historic events in Pernambuco as they pertain to that subject.

Sincerely, Joseph Corno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcorno (talk • contribs)  17:26, 25 October 2010
 * The Pernambuco page already has a History section. Creating a new article on the same topic is called a content fork and should be avoided.  It would be better to improve upon the information already at the Pernambuco page.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

advice
deciding whether to split off this material depends on how extensive it is, and how long the main article is. In my personal opinion, either way would be appropriate, & you need to discuss it, preferably on the main article talk p., which will get the more attention. But I have som suggestions, at least for now: First, The part on the colonial history is already covered in the main article about as well as here. Why not just supplement it a little. Second, the part on the Revolution in the main article is inadequate. Why not turn the section here into a separate article about it (it can be easily done by retitling this page--I can do it for you if you have difficulties--ask on my talk page).There is good precedent for separating out pages dealing with specific wars and revolutions. And I note the history after incorporation into Brazil is not really covered at all. And, most important, there's one thing missing from this article: References. I'd suggest starting with the most widely available English language book about the history, and adding whatever are the most authoritative Spanish ones. However you do it, good luck with it. ~
 * Unfortunately, none of the material at this page is referenced, so it is not a very good candidate for merging with the Pernambuco main page, which is referenced. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 09:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see no justification for having material on this topic in tow places. If any of the content of this article can be properly sourced it should be merged into the other article, if not it should be removed, and in either case this article should be deleted. Rather than nominate the article for deletion now I will leave it for a short while to allow time for sourcing/merging if appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

merge, delete, or split
The History of Pernambuco has now gotten scattered among about 25 articles, most of them smacking of history buff trivia (Recapture of Recife, for example). This article, supposedly the lead article, is in need of rewrite. One section appears to be a hoax. Three other sections don't belong here, but somewhere else. The things that matter, economics and politics, are barely covered. This article has been written from pieces cut and pasted from a Google book preview and a recent movie about Lampião, (i.e. the Brazilian equivalent of a U.S. western), among others. There's probably enough to constitute a separate article - Pernambuco is a big place, with an interesting history - if we could bring the scattered pieces back into a cohesive whole. Nothing here being referenced suggests a less-than-serious approach by the previous editors. I'm going to do some major surgery, then see what the article looks like.Sbalfour (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It has now been a year since most of those proposals. I only have an opinion of the Dutch section.  It should not be abolished, nor expanded by absorbing various small detail articles.  Better to merge the small articles into Dutch Brazil or some other article, and about half this section should either be deleted or transferred to Dutch Brazil.  Jim.henderson (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the section 'Jews in Pernambuco', I believe this should be merged into the article 'History of the Jews of Brazil'. There is simply no reason to bifurcate this history into two articles. One article on the subject is a greater convenience for readers and editors alike. American In Brazil (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The huge number of tags in this article (and others) have now sat around for a year and a half. Is there going to be some action on them, or can they be removed? Prburley (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * hehehehe I added another one hehehe--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Listing of tags
I wanted to list all the tags so as to discuss them. I've gone through half the article so far looking for them. This article has an absurd number of tags.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead/entire article
 * 1 refimprove|date=January 2014
 * 2 Expand Portuguese|Portuguesearticletitle|date=January 2017
 * 3 Use mdy dates|date=May 2013

Section Discovery and precolonial
 * 1citation needed|date=January 2014 for “ the region of the modern state of Pernambuco near the Atlantic coast was populated chiefly by Tabajara Indians.”
 * 2 Missing information|section|relevance of Tabajara indians|date=January 2014
 * 3 Relevance inline|date=January 2014 for “The French under Bertrand d'Ornesan tried to establish a French trading post at Pernambuco in 1531.”

Section Colonial period: the Captaincy of Pernambuco
 * 1 missing information|section|coffee plantations, Jesuit evangelism and gold rush|date=January 2014
 * 2 relevance inline|date=January 2014 for paragraph on Capture of Recife (1595)

Section Dutch Rule
 * 1 Overly detailed|section=yes|date=January 2014
 * 2 Merge to|Dutch Brazil
 * 3 vague|date=January 2014 for “The Dutch legacy is still recognizable, 500 years later, in Pernambuco's people, accent and architecture“
 * 4 relevance inline|date=January 2014 “Among them,Domingos Fernandes Calabar, who fought against the Portuguese resistance until the end of his life.”

Section Revolt against the Dutch
 * 1 summarize section|date=January 2014
 * 2 citation needed|date=January 2014 for “On May 15, 1645, meeting on the São João Plantation, 18 insurgent leaders in Pernambuco signed a commitment to fight against the Dutch rule in the captaincy. “
 * 3 editorializing|date=January 2014 for “n April 24, 1646, there was the famous Battle of Tejucupapo, where peasant women armed with farm implements and arms drove out the Dutch invaders, humiliating them permanently”
 * 4 citation needed|date=January 2014 “After 24 years of Dutch rule over Pernambuco, after 62 hours of negotiation, on January 27, 1654 in Treaty of Taborda, the Dutch surrendered unconditionally.
 * 5 editorializing|date=January 2014 for “The uprising was a milestone in Pernambuco, both militarily with the consolidation of ambush and guerrilla tactics, and socio-politically, with the increase of miscegenation between the three races (black African, white European and native Indian) and was the beginning of a sense of nationhood.”

Section Jews in Pernambuco (Stopped listing here --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC))

Continuation of listing Section Jews in Pernambuco Section Pernambucano revolt Section Empire of Brazil
 * Importance section|date=January 2014
 * merge to|section=yes|History of the Jews in Brazil|date=January 2014
 * relevance inline|sentence|date=January 2014 for “In addition to these pioneers, other Jewish families would come to Recife in 1910, mostly from Russia. In 1998 the old house where ran the Recife synagogue was expropriated by the city to host, after being restored, the Centre for Documentation and Research in Jewish history.”
 * unreferenced section|date=January 2014
 * Missing information|section|163 years of history from 1654-1817 history|date=January 2014

Section Brazilian Independence Section 20th century
 * Missing information|section|years 1817-1832: why Dom Pedro I abdicated and what the rebels wanted|date=January 2014

Section Cangaceiros Section The Modern state
 * Merge|section=yes|Northeast Brazil#History|date=January 2014
 * reliable source|date=January 2017 for Paulo Gil Soares, in Vida, paix~ao e mortes de Corisco, o Diabo Louro
 * summarize section|date=January 2014
 * Unreferenced section|date=January 2014

Altother 27 tags on one page, nearly all of them from January of 2014, almost exactly 3 years ago. I'm wondering whether they were all put by the same person. hehehehe--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Tags

 * Great summary, but what's your recommendation? Prburley (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I mean to first finish listing them first and then going through them. I resolved and deleted about 5 tags just by going through them. But some of these need more work and/or discussion. In part it seems that they can be resolved by the translation of the portuguese language article, which is better sourced and better written in my opinion. The main issue I see is that while there's many tags that link to a "discussion in the talk page" there isn't much here yet. It seems discussion is overdue. Tl;dr: "my recommendation is to finally discuss the tags"--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I'm new and not entirely certain how to proceed, but in several months of editing no one is yelling at me yet. I have been staying away from this section on "Prehistory....". It seems well enough as it is but for one sentence that needs a citation. I am now going to change the sentence by deleting the part about the Tabajaras and the Caetes being extinct. I have only a few books that mention Tabajaras and the Caetes and none mention that they are extinct. They probably are extinct, but I doubt that there is anyone who has documented their extinction. So I will (essentially) truncate the sentence and provide a citation documenting that they were there when the Portuguese arrived. (And, since these were the peoples most often mentioned in history, I will leave alone the certainty that there were other indigenous peoples also present when the Portuguese began settling in Pernambuco.)P2dwight (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Well, actually, I added the Tupinamba as well, but Pernambuco was much bigger in colonial days and there were lots of indigenous tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2dwight (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding missing information tag: coffee plantations, Jesuit evangelism and gold rush
As far as I know there was no gold rush in Pernambuco at all. So that is a mistake in the tag, no missing information, there is no information to be had. I am not so sure about the other two matters though. The portuguese language article lacks information about either of these, or both of these, it mentions neither of them at all. Comments? ? -It is in this way that I would like to tackle these, is the answer to your previous question, and if you feel like commenting regarding this particular tag please do.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Tagging of the brazil wikiproject, brazilian history taskforce. As well as the author of the tag .--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm responsible for the tagging of this article. The article is a jumble of isolated quips, some of which are exquisitely detailed, and hardly germaine to a continuous narrative of the History of Pernambuco.  Major trends of Pernambucan as well as related Brazilian history, aren't mentioned. The significance of the gold rush (though you correctly state, 'not here') in nearby states was that sugar and other endeavors were given up by both commercial as well as private persons, who rushed off to elsewhere to find that gold.  The Jewish history just isn't terribly important - why not the Italian, Dutch, German, etc, histories?  I've noticed in other history articles detailed scenarios of trivial Jewish influence/immigration that are better collected into articles about Jews, not articles where Jewish influence is negligible (argument from Jews relative to that, of course). I don't read Portuguese, so some of my info and sources can't be extracted at this time.  I think someone who knows Pernambucan and NE Brazilian history needs to plot out this article by topic by date, and write the thing.  Just fixing the tags with one liners, etc, means the next time I review the article, the same items will come up. Sbalfour (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, thankyou for your comment. I recently came into contact with WP:NUKEANDPAVE and you seem to recommend something like that. I am by no means an expert in Northeastern brazilian history, but I do speak portuguese, have a pretty good understanding of Brazilian history, and do hope to improve this article and learn along the way.
 * To be clear I will address all of what you said regarding other topics, but I would like to keep discussion of the separate things, separate, go one by one, so I'll address specific topic of these missing items: on these missing items your reply seems rather reasonable. I thought a bit, and looking at the portuguese language article, it seems even with translation not all "missing information" problems will be fixed, although it would be a significant improvement from the current article. Also missing from the both english and portuguese language article would be mentions of the Vargas dictatorship and the military dictatorship of 1964-1989. :/ This fact very much agrees with Sbalfour's judgement that the article is a "jumble of isolated quips" - quite a lot of missing information in general. And by no means was I suggesting covering the topics with superficial "one liners" to fix these problems Sbalfour. So again, I would like to thank you for elaborating a bit on this, and see what can be done from here.
 * To do tasks: 1) a bit of research into how (a) coffee plantations, (b) gold rush impacted Pernambuco, it's relative importance in Brazil, migration from there to São Paulo/Minas Gerais. (Perhaps then it would be proper to comment on how it was exactly as ownership of the spice route to India was lost to the English that the Portuguese got interested in colonizing Brazil) 2) a bit of research into the "first contact" with the indians and jesuit missions in the area --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On Coffee CicleResearch: pg 40-41 of Rogers, Thomas "The Deepest Wounds: A Labor and Environmental History of Sugar in Northeast Brazil" Univ of North Carolina Press, 2010 treats the topic of coffee plantations: how in the 1870s the pernambuco plantation owners tried to organize a resistance to the decadence, but instead an the government called an 'assembly of coffee plantation owners from the southeast' was organized and pernambucanos and nordestinos were "snubbed".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On Coffee Cicle Research:(portuguese language source) "Foram a Corte a capital da Bahia dois grandes centros de economia imperial da mesma importância do Recife; e só na última fase do regime empalidecidos - como também o Recife e o Nordeste acima da Bahia - pela grandeza nova e rápida de São Paulo, onde se inaugurara, com a absorção de grande massa de escravos das regiões decadentes dos engenhos de açúcar e das minas. o ciclo do café." pg unknown Freyre, Gilberto "O escravo nos anúncios de jornais brasileiros do século XIX" Global Editora e Distribuidora Ltda, 2015 - this source explicits says that 'it was only in the last phase of the regime that the northeast and Recife in particular paled in relation to the zones of coffee plantation, which absorbed the slaves of the decadent regions' - so not only a migration of enterprising individuals seeking glory as you said  also a migration of slaves. (It's cool to quote Freyre by the way, he's a pretty important brazilian thinker.)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On "first contact" Metcalf, Alida C. "Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil: 1500–1600" University of Texas Press, 2005 viewable through preview on google books seems a good source on relations with the indigenous people in the very beginning of the colony. Also this bloggy website  indicates that differntly from the other captancies, there were no approximations in Pernambuco, only military conflicts, and that this is notable because due to that they had much more conflicts with indians. Not really a RS, but its info can maybe lead to a source.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Jews in Pernambuco: merge and importance tags for section
There's a couple of related tags
 * Importance section|date=January 2014
 * merge to|section=yes|History of the Jews in Brazil|date=January 2014

I want to quote the main comments from the past here so.

"With respect to the section 'Jews in Pernambuco', I believe this should be merged into the article 'History of the Jews of Brazil'. There is simply no reason to bifurcate this history into two articles. One article on the subject is a greater convenience for readers and editors alike." {was said by} American In Brazil (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Jewish history just isn't terribly important - why not the Italian, Dutch, German, etc, histories? I've noticed in other history articles detailed scenarios of trivial Jewish influence/immigration that are better collected into articles about Jews, not articles where Jewish influence is negligible (argument from Jews relative to that, of course)." {was said by} Sbalfour (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

With that it seems the discussion is up to date.

and I thought to deal with this tag later, but I think this can be discussed now since quite a bit of your comment was on this very strange section. I personally don't feel like the Italian, Dutch, German histories would be inappropriate. The "history of native americans in pernambuco" specifically I find would be of relatively strong importance, and maybe not related or in tune with the history of the state as a whole, therefore needing it's own subsection. The first synagogue of the Americas is a relatively significant fact, the rest I believe it would be okay to cut. But it seems we have a pretty strong consensus then to greatly diminish the subsection. 2 opinions for total removal and 1 for greatly diminishing, I think is reasonable to understand as a consensus to "remove most". I wonder if the author of the Jews in Pernambuco section would object. (maybe I'll do a little search in the article's history for the author(s) ) --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 22:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * was my edit trimming the section. I think currently it is under control and has only relevant information. I wonder if you agree ? ? I think there are still problems in sourcing, and I felt like putting a citation needed for "dominating 40% of the sugar business", but there is an unreferenced tag over the whole article already. Do you think the merge and importance tags can be removed?--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Absurd number of tags"
I agree. I'm regretful, that the article is in a shambles partly because of me. I'd not complain if you simply removed them all, and perhaps replaced them all with an article tag 'cleanup rewrite'. It'd certainly make the article read cleaner for our users. The tags aren't for readers, but editors, and we're gathered ->here<-. You've already brought the tags here, for discussion. Consider, if this were a college paper on the 'History of Pernambuco' what might happen: the Prof. would mark it, like me, and return it, because it is barely coherent. I'm not the expert you need, to write this essay. I'm afraid of blanking the article, because I've been called on that before - wikipedia may consider it vandalism, and there's salvageable material here. I'm here to help out on specifics, but I'm not going to rewrite this. Cheers, Sbalfour (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * hehehehe... I think in part I am pushed, interested in fixing this article exactly because of the number of tags on it. hehehehe. The editor attention is about 3 years late though. I value your point of view even if you're not an expert mind you. I am interested in improving it even if it will not get to a level worthy of a GA nomination. hehehehe.
 * I am in favor of looking at each tag in turn, instead of just replacing them all with a single "cleanup rewrite". I do think there are many things that are correct in the current article. I also find certain motivation in taking them out part by part. Although that might be improper on my part. I think tagging articles is easy, and discussing and finding solutions is a bit harder. I looked at your edits, you must have made over 100 edits on this article at the time. Quite a bit of work, marking errors. So in part regarding the college paper analogy, the student is finally looking at the markings after 3 years, and looking to fix them. So I think the case here is to go slowly but surely and fix them
 * I do appreciate your comments, I would value your continued participation as an "editorial voice" or "critic" if you are comfortable in that position I would really enjoy continuing the relationship here. hehehehe :) I do want to rewrite a significant part the article myself.
 * --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In this small corner of the world, I doubt there are many who know more than me, except local historians. For the first 150 years or so, until ~1680, the history of Pernambuco is local.  After that, it melds with the history of Minas Gerais, Alagoas, etc, and NE Brazil in general.  I could go into some arcane stuff, but it's hardly mainstream history.  Pernambuco was a large part of NE Brazil, a large part of settled Brazil, until the breakup into modern states. I don't think many people even know about the (short lived but significant) coffee plantations, the slave trade thereon, the Mascate War, the transfer of power and wealth from Olinda landed (think sugar cane and coffee) aristocrats to the Recife merchant middle class, the rise of global trade there presaging the industrial revolution in that city and few others in Brazil. Ecologically, we have the permanent loss of Caatinga ecosphere to ranching, the sad extinction in the wild of Spix's Macaw, the disappearance of 200 year old Caraibeira woodland galleries, flooding of the Rio Sao Francisco valley biome due to hydroelectric dams.  Then there's the nude beach phenomenon (forget Blame It on Rio - there aren't and never were any nude beaches in Rio De Janeiro), inland poverty vs municipal wealth, I could go on and on. Sbalfour (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh! So you do consider something of an expert. I thought the reason you didn't want to edit was mostly due to lack of knowledge, the amount of work needed to become knowledgeable. I am not an expert on pernambuco's history but I do have a good handle on Brazilian history in general and do speak portuguese fluently. So I want to repeat that I value your comments, your participation as an editorial voice. Currently for example I would enjoy comments at Talk:History of Pernambuco where I believe I have resolved two of the tags, and Talk:History of Pernambuco where I answer why I believe the information is relevant, but that nevertheless your tagging indicates a need for indicating relevance within the article.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of Piracy
There are two tags for relevance of piracy and/or dispute among European powers of this territory. I find them relevant but I think perhaps some elaboration is required as to why they are relevant. In the context of colonization France disputed the treaty of tordesilhas. This meant that the French had intention of making a colony in what the portuguese considered their territory. Perhaps French guinea comes from this era - a successful case of a french territory on what would perhaps otherwise have been brazilian soil. The territory was in dispute, and I think the tags appropriately signal that this should be made clear, these were not merely isolated instances but part of a larger and significant political reality.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 22:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Relevance inline|date=January 2014 for “The French under Bertrand d'Ornesan tried to establish a French trading post at Pernambuco in 1531.”
 * relevance inline|date=January 2014 for paragraph on Capture of Recife (1595)
 * Yes, they were part of a larger issue, and is was at root an economic one: the French did briefly have a trading post there, and I'll have to check my notes, but it either got shot up by indians, or abandoned due to conflict with indians and allied european powers. The French had dibs - they were in a position to exploit the timber among other things, so the issue was economic in addition to anything else.  I at first dismissed the importance of that outpost, but it was rather indicative of things to come.  Sugarcane was years away, but timber was there for the taking.Sbalfour (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Dutch Rule merge summarizing and other tags
, you made the edit: removing tags and content. I note from your recent contributions that they are all fixes of merge tags. I think the trimming you did was excessive: Now there's only the Dutch conquest but Dutch rule, which seems to have lasted quite some years is missing entirely. A proper removal of the overly detailed tag in particular would have been to summarize, not just delete. I was a bit tempted to revert. I ask you if you agree that there are problems with your edit User:Klbrain?--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening this for discussion. I am not an expert in this field, but felt that a resolution was possible (even necesssary) given the copious discussion without action over 3 years. The deletion of a large chunk was, in my view, entirely valid on the grounds that it was unduly detailed and completely unreferenced - the section was also tagged as vague (in places) and lacking relevance (elsewhere) since January 2014. So, given the above, I hope that you can see that the edits were in good faith, even if you might disagree with them. Adding back referenced relevant material would be a much better idea than a revert. Klbrain (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are good faith edits but I think the deleted sections should be restored. I don't think any of the information, including the background info on the NE, is unduly detailed. But I'll go with the flow as the history of Pernambuco is long, complex, and I'm too short on time to pull the references. Prburley (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dutch rule: Contradiction tag
"By 1654 the captaincy came under the dominion of the West Indies Company" That statement is confusing at best, patently false at worst. By Jan., 1654, the last Dutch Forces had departed the colony. In fact, as early as the first battle of Guarapes in 1648, Dutch autonomy was broken, with the colony in a state of war and in disarray thereafter, with control divided between Dutch military and Portuguese colonial forces.Sbalfour (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement. I wondered if bad translation meant that something like "By 1654 it HAD come under the dominion of the WIC" was meant. But the statement does not exist in the portuguese version and it's unsourced. I judged it easier and simpler to remove the statement and the tag.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement. I wondered if bad translation meant that something like "By 1654 it HAD come under the dominion of the WIC" was meant. But the statement does not exist in the portuguese version and it's unsourced. I judged it easier and simpler to remove the statement and the tag.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Planning to edit History of Pernambuco
I am new. I studied Colonial Brazil, particularly Pernambuco, 40 years ago. I am currently trying to retrace and catch up with more recent work in this area. I consider my area/period Specifically the 1590’s, And generally from Portuguese Settlement up to the Dutch invasion in 1630. I have some knowledge of the Dutch period and will probably do something to that section later. It is not my current intention to get into the time after the Dutch are driven out. There is a goodly amount of literature in English by Historians well respected in Brazil, moreover I have a fair amount of this literature in my personal library. Since we are addressing an English speaking readership, to whatever extent I use the translated Portuguese article, I will generally replace the reference citations in the Portuguese article with English language equivalents. With your advice, oversight, comment, and critique I expect we can improve the article at least up through 1654. One other comment on the article, they drink coffee in Pernambuco, but they don’t grow it there. The growing regions are further South, mostly São Paulo and Minas Gerais.P2dwight (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found there is one small area in the agreste where coffee is grown. So I was wrong in that regard. I think it is not of significance for this article though.P2dwight (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Further emendations particularly up thru the Dutch period
Having edited up thru the Portuguese arrival and precolonial section with no one making any comments on this talk page, I conclude that no one is currently following this page, at least not frequently. So it seems good to me to proceed to update the section on the Colonial Period:the Captaincy of Pernambuco. I note that the article on Captaincy of Pernambuco has some good material but only 3 references, so I feel free to treat from 1534 to 1630 as I see fit. I will put a note on the talk page for the main article for the Captaincy of Pernambuco. I have looked at the material that follows and expect that I will proceed later with the Dutch Period. Although since the Dutch Brazil article does have a lot of references, I may proceed somewhat differently, I'm not sure. Past the Dutch Period I consider what little expertise I have exhausted, so I do not intend to go forward, or at least not until I would have done some reading. I am also going to dink a bit with some of the comments. I consider some of them wholly wrong (e.g. the coffee comment) and some less than optimally placed in the article. I will also place a note somewhat like this on the Pernambuco talk page. I will probably do some updates there after I finish whatever I decide to do with the Dutch period. P2dwight (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2dwight (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting the section: Revolt against the Dutch
If anyone is watching this article, I am surprised. However, just for the record, I have rewritten most every thing after Prehistory and Antiquity up to, but not including Revolt Against the Dutch. For the most part there was not much to start with and where it seemed possible I retainedwhat I could of what little was there. I now arrive atRevolt Against the Dutch, which does not seem bad as to what is says, but it lacks reference. So I am debating whether to just dive in and rewrite, it would be more of a rewrite than most anything else I have edited. I have looked thru my books and cannot find anything to support the two places where another editor has asked for references. I may just skip over it and come back to it. I haven't decided yet. So if anyone has a comment or suggestion I'd be happy to hear it. Other wise this note is just to make a record. 9/24/20 Further. Noting once again little interest in this page, I have decided to go back an rewrite the "Revolt against the Dutch" section. It has no references, and while I have looked to see if I could find some references, I cannot find anything in my library that supports these specific paragraphs. (Not that I think they are wrong.) However, using the books I have, the section will change somewhat. P2dwight (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A hiatus while I do some reading on 20th Century Pernambuco
So, I have been bold. I've been hacking at this article most days for 6 weeks. Aside from two sections at the beginning and the last section I have almost completely overwritten, revised, deleted, edited, or otherwise gotten rid of what existed before I started. I did leave a couple of sentences that had references. Most of the comments on this talk page now concern things that no longer exist in this article. I have not yet determined at what date I will consider that history has gotten too close to current events and should wait a few years before it is written down. I am thinking perhaps 50 years ago (1970). I have a few books to read before I tackle 20th Century. So I will probably not edit any more for a while. BTW, I managed to publish an article in a journal on Pernambuco some years back. That article went thru 17 rewrites before publication. It is not my objective to revise this article 17 times, but I am fairly certain that the article will merit rewriting before I decide I am done. I intend, however, to get through 1970 or whatever stop-date I decide on before I start rewriting. P2dwight (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

summing up as I stop
Well, I seem to be at a mandatory halt, by reason of being out of sources. My personal library, more slanted toward colonial Pernambuco, is devoid of material on Pernambuco after 1970. I do not anticipate getting out of the house to an academic library until after the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic has run its course. To sum up what I have done with this article, The first two sections (Name, and Prehistory and Antiquity) are essential as I found them (I think I made one minor change). The last section (The Modern State) is also as I found it, although I have been tempted to remove it for lack of references. Aside from these, although there have been a few sentences with references that I have retained, essentially the whole of the article is rewritten. I find that I am oblivious to many, particularly minor grammatical and spelling errors when I write, always needed to let any writing rest a bit before errors begin to pop out at me. I have gone back and reread and corrected some of these, but I am sure there are some more. I will at some point come back and do necessary edits or corrections, but I hope someone else will take a look and provide input before I attempt that. This has been a good exercise for me for the last several months, but I need to catch up in some other projects that I have neglected, so it may be some time before I get back to this.P2dwight (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Spliting
I have found that somewhere it says the this article is long enough to be a candidate for splitting, I have looked at another article, The Captaincy of Pernambuco, which covers a substantial portion of the colonial era history I have addressed in this article. So I am considering splitting this article. I expect it will take some work to do the split as there are several noted anomalies with the Capatincy of Pernambuco article, but I would try to keep as much as seems appropriate. Of course, I suppose it may be some years before another editor reads and expresses an opinion here.P2dwight (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Did this. likely still needs a bit of clean up.P2dwight (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Completed "rewrite"
I consider that I have basically finished my work on this article. Of course, I expect that I or others will find places where further editing is needed. Moreover, I am told that the introduction needs to be lengthened. Likewise, I continue to consider how to split the article. My current thought is to take most of the colonial era material and move it to the Captaincy of Pernambuco article, which is sadly deficient in references and while I recognize a lot of the current article is good, the lack of references makes it fundamentally unveifiable. I would then expect to leave this article with a single "paragraph" replacing four to six "paragraphs" from "Portuguese arrival'" to Pernambuco in the late eighteenth century". It seeming that I am the only editor currently interested in Pernambucan history articles. So,despite knowing that I am still a newby editor, I am leaning toward just being "bold" and letting whoever wants to slap me around when I stray to far..22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2dwight (talk • contribs)

discussion of changes from 10:15, 19 March 2021‎ vesion to 16:25, 3 April 2021‎ version


This discussion is in regard to editing which I conclude was done mostly by Fritzmann2002 and Gronk Oz for both of whom I will post a note on their/your talk pages. To state what is probably obvious, this is my first article and there is much I am still unclear about as to style, and other things that I should know but probably don't. So I started to make the recommended changes without realizing quite the extent of the copy editing that had been done. So I have likely complicated matters. I do appreciate that copy editors have looked at the article and made changes to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia standards, which I know I am just learning. In preparing the table below I have tried to ignore two things, obvious errors, such as a couple of places where Pernambuco is misspelled. I can fix that kind of error later, secondly, where my "prose" has merely been revised, I am perfectly willing to stipulate to the idea that you have a better idea of what "style" is suitable on Wikipedia, thus even if I like my phrasing better, I am content to go forward with yours. So, other than a couple of items that I decided to whine about, I tried to confine these items to instances where I think the meaning has been changed, quite possibly because my writing lent itself to misinterpretation. I didn't want to just change things back because I am the inexperienced guy and I think it would be best to discuss it before "reverting" anything. (I note that I don't know how to contol the font in the following table.) So here are my concerns:


 * Hello . Looking through the changes in your table above, I don't think anything I touched is controversial.  I just did some basic copy-editing, mostly using a tool called AWB.  It made minor changes like fixing the typo "a indicator" to "an indicator", and to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style like changing "from 1847–48" to "from 1847 to 1848" and removing extraneous apostrophes like "1990's" to "1990s".  I can't see any mention of my changes in your table, though I notice they were reverted by  on 22 March and the tool made the same changes again the following day.  Of course, it is always possible that the tool got something wrong and I didn't notice so please - if you notice something wrong then trust your judgement.  I do not have any specialist knowledge about the subject so I don't think I can contribute to the detailed discussion above, sorry.  The only thing I can clear up is that the introductory paragraphs are known in Wikipedia as the "Lead section".--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I also looked through the table above, and I think most of that was stuff that I, at least in part, changed, so I'll weigh in. A lot of the edits were to conform with the manual of style and increase readability, but it looks like there were several mistakes on my part when it came to interpreting and rewriting the text. It should be noted that I did not dive into any of the sources (I am completely unlearned in Portuguese), and was simply attempting to read the text and rewrite it in a way that increased the coherency, flow, and consistency of the article. If any of the changes I made alter the meaning in a manner that was not intended and is incorrect, I wholly defer to your better judgement in reverting/changing them. It looks like almost everything in the table are very good points, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you'd rather update those changes to better reflect the sources, or if you'd like I can clean up my own messes for you. My biggest suggestion for continued expansion to the article is to ensure that the text is not overly verbose; if something can be said with fewer words without compromising the meaning, it should. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 11:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as a small side note, quotes are generally shied away from in the manner that the quote from the Archbishop was used. I think it's a great quote, but it doesn't directly support the information in the section, nor did the information in the section reference that specific quote. I think it still could be integrated in context, but it should be something like, when asked about X, Archbishop Hélder Câmara replied with quote. I don't think I explained that all at well, there is some guidance at Quotations as well, but from my understanding quotes are really only used in context in certain situations. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Fritzmann (message me) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The "modern history" section
If I were to claim any expertise on Pernambuco's history, it would be for the early colonial period from 1580 to 1630. For 20th Century Pernambuco I knew little before I started researching for this article. For the "modern history" section, I am reluctant to say anything more.I do not live in Pernambuco and aside from the sources I have already used I don't know where I would find anything else. I will probably have to leave the "modern history" section for another editor to flesh out.P2dwight (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)