Talk:White Brazilians/Archive 1

Wrong Posts
The "non white admixture" part of this article is soooo Wrong. I mean, its not true that 49% of the whites in the south region of Brazil have more than 10% non-caucasian genes while americans only 11%. Almost all of the whites in the south region of Brazil are pure and whiter than most of the Americans, wich most of white americans have also mixed up blood with amerindians like the Comanches, Apaches, and other tribes that became military helicopters names. Search even here on wikipedia or google this brazilian girls from the south: Lovani Pinnow, Vanessa Cruz, Celina Locks, Aline Weber, Cintia Dicker, Martha Penz, Ana Hickmann, Ana Claudia Michels, Natalia Cassassola, Bruna Erhardt, Carla Lamarca, Carol Trentini, Jeisa Chiminezzo, Isabeli Fontana, Leticia Birkheuer, Marianne Steinbrecher, Monique Olsen, Raquel Zimmermann, Solange Wilvert... Those are typical south Brazilians girs and only an idiot would say that theyre mixed up or have more than 10% non white genes... If the south of Brazil were 49% whites with more than 10% non white genes than USA would be around 70%, just like the north of Brazil, you see how ridiculous is this, i would say only 8-10% of whites from the south of Brazil have more than 10% non white genes.

--201.78.120.106 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Martinelli

Demography
I had to change some information on the "Demography" part, because that says that only Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná and São Paulo were settled mainly by Germans, Poles and Italians, but actually there is a state in north of Rio De Janeiro called Espírito Santo, were the big majority of european immigrants who went to this state were Italians, Germans and Poles. Much more than portugueses. Although you dont see much of that walking in the streets of Espírito Santo now a days because of the immigration from Bahia, Bahia has the largest black population of the country, and the total population of Bahia is more than 4x bigger than ES population, so they started immigrating recently, making the white population in Espírito Santo fall tremendously from almost 80% in the 1940's to 41% now a days, but the map is correct, the state is still represented by the green color (white majority) because the typical people born in the state is white, not counting the immigrants from Bahia, just wanted to say that, because i am from this state and there are no info's about it.

--201.78.97.20 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Miguel Pedracinni


 * This is not the place to talk about Espírito Santo. This article is dedicated to whites in Brazil as a whole. If you want to talk exclusively about people from Espírito Santo, go to its article. Moreover, use relieble sources when citing this type of information. Opinoso (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but not mentioning the name of the state even once in this article is wrong. Also saying that Espírito Santo is part of the mostly settled by portuguese and spaniards is wrong, there was much more italian and german immigrants than portuguese on the state, ill change that.

--201.78.100.225 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Martinense


 * Espírito Santo has more Pardos than Whites in its census. It's not a crime not to mention this state in the article. Moreover, you need to bring a source to show that Portuguese were outnumbered by other Europeans in this state. You cannot only change an information based in your personal opinion. Take a look at old census records, they show immigrants were a small proportion of Espírito Santo's population

Even Minas Gerais had more Portuguese, Italians, Germans and Spaniards than Espírito Santo, and Minas Gerais is not listed among states settled by "Germans, Italians and Spaniards", as you are trying to claim Espírito Santo is. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
"Brazilians of European descent" or something similar. Race is a subjective and culture-dependent notion. FilipeS 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most Brazilians are of European descent, including million of mixed-race ones. Many White Brazilians are of Arab descent as well.

Race does not exist, but different physical characteristics among humans DO exist, such as Whites, Blacks, etc. Opinoso 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "White, Black" and so on are racial labels. Since race has no objective basis, I suggest a different name for the article. FilipeS 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not ONLY racial lebels. They also classify physical differences among humans, that DO exist.

European Brazilians is a term never used before in Brazilian History. Opinoso 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the article that we're discussing, my impression is that the term "white" is used as a synonym for European ancestry (as opposed to phenotypic classification). So why not just come out and use the word "European"? FilipeS 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should White be replaced to European? Brazilian census use White as a race or skin color cathegory. Every nation is this world use it. Why should it be changed? Opinoso 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, most nations in this world do not have race classification questions in their census. "White" is a term that is subjective, moreso than "of European descent", and evokes the discredited racial theories of the 19th century. Nevertheless, if the word "white" appears on the Brazilian census, then by all means use it in the article. But, in that case, the numbers in the article should be based on data from the census. I would also suggest scrupulous rigor in describing the data: for example, at least once the Portuguese word for "white" (branco) should be explicitly mentioned in the article, since racial categories differ between societies, and in particular a person who is described as branco in a Portuguese speaking country such as Brazil might well be predominantly described as "Hispanic" or even "black" in an English speaking country such as the United States. Just some advice. FilipeS 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this kind of article does exist in several other articles in other countries, specially in Latin America. It seems that all wikipedia contents from Latin American editors are compromised by such obtuse and narrow view of the world. Articles from Latin American countries are dominated by the same individuals who dominate the society in their own countries, the elite who rule over the poor. I am sincerely unmotivated to edit in these articles. --Mhsb (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm qualified to say what "most countries" say, but in the United States, the preferred nomenclature is "Caucasian". What about naming the article "Caucasian Brazilian"? Better yet, simply name it "Branco" if this is the word in common parlance in Brazil, rather than relying on a poor and implicitly racist translation. Of course, this article needs much more than a name change. Much of the content of this article is presented in a way that is "quaint" to be polite. Renaming an article full of racist pseudo-ethnology to a more legitimate sounding name is only to euphamize and promote racism in a more sly and subtle way. I agree that this article, without several major changes, is non-neutral, unencyclopedic, and should be deleted. I think it should be listed for deletion unless someone with the expertise to do the work is willing to make the necessary changes in order to make this article useful. Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposed move. The term might be racist, insensitive, pseudo-ethnologic, or whatever but Wikipedia should reflect usage and not prescribe it.  Brazilians use the name "white" to describe the peoples in question here.  See the article at Portuguese Wikipedia, Brancos, specifically the section on whites in brazil.  Also note the usage at Composição étnica do Brasil.  Nowhere does Euro-Brazilians or a similar formulation appear.  Furthermore, some whites in Brazil are not from Europe but from the Near East or North America making this improper as a descriptive as well. —   AjaxSmack   00:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all "whites" are of European descent. Arabs are whites, and not European.

The reasoning about race is completely different in Brazil than in the United States: people are "white" when they are not "black", while in the US they are "black" when they are not "white". So, "whites" in Brazil means a completely different set of people, who would probably be considered non-whites in the US (thence the tendency of this article to underscore Germans and Italians and "immigration", when the overwhelming majority of Brazilians, "white" or otherwise, is of Portuguese origin). Ninguém (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious Fact
The most white city in Brazil has and indigenous name "Montauri" while the most black/indigenous (non-white) city in Brazil has a name that comes from a Portuguese Saint, it comes from europe. =P --201.78.97.20 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Miguel Pedracinni

Racist Article
The very existence of this article is racist. I will propose the deletion of that article to the board.

--Mhsb (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that this is necessaty cause you would also have to delete the "Black Brazilians" article, and then the "Asian Brazilians" article, and then the "Arab Brazilians" article... I think this is stupid, you people see racism in everything, you cant even read the word "white"...--201.78.97.20 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Martinelli


 * I also think that is not necessary. As I argued above, "white" here is really another way of saying "of European descent". So just rename it "Brazilians of European descent". FilipeS (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with FilipeS. Why are their even black and white brazilian articles? The language is archaic and boderline racist.  The current title of the article seems like someone was trying to prove a point or push their point of view. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * White American, African American articles also exist. The Brazilian census uses the term "white Brazilian". There's nothing racist about it. The fact this article talks about white people has nothing to do with racism against other "races".

And you changed white to "European descent". Brazilian census does not use the term "European", because there are Whites who do not have European ancestry (Arabs, Jews, etc). And being of European descent does not mean a person is white (he can have other ancestries, besides European). Opinoso (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Racist Article II
One of the most bizarre articles on Wikipedia I have ever come across. It's racist and needs to be fixed and or removed. I'm lauging...because when did Arabs became white...Jews asended to the white throne in the U.S in the 70's, but Arabs are still not White. Are you people trying to hide the fact that a small percentage of people of white European background, control the Brazilian Economy and keep everyone that is not white down and in crowded slums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.44 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is racist about this article? Talking about White people is racism?

If so, the article Afro-Brazilian is also racist, so the article African American.

Mhsb, stop disturbing the articles of Wikipedia. Opinoso

FilipeS, Why do you insist to change this article to "Brazilians of European descent"? (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First: Most Brazilians are of European descent. Some may look Black African, but, in some degree, is of European descent.

Second: A person born to a Black African father and a White German mother is of European descent, but is not White.

Third: Brazilians of Arab descent are also Whites, not only those of European origin.Opinoso (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Africa and Europe are continents, geographical notions. There's nothing racist about that. "White" and "black" and "caucasoid" are racial and scientifically obsolete terms. Arab Brazilians already have an article of their own; they don't need to have a section in this one. FilipeS (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Being of European descent does not make a person White. This person can be mixed with another ethnicity.

If a White German woman has a baby with a Black man the kid is not of "European descent"? Yes, the baby is and can even get the German nationality by jus sanguinis and become an European.

Most "White Brazilians" cannot trace their ancestry only to Europe. The vast majority also trace to Amerindian and Black African ancestors.

European descent is not the same as White. Then, the correct name to the article is White Brazilian. Opinoso (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinoso, we are on different wavelengths, here. Let me try to explain my point of view better. I am not trying to claim that "white Brazilian" and "European Brazilian" mean the same. My argument is that:


 * "White", "black", "caucasoid", etc. are outdated, unscientific, and vaguely racist terms.
 * Therefore, there should be no article at all named after them.
 * In principle, this article, as it currently stands, should be deleted. However, I think we can salvage most of the material that is currently here by changing the subject of the article into "European Brazilian", which is a valid, non-racist and uncontroversial term.
 * In sum: what I'm proposing here is not a mere change of name; it's a change in the whole aim of this article. FilipeS (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are your searces to affirm that "white", "black", etc, are racist terms?

The Brazilian government does use the term "white" in its census. All countries in the world use the term "white" in their census.

"Brazilians of European descent" is the racist term. It is a wrong term, since most Brazilians are of European descent, but it does not mean most Brazilians are Whites or genetically Europeans (*of course not, since genetical resources has showed that most "White" Brazilians have a high degree of both Amerindian and Black African ancestry).

Most Brazilians do not share a "feeling of being of European descent". Most Brazilians do not even know where their grandparents were born.

Since Brazil is a "nation", in the meaning of most people share a Brazilian national feeling, the term "European" does not fit.

Since many "White" Brazilians also have a high degree of Amerindian, Black or Arab ancestry, the term "European" only include very few White Brazilians. Opinoso (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "White", "black", "caucasoid", etc. are outdated, unscientific, and vaguely racist terms. --> The two first objections are the most important ones.


 * "Brazilians of European descent" says nothing watsoever about race.


 * Race, ethnicity, kinship, nationality, ancestry, and genetics are all different things. You seem to have them confused. FilipeS (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FilipeS, white, black, etc, can be racist terms, but they are "real" terms, used by governements and people to distinguished between themselves, right or wrong, as such, and because this is an encyclopedia, we have to describe the word as it is - that is way we have an article on Nigger. The Ogre (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article for Race in Brazil. That's the right place to discuss such societal or official terms. What is this article supposed to be about? An anthropological discussion of what "white" means in Brazil? If so, then it's failing miserably. Right now, all I see is a list of ethnicities/ancestries which takes the classification as "white" for granted. Or, more accurately, it's a list of Brazilian immigrant communities.

Very well, then: if the aim here is to discuss immigration in Brazil, then racial labels are totally unnecessary. FilipeS (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By

"White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants."

What does that mean? What is the reference for that definition? I couldn't find any.

--Mhsb (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean with "non-neutral" article? Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm qualified to say what "most countries" say, but in the United States, the preferred nomenclature is "Caucasian". What about naming the article "Caucasian Brazilian"? Better yet, simply name it "Branco" if this is the word in common parlance in Brazil, rather than relying on a poor and implicitly racist translation. Of course, this article needs much more than a name change. Much of the content of this article is presented in a way that is "quaint" to be polite. Renaming an article full of racist pseudo-ethnology to a more legitimate sounding name is only to euphamize and promote racism in a more sly and subtle way. I agree that this article, without several major changes, is non-neutral, unencyclopedic, and should be deleted. I think it should be listed for deletion unless someone with the expertise to do the work is willing to make the necessary changes in order to make this article useful. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sincerily see here the classic low self-steeme that some non-white brazilians have, they incist in saying that there is no pure white brazilians, something they can't prove at all, there is no way to prove such an idiot and racist clame. Everyone knows they exist, what about the imigrants who remained among their equals, how about the descendants of big slave owners, the coffee aristocracy, the members of brazilians burgueoise during the colonial and imperial times. They didn't mix for granted, They were just plen white. almost evey member os those groups didn't mix with other races, that sounds ridiculous, imagine a really rich white slave owner marrying one of his slaves, that's one of the most despisable fantacies one can ever have, and it didn't happen, for sure it didn't. I've heard enough from those non-white people here in this country claming such things they have no way to prove, there is no historical, nor genetic proof that every brazilian isn't a real representative of any race. I really disagree with such ideas, this article should not be deleted.

There are hundreds of articles about whites everywhere, why should this one be wiped out from wikipedia? The english wikipedia is an international area, international laws, notions and principles should be applied to this article, it's not a brazilian domain, and if brazilian butthurts can't stand the idea there are white people in their own country, well, they should go back to their world of fantacy, fairy tales and political correctness, also stop googleing on international websites and on wikipedia.

I know white isn't a really good term and reference when making science, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference between a german guy and a guy from Sub-Saharan Africa, of course there are enormous differences. One might say, "the human race, blah, blah...The genetical difference is of 1 or 2% between a white and an african" but anyway, a single gene can make a person a genius or a dumbass, can make you a beauty or a monster, can make you healthy or sick, so how about 2% of your genes? One should remember that race is a term under debate and it's actual existence is under debate, it wasn't dismissed yet. I study a lot about anthropolgy and genetics and I do follow the really new researches, and the difference between isolated loosely conected populations is kinda huge. and the implications such genes have on the population acn't be dismissed.

Wikipedia recognised the existence of white people and just becouse a couple of brasilians want the world to be like they want wikipedia sould not be hacked by those butthurts and envious people. I should say you should stop being racist and regarding white people with so high steeme, becouse such strange behavious is nothing but a result of racial envy.

This article ought to not be named caucasian brazilians, becouse they're known here in this coutry as whites and other english articles her on wikipedia usa the term white and there is no such kind of crappy edit war.

The problem is, "races" are social constructs - and the social construct of "White race" is very different in Brazil than in the United States. So this article will either be misleading for Americans - who will interpret "White" in the American manner, while the text refers to "White" in the Brazilian way - or upsetting for Brazilians, classifying (Brazilian) people in a way that is completely awkward for us. Ninguém (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion
I have changed the box about "Brasileiro Branco" (sic) in the part on religion.

The only predominant religion among White Brazilians is Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is minoritary. Judaism, that was featured as the only minority, is extremely minoritary. More important are:


 * 1) - Other Christian (Ukranian immigrants are mostly Orthodox);
 * 2) - Non Religious (the more important group after Catholics and Protestants);
 * 3) - Muslisms (though most Arab immigrants are Christian - "Other Christian", Maronite or Orthodox - there is a significant number of Muslisms among them;
 * 4) - Kardekists (Spiritists) (which, besides being an important group, is indeed a characteristic of Brazil);
 * 5) - Candomblé (yes, there are many White Brazilians that adhere to and practice Afro-Brazilian religion). Ninguém (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources to support your claims? No sources, no posts. Opinoso (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the IBGE, there are about 86,000 Jews in Brazil. There are about 12,000,000 non-religious people, 2,000,000 other christian, 2,000,000 kardekists, and 500,000 umbanda & candomblé adepts in Brazil. You win on the Muslisms: there are only 27,000 of them, so they are numerically less important than the Jews. But how comes Jews appear as the third most important religious group in your reckoning? Ninguém (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese population...
Of course, there is not a significant "Lebanese population" in Brazil. There is a quite significant population of Lebanese origin. But they are Brazilians, not Lebanese. Ninguém (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

French and Dutch Invasions
I am proposing to replace this:


 * In the 17th century, Dutch and French settlers created colonies in the country. The Dutch presence in Northeast Brazil lasted 24 years. Many European Jews arrived in that period. However, in 1654, the Dutch were expelled.

with this:


 * In the 17th century, Netherlands and France conquered parts of the country and established colonies. The Dutch presence in Northeast Brazil lasted 24 years. Many European Jews arrived in that period. However, in 1654, Portugal reconquered the region and most Dutchs were expelled.

Is anyone against such edition, and why? Ninguém (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, since no one is against the replacement, I'm making the edit. Ninguém (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources for data on ethnicity
Hi someone mentioned to me you were having trouble identifying reliable sources for data on ethnicity in Brazil. Here is a list of sources used by the Joshua Project, which may help. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, do not "feed" this Ninguém. He was already blocked two times for causing troubles in this same article in a period of only 1 week and now he is back again with the same behave. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What behaviour? Ninguém (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I think Ninguém should read: WP:NOTFORUM

"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published."

If Ninguém thinks the Italian or Lebanese Embassies are lying about the figures of their own citizens or descendants of their own citizens in Brazil, this is his own problem. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss if the Embassies are lying or not. I think Ninguém should contact the Embassies himself, send them an e-mail or maybe go to Brasília and visit them. Then, he can ask the Embassor how he found the figures. But what he's doing here is not allowed, since hes is publishing his own thoughts, arguing that the Embassies are lying and trying to enflate the figures. This is his own theory, his original reserch.

Wikipedia is not a forum for useless discussion. This discussion is out of place. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the essay by Judicael Clevelario Jr. I linked to?

I am trying to be civil, and to discuss the issues in this Talk Page. You are systematically avoiding the merit of the issues, and clinging to etiquette and procedures.

You got me blocked by breaching the 3RR with a sockpuppet, but you won't fool me again. Ninguém (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For your greater comfort, here's the abstract of the study: "The present study used a simple linear model to estimate the participation of immigration in the formation of Brazilian population. The results showed that between 12 and 24% (most probably 18%) of the Brazilian population has immigrant origin. These numbers indicate that immigration has more importance in the formation of Brazilian population than is usually assumed."

This means, Mr. Opinoso, that no more than 24% of the Brazilian population is of immigrant origin. And from this follows, that if those of Italian descent alone are 15%, then only 9% can be of all other origins. And since your "data" have that 6% of the Brazilian population is of Arab descent, then all the others - Germans, Portuguese, Polish, Spanish, etc - can be no more than 3%.

Capisce? Ninguém (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal theories are not allowed
Ninguém, since the beggining is not using reliable sources, but his own, non-neutral theories. The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view. He already reported, with pride, that his grandparents are of "colonial Portuguese" descent, and since then he is trying to claim, with no sources, that most White Brazilian are of colonial Portuguese descent, and that the latter immigrants are small minorities. For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own", which is not the case, since post-colonial European immigration outnumbered many times the pre-colonial settlers, and most of the colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil mixed with Africans and Amerindians, so that most of their descendants are not part of the White Brazilian population.

See the differences between the original article, and Ninguém's edits:

After the figures about Arabs and Italians in Brazil, he wrote the numbers are "incompatible with the official data on immigration by the IBGE". Then, he claim that the numbers of Arabs could not exceed 1 million, and of Italians 15 million and that the numbers are "inflate". However, this is his own theory, his own original resource. He probably found these numbers with his calculator at home. There are no souces on the Internet, or in books, to claim the figures are inflate, or that the Embassy is lying.

The point is: Ninguém, *personal information removed* (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information) is trying to increase the Portuguese influence in Brazil and to diminish the Italian, Arab, German, among other. He is not being neutral.

In the Italian case, the user frequently claims that "only" 1.5 million Italians arrived to Brazil. Yes, that's true. But, with his calculator at home, he found a theory that the descendants of these 1.5 million Italians could not be 25 million, as the Embassy and many other sources claim, but "15 million". No sources on the Internet points the figure "15 million". All the sources point 25 million. I have to remember Ninguém that Wikipedia does not allowed him and any other users to make up theories. Ninguém got the number of 1.5 million and used his calculator to find his figure of 15 million, based only on a information of how many times the Brazilian population increased since a date that he randomly choose.


 * First: to calculate the present Italian-descended population of Brazil, nobody can use the 1.5 million figure of Italians who came to Brazil, because this figure is counted from 1875 (when the first Italians arrived) until the 1930s, when the last significant groups arrived. Since 1875, Italians were having kids in Brazil (and many kids, because on that time people usually had several kids). Most Italians arrived in Brazil from 1880 to 1900, so there are over 120 years of the mass immigration to Brazil. In 120 years, there are many generations, maybe 6 or 7 and even higher. Then, to calculate the present-day population, the person must include no only the 1.5 million Italian immigrants, but also the children, grandchildren and the many other descendants since the year of 1875. Then, the person must know the periods that most Italians arrived, not only include the 1.5 million all together.


 * Second: the person must know the rates of mortality among Italians in Brazil. Not all ethnic groups in Brazil had the same mortality rate. Everybody knows that African-Brazilians had high rates of mortality, because of slavery and poverty. Then, to include all ethnic groups of Brazil with the same mortaly rate is a big mistake.

And also you must know the birth rates among them. I mean, you must know how many kids the average Italian woman had in Rio Grande do Sul in the 1890s (3? 7? 9? 12?). The person also must know how many kids the average Italian man had in São Paulo in the 1920s (2? 5? 18? 20?). Moreover, the person must know the life expectancy of the Italians in each part of Brazil (12 years old? 48 years old? 78 years old).


 * Third: Also, how many Italians returned to Italy after some years living in Brazil? How many Italians arrived from Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela or even from the United States to Brazil during the emigration period? How many "Italians" arrived with non-Italian passports? How many arrived illegally? Also, the proportion of Italian males and females in Paraná, or the proportion of males and females in Minas Gerais.

All these informations are taken when a scholar wants to know how many people of the current days descend from a population of years, centuries ago. I'm pretty sure Ninguém does not have access to all these informations to calculate how many Brazilians have Italian roots nowadays.

However, I'm pretty sure the Italian Embassy does have access to all these informations, so they are able to calculate how many Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated from Italy. Then, Ninguém, you are not allowed to calculate yourself the figures, but the Italian Embassy is.

Different reliable sources claim the figure of 25 million "Italian Brazilians".


 * Italiani nel mondo (claims 25 million)
 * The President of Brazil, Lula (claims 30 million)
 * Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy (claims from 23 to 25 million)
 * Itália Nossa (claims 23.5 million)
 * Memorial do Imigrante (from 22 to 25 million)

For Lebanese:


 * Memorial do Imigrante (7 million)
 * Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil (7 million)
 * Embassy of Lebanon (7 million)
 * O Estado de S. Paulo Newspaper (6 million)

Then, Ninguém, stop with this useless discussion. You are not allowed to take your own conclusions here, not allowed to post your theories. You are not a scholar to determinate how many people of Italian or Arab descent live in Brazil. You are using sources that have nothing to do with the subject to make up theories and create fake figures. Stop it. Opinoso (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we are going to have a mediation process. Ninguém (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me harsh to call suggesting potential reliable sources on a talk page so that anyone can assess them as "feeding" a particular user. It seems to me that embassy sources are always going to be questionable to some degree; they are entities with a political purpose, and as such are always vulnerable to the suggestion that figures they release may be politically biased in some way, anywhere between outright lies and unintentional bias. I believe such things have been known to occur in the past. Wikipedia's policy is that "it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired" (WP:CITE). Had I left these suggestions somewhere where some editors on this page might not have seen them, you might have had a point, but I purposefully did not. I'm sorry you have a disagreement with another user, but this should not cause you to discourage further participation on this page. In fact, the chances are any new users will strengthen a consensus in favour of Wikipedia policies; participation should be welcomed and encouraged. If my suggested sources are demonstrably of no pertinence to this article, you are free to ignore them or to point out why. Otherwise, please accept them in the spirit they were offered and use them to improve the article. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rogerb67, I'm opened to discuss with serious users about different subjects. However, Ninguém is not being serious, not being neutral since the beggining, because he has some kind of obsession with Portugal, and this is obvious when he reported, with pride, that his grandparents are "colonial Portuguese" (when nobody asked him about it) and then he started all this discussion that the numbers of Italians or Arabs are inflate, but he never reported that the informations about the Portuguese are inflate. In fact, all he wants to do is to is to increase the Portuguese participation on the formation of the Brazilian population, and diminish the Italian, Arab, German, etc. I saw this was his point since the beggining, and I even tried to discuss with him, but since he was blocked 2 times for vandalizing this article, I gave up. Now he's back with the same obsession with Portugal, that's why I asked you and other users not to feed him (it's just a suggestion), because he is trying to sell his unsourced pro-Portuguese theories, which is not allowed, of course.

Well, about the Embassy figures, I don't know for what reasons they would "inflate" the number of Italians and descendants in Brazil. Remember that Italy grants Italian citizen to people with Italian descent, then it would be a bad thing for Italy itself if its own government start to inflate the number of people with Italian descent in Brazil and in other countries. This attitude would only encourage more and more Brazilians to look for their dual-citizenship, and then many could freely immigrate to Italy and the other countries of the European Union. Remember that, recently, many discussions anti-immigration are being taken in Italy. Then, to inflate the number of people with Italian descent, and consequently encourage them to look for their Italian citizenship is a controversy with the growing anti-immigration discussion of Italy.

However, not only the Italian Embassy reports 25 million, but many other sources, including the President of Brazil, which reported 30 million. Then, we have many reliable sources about it. Moreover, all the informations in this article are sourced. Ninguém is causing this useless discussion, even trying to open a mediation. For what? He does not even use sources, but only theories based on sources that have nothing to do with the main subject, and numbers he found with his calculator at home.

Ninguém already claimed that one of the main religions followed by White Brazilians are African-descend religions of Brazil(?). He also argued that most Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, because on the Phone Book most people have Portuguese surnames(?). It's the same to get a Phone Book from a black community of the United States and claim them of British descent, because most African Americans have British last names. All based on his nonsense theories, personal opinion, original resources. I wonder: should we waste time discussing with him? I don't want to. Opinoso (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have to come up with a theory why an embassy might want to alter figures to suggest they may have political motives for suggesting a particularly high or low figure; the mere fact they are necessarily political means figures they produce might be called into question. Indeed your comments appear to imply they might want to downplay the figures to reduce immigration. Your claim that the President of Brazil stated 30 million adds credence to this possibility. Since you now appear to have other sources (and indeed there is no obvious reason known to me why Italian and Brazilian governments would collude to deceive on this), I suggest you cite them in the article, rather than criticize good faith contributors for suggesting possible sources they happen to have come across. What Ninguém may or may not have done here has no bearing whatsoever on how you should treat newcomers to this page. -- Rogerb67 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rogerb67, you're welcome here to discuss whatever you want. I was criticizing only Ninguém, not you. Moreover, like you suggested, I'll add all the different sources to this article about Lebanese and Italian figures, then his theories will come to an end. I'm also quiting dicuss with Ninguém, since I realized it's a complete nonsense to discuss with a person who deffends his point of view with personal theories and opinions, instead of using reliable sources. Opinoso (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on sources for data on ethnicity
A request was recently posted (diff) for a third opinion: "Talk:White Brazilian. Disagreement about a series of points, most notably about the reliability of Embassies as sources of demographic data, and on most White Brazilians being of Portuguese descent. 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)"

As Rogerb67 has provided a third opinion (an opinion with which I concur, by the way), I will remove the request from the project page. — Athaenara ✉  11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Italians being attacked
Please, administrators, block this Ninguém. He is obviously using a single purpose account. All he does at Wikipedia is to find troubles in this article, with an obsession with diminishing the Italian influence in Brazil. His behavious is really, really strange. He is already going too far with this obsession. He should be blocked before other articles with informations of Italians will be attacked. Opinoso (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope he gets blocked. Anyway, I added more informations about the different ethnic groups, then this article won't be transformed in a "Portuguese people" article, which is Ninguém's wish. The article Portuguese people already exists. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith and stop this. Ninguém (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To stop what? You are attacking all the informations about Italians in this article since your first edit here, trying to transform this article in a copy of Portuguese people article, with your single purpose account. You are the one not assuming good-faith since the beggining. Other users agreed. You must stop with all these disruptions. Opinoso (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I suppose Porta's comments are perhaps ambiguous, so I'm not going to insist on them, at least until he comes up with something clearer.

But you were the one who insisted in sources that explicitely talked about exaggeration, and the one who told us that there was no possible rationale for the exaggeration. While Porta's comment may indeed be only about people who are actually entitled to an Italian passport, I think it is clear that it establishes a rationale. And before you come with some other objection, no, I'm not endorsing such theory. I still assume the Italian Embassy's good faith, as I assume it having no clue.

But please, this article is not going to become a copy of Portuguese people. It is about Brazil, not about Portugal. Nor Italians are being attacked. This is merely a Wikipedia article; it won't change the actual numbers of people of Italian descent in Brazil. The issue is merely to assert what figures are more reliable and closer to reality. Ninguém (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

lol
This article gives the total 93 millions of the Caucasoid people in Brasil. But the total of the above population lis is 136 milions. How could you explain the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

136 milions of whites in Brazil?? you is crazy!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.77.13 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Brazil has the largest White population in the Southern Hemisphere, and the third largest in the World, after the United States and Russia.

This is reality, because not > 100 milions(Germany < 90 milions)

93 milions > 85 milions, because in %, the white population of Brazil is very small comparated to Germany.

In absoluct numbers, Brazil is the #3, because in % never!!(ps: i´m brazilian)!!

ass: 189.71.77.13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.77.13 (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not true, since Brazil is a heavily miscigined society. There are a very few white percentage in Brazil. --201.78.78.169 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

stupid irrelevant comment

 * Yes, the wrong version was protected. --Geniac (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)



One by one (1): "hegemony" and 1818
I am proposing changing back

The hegemony of the white Portuguese ethnicity had its end only in 1818, when Brazil attracted Swiss families to occupy inhospitable regions.

to:

The exclusivity of the Portuguese ethnicity among Brazilian Whites had its end only in 1818, when Brazil attracted Swiss families to occupy inhospitable regions

The source given for this passage is A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo

The source does not talk about hegemony at all. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Portuguese ethnicity was never an exclusivity in white Brazilians, since French, Dutch, Spanish and other ethnic groups have been settling the country in small numbers since the 16th century and they left small legacy, but it made the Portuguese not an exclusivity. Opinoso (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The source does not talk about hegemony at all. And since it does not talk about hegemony at all, it cannot be used as a source to say that the Portuguese hegemony ended. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the Portuguese were never an hegemony in Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The hegemony never existed, or did it end in 1818? Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you mustn't misrepresent what A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo (or anything else) says. But you also don't want to misrepresent the truth as you can (well-informedly) agree to it. If French, Dutch and other groups had indeed been settling in Brazil since C16, this would indeed question the notion of "exclusivity". (Though of course if A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo calls it exclusivity, then even acknowledged exceptions wouldn't question the assertion that, however inaccurately, A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo calls it exclusivity.)

Any good source for the assertion that French, Dutch and other groups had been settling in Brazil before 1818 (preferably with estimates of size(s))? -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A Colônia Suíça de Nova Friburgo does not talk about either exclusivity or hegemony (or majority, proportion, etc.). It says that in 1818 a group of more than 2,000 Swiss came to Brazil (nowadays Nova Friburgo, exactly) and founded a "colônia"; that their conditions were awful, that they were afflicted by an epidemics of malaria, that their conditions were so awful that some years later a Swiss representant, visited the region and was shocked, to the point of writing that he wondered if the decision to place those people in those lands was informed by ignorance or recklessness, or, more probably, by a cold calculation that the Swiss would be forced, by their own extreme poverty, to develop otherwise useless lands.


 * There were French, Dutch, and other European settlers in Brazil before 1818. The French and Dutch established here as part of military operations of their countries against Portugal (or against Spain, which was, from 1580 to 1640, dinastically united to Portugal). The final outcome of such military disputes was the defeat and expulsion of both French and Dutch. An adequate online source exists regarding the Dutch: . Particularly page 19 clarifies the issue:


 * Notwithstanding the Dutch success, the WIC's [West India Company, my comment] hold on Brazil was always tenuous. The vast majority of the colonists were and remained Portuguese by origin and culture. The WIC was never able to induce adequate numbers of Dutchmen to settle in the faraway colony to influence the ethnic makeup of the settlement. Several hundred Sephardim Jews from Amsterdam settled in New Holland, but they were originally from Portugal and had retained a cultural flavour.


 * The Dutch domination of Northeastern Brazil started in 1630 and was put to an end (again by military action) in 1654.


 * I don't have at this moment a comparable online source regarding the French, but their presence in Brazil was certainly less significant than that of the Dutch, having lasted three years in Maranhão (from 1612 and 1615) and five in Rio de Janeiro (from 1555 to 1560). An offline source could be GAFFAREL, Paul Louis Jacques. Histoire du Bresil français au seizième siècle. Paris: Maison Neuve, 1878.


 * Depending on the source, between 500,000 and 700,000 Portuguese came to Brazil during the colonial period, as can be seen in the table in the "Immigration" section of this article. The same table shows that the Portuguese continued to be the main group of foreigners coming to Brazil up to at least 1855 (in fact, up to the 1870s, but the table uses an awkard cronology that mingles parts of two quite distinct periods, that before 1875 and that after this year). So it seems clear to me that the "Portuguese hegemony" didn't end at all in 1818 with the arrival of 2,000 Swiss.


 * Whether there was an exclusivity, I would say, in practice, yes. Of course the Portuguese allowed small numbers of non-Portuguese professionals or adventurers to Brazil, especially if they had become culturally Portuguese, and some were able to circumvent the Portuguese tight grip on Brazil. And of course, they allowed a few French and Dutch to remain in Brazil as long as they clearly switched alliances. All of this was extremely minoritary. But I am willing to compromise here; either we can find a formulation that does not mention either "exclusivity" nor "hegemony" (or "majority", or correlate words), or we can take the whole paragraph away. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, what ended in 1818 was the legal monopoly of the Portuguese in moving to Brazil. Before that, the Portuguese were not willing to allow people of other nationality to come to Brazil in any significant numbers. Starting in 1818, they decided to allow it - a policy that was continued by Brazilian authorities since independence in 1822. So perhaps monopoly is the word we should use instead of "hegemony". Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How about something like the following:

"Before the nineteenth century, the French made very brief and minor settlements (Rio de Janeiro, 1555–60; Maranhão, 1612–15); Sephardim Jews of Portuguese origin emigrated from Amsterdam to New Holland; and a very small number of others managed to enter Brazil from European countries other than Portugal. But it was only in 1818, after over half a million had migrated from Portugal, that the Portuguese rulers abandoned the principle of restricting immigration to Portuguese nationals. In that year over two thousand Swiss migrants from the Canton of Fribourg arrived to colonize an inhospitable area near Rio de Janeiro that would later be renamed Nova Friburgo."

This gives the salient facts as I understand them from what's written above. I might very well have misunderstood something. If so, don't hesitate to correct me.

If you're thinking "That's a grotesque amount of footnoting", then yes, I agree. I have a strong personal dislike of multiply footnoting single sentences. For that first sentence, I'd much rather have instead a single footnote saying something like For the French, see [...]; for the Dutch, see [...]; for temporary settlements and miscellaneous colonization in general, see [...]. However, I recognize that this is a minority view within WP and anyway it's an approach that's difficult to implement until the particular article is fairly stable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems a progress to me, but while the Dutch settling in New Holland was diminute, it wasn't exclusively composed of Sephardim Jews. On the other hand, I think it should be made clear that both French and Dutch settlements existed as part, or consequence, of military conflict between France, or the Netherlands, and Portugal and/or Spain. Otherwise, there remains an impression that these movements were made against an empty territory, or a territory exclusively populated by Amerindians. Later I will try a proposal for the text, but now I need to sleep. I am not worried about the amount of footnoting, as I don't think it possible to reach any consensus without that. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let me have a try at it. Changes highlighted.

Before the nineteenth century, the French invaded twice, establishing brief and minor settlements (Rio de Janeiro, 1555–60; Maranhão, 1612–15); '''In 1630, the Dutch made the most significant attempt to seize Brazil from Portuguese control. At the time, Portugal was under a dinastic union with Spain, and the Dutch hostility against Spain was transfered to Portugal. The Dutch were able to control most of Brazilian Northeast - then the most dynamic part of Brazil - for about a quarter century, but they weren't able to actually change the colony's ethnic makeup, which remained, in its vast majority, Portuguese by origin and culture.  Sephardim Jews of Portuguese origin moved from Amsterdam to New Holland ; but in 1654, when the Portuguese regained control of Brazil, most of them where expelled, as well as most of the Dutch settlers. A''' very small number of others managed to enter Brazil from European countries other than Portugal. But it was only in 1818, after over half a million had migrated from Portugal, that the Portuguese rulers abandoned the principle of restricting settling in Brazil to Portuguese nationals. In that year over two thousand Swiss migrants from the Canton of Fribourg arrived to colonize an inhospitable area near Rio de Janeiro that would later be renamed Nova Friburgo. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another bash at it:


 * Before the nineteenth century, the French invaded twice, establishing brief and minor settlements (Rio de Janeiro, 1555–60; Maranhão, 1612–15); In 1630, the Dutch made the most significant attempt to seize Brazil from Portuguese control. At the time, Portugal was in a dynastic union with Spain, and the Dutch hostility against Spain was transferred to Portugal. The Dutch were able to control most of the Brazilian Northeast - then the most dynamic part of Brazil - for about a quarter century, but were unable to change the colony's ethnic makeup, which remained overwhelmingly Portuguese by origin and culture. Sephardic Jews of Portuguese origin moved from Amsterdam to New Holland; but in 1654, when the Portuguese regained control of Brazil, most of them were expelled, as well as most of the Dutch settlers. A very small number of others managed to enter Brazil from European countries other than Portugal. But it was only in 1818, after over half a million had migrated from Portugal, that the Portuguese rulers abandoned the principle of restricting settling in Brazil to Portuguese nationals. In that year over two thousand Swiss migrants from the Canton of Fribourg arrived to colonize an inhospitable area near Rio de Janeiro that would later be renamed Nova Friburgo.


 * How's that? NB the sources should be added before the passage (or a derivative) is added to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, it's almost fine.

About the sources,

Sephardic Jews of Portuguese origin moved from Amsterdam to New Holland;

But it was only in 1818, after over 700,000 had migrated from Portugal,

I have changed the figure to match the source.

Now, this

'''A very small number of others managed to enter Brazil from European countries other than Portugal. '''

is a problem. There evidently were a number of such people, and anecdotal evidence of them, such as Manoel Beckman, German (though for mysterious reasons Wikipedia describes him, completely mistakenly, as "Jewish"). But I do not know any reliable source that explains that.

That said, my only problem remains "migrated from Portugal" referring to the colonial period. This tends to confuse the populational movements of the XVI-XVIII centuries (in which Portugal encouraged Portuguese people settling in Brazil as a way to assert political control over "their" territory) with the populational movements of the XIX-XX centuries (in which people fled living conditions in Europe - including Portugal - in search of a better life in politically independent countries). I would suggest "settled", "moved", "came" or some other less confusing word. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mini-sandbox
Let's use the following as a mini-sandbox. NB I have deliberately snapped the Google link into two for ease of viewing; the space will later have to be removed. Make small changes to taste. If anyone wants to make a non-trivial change to it, go ahead and make it, but please also note that you have done so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Before the nineteenth century, the French invaded twice, establishing brief and minor settlements (Rio de Janeiro, 1555–60; Maranhão, 1612–15); In 1630, the Dutch made the most significant attempt to seize Brazil from Portuguese control. At the time, Portugal was in a dynastic union with Spain, and the Dutch hostility against Spain was transferred to Portugal. The Dutch were able to control most of the Brazilian Northeast - then the most dynamic part of Brazil - for about a quarter century, but were unable to change the ethnic makeup of the colonizing population, which remained overwhelmingly Portuguese by origin and culture. Sephardic Jews of Portuguese origin moved from Amsterdam to New Holland; but in 1654, when the Portuguese regained control of Brazil, most of them were expelled, as well as most of the Dutch settlers. A very small number of others appear to have managed to enter Brazil from European countries other than Portugal. But it was only in 1818, after 700,000 from Portugal had settled, that the Portuguese rulers abandoned the principle of restricting settling in Brazil to Portuguese nationals. In that year over two thousand Swiss migrants from the Canton of Fribourg arrived to settle in an inhospitable area near Rio de Janeiro that would later be renamed Nova Friburgo.


 * I find this text unnecessary. The Dutch, the French and others did settle Brazil, but in small numbers and almost all of them were expeled. However, according to Darcy Ribeiro, a significant number of French people mixed with the native Amerindians, leaving a significant number of French/Amerindian Mamelucos in Rio de Janeiro. Of course their presence was small, but it conffirms that the Portuguese were never an European "exclusivity" in Brazil. And the word exclusivity means "only", and of course that people of different nationalities settled Brazil during its colonization, which broke that "exclusivity".


 * About the sentence that most Jews were expelled, it's unsourced.


 * The sentence "The Dutch were able to control most of the Brazilian Northeast - then the most dynamic part of Brazil - for about a quarter century, but were unable to change the colony's ethnic makeup, which remained overwhelmingly Portuguese by origin and culture" is nonsense. Brazil was never overwhelmingly Portuguese in ethnicity, the country always had more Amerindians and black Africans than Portuguese. And also Brazilian culture was and continues predominantly Portuguese in its influence, but the Amerindian and African countribution were enormous, and that's what make the Brazilian and Portuguese cultures so different these days. Once again, this new text is full of failed pro-Portuguese theories. Opinoso (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And Manoel Beckman was not German. He was Portuguese, born to a German father and a Portuguese mother; he later moved to Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reformatted your response. I hope you don't mind. Hoary (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinoso, it's clear that you don't like the term "exclusivity". However, it does not appear in the pink box. Further, the content goes against any notion of exclusivity.


 * You're right that the assertion that the Jews were expelled is unsourced. Do you think it's true? If so, you might wish to help an effort to source it. If you don't think it's true, do say so.


 * It's certainly nonsensical to claim that the population of Brazil was overwhelmingly Portuguese. That wasn't the intention. I've changed the wording just now. The result is a bit awkward, but I hope it's no longer nonsensical, and that it's right.


 * I take your point about Beckman but my time is limited so I'll set it aside for now. Can you suggest an improvement to this part?


 * Even I, who have never been anywhere near Brazil, realize that the Amerindian and African contributions to Brazil and to its present-day culture were/are enormous. But I don't see how this passage denies this or even downplays it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it does, since somebody claimed it was "overwhelmingly Portuguese in origin and culture". This was never a reality. Opinoso (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote it. My writing wasn't sufficiently careful and what I wrote was obviously wrong. What's written now in the pink box is the ethnic makeup of the colonizing population, which remained overwhelmingly Portuguese by origin and culture. How does this strike you? Would you care to improve on it? &para; Any comment on the truth of the assertion that the Jews were expelled, or on sourcing for or against this assertion? &para; Any suggestion for an alternative to the part about Beckman? &para; Can you be more specific in your citation of Darcy Ribeiro? -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's ok now., Opinoso (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A source for the expelling of Jews when the Portuguese reconquered Northeastern Brazil from the Dutch:


 * 'Uma tentativa de organização aconteceu durante a invasão holandesa, quando mais de 600 judeus holandeses vieram para o Recife com o rabino Isac Aboab da Fonseca. Porém, com a expulsão dos holandeses, a comunidade judaica praticamente desapareceu.'

Tranlating,


 * 'An attempt at organization happened during the Dutch invasion, when more than 600 Dutch Jews came to Recife with Rabbi Isac Aboab da Fonseca. However, with the expulsion of the Dutch, the Jewish community practically disappeared.' Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have changed the blue text accordingly. For various reasons (notably my complete ignorance of Portuguese), I may have made some mistake; if so, please correct what I have done. &para; I see one remaining unsatisfactory link, which goes to a page that itself is uninformative but that links to (apparently) informative pages. Can one of you please fix this? (Sorry, but "real life" is making major demands on my time.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Manoel Beckman came to Brazil from Portugal, he was Portuguese. His not an example of a person who came from other European country rather than Portugal. Opinoso (talk)

00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The text above presents him as an example of a European arriving from somewhere other than Portugal. If he is indeed a poor example, can you provide a better example, or do you think that no examples are known? -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The remaining problematic link is, well... problematic. Going there, I see it isn't what I intended to, but only links there. It is the link under "Portugueses". The problem is, I follow the link, and the page it links to is different and has the necessary information, but, curiously, shows the same address in the address bar. Seems to be some html weirdness; I don't know how to deal with that.


 * Regarding Beckman, yes, he was Portuguese. So he indeed does not serve as an example of a non-Portuguese establishing in Brazil before 1818. I unhappily don't remember other examples, though I am pretty sure there were some. I will try to find some source about it. I don't deem this too important, and wouldn't be upset of including the information without sources; it seems only reasonable. Wouldn't be upset with suppressing the information, too. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this? (Tip: When you see a page such as this, right-click the area of it that interests you and take the option to view this frame alone. Sorry, no time to explain in any more detail than this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, now it works. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this can be a source for "A very small number of others (exemplified by Manoel Beckman) appear to have managed to enter Brazil from European countries other than Portugal":

Ávila, Flávia de. ''Entrada de Trabalhadores Estrangeiros no Brasil: Evolução Legislativa e Políticas Subjacentes nos Séculos XIX e XX''. Florianópolis, UFSC, 2003. pp 31-32.

''Ser estrangeiro significava, em primazia, qualquer indivíduo que não fosse súdito da Coroa portuguesa, e os poucos que viviam no Brasil o faziam mais por razões aventureiras e individuais que coletivas ou resultantes de providências governamentais para aportarem em terras coloniais. Assim, sendo, devido a razões mais de ordem pessoal, “[...] inglêses, alemães, italianos, por exemplo, como viajantes, cientistas, sacerdotes, piratas, navegantes, aparecem em terras brasileiras”. Constata-se, então, a existência de estrangeiros no Brasil Colônia, mas não de imigração.''

Translating:

''Being a foreigner meant, first place, any individual who wasn't a subject of the Portuguese Crown, and the few who lived in Brazil did so more for individual and adventurer reasons than for collective reasons or reasons resulting from governmental initiatives to bring them into colonial lands. So, due to mainly personal reasons, "[...] Englismen, Germans, Italians, for instance, as travellers, scientists, priests, pirates, sailors, do appear in Brazilian lands". We can see, then, the existence of foreigners in Colonial Brazil, but not of immigration.''

The quote within the text is from Diegues Júnior, Manuel. Imigração, urbanização e industrialização. p. 18. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to amend the mini-sandbox accordingly. I hope that I have got this right; again, I am hobbled by my complete ignorance of Portuguese (as well as shortage of sleep). If I've got anything wrong, please simply amend it so it's right. (As just one example of guesswork, I infer that the content of a web page is extracted from chap. 3 of a book because the Portuguese text is full of what look like cognates of words I know in English; however, these may be faux amis; perhaps it's not a chapter, and perhaps it's more or less exclusively based on this printed material rather than reproducing it directly.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to congratulate you, Hoary; this was an excellent job on so many levels. I don't think you got anything wrong there. To me, the text is ready to be added to the article. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like it, but let's see what Opinoso (or anyone else) thinks. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems nice to me, but in "arrived to colonize an inhospitable area near Rio de Janeiro" I would only replace the word "colonize" to "settle", because in Portuguese the word "colonizar" is also refered to groups of immigrants who settled a region, but in English the word does not have this sense, and it is more applied to a country or people from this country who settled at their colony, and since Brazil was not a colony of Switzerland, the word to "colonize" here would be better if replaced with "settle". Opinoso (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like it too. "Settle" sounds slightly odd to me so I have instead used "settle in"; if you prefer "settle" feel free to change this. &para; I'd move the text back in myself now except that I'm sleepy and fear I'd make some mistake. Can I ask one of you to do this? When you do it, remember to delete the space that breaks the long Google Books link, and do use "preview" because there's a lot of markup and plenty of places in which one or other of us (but probably me) could have made disastrous little mistakes. -- Hoary (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. This paragraph,


 * One important fact about the European immigration in Brazil is that it was, for three centuries, dominated exclusively by Portuguese. In the 17th century, Netherlands[7] and France[8] conquered parts of the country and established colonies. The Dutch presence in Northeast Brazil lasted 24 years. Many European Jews arrived in that period. However, in 1654, Portugal reconquered the region and most Dutchs were expelled.[9] The hegemony of the Portuguese ethnicity in the White population of Brazil lasted until the 19th century, when in 1818 the first Swiss immigrants settled Nova Friburgo (Rio de Janeiro) and, in 1824, Germans settled São Leopoldo (Rio Grande do Sul).[10][11]

is now totally redundant, as its informations are repeated, in a much clearer way, in the new paragraph. Can we agree to remove it? Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked that in May 27. Today is June 1st. There was no objection to the proposed change. I am going to implement it. Ninguém (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Science
Second studies there's only one race: The Human race. Studies concluded by its tests that there aren't significant difference among people with different colours. So humen people should not be count by its race. It's has no sense on saying that in a country X percent are white, black or what ever. It just contributes for racism and biases. It does not contribute for growth of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.31.207 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

500,000 or 700,000?
No source is given for such change.

However, in other section, the article has a table that says otherwise (100,000 from 1500 to 1700, 600,000 from 1700 to 1800). There is a source for the table. So which information is correct? Ninguém (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
The infobox subheading on "Religions" currently includes "Jehovah Witnesses" [sic]; that should be changed to "Jehovah 's Witnesses". --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)